No-trust vote discussion at Lok Sabha has established the outlines of the 2019 general elections for both BJP and Congress.

Spare a thought for the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) which actually moved the no-confidence motion against the BJP/NDA Government on the issue of ‘unfair treatment and non-fulfilment of promises’ to Andhra Pradesh after its bifurcation. The debate on the motion was kicked off by its impassioned MPs, the issue got a passing mention from the main speakers of the BJP and the Congress, but that was about it. The two national parties, as expected, virtually took over the debate and the gladiatorial aspect of Indian politics was on full display as the campaign for the 2019 General Election with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Congress President Rahul Gandhi holding centre-stage effectively began on Friday. Stage, perhaps, being the operative word. Gandhi’s hug and wink aside — which did come across as childish, immature and too-clever-by-half behaviour which made most cringe in embarrassment but may play well with a less-discerning demographic especially on social media —  the substantive issues raised were on expected lines. Rahul Gandhi’s attack on the Government was focussed on the individual heading it, the Prime Minister. Though light on data, it can be argued that this strategy was not a bad idea in terms of agenda-setting because of tactical reasons — he had about half the time Modi did because of the Congress’ depleted strength in the Lok Sabha and statistics can always be countered with more statistics by the other side especially when the other side in in Government. Strategically, it was, as the Prime Minister also alluded to in his reply to the no-trust motion which the Government sailed through with a two-third majority, an attempt to test the waters for the acceptability of his being the Prime Ministerial face for the Opposition. On both counts, his supporters are clear that Rahul pass ho gaya though no such indications came from the stronger regional parties.

Of the five broad issues Gandhi raised, some struck a chord while others will be subject to the law of diminishing returns. On Rafale, the blowback was immediate. On the Jumla Strike moniker he bestowed upon the Prime Minister’s hyperbole, Modi pulled out the soldiers’ sacrifices card in his reply and more will surely follow but Gandhi did succeed in making his point; overplaying this discourse, however, may not work — after all, which politician doesn’t coin and use slogans in campaigns? On jobs, Gandhi scored given the gap between expectation and delivery though much has been done to formalise the economy and employment including promoting entrepreneurship. On Modi’s silence of vigilante violence against the marginalised, Gandhi may find that is a double-edged sword because if every act by a loony or misogynist or bigot is ascribed to the Prime Minister not reacting to it, that’s a slippery slope. On loan waivers, Gandhi was right; the Congress has taken the lead in providing this sop to interest groups before successive elections and such is the nature of competitive politics in contemporary India that the Government will probably have to go down the same path of fiscal irresponsibility even if it bankrupts us. Modi’s reply was a masterclass in not letting the personalisation of the debate by Gandhi — he can’t look me in the eye, the gentleman is a tad nervous et al — detain him longer than it takes to swat the proverbial fly. He replied with pointed barbs — namdaar, the proclivity of first family of the Congress to do in any political competitor who challenges its leadership playing on the can’t look me in the eye number etc — but kept the bulk of his response Prime Ministerial and reeled out data in support of his pitch. In the process, he showed just why he is superman for the simpatico going into the Lok Sabha election.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

A number of sources have revealed that Congress, SP, BSP, and RLD have almost arrived at the decision of the seat-sharing agreement. The agreement is a conventional formula that makes sure some seats are reserved for the winning candidate and for the second positioned candidates as well. Based on the formula, Congress may get 8 seats.

For some time now, there has been no talk of the Congress going it alone in Uttar Pradesh. People say the party is expected to find a place in the alliance of the SP and BSP. Earlier, it was being said that the Congress would go solo and field as many forward candidates as it can to counter the BJP, but now this debate has been put to rest. Leaders who are trying to forge a Mahagathbandhan in UP are of the view that all anti-BJP forces have to fight together and there should be only one candidate from the Opposition to create a daunting challenge for the BJP.

Sources say the SP, BSP, Congress, and RLD have almost arrived at the seat-sharing agreement. This is a conventional formula, which ensures seats for the winning candidate and for those who are on the second position. According to this formula, the Congress might get eight seats. In the last elections, the party had won Raebareli and Amethi seats and had come second on six other seats. In 2009, the Congress had won 22 seats. Though many Congress leaders feel that the proposal of eight seats is not what they had hoped for, at the end of the day, the party will have to accept it.

According to the same formula, the RLD might get three seats, all of which will be in western UP. According to sources, Ajit Singh’s son Jayant Chaudhary will get the Mathura seat, from where Hema Malini is currently the MP. In the byelections, the RLD had bagged Kairana, so the seat will go to the party. Apart from that, Ajit Singh’s conventional seat — Baghpat — will also be in his kitty. As per the formula, the SP will get 36 seats, and the BSP will get 34 — this, because the SP had won five seats in the last elections and had come second on 31 seats, whereas the BSP had come second on 34 seats. The buzz is that Akhilesh Yadav might give a couple of seats from his quota to the BSP.

AJIT SINGH’S NEXT MOVE

There’s growing suspense over the next move of the RLD’s Ajit Singh. There is news that along with the SP, BSP, and Congress, he is talking to the BJP as well. If the Mahagathbandhan offers him two or three seats, he might consider the BJP’s offer, which, sources say, is of five seats. This must be noted that the RLD has performed the best only with the BJP.

In 2009, the RLD had fought along with the BJP and won five seats. In 2014, the RLD fought in alliance with the Congress and had lost all seats. The truth is that the caste equation in western UP is different and the RLD’s chances will be better if it goes with the BJP. The Jats and other Hindu votes are expected to polarise in favour of the RLD and BJP. On the other hand, if the RLD goes with the secular alliance, it will affect the Jat votes. Though this time, the Jat and Jatav are expected to vote together. And that is why Ajit Singh is in a dilemma.

MAYAWATI weighs options

After a long gap, there are chances that Mayawati might fight the Lok Sabha Elections this time. She had fought from the Akbarpur seat in 2004. This must be noted that as of now, she is not a member of any House of Parliament. In 2012, when her party lost the elections and she had to resign from the CM post, she had joined the Rajya Sabha, only to resign in September 2017. So, she is no more a member of any House of Parliament or any legislative house. Now, her party is projecting her as the PM candidate for the next Lok Sabha Elections. The BSP has set a target to win at least 50 seats in different States along with UP by forging alliances with different parties. This is to be seen on how many seats the BSP will fight and how many seats it will win. But this is a fact that if there’s hung Parliament after elections and a leader of a small party becomes the contender for the PM post, then the first requirement will be for him/her to be a member of any of the Houses of Parliament. That is why there is speculation that Mayawati could fight the LS polls this time.

Mayawati had earlier fought from Bijnor, Haraura, Akbarpur, and Haridwar (earlier a part of UP). This time also, she might choose a seat from western UP, where her party has a strong base. When she had fought from Akbarpur, she won 44 per cent votes. After delimitation, the name of the seat has been changed to Ambedkar Nagar. This is a general seat and is said to be Mayawati’s first choice. Her other preference is Nagina, where the BSP had come third in the last elections.

