Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in India on June 30th, 2012
IDSA COMMENT
Recent reports from Pakistan seem to suggest the Pakistan Navy (PN) may be on the cusp of developing a naval nuclear missile capability, even as its plans for acquiring a nuclear submarine capability gradually become clearer. The first indication of this came in May 2012 when Pakistan tested the Hatf VII (Babur)—an indigenously developed Cruise Missile with high precision and manoeuvrability. Reports suggested that the missile was launched from a state-of-the-art multi-tube Missile Launch Vehicle (MLV), which significantly enhances the targeting and employment options of the Babur Weapon System in both the conventional and nuclear modes. Importantly, this is the third test of the Babur in the recent past, of different capacities and loads.
Then, in another significant development, on May 19, the PN inaugurated the Headquarters of the Naval Strategic Force Command (NSFC). A statement from the Pakistan military’s Inter Services Public Relations said that the NSFC “will perform a pivotal role in development and employment of the Naval Strategic Force,” and was “the custodian of the nation’s 2nd strike capability” – presumably for use against India, in case the need ever arose. This is noteworthy because Pakistan is not known to have a sea-based second strike capability. Therefore, a public statement that the NSFC would be in-charge of such a capability is an open admission of sorts that Pakistan is in the process of developing a naval variant of a strategic nuclear missile.
For long, the Pakistan Navy has viewed the Indian Navy (IN) with suspicion. The IN’s sustained growth over the past few years has, in fact, become an excuse for the PN to push for its own development and expansion of assets. In an article written for a Pakistan daily in May 2012, Tauqir Naqvi, a retired Vice Admiral of the PN, suggested that the ‘hegemonic’ elements of the Indian Navy’s maritime strategy have been the main drivers of the resurgence of the Pakistan Navy. The article, when read closely, is a dead give-away of Pakistan’s real ambitions with regard to nuclear weapons and nuclear submarines.
Naqvi writes extensively about India’s strategic vision, characterising it as a “hegemonic” impulse that has led the IN to aim for control of the seas over an area extending from the Red Sea in the West to Fiji in the Pacific Ocean. While Pakistan, he contends, is a “peace-loving” nation, India has never been serious about developing friendly relations, fixated as it has been with the “idea of projecting power”. Surprisingly, he showers Indian scientists and the IN with some unexpected, even if ‘motivated’ praise, by mentioning the sterling efforts of the Indian scientific community and shipyard workers in operationalising a strategic maritime capability. The complimentary references are, in effect, a none-too-disguised message to Pakistan’s political leadership and mandarins in the defence ministry about the ineluctable need for Pakistan to buttress its own strategic arsenal with naval nuclear missiles and a nuclear submarine, without which, the PN can forget about countering the “evil designs” of the Indian Navy.
It is, however, Naqvi’s references to India’s two nuclear submarines—INS Chakra (SSN) and INSArihant (SSBN)—that dispel all doubts about the real intentions behind the avidly rendered piece. Naqvi opines that the threat that the two nuclear platforms collectively pose to the security of Pakistan, is near-existential. It is the completion of the Triad (land, air and sea based nuclear weapons), he observes, that gives India the confidence to respond with nuclear weapons, even if it is made to absorb a first nuclear strike. INS Arihant is that crucial second strike capability which could give India the vital edge during a conflict. The SSBN, he concludes, is an essential component of a nuclear arsenal, one that Pakistan must singularly pursue.
However, in his enthusiasm to convince Pakistan’s defence establishment about the need for a SSBN, Naqvi overstates his case when he mentions the “diplomatic advantage” that may accrue to India on account of its nuclear submarine. There is hardly any modern precedent of a nuclear submarine (by itself) being an effective instrument of ‘diplomatic persuasion’, as he suggests. Nor does it really help in negotiating with other states possessing similar capability, as cooperation and negotiation in the strategic realm has to do with ‘bottom-line’ naval capacities in securing maritime interests and an overlap in strategic interests. While maritime cooperation does lead to economic benefits, it is not on account of possessing a ballistic nuclear weapon submarine capability, which is purely for the purposes of strategic deterrence.