WILL PRIYANKA contest?

Yet again, there is speculation that Priyanka Vadra will fight the Lok Sabha Elections from Raebareli. Since Sonia Gandhi has not been keeping well for the past few years, people say Priyanka might be roped in from her mother’s seat. Then there are some who say Rahul Gandhi might change his seat and will fight from Raebareli. In this scenario, the question that arises is: Will Priyanka then fight from her brother’s seat? According to another buzz, Priyanka could be the joint candidate of the BSP, SP, and Congress from Varanasi. The last time around, Arvind Kejriwal had fought from this seat. No big leader has wanted to fight from this seat. Neither the SP nor BSP wants to go up against PM Narendra Modi. All parties are trying to throw their ball in another’s court. If Priyanka is fielded from Varanasi, the elections will be very interesting. But this might also jeopardise Rahul’s political career.

CONGRESS TAKES INITIATIVE

The Congress is trying to tie up with other parties in the three States where elections are scheduled at the end of this year. When the leaders of these States met Rahul, they discussed several issues and a consensus was reached over the alliance policy. Though, the President of Rajasthan Congress doesn’t want any alliance, claiming they will win on their own, in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, party leaders want alliances. In Chhattisgarh, Mayawati and Ajit Jogi have already talked about a tie-up. However, the door is still open for the Congress. If the Congress wants an alliance, it will have to leave almost half the seats. The Congress wants to go into an alliance with the BSP in MP, but this would be possible only when there’s a package deal for both States.

Writer: Hari Shankar Vyas

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The hefty five billion dollar fine that EU imposed on Google on charges of anti-competitive practices will make little difference.

A five billion dollar fine that the European Commission imposed on Google on anti-competitive behaviour is just a drop in the ocean for the Silicon Valley giant. The technology company’s parent Alphabet announced that its annual revenues crossed $110 billion last year. Of course, Google will fight this fine, unprecedented in its scale, because of how it behaves with its mobile operating system Android. The allegations are very similar to those charged against Microsoft over two decades ago when it dominated the web browser space with Internet Explorer. Remember that? The fines and punishment hardly impacted Microsoft and the same is likely to happen to Google. But while Google has kept relatively quiet, the scandals surrounding Facebook haven’t gone away. Recently, Mark Zuckerberg said that he won’t crack down on Holocaust denying groups. This, after the Cambridge Analytica scandal where Facebook user data was compromised by a third-party. It appears that technology giants, which have disrupted traditional information sources, are not being responsible. They have allowed fake information to flourish; they have enabled hate groups like never before; and by swallowing up advertising revenue they have permanently compromised reliable information sources, such as newspapers. Yet, they have democratised information and challenged the sources of that information. But should they do more to mitigate fake news and also be more responsible with their market behaviour? Yes.

For far too long, technology has been the wild west in the name of technology and better features. Technology companies have gotten away with irresponsible behaviour. Their actions have killed competition and made many subservient to technology on the back of getting things for free. User data is the next goldmine that all sorts of technology companies and service providers want to mine. Your information and mine is up for sale, acquired without our explicit consent. There needs to be more oversight by administrators across the world. Nobody is arguing for a Chinese style leash and firewall — information should be available to everyone — but that information cannot be wrong. Companies should be allowed to thrive in this ecosystem. At the end of the day, technology should not help humankind not be something that takes over everything. Technology for technology’s sake is not the solution. The European Union’s fine on Google while admirable will do little to change the situation. Google and their services as well as Facebook are embedded in most of our lives and a fine and slap on the wrist will not change that.

Writer:  Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

No matter what the actual words uttered by Rahul were, it is clear that he was referring to Congress’ legacy as a party that has always put the community first.

While hosting a number of Muslim intellectuals, Congress president Rahul Gandhi was reported by Urdu daily, Inquilab to have stated: “Yes, Congress is a Muslim party”, which the Congress has vehemently denied but the newspaper stands by. What is not in question, however, is the party lending support to the setting up of Darul Qazas in every district as proposed by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Earlier, the Congress had refused to support the passage of the Bill (already passed by the Lok Sabha) to prohibit instant triple talaq. The Congress leaders must have assessed that such support would upset many Muslim men.

The provisions of minority rights as enshrined in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution belong to the same species. It is reassuring that a full Bench of the Supreme Court is currently hearing a case on this subject. Thus, it is to be hoped that the stand taken, to begin with, by former Solicitor General, Harish Salve, wherein those minority educational institutions, which receive special aid from the Government, should cease to have reserved seats on religious lines, would be accepted by the Supreme Court.

It is not widely known that Articles 29 and 30 owe their origin to communalism. The Constituent Assembly was elected in January 1946.  On December 13 of the same year, Jawaharlal Nehru, as the head of the interim Government, moved what was called an Objective Resolution in order to appease the Muslim League, hoping that it would not press for Partition. As it happened, the endeavor to appease the League failed and the country was divided.

It will be useful to recall that the Constituent Assembly had been elected on the basis of Muslim constituencies (then called separate electorate) and 85 percent of the voters had voted for the League whose single-point manifesto then was Partition. Evidently, all Muslims in the Assembly were beneficiaries of this 85 per cent vote. What is extraordinary is that the Objective Resolution and the resulting Articles continued to be debated as if nothing happened on August 15, 1947.

In other words, what was proposed to placate the League and thereby avert the Partition, was enshrined in the Constitution despite the creation of Pakistan. In the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, spoken in the Assembly on November 8, 1948, “Nearly two years ago, we met in this hall and on that solemn occasion it was my high privilege to move a resolution which has come to be known as the Objective Resolution… It tried to embody the spirit that lay behind the Indian people at the time. It is difficult to maintain the spirit of a nation or a people at a high level all the time… Nevertheless, I hope that it is in that spirit that we have to approach the framing of this Constitution … always using that resolution as the yard measure with which to test every clause and phrase of this Constitution.” (Pages 317-318, Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII 1999.)

Articles 29 and 30 were described in the resolution as safeguards provided for the minorities. In the process, considerable discrimination was introduced into the educational system. A school is either run by a Government or aided by a State. In either case, the Government has the final say in the policies of the school.  If, however, a school happens to be run by the members of a minority, the Government does not interfere. In effect, schools run by Hindus either accept Government aid and face interference or abstain from the aid. In spite of this background, the Constituent Assembly on November 9, 1948, patiently heard ZH Lari, a Muslim Leaguer from Uttar Pradesh, who got elected on a pro-Partition ticket.

While pleading for reservation as well as special rights for Muslims, Lari said, “We never said that Muslims in these parts are going to migrate to Pakistan. We are the children of the soil and as such we claim the rights of citizens of India.” Vishwambhar Dayalu Tripathi, another member, shot back: “What did your leaders do in Pakistan?”