The Arihant is a significant addition to the Indian Navy’s arsenal but it does not introduce a strategic imbalance in the India-Pakistan context, as India, by embracing a ‘No First Use’ doctrine, has already renounced the strategic advantage. The Arihant’s introduction does not alter this basic reality and is unlikely to tilt the strategic balance drastically. If anything, its gives India a measure of greater confidence in securing its own maritime interests, which does not necessarily translate into overwhelming dominance of the Indian Ocean or greater vulnerability of Pakistan to India’s strategic weapons.
Given India’s territorial expanse and the spread of its nuclear weapon sites, even if Pakistan did get a nuclear missile capable submarine, it would not be able to neutralise India’s broader nuclear weapon capability, with or without the Arihant. As regards the comparison of combat capabilities of conventional submarines and SSNs/SSBNs, it is well established that the former are not ‘inferior’ operational combat platforms merely on account of the absence of nuclear propulsion or nuclear weapons. Both these capabilities (though vital strategically) rarely come in handy in a tactical scenario. Admiral Naqvi again exaggerates his case by suggesting that the Pakistan Navy’s conventional submarines would not be able to stand up to India’s SSBN.
Interestingly, signs that the PN has been thinking seriously about nuclear submarines have been around for some time now. As early as in 2008, in an interview to a Pakistan daily, the then PN Chief, Admiral Noman Bashir, had said that Pakistan was quite capable of building a nuclear submarine and would do so “if required”. Pakistan, he said, is a recognized nuclear power and if the government made a decision, the nation would develop a nuclear weapon. In February 2012, Admiral Asif Sandhila, the present Chief of the PN, stated to the Pakistani media that the PN was mindful of India’s plans to complete the sea-based arm of its nuclear triad, and was “taking necessary measures to restore the strategic balance” in the Indian Ocean region.
Questions, however, remain on Pakistan’s capability to design and develop a sea-based nuclear missile. Even China, which is known to be helping Pakistan in its nuclear capabilities, does not possess a credible submarine-launched missile. The odds that Pakistan will succeed in developing its undersea nuclear ballistic missile without assistance from China are highly unfavourable. Even if it did manage to get an SSBN, it is not certain whether the Pakistan Navy will be in a position to undertake the responsibility of the nation’s second-strike capability.
Therefore, the recent drive by PN’s senior serving and retired naval officers to persuade the security establishment as well as the man on the street of the necessity of a nuclear submarine capability appears ill-founded, if not disingenuous. Outwardly, it may serve to create a sense of insecurity—vital in persuading politicians about the need for a new capability—but the manifest lack of strategic logic will eventually convince few.
Pakistan’s naval leadership will also be aware of the risks and financial costs of developing and operating a nuclear submarine—the need to constantly refine equipment and train personnel; of razor-sharp communications and command and control systems; and the requirement of mastering safety procedures. In the final analysis the SSBN is not an asset if it is not mastered well and operated optimally. Merely possessing one offers no strategic advantages.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in India on June 11th, 2012
Jason Burke in Delhi. The Guardian (Guardian.co.uk), Thursday 16 December 2010 21.30 GMT
Beatings and electric shocks inflicted on hundreds of civilians detained in Kashmir, US diplomats in Delhi told by International Red Cross
Unrest in Kashmir, where a leaked cable said the Indian government ‘condoned torture’. Photograph: Tauseef Mustafa/AFP/Getty Images
US officials had evidence of widespread torture by Indian police and security forces and were secretly briefed by Red Cross staff about the systematic abuse of detainees in Kashmir, according to leaked diplomatic cables.
The dispatches, obtained by website WikiLeaks, reveal that US diplomats in Delhi were briefed in 2005 by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) about the use of electrocution, beatings and sexual humiliation against hundreds of detainees.
Other cables show that as recently as 2007 American diplomats were concerned about widespread human rights abuses by Indian security forces, who they said relied on torture for confessions.
The revelations will be intensely embarrassing for Delhi, which takes pride in its status as the world’s biggest democracy, and come at a time of heightened sensitivity in Kashmir after renewed protests and violence this year.
—————————————————————————–
By Dilnaz Boga. The Guardian (Guardian.co.uk), Tuesday 21 December 2010 12.45 GMT
Will the leaked communiqués mark a shift in western foreign policy, or is it to be business as usual in Kashmir?
A mother of a disappeared son protests on the eve of International Human Rights Day in Srinagar, Kashmir. Photograph: Farooq Khan/EPAAlmost every household in Kashmir has a story to tell of human rights violation by the local police or the Indian security forces. Generations have experienced violence amid a culture of impunity spanning six decades.
Last Friday, leaked US embassy cables disclosed the findings of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on torture in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) between 2002-2004.
ICRC claimed out of 1,296 detainees it had interviewed, 681 had said that they had been tortured. Of those, 498 claimed to have been electrocuted, 381 said they were suspended from the ceiling, and 304 cases were described as sexual. Things haven’t changed much since that period.
Now, Kashmiris who have endured years of abductions, enforced disappearances, custodial killings, rape, torture and detentions want to know if the cables’ release will make a difference. Will there be a change in policy on torture internationally? Will these revelations fortify India’s justice mechanism after civil society’s intervention? Or will it propel the Indian mainstream media to report Kashmir’s human rights issues from the highest militarised zone in the world?
Kashmiris want answers.
Serious impediments to human rights can stall progress in any society. Kashmir is no different. In the Valley, the state feels free to flout its own constitution. Therefore, the people expect intervention from the international community.
The summer of 2010 brought on a significant change in the Kashmiri struggle for independence from India. From being a pan-Islamic militant movement sponsored by Pakistan in 1989, it has now transformed into a non-violent indigenous people’s movement. But the response of the state has not altered since the 1990s.
Kashmiris expressed themselves against what they view as an illegal military occupation by India through peaceful protests, civil strikes, sit-ins, internet and graffiti campaigns, rallies and demonstrations.
Despite the fear of arrest, young people have used the internet to post blogs, photographs of human rights violations and videos of killings, while the government gagged the press for weeks.
Since June, over 100 men, women and children have been killed at demonstrations for protesting against widespread human rights violations. All of this happened as the world watched silently.
The leaked US cables stated that, in 2005, ICRC’s findings were also communicated to the UK, France and Holland. They chose to stay silent. And why shouldn’t they, when there are defence deals to be signed and investments to be made in the soaring Indian markets?
Diplomacy, coupled with the prospects of a burgeoning economy, have shielded India from criticism by the global community. Even the UN only issued a statement, urging India to tone down its response to the protesters.
Responding to ICRC’s allegations, an official spokesperson from the Indian ministry of external affairs said: “India is an open and democratic nation which adheres to the rule of law. If and when an aberration occurs, it is promptly and firmly dealt with under existing legal mechanisms, in an effective and transparent manner.”
Meanwhile, J&K’s chief minister Omar Abdullah said the government doesn’t condone torture. Passing the buck, he added, “I am not getting into it… it pertains to 2005, and you know who was in power that time.” Omar was referring to the coalition of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Congress that ruled the state from November 2002-August 2008.
On Saturday, Indian broadsheet, The Times of India, chose to report on the row over a statement on Hindu terrorism, and comments about Indian Muslims made by former US envoy to New Delhi, David Mulford. In a commentary about India’s 150 million-plus Muslims, Mulford stated: “India’s vibrant democracy, inclusive culture and growing economy have made it easier for Muslim youth to find a place in the mainstream, reduced the pool of potential recruits, and the space in which Islamic extremist organisations can operate.”
There was no mention of torture or of Kashmir in the newspapers.
It is doubtful that India will make changes after these leaks, but hope never dies in places where violence is a way of life. Kashmiris are still hoping, against all odds, for a change.
Courtesy: The Guardian (Guardian.co.uk)
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in India on June 4th, 2012
Dear Mr President,
We Indian Christians, especially those labeled Dalits or low-caste share a common thread with you. We seem to be the “BLACKS” of India, who for the last over 60 years are facing persecution, which increases by the day. In fact, our extended Dalit family members have been facing a more despicable plight at the hands of upper caste Hindus for centuries. We are glad that in this respect, America seems to have moved on, with your election as the first Black President and one born of a Muslim father. Race & Religion were defeated, with Indian lovers of secularism and human rights rejoicing too. We are committed to build an India that is truely secular and free, where the fruits of development are shared by all citizens according to one’s need.