Prof KT Shah, yet another member, tried to insist that no expenditure on any private institution should be defrayed from the public purse. Yet, Nehru and his Government ignored the exhortations, and went on to enshrine in the Constitution financial burdens which most States are now finding difficult to bear…For the simple reason that the combination of a subsidy and freedom of management has led to the proliferation of madrasas.”

The Nehru Government was anxious to retrieve the Mohajirs who had landed in Karachi. To take the example of Benares weavers, Nehru’s friend Sri Prakasa, who was then the High Commissioner, said to them, “Why have you come here? No one wants you here. Do get back home. Why do you want to destroy my city? It is you who have made it famous in the world.” I immediately used to issue permits to them to go back, so he wrote in his book, Pakistan: Birth and Early Days.

Syama Prasad Mookerjee saw the riots in East Pakistan as part of a deliberate and cold-blooded plan to exterminate or expel the minorities from East Pakistan. It is this conviction that made Mookerjee suggest an exchange of population. Nehru rejected this suggestion out of hand. As recorded in his Selected Speeches, he went on to explain: “An exchange of population is something which we have opposed all along. It is something which I consider not only undesirable but also not feasible.”

In his book, Government from Inside, NV Gadgil, a senior member of the Nehru Cabinet wrote: “I have already described how systematically Pakistan drove out its Hindus and how they encouraged Bengali Muslims to enter and occupy some areas in Assam. The Indian Government took no notice of these. On the other hand, Nehru was greatly annoyed when once Vallabhbhai suggested mutual exchange of Hindu and Muslim populations and a proportional division of land between India and Pakistan. But one has to confess that such an exchange would have been beneficial in the long run.”

The Indian Muslim remained, on the whole, aloof from the mainstream of Indian life after the Partition, but in almost all cities, communal Muslim organisations continued their poisonous propaganda. Thousands of Muslims, who had gone to Pakistan, returned and were given back their properties.

The Hindus received no such justice. Indira Gandhi was comparatively less partial. Nevertheless, at the Shimla conference with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, she allowed the release of 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war to return scot-free; although the Indians were told that former Pakistan Prime Minister Bhutto had verbally promised to make the Line of Control in Jammu & Kashmir the permanent frontier between the two countries so that the Kashmir issue stands settled for all time.

Rajiv Gandhi was more confused but no less a player of communal politics. In 1981, the Madhya Pradesh High Court awarded alimony to a long-divorced Shah Bano. In 1985, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed her former husband’s appeal and endorsed the alimony. However, the Prime Minister, exhorted by the Muslim clergy, nullified the apex court judgement by having the Muslim Women Act 1986 passed by Parliament. Thus, the clergy was appeased but what about justice to a poor widow?

UPA Chairperson and former Congress chief  Sonia Gandhi was consistently biased and her nominee Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not only appointed several committees for alleviating the Muslim community’s socio-economic conditions but also promised it the first 15 percent of the country’s resources. To be fair to Congress chief Rahul Gandhi, he is no more to blame than to say that he has been loyal to his long-set family and party legacy.

Writer: Prafull Goradia

Courtesy: The Pioneer

As the Communist Party cannot rule without creating resentment, Jinping’s wish to make China a global power may not only land him in trouble, but might bring China to a dead-end.

China is a big country, a powerful state, but a nervous nation. Beijing is today able to rule far beyond its borders; a seemingly-insignificant incident: During the World Cup semi final between France and Belgium in Moscow, a French man shared his photos holding a Tibetan flag. Hugues Picon, the activist, was immediately arrested and kept in police custody and barred from entering the stadium for the final. He was probably unaware of the length of Beijing’s arm. However, China’s extended power is bound to create more and more problems for President Xi Jinping in the future. The Communist Party in Beijing can’t rule the world without creating resentment all-over. A commentator in the South China Morning Post pointed to a serious issue confronting the Middle Kingdom: “China needs to heed overseas unease as it moves to global centre-stage.”

Observers are concerned over the growth of Chinese nationalist pride and influence abroad. The Hong Kong paper remarked: “China must be wary of nationalist pride and its visions of taking global centre-stage triggering unease among its neighbours.” In a new book, China’s Change: The Greatest Show On Earth, Hugh Peyman, an old China watcher, questions: Has China got it right? Ultimately, Peyman believes that Deng Xiaoping’s approach will continue to serve the country well, and ‘as long as China keeps changing, it will find its way’. That is probably where the fate of China will be decided.

But can China change and become a state accepting the global rules of behaviour?  Unfortunately during the past five years, China has changed but for the worse, ignoring or antagonising its own periphery (Tibet, Xinjiang, et al), as well as its neighbourhood. The recent campaign to forcibly assimilate ethnic Uyghurs in Xinjiang in order to erase nationalist sentiment and create an Islam with socialist characteristics is a case in point. James Dorsey, a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore, wrote that the move is bound to fail because it “ignores lessons learnt not only from recent Chinese history but also the experience of others.”

Referring to the Belt and Road Initiative, Dorsey added: “In what amounts to an attempt to square a circle, China is trying to reconcile the free flow of ideas inherent to open borders, trade and travel with an effort to fully control the hearts and minds of its population.” At the same time, inside censorship shows that not all is under control. The South China Morning Post observed: “China’s censors are scrambling to control the narrative about the trade war with the US by giving the media a list of dos and don’ts when reporting on the topic.”

Knowledgeable sources in the Chinese media told the newspaper that they had been told “not to over-report the trade war with US and be extremely careful about linking the trade war to stock market falls, the depreciation of the yuan or economic weakness to avoid spreading panic.” Is it possible to tightly manage everything and everyone? But presently control is extremely well-organised. According to Chinascope, a first batch of graduate students recently received Master’s degrees in United Front (UF) studies at the Central Institute of Socialism in Shandong University, the Chinese Communist Party’s training and education facility for its cadres. Chinascope said: “Since its launch in 2015, the program has recruited 38 doctoral and 50 masters degree students.” The UF is an organisation to carry out the party’s revolutionary and political campaigns not only in places like Tibet, Xinjiang or Taiwan, but also abroad.

The UF was introduced during the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution as the soft hand of the party. According to the Jamestown Foundation: “The United Front Work Department is the department of the CCP charged with consolidating support for Party policies among non-CCP members, including among individuals of Chinese descent overseas. It is has long been a key, albeit well concealed, element of the CCP’s foreign policy.” The last issue of the China Brief of the Jamestown Foundation takes the case of Mongolia: “Sinified religion has a role to play in Xi’s elevation of the UF into a foreign policy tool.”

It studied the case of the Jebtsundamba Hutugtu’s succession process: “It is perceived as a challenge the CCP’s neo-imperial reincarnation management system, which will undergo a major test when it comes to the selection of the next Dalai Lama reincarnation.” The Jebtsundamba is the equivalent of the Dalai Lama in Mongolia. The study shows that some unreported events in Mongolia “reveal attempts to cultivate senior lamas and exploit internal divisions to counter Dharamsala influence and earn global Buddhist ‘discourse power’.” Chinese organisations would like to compete with India for the lead of the Buddhist movement worldwide. The UF has considerably extended its influence under Xi, particularly by absorbing into the UF Department, the State Administration of Religious Affairs, a Government organisation which implements China’s religious policy. At the same time, Internet surveillance has tremendously expanded overseas, thanks to a host of new technologies.