We are therefore happy that you are here and request you to kindly impress upon the government to –
1) Grant benefits to Christians/Muslims of Dalit origin, as their counterparts from other faiths (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists…) enjoy.
2) Protect Christians persecuted by the brute majority – a harsh reality that gets worse, even as we write this letter to you.
An incident reported a couple of days back, illustrates the point. Top government officials in Orissa had to intervene to bury a Catholic girl in her village in the eastern India. “The timely intervention of government higher officials helped the dalit parents to bury their child”, A. Harish, a Christian leader said on 3 November, 2010. The 3-year-old girl developed some health complications and her parents admitted her in a hospital where she died on 31 October, 2010. The parents brought the girl’s body to Sonawadi, their village in Malkangiri district of the infamous Orissa state, for burial.
However Hindu fundamentalists, who form the majority in the village, refused to allow them to bury the girl. The parents complained to the local police and waited helplessly for police action, even as the girl’s body began to stink. It was only on the intervention of Christian community leaders, who took up the case with the state’s director general of the police, who in turn ordered his subordinate to look into the matter, that the Hindu villagers relented. Sadly, the parents could only bury the girl’s body two days after her death.
A similar case was reported in Karnataka where the communal right wing BJP is in power. Here the corpse of a Christian was not allowed to be buried and was flung around by the Hindutva brigade, with utterances that Christians are from America and hence need to be buried there. There are hundreds of reported instances, documented by secular society, official agencies and even courts. But thousands of such cases of basic human rights violations go unnoticed, as Christians are commanded by their faith to turn the other cheek.
The term “minorities” in India has come to mean everyone else other than Christians, with no equal opportunities. The British were prepared to give Christians reservations, when Pakistan was given to Muslims in 1947. But the community representatives refused reservations and voluntarily opted to be treated on par with non-Christians. Now Indian Christians find that not only are they denied their constitutional right, because of the faith they follow, but more so, Christians of every hue and colour are persecuted and tormented for their religion.
We do not desire any special treatment, but what is ours by way of being a citizen of this country. Is it too much to expect no attacks/persecution on the basis of religion, especially when we are the most peaceful community? Indian Christians also contribute to almost half of the non-government social services, given without any discrimination to all. The world leader that you are, we have great expectations from you, especially since; you will be discussing economics & politics, with the powers-that-be here. Don’t you think that the lives of millions marginalized/abused are more important? And hence, a mention to our rulers would be in order?
Dr. Ambedkar (1891-1956), the Dalit Messiah and the tallest human rights activist that India has produced, was also a Columbia University alumnus like you are. When he was alive and your mentor, Martin Luther King Jr. visited India, they could not meet and usher in a new age. You though, now have an opportunity to raise Dr. Ambedkar’s civil rights issues and bring succor to his teeming Dalit Christian/Muslim followers in dire need.
Until our emancipation, we remain,
The “BLACKS” of India
(Joseph Dias, General Secretary, The CSF)
|
Important US Government documents
The US State Department’s report is far more critical to governments than the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom which has rapped India’s knucles thrice see the links below. • http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2269&Itemid=46 Click on the links below for US Report on Indian Human Rights Violations & also for the Excerpts: |
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in India on June 1st, 2012
After General VK Singh had taken over as Chief of Army Staff in 2010, a retired Lieutenant General, whose name figures in the Adarsh Society Housing scandal called on him at the office ostensibly to discuss developments in Kashmir. After the polite conversation, the retired intelligence chief asked him about the pending heavy vehicle contract and blatantly made it clear that there was Rs 50 crore for him in cold cash if the Rs 400 crore deal was awarded to an East European manufacturer instead of Indo-Russian joint venture. The retired general was immediately escorted out of the Chief’s office and was declared persona non grata. The ex-serviceman was not the first or the last of his kind as greed seems to be good for Army’s top brass.
On Tuesday, the CBI registered a case against a former Army Vice Chief Lt General Noble Thamburaj for allegedly conspiring with a builder Kalpataru over a select piece of Pune Cantonment defence land. One of the companies of the same builder is also under the CBI scanner for illegally obtaining prime defence land in Kandivili in Mumbai with the support of former minister of defence production Rao Inderjit Singh and former Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor. The CBI has already registered a preliminary inquiry into the Kandivili land deal last month and moving towards registering a proper case.