Chinascope reported that Zhongkedianji Beijing Technology, a big data firm in Beijing, admitted to have developed a software called ‘junquan yuqun’; it is capable of detecting more than 8,000 ‘sensitive’ websites in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan: “In addition, it has established 18,000 information outlets in China which can monitor news, forums, blogs, microblogs, pictures, and videos. It can even collect information in 53 languages including English, French, Spanish, and the languages of ethnic minorities in China.” The company’s website said that the surveillance system can “carry out public opinion analyses, information warnings, and hot spot analyses. It can collect negative public opinion, public opinion trends, briefings, analyses, forwarded information, and do statistical analyses for the Government. It can monitor news, forums, blogs, Weibo, pictures, videos.”

Surveillance also applies to the Chinese expats. Bilahari Kausikan, Singapore’s former permanent secretary for Foreign Affairs, recently told a forum in Singapore: “In plain language, what this means is that overseas Chinese should be persuaded, induced, or in extremis, coerced, into accepting allegiance to China as at least part of their identity.” It is quite frightening. But ultimately, this will bring China to a dead-end. Too many foes will be unmanageable, even for a big power. Will Xi get the message before it is too late?

(The writer is an expert on India-China relations and an author)

Writer: Claude Arpi

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Although India is set to buy the S-400 missile systems from Russia, if they wish to fix their ties with Moscow, India must diminish all Russian concerns – especially accepting their relationship with Pakistan. The Russian S-400 Air Defence Missile Defence (ADMS) system has been elevated from a weapon system to symbolise the re-set of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign policy: From being a global power to a balancing power, which, given its national attributes, it actually is.

Global powers have credible Hard Power comprising economic, technological, military and defence-industrial capabilities. Balancing powers, on the other hand, are those who maintain even relations with all geo-strategic or global players who have the capability, capacity and political will to influence events beyond their borders.

In an interview on May 30, 2015, Prime Minister Modi had said, “It is clear in my mind we are no more just a balancing power, but a global player”. That belief came crashing in the aftermath of the 2017 Doklam crisis, when India realised that its tactical victory was short-lived. China had, in the winter months of 2017-2018, started mobilising its military capabilities for a likely border war which would have jeopardised Modi’s 2019 General Election plans. Once this reality dawned, the Prime Minister sought two informal summits in quick time — with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Wuhan, and with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi.

The Wuhan understanding arrived in April 2018 and ensured that both sides were satisfied. China agreed to keep the disputed border peaceful, that Modi wanted. And, India agreed to cooperate with China on development and connectivity projects in the neighbourhood, as Xi desired. In order to ensure that Xi kept his side of the promise despite a few provocations (which could not be ruled out with General Elections looming large), Prime Minister Modi met Putin in Sochi to make him the confidante of the Wuhan understanding since he is the only global leader Xi would listen to.

To spur Putin to do his bidding, Modi offered to invest more time in strengthening ties with Russia, and to sign the S-400 contract, which had been hanging fire since over two years. Signed as an inter-governmental agreement in October 2016, the S-400 contract, according to the head of the Russian Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, was expected to be signed by themiddle of 2017. His assessment was premised on the fact that the Defence Acquisition Council had cleared the deal in December 2015. Since then, the S-400 file has been shuttling between the Finance Ministry and the Prime Minister’s office.

There were two reasons why the Modi Government was hesitant to sign the deal. The first was the cost. Russians were asking for close to six billion dollar for five regiments of the weapon system without any ‘Make in India’ and offsets component. They, however, were willing to set up maintenance facilities in India; help integrate the S-400 with India’s indigenous systems like Akash (which was made with Russian hand-holding); expedite procurement despite having a full order book till 2022; and consider the transformational S-500 system (with capability to kill low-earth satellites) which are under trials for sales to India.

Once the Contract-Negotiation-Committee (CNC), comprising Russian and Indian officials started work, Moscow appeared more amenable. The price was brought down substantially close to five-and-half billion dollar; Moscow offered to transfer the S-400 in the Russian military inventory to India over two to three years; and showed flexibility on payments. It soon became clear that price, though an issue, was not the main concern. It was India’s growing partnership with the United States and the belief that it could help position India as a rival to China in a multipolar Asia. Since Russia was close to China and was building relationship with Pakistan, India, while downplaying its traditional ties and special support in areas of civil nuclear reactors, defence technology and procurements, kept ties with Moscow at a low keel.

Welcoming the opportunity, the US, which views India as the maritime pivot in the Indian Ocean region, sought interoperability (ability to fight together on common mission) through defence sales, military bilateral and multilateral exercises, and by seeking to align India’s foreign policy objectives with its own. Delhi was asked to sign the two fundamental agreements which would allow interoperability by greater transparency in classified equipment onboard US platforms bought by India.

In a symbolic gesture to highlight India’s grown status, the US re-named its largest theatre command as the Indo-Pacific command. This suggested a role for India across the two Oceans — Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Just when Prime Minister Modi thought India had got recognition as a global power based much on his personal diplomacy style, Doklam happened followed by the re-set, a euphemism for the forced foreign policy correction. The coming days would likely witness a major shift in India’s relations with Russia. While side-stepping the US’ concern (impact on growing interoperability) and threats (of sanctions) Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has been emphatic on buying S-400.

Each S-400 regiment comprises two batteries with four launchers each; this makes a total of 40 launchers for five regiments. Five regiments of S-400 will protect two to three major Indian cities, including the capital city of New Delhi. Interestingly, India has ordered a total of 1,000 missiles in the very long-range and long-range category (range 400km), with none in the medium and short ranges category.

Sitharaman has not ruled out considering the Russia Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) — SU-57 — at a later date. Supposed to be a joint development programme, India had pulled out of the detailed design and development stage on differences regarding the distribution of work and technology transfer with Russia. However, the SU-57 might well emerge as the dark horse in the new race for the acquisition of fighters for the Indian Air Force.

As India once again works on deepening its relationship with Moscow, it will have to come to terms with Russia’s ties with Pakistan. In 2004, Russia under Putin took the unusual step of supporting Pakistan. Speaking to this writer, the Russian Ambassador to India, VI  Trubnikov had said, “Our relations with Islamabad have their own agenda chiefly aimed at developing trade and economic ties and cooperation at the anti-terrorist front. They [Pakistan] have always been and will remain subject to our greater and traditional interest for stability in South Asia.”

(The writer in editor, FORCE newsmagazine)

Writer: Pravin Sawhney

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Sharply diving the Nicaraguan society, the President, Daniel Ortega, fails to acknowledge that the public’s mood may cost him his presidentship.

As public protest in Nicaragua has deepened, Daniel Ortega, the embattled President of the country, is battling for his survival. Though his term will end in 2021, protesters are bent on seeking his immediate resignation and an early election. His revolutionary party Sandinista National Liberation Front (in Spanish, Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional — FSNL) came to power with a promise to offer a reformist Left front regime in the country. He was the man behind ousting dictator Anastacio Samoza Debayle from power in the 1970s. However, since his first term in office in 1985, Ortega has changed his style of governance, turning the whole Government into a family business and promoting his cronies in Government enterprises. Besides, in 2016 when he came to power again, he chose to make his wife Rosario Murillo his Vice-President.

Now the moot point is why protests are continuing unabated and how the Ortega Government is planning to address the crisis. The saga of stand-off started in April 18, 2018, between his Government and a section of people as a reaction to cut in the pension system. Once protests intensified, the Ortega Government reversed the order for the status quo. Surprisingly, the protesters resolved to remain on the streets across the country and raised many other issues. These all include massive corruption charges against Ortega family and a section of cronies, his increasing dictatorial style of functioning, and finally, the elevation of his wife, Murillo to the office of the Vice-President. The demonstrators seemed to have made up their mind to push Ortega out of office.

The capital city of Managua has become “Tahrir Square” of Nicaragua. The regional human rights body, named Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), says hundreds have died during protest against the Ortega regime since April 18 as the Government deployed special force “Grupos de Choque” (Shock Forces) to repress protests. Currently, demonstrators openly blame the Shock Forces and the Army for all the violence taking place in the country. But, the establishment accuses criminal gangs and specific political groups for creating unrest against the legitimate Government of Ortega.

What surprises the international community is that this chaos is completely different from earlier ones in Nicaragua. Precisely, the lead protesters are no other than students from universities from different parts of the country. Joining them are ordinary people from all walks of life. This is making the whole chaos complicated for Ortega. More particularly, the Catholic Church and the business community too have joined hands with the commoners against the Government.

People are demanding deep democratic reforms. And all of them believe that if Ortega continues in office, no such reforms can be carried out. Simply put, his administration will not allow any reform which might derail him from power, they believe. However, the Ortega Government thinks the new rebellion is nothing but a “coup” to remove a democratically elected president of the country.

The IACHR and Amnesty International are urging the Nicaraguan Government not to use lethal weapons against the protesters. Also, they are calling for an investigation into the use of force by paramilitary forces in the country. However the Government has straightway denied any allegation of using lethal forces against the people and blames the opposition political forces and thugs for the current mess in Nicaragua.

Currently, a national dialogue between the Government and the protesters has failed as the latter insisted on the resignation of Ortega. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church and the Organization of American States have offered to mediate. But frankly speaking, it would be difficult to bring the Government and the protesters back to table soon. In case, the national dialogue revives, it can work well, but then Ortega will not step down so easily. What will happen next, no one knows for now. If Sandinistas have to go, they won’t go peacefully. Record shows when he lost election in 1990, million of dollars of public money was transferred to Government loyalists on Ortega orders and bureaucrats looted the offices in broad daylight. Is it going to be another affair to be remembered with horror and despise? Let’s have a look at history.

By 1970s, America’s hemispheric policy was dominated by the spectre of “another Cuba”. With the rise of Fidel Castro’s revolutionary regime right at the backyard of the US, Washington too was cautious about such upheavals in South America. To prevent such unwanted fears, then US President Lyndon Johnson had sent a force of 20,000 men to the Dominican Republic in 1965 and equally cautious Henry Kissinger quickly brought Chile under the surveillance of the CIA. But then, the fall of the thuggish Samoza dynasty in Nicaragua made this fear more palpable for Washington. At any cost, the policy-makers in the US wanted to prevent a Sandinista regime in Managua. What happened in Nicaragua literally shocked the Americans — a Sandinista regime was formed by the guerrillas. Ortega initially ran the Government very well with friendly attitude towards the business community. But he continued to suppress the Opposition and cut freedom of the press.

Described by his admirers, Ortega is not a public intellectual as he had to cut short his studies to join the Leftist guerilla warfare in the past. But surely, he has mastered the craft of becoming an astute political operator — he is expert in making new alliances and dividing and debilitating his enemies.

Again, Ortega’s bond with the church is remarkable. An atheist earlier has gradually cemented his ties with the priests across the country. Between 2013 and 2015, his Government spent $3.2 million public money to install decorative metal trees in and around Managua. These biblically inspired trees, called as “Trees of Life” come up with high power lights at night showcasing both beauty and his reverence for the faith. In 2016 election, wherein he won a landslide victory, the party posters display the curious slogan across: “Christian, Socialist, Solidarity”. Since then, he has been using this policy of mixing religion and politics only to promote his policies and programmes through them. But the irony is that this is the same old church which helped oust the authoritarian Government of Ortega is now fast becoming his friend.

His brand of “state capitalism” has more loopholes than advantages. It has sharply divided the Nicaraguan society. Ortega faces his last test of survival. His failure to acknowledge the mood of the public will cost him dear. Nicaragua is soon falling into an abyss. Political pundits say it is in the process of turning into another Venezuela.

(The writer is an expert on international affairs)

Writer: Makhan Saikia

Courtesy: The Pioneer

India has to play the balancing act through multi-alignment with the US and China in order to positively engage with the countries and preserve its strategic autonomy.

After the second India-China Maritime Affairs Dialogue held in Beijing last week, it was made clear to China that the evolving India-Pacific strategy was not aimed at China’s containment. It was also stated that both countries discussed perspectives in maritime security and cooperation, with New Delhi elucidating the contours of the Quad — Quadrilateral dialogue  India-US-Japan-Australia — which was dismissed by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi as “headline grabbing” and “foam on the ocean that would dissipate soon”. Modi’s keynote address at this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue helped allay apprehensions about the Quad’s target being China. There has been considerable confusion about the strategic geography of the Indo-Pacific as also of its possible military content and configuration. The belated elaboration follows the reset of India-China relations at Wuhan and the unprecedented uncertainty and unpredictability over Trump’s capricious actions that call for discretion and caution over any rash geostrategic commitment to the US which are perceived as directed at China.