After Mumbai’s Adarsh Housing scandal, involving two former Army chiefs and one former Navy chief among others, and Sukhna land scandal, which led to court martial and dismissal of former military secretary Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash, these two illegal land deals have taken the Army’s morale to a new low. From the unsavoury sagas of Ketchup Colonel, Booze Brigadier and Ration General, it becomes quite evident that Indian military is going through marked deterioration of human resource and character.
To top it all, there is growing politicisation of the Indian military for promotions, lucrative assignments and post-retirement jobs. The rot within the Indian defence establishment is clearly evident from the retired officers who liaison for defence contractors at golf courses and bars in Lutyen’s Delhi to ex-generals and admirals being employed by hardware dealers for lobbying in South Block.
In public perception the image of an Army officer is hardly different from that of an untrustworthy police officer. It is evident from these scandals that significant section within Army is out to make a quick buck and would do anything for few pieces of silver. This mindset goes right to the top, as otherwise, how one justifies that no less than five top generals including Kapoor and Thamburaj were declared low medical category for disability pension and IT rebates. Before the health of Indian Army deteriorates further without the help of Pakistani ISI or Chinese MSS, it is time that the UPA government intervened to stem the rot.
Fortunately, South Block has defence minister AK Antony and Army Chief Gen V K Singh at the helm of affairs at this crucial juncture. Both are above board integrity wise and cannot stand corruption. While swift action and stringent punishment act as a strong deterrent, it is time that the military mounted strong vigilance on its men and started the weeding out process at an early stage.
The promotions and postings process must be made totally transparent through technology with any interference from ruling party politicians or influential arms dealers. Promotion should be based on merit and not seniority as is the case now. Postings to big cities should be rotated fast so that an officer does not develop vested interest. There should be consolidation of defence lands sprawling all over the country with land records updated so that unscrupulous Army officers cannot illegally pass it on to builders.
While it is impossible to isolate or insulate military personnel from increasingly money oriented Indian society, it is important that military ethos is maintained or professionalism will be hit hard in the services. It is important to drive home the fact that the government takes special care of the armed forces through dedicated hospitals, housing, primary and secondary education and recreation facilities.
The average facilities provided to an Army Colonel, equivalent to a director level officer of central government, are far above as compared to his or her government counterparts. Same holds true for higher ranks. Yet there is increasing tendency within the armed forces to get attracted to money through illegal means or hardware deal making. The prevention exercise has to start from the top as the trooper on the border or the Line of Control looks towards the top brass as idols. Otherwise, all the respect won by those armed forces personnel who gave up their lives will be lost and Indian borders will be at peril.
He said last week that he would surrender his flat in Adarsh Society – a building in Mumbai’s expensive Colaba area that is blowing the lid off a conspiracy between politicians, bureaucrats and senior Army officers to gift housing to themselves at huge bargains.
The retired General won’t be homeless. He has been accused of owning a total of six properties in Mumbai, Gurgaon and Delhi’s Dwarka district. In August, Ambica Banerjee, who is an MP of Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress, wrote to the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister, asking how the General afforded these assets. Sources in the Defence Ministry say Kapoor, in a letter to Defence Minister AK Antony, has said he welcomes a formal investigation.
Banerjee’s formal letter of complaint states that in addition to the now-returned Adarsh flat, Kapoor owns a flat in Dwarka (a Delhi suburb), three houses in Gurgaon, and a penthouse in Lokhandwala in Mumbai.
There’s more. Kapoor was allotted a plot in Gurgaon by the Haryana government in June 2009. Kapoor paid merely Rs. 36 lakh for it – because Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda carved it out of his preferential quota – which allows the Chief Minister to reward residents who have distinguished themselves through their service.
The rules state that those who are awarded these plots cannot sell them for five years. But six months after he was given his land, Kapoor wanted to sell – the plot by now was worth Rs. 1.5 crore. The Haryana government reportedly refused to permit this.
However, Kapoor told NDTV that he does not own any property other than the two-bedroom Adarsh Society flat that he has returned and the Gurgaon plot given to him by Hooda.
© 2025, All Rights Reserved by Pakistan Think Tank.