India-US relations have seen an upward trajectory,  driven by extensive military and economic engagement. In Trump’s first policy declaration on South Asia and Afghanistan in August 2017, he praised India for its stabilising role in Afghanistan. In the US National Security Strategy paper of December 2017, India figured as the US’ global and most favoured defence partner. With China, the narrative has been marred by glitches, aberrations and  hostility. The Modi Government, in pursuit of a muscular policy, which ignored the asymmetry in national power, found to its discomfiture that a risen China was leave alone being containable, not even receptive to India’s legitimate asking for clarification of LAC. This deviation from the established policy of keeping the boundary question on the back burner (Special Representatives reached an impasse after 19 rounds of conversations on a political solution to the boundary question) maintaining peace and tranquillity on LAC and while managing other contradictions, getting on with trade and commerce. Still there were border conflicts at Depsang, Chumar that culminated with Doklam. Given India’s unenviable two-front challenge, a temperamental Trump and looming uncertainty, the Government sought a recalibration of relations with China. Normalisation of ties with Beijing needed clarification on Indo-Pacific and Quad. Rewind to the first edition of the Raisina Dialogue, 2016, New Delhi. Admiral  Harry Harris, the US Pacific Commander, in his keynote address, invoked the Obama-Modi Joint Strategic Vision Statement of 2015 which identified Asia-Pacific (including South China Sea and Indian Ocean) as the key lifelines requiring freedom of navigation and open skies. Harris called the region Indo-Asia-Pacific and proposed to India “we need you, your leadership”. He added, “let us be ambitious together”. He raised two issues: The Quad and joint patrolling anywhere in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea or “anywhere our leaders decide”. In Raisina 2017, Harris renamed Asia Pacific as Greater Indo Pacific and continued with the strategic seduction of India by inviting it to sign the two remaining foundational agreements — Communication, Compatibility and Security Arrangement and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Cooperation. These two are unlikely to be inked anytime soon. At Raisina 2018, Harris called China a “disruptive transitional force in Indo Pacific”. Although Harris retired this year, he ensured his command was redesignated as the Indo Pacific Command.

Indo Pacific translates differently to different countries in the region. At Shangrila, Modi said, “India does not see the Indo Pacific as a strategy or as a club of limited members. Nor as a grouping that seeks to dominate. And by no means directed at any one country”. While Quad was not mentioned, strategic autonomy was. Actually, it was our own Commander Gurpreet Khurana who coined the term Indo Pacific before anyone else as linking Indian Ocean with West Pacific through Malacca Straits. The Quad similarly has a history dating back to 2007 and was mooted by Japan’s Shinzo Abe. It was formally revived in 2017 with its first meeting at Manila as a Track I dialogue of junior level officials. India is the only country that does not have a permanent presence in the Pacific Ocean like the other three; and is the only one to share a land border with China. It is also the only country not part of any military  alliance. In the four separate statements after the first Quad, Free and Open and Rule-based order in the Indo-Pacific appeared as a common objective.

The second meeting of the Quad last month in Singapore shared objectives in areas of connectivity, development, regional security, including counter-terrorism, non-proliferation and maritime cooperation. The centrality of Asean was highlighted. Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Sunil Lanba said that Quad does not have a military dimension. He also said that there were no plans for joint patrols with the US or any country which is not a maritime neighbour of India. The strategic community is divided on India joining the Quad with a military and security architecture whose object is to counter China’s hegemony in the Indo-Pacific. They cite China’s fait accompli of creating militarised islands in South China Sea as designed to breaking out of the first island chain which  they say, must be checked and rolled back.

Last year, the External Affairs Ministry hailed the Indo-US partnership in maintaining stability in the Asia Pacific region after Trump declared India as a leading global partner in his National Security Strategy paper. For the last 20 years,  annually, the Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis, New Delhi, has strenuously scouted in vain for an Asian security structure akin to Nato. For the Indo-Pacific at best one can conceive of a regional maritime cooperative security structure which is not threat but capability based to meet common challenges  in the Indo-Pacific with India focusing on the Indian Ocean. India has made substantial unilateral concessions to China to secure the Wuhan summit and to ensure the Government is not diverted over the next 12 months from its single-minded goal of winning the next election. Inviting Trump for the Republic Day is a minor risk compared to  the accompanying institutional gains. Given the lack of full deterrence, India has to constructively engage with the US, China and others to preserve strategic autonomy through multi-alignment.

(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped Integrated Defence Staff)

Writer: Ashok K Mehta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Humanoid Robot Sophia, who was in India, says the country is colourful, diverse and beautiful.

Developed by Hong Kong-based company Hanson Robotics, Sophia is modelled after actress Audrey Hepburn, and is known for her human-like appearance and behaviour compared to other robotic variants. She uses artificial intelligence, visual data processing and facial recognition.

Sophia, who is here to be the part of 7th Forevermark Forum, got into an interesting conversation with Stephen Lussier, CEO Forevermark & EVP of The De Beers Group of Companies during the forum that focussed on the theme, “Future is Now.”

When Lussier asked her if this is her first time in India, she replied: “No. I have been to India before. It’s a colourful, diverse and a beautiful country.” Talking further about herself, she said: “I live in Hong Kong and travel the world to meet people from different cultures.”

Sophia, who spotted a Forevermark Diamond necklace, asked Lussier that, “How does one really choose the best diamond?” To this, he replied: “You start by asking your jeweller about the 4Cs that is the cut, clarity, colour and the caratage. So diamonds having the best cut, flawless clarity, colourless nature and the high carat weight are the ones that are most valuable and worth buying,” he told her.

Also talking about what the future means to her, she said: “The future is unpredictable but I really want to make a difference.”

And is there anyway you think we could make the future better, asked Lussier? Replied Sophia: “Yes. By planting more trees, by using water wisely and contributing to help the environment.”

The goal of the forum was to provide a wide platform for all its partners to interact, transact and gain new perspective to events within and outside the industry. Partners discussed diversity in thought, culture, design and innovation in a multi-faceted future which they felt was brimming with diverse opportunities.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Nawaz Sharif, being one of the canniest politicians in the world, will try his best to get out of the jail. But can he be successful in performing a Houdini-like escape this time?

Nawaz Sharif would never have imagined that he would one day become a poster-child for democracy. But in an increasingly dysfunctional Pakistan, he is now a prisoner of conscience of the Pakistani deep state. Nor could he imagine that Indian newspapers across the political spectrum would be writing sympathetic editorials for him. Pakistan is a country where the Armed Forces have all but taken over all functions of the state without admitting to actually doing so. They have certainly taken over the judiciary. Politicians in Pakistan undoubtedly suffer from the bug of corruption so deep-rooted in South Asia and the fact that Sharif, like so many other Pakistani Prime Ministers before him, is corrupt is quite believable. The news reports about the Sharif family having secret bank accounts in Panama should not surprise anyone; many of South Asia’s elite have ferreted away millions of dollars of public funds. But the fact is that Sharif is also one of the best bets Pakistan has of not completely turning into a Chinese client state.

Pakistan’s military-industrial complex, in this case quite literally as much of Pakistan’s industrial complex is controlled by the military, has been gorging of late on Chinese funds for China’s planned economic corridor from Gwadar on the Arabian Sea via roads and rail through to the Chinese border. However, as several other countries have seen the example of Sri Lanka and how the Chinese have economically captured that nation in a debt-trap, Pakistan wants China to double-down on their investments even as reports emerge of China having second thoughts about Pakistan’s economic viability. The fact is, minus any semblance of democracy, Pakistan’s political parasites are being wiped out by their far worse cousin species, the Pakistani military parasite, and the judiciary is aiding the process.

We do not know what will happen to Nawaz Sharif now. He returned to Pakistan fully-well knowing the risks he was undertaking. Pakistan’s military has executed one Prime Minister, killed their own Chief and assassinated another Prime Minister. It is a truly dysfunctional military whose only objective is to keep surviving, the nation be damned. Nawaz Sharif must have been the last person to believe that one day he would be called brave, but he could have stayed on in exile. One could believe that Mian Sharif knows that the path his country is headed down is not a good one and if he did not act, Pakistan would be beyond saving.

Nawaz Sharif stood up to the military before and paid the price. He was the single best-bet India had for negotiating a truce with its neighbour and foster the belief that our two nations for long divided by hate might finally work together in joint economic prosperity. And being a popular mass leader, he could have also sold the idea to his nation. Unfortunately, that is not the case right now. One hopes that elements in the Pakistani deep state come to their senses soon enough and realise that Sharif, despite all his flaws, is not bad compared to the alternative.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

There are a number of different takes people have when it comes to the what the real Benazir Bhutto. With all the different versions, Sashanka S Banerjee will always believe that Benazir Bhutto was the woman who first offended him and eventually befriended him, sharing dark secrets.

Ironically, my first experience of meeting Benazir Bhutto was quite unpleasant, to say the least. To my surprise, minutes after I was introduced to her by Justice Abu Sayeed Choudhury, who had earlier served as the President of Bangladesh, at his then family home in Hendon, London, I was denied even breathing space as she started an unprovoked and an unrelenting verbal attack on India. She described India as a “hegemonic power harbouring territorial ambitions on neighbouring countries”, an “oppressive tyranny masquerading as a democracy”, a “violator of  human rights in Kashmir”, a “Muslim baiter” and much more. Her voice was shrill, her face flushed with goose pimples indicating that she was nervous while talking to me — an unknown Indian from the enemy country. I suspect she was under the illusion that I was a member of some sort of a repressive, Gestapo-like organisation of India.

I was disappointed to have discovered that a mature and sophisticated lady who had studied in Oxford and Harvard and belonged to a highly-regarded political family in Pakistan, would be so naive in her approach. It was her first interaction with a former senior bureaucrat — even if from the enemy country. And before this, the bureaucrat actually had regard for her as she had introduced democracy in Pakistan. But, she went on with her anti-India rant. And I wondered what her underlying motive could be. Whatever her intention was, my curiosity only increased over time. One thing I was sure about was that her worldview was not dissimilar to the official position of Islamabad that Pakistan would never bow down to India and be a poodle to New Delhi.

Initiated as a policy option by Benazir, Pakistan had devised its own ways of keeping India — a soft power in her view — firmly on the leash. Forging of ties with Taliban after she had become the Prime Minister of Pakistan meant using the terror group’s violent methods against India as an instrument of state policy.  Pakistan Army had long aspired to secure “strategic depth” in Afghanistan. Benazir had played a key role in that. And this was her idea of power play with New Delhi.

Thus, Pakistan started an innovative “two-front war” — on the East with India and on the West with Afghanistan. There was no dearth of funding for this dangerous game, richly sourced from three of its key allies. At the same time, for Islamabad it was strategically important to maintain the pretense that it was a “friend to India”. Within the parameters of this manufactured ambivalence, Justice Abu Sayeed Choudhury’s introduction of Benazir Bhutto, heralded the beginning of a stormy and complicated equation.

Our next meeting was scheduled a few days later at her home in a luxury apartment at the Lauderdale Towers in The Barbican, London. Most of my remaining meetings in the subsequent period of my association with her were held at her home.

Benazir being much younger to me, I chose to address her by her first name. She didn’t mind it. I said, “Benazir, the other day, you thundered like the cataract of Niagara but, just think, did your fire and fury serve any real purpose? Neither was I intimidated nor was Justice Choudhury persuaded by what you said.” I added, “How can anybody call India  a hegemonic power when within three months of the liberation of Bangladesh, at the end of a successful military campaign, India withdrew its armed forces from the soil of what was now sovereign independent Bangladesh? It was a gesture of goodwill. Some 93,000 Pakistani POWs taken at the end of the Bangladesh War of 1971 were also released. But Benazir didn’t return the compliment.  

Gradually, our discussions began taking shape. I took the initiative and asserted that if she was looking for India’s support in promoting liberal democracy in Pakistan, I thought that India would gladly come forward and help her and the Pakistan Peoples’ Party. But this was all subject to New Delhi agreeing. I gave her the example of India’s support extended to the secular, democratic, and pluralistic Bangladesh Liberation Struggle led by Shaikh Mujibur Rahman.

I could see she was not amused. I felt like she had other things weighing on her mind. After several interactions, I got a shrewd impression that she was hiding something from me. Soon, I had no doubt in my mind that she was still in a state of deep shock and mourning. I would often find her getting emotionally choked while talking about Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, her father. Her eyes would moisten at the very mention of his name.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged till death on August 4, 1979, and buried at Larkana, the family’s graveyard. I often heard her saying that General Zia-ul-Haq was an incarnation of evil.

She would speak about her father as “Shahid Zulfikar Ali Bhutto” and described his hanging as “judicial murder”. I could detect the undercurrent of an overpowering dark force working within her, craving for revenge against the Pakistani dictator. She had mentioned the word “revenge” to me a number of times. I was pretty certain that she had also spoken about it among some untrustworthy friends. I knew only too well that Benazir had no security cover appropriate to her status provided by the state. She was an easy target, very vulnerable.  

It couldn’t be that the ISI didn’t get a wind of Benazir’s overzealous pronouncements on avenging the dead. I was not prepared to believe that the ISI would not deploy a posse of surveillance detail on her, like static and mobile watch and telephone tapping for delving into her inner thoughts on her father’s hanging by General Zia-ul-Haq. It was all too well known that the grip of the ISI on Pakistan was so firm that not even a crow could fly over Pakistan without the ISI knowing about it.

Benazir had an inherent capacity to spring surprises. I was not quite ready for it, but one day she came up with a proposal that was beyond the bounds of my wildest imagination. She said, “You have been putting pressure on me to open up about my “secret agenda”. I will tell you, but it will be in bits and pieces”. Then, she told me that she would like to send a group of six young men to India on an “extended” educational tour for training in leadership skills in democratic principles and practice drawn from the Indian experience. The training would include lectures on international relations with special focus on India-Pakistan relations. As our discussions expanded, I was getting a sneaky feeling that Benazir was keeping what she “really” wanted close to her chest. She was shrouding her real thoughts in ambiguity. Her half-baked thoughts in the backdrop of what she was saying all this time, were in all probability linked to her zeal for revenge against General Zia-ul-Haq.

I asked her if she was thinking of an extreme kind of capital punishment with the help of an enemy country. And added that she must know the consequences of embarking upon such a dangerously mad mission. Moreover, why would India get involved in such a misadventure?

“What would happen if there was a leak? Are you not afraid of dying,” I asked. “No, for my father’s sake I am prepared to die. But my mission must succeed,” she said. It was becoming devastatingly clear to me that the “judicial murder” of her beloved father had acted as a catalyst in splitting her personality into two parts.

She asserted that a question kept nagging at her, “Why should I not take revenge with a concrete plan of action against that murderer? He has ruined my family. My mother has been widowed and my brothers and I have been orphaned when we are still at the prime of our lives.” A second shock awaited me. I asked her how much she trusted “the boys”. “Hundred percent” was her answer. What were their political affiliations? She paused for a moment and then admitted coyly, “Yes, you are right. They were cadre members of Jiye Sindh Mahaz (JSM) led by GM Syed.” Do you know him? She didn’t hesitate to say “Both of us are Sindhis, Yes, I know him”. I told her that GM Syed was serving a life sentence in a Pakistani prison for treason. I did not have to remind her that JSM was a pro-independence militant organisation fighting for the liberation of Sindh. Nobody knew if he was still alive. I reflected what was Mujibur Rahman to Bangladesh Liberation Struggle, GM Syed was to Sindh Freedom Movement. I told her that the ISI regarded JSM as “a separatist terrorist outfit” and they would go to any extent to crush them with heavy handed brutality.

It was a revelation to me that Benazir had close connections with GM Syed’s pro-independence movement in Sindh. I wondered, “Did she have an open mind for switching her loyalties to the Sindhi Freedom Movement, if her aspirations at Pakistan’s national level were to fail?” At this point, I thought I had enough knowledge of her inner thinking and must not pursue this matter any further. In fact, it seemed to me that there was perhaps already a dark deal struck up between JSM and herself.

India partly agreed to Benazir’s request but it was nowhere near to what she really wanted. India agreed to receive the “boys” in Delhi. As a huge gesture of goodwill to Miss Bhutto, they would be issued tourist visas for three months. The boys would be extended normal consular courtesies. They would be taken around the Golden Triangle — Delhi, Jaipur, and Agra. While in Delhi, they would be taken around on day trips to the Houses of Parliament, the Supreme Court, CP, and Raisina Hill. They could be taken on a short day trip to a Military Academy and so on. They would be treated as honoured guests. As per Benazir’s personal wish, total secrecy would be maintained about the trip. What was deeply disappointing for Benazir was that there was not a word about military training for the boys that she had asked for. Her core interest was ignored in totality.

In the blood-soaked, revenge-filled, unforgiving political environment of Pakistani politics, a brief comparative study of three high-level political assassinations that happened in quick succession between 1979 and 2007 may be in order. I will touch on them in chronological order. For starters, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged to die on some “flimsy grounds” under orders of General Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan’s military dictator, on April 4, 1979. There were reports that General Zia-ul-Haq did not trust the highly ambitious Bhutto and suspected that any day Bhutto he may usurp power from Zia. The hanging solved the military dictator’s fears but threw the country into turmoil and Benazir in a determinedly revengeful outrage.

Nine years later, General Zia-ul-Haq was killed, in an “air mishap” after his flight on a PAF heavy duty C-130 transport carrier took off from Bahawalpur Cantonment’s airfield on August 17, 1988. This game-changing event, described as “political murder” has also come to be known as “a case of exploding mangoes”.

Security had cleared “some casual employees” working in the Cantonment. There was a fruit and vegetable shop that loaded two basketful of the finest Dasheri mangoes, one for the military dictator and another for the US Ambassador Arnold Raphel, who was accompanying the General. They were on a visit to Bahawalpur Cantonment to oversee the performance of America’s best known main battle tanks (MBTs) Abram M1. After their field inspection, they were going back to GHQ Rawalpindi, satisfied that the tanks were to the liking of the military dictator. The order was to be in the region of 300 Abrams M1 MBTs. The loaders — there is no scope for any doubt — had placed two high explosive time bombs hidden in the mango baskets. Nobody checked the baskets because the security environment in the Cantonment was thought to be water-tight. After the explosion that killed everybody on board the aircraft, the ISI went into an overdrive to find out who had done it but the matter was so delicate that the report of the investigation was kept “top secret”. Any punitive action would have to wait for an appropriate date. Apparently, the assassination looked like part of a bigger conspiracy where there was involvement of biggies who had  political and military interests.

Nineteen years later, it was Benazir Bhutto’s turn to face the wrath of her enemies, quite probably, the military top brass, perhaps avenging the killing of Gen Zia-ul-Haq. A brief recount of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination — as her cavalcade started moving out after her successful election rally held at Liaquat Bagh, Rawalpindi, where Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951, a small group of Punjabi-looking young men who also had Punjabi accent surrounded her moving car, started shouting slogans of “Jiye Benazir” a Sindhi language version of “Benazir zindabad” or “long live Benazir” in English. She was lured to stand up looking through an opening in the roof of the SUV to thank them. In a flash, she was fired upon from a precision weapon allegedly of military origin. Of the four bullets fired, one went through her head, killing her almost instantly. This was quickly followed by a bomb attack which completed the job of killing the leader.

For the record, Benazir Bhutto’s assassination took place after her fateful election rally on December 27, 2007. Thus, Benazir with a tasbih — a string of prayer beads — in her hand, chanting “Jiye shahid Bhutto”, died. A thing to note about these three political murders was that they were all linked to each other by a thread of starkly competing interests in an intense power struggle among viciously ambitious power-hungry military men and politicians at high places. In the bargain, all three lost their lives after short spells of glory. What’s worth is the lack of any long term impact — it was business as usual after a few short weeks.   

A few days after General Zia-ul-Haq died, Benazir summoned me to a pub located in a hidden corner on the ground floor of the Barbican Towers for a chat. I saw her beautiful face, pretty much glowing like one who had won a war and established an empire. She felt quite strongly that the exit of an “evil genius” like Gen Zia-ul-Haq was reason for celebration. “The punishment was willed by Allah,” she asserted with a raised glass of Coca-Cola in her hand and a broad smile on her face.

What was no less important for Benazir was that the death of Gen Zia-ul-Haq potentially opened the door for her to climb the political ladder and win her position as the next Prime Minister of Pakistan. Her passion for the creation of a sovereign, independent Sindh emulated from the example of Liberation of Bangladesh, seemed to have died with her.

Before I left for home, I said, “Benazir forgive me for asking you something that may upset you — who put the “exploding mangoes” in the baskets of the C 130 that killed General Zia-ul-Haq and US Ambassador Arnold Raphel?” For the first time,  she addressed me endearingly and said, “My dear friend, I should not answer your query. However, since I have already shared so many secrets with you, I will not disappoint you. Yes, I happen to know them.” For her comfort, I did not ask their names.

For me, it was now time to say goodbye to Benazir. I had a warm hand shake, said an emotional goodbye, and stepped back. And as it turned out, I was never to meet her again. Benazir’s assassination will be remembered by future generations as the darkest day for democracy in Pakistan’s turbulent history.

Banerjee is the author of A Long Journey Together

— India, Pakistan and Bangladesh published in 2008

Writer: Sashanka S Banerjee

Courtesy: The Pioneer