by Muhammad Ali Siddiqi
ARE they really serious when successive Indian army chiefs say they are preparing for a two-front war? Or is a two-front war merely a bogey to attract sympathy from the right quarters? The more important question is: does India really consider China an enemy and does it really have the stomach or the desire to fight China? The June 15 clash clearly shows India will do anything to appease China.
Yet, astonishing as it sounds, while flaunting their ambitious plans for a two-front war, the current army chief and his predecessor give themselves away when they declare that the focus of their war preparations is basically Pakistan and that on the Chinese front the Indian army will adopt a policy of deterrence.
In his first press conference after taking over as army chief last December, Gen Manoj Mukund Naravane spoke of “collusivity” between Pakistan and China and said this could be “both physical on land borders and in other spheres also” as in technology and “in coming to each other’s help in times of trouble”. This “collusivity” between two of India’s neighbours, he said, was “maximum” around the Siachen glacier and Shaksgam valley. For that reason, he said, it was important to “keep that area in our possession” because Pakistan was waging a “proxy war” on India, while China was “flexing its muscles”.
For those perceived threats, India’s war plans are ambitious and include, besides road and rail infrastructure and tunnelling, a new mountain strike corps — 17th — consisting of 100,000 men. This corps will be so located that it can be deployed on both the western (Pakistan) and northern fronts (China).
India will never commit suicide by taking on China for America’s benefit.
On the army’s strategy for the border with China, Gen Naravane explained: “We have to balance out our requirements and deployments to cater for both west and north. For the northern frontiers, we are going for capacity building, which includes building roads to forward areas, habitats, storage for ammunition and moving some of our advanced weapons system to [the] eastern side. In a way of balancing out we can meet a threat from any direction. As a result of this rebalancing, we are now prepared for this challenge.”
The general then reaffirmed what Gen Bipin Rawat, his predecessor, had said with regard to the truth about the two-front war. In an interview with the Times of India, Gen Rawat, appointed army chief in December 2016, said: “The two-front is a real scenario. Much has changed from before in terms of our capabilities … the army, navy and IAF are now jointly very much prepared for such an eventuality.” Apart from the development of Agni IV and Agni V nuclear capable ballistic missiles, he said, the forces have taken a series of steps to slowly but surely transform the “dissuasion” posture against China into “deterrence”, which in turn is now being upgraded to “credible deterrence”.
Then he revealed what truly reflects the mindset and strategic thinking of India’s civil and military leadership. In case there are simultaneous threats from Pakistan and China, Gen Rawat, who is also India’s first chief of defence staff, said there would be a primary front and a secondary front. “The bulk of our forces and resources will be concentrated on the primary [Pakistan] front. On the other front, we will adopt a more deterrent posture, so that we are not found wanting”.
While the new corps (consisting of two high-altitude divisions) would have “quick reaction, ground offensive capabilities”, he made clear that India wanted cooperation not conflict with China. But, where Pakistan was concerned, he said in a talk at CLAWS, a military think tank, “we do not see any scope for reconciliation”.
The truth is India will never commit suicide by taking on China for America’s benefit, the two-front theory designed basically to get as much economic, diplomatic and military support as American naivety would allow.
Will India concede more territory to China? Yes because India has already written off Aksai Chin, which it once claimed. Today, a strategic highway linking Xinjiang to Tibet runs through Aksai Chin. Aware of Chinese sensitivity, New Delhi doesn’t even raise this issue because it knows Beijing is not going to talk about it. Thus when India talks of a border dispute with China, it only refers to the eastern border.
As the fate of arbitration after the Rann of Kutch clashes shows, India will concede a mile to China but it will not give an inch to Pakistan. In brief, America must know India has no desire to destroy itself for Pentagon’s pleasure. The two-front hoax is meant to squeeze the milch cow that is America. As its 2003 invasion of Iraq shows, Washington spent trillions of dollars for Israel’s benefit. Why wouldn’t America do the same in South Asia?
(The writer is Dawn’s Readers’ Editor and an author.)
Right to travel
VERY few would dispute that travel broadens the mind. But in the developing nations of this world, the state asserts that it can determine whether its citizen has the right to go abroad or not. The supreme court may take its own time to decide whether or not a citizen — even if he or she lives in a country that claims itself to be a democracy — has the right to possess a passport. Even if that is allowed as an essential travel document, the authorities might decide who can use it or who cannot. The government of India, regardless of which party is in power, seems to have assumed the right to decide whether or not to let a chief minister travel abroad.
The victim is the chief minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, who was to speak at the World Cities Summit in Singapore. But the BJP-ruled government, headed by Narendra Modi, felt that he could not go and did not give him clearance. Its approach was nonsensical.
By now, most of the countries of the Third World have ratified the United Nations. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). This is an international treaty in law while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is, in law, just a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. Article 12(2) of the covenant provides that “Everyone shall be free to leave any county including his own” — in other words, there should be no restrictions on travelling abroad.
The covenant sets up a human rights committee of distinguished persons who are not representatives of the government but are individuals of note who have “high moral character” and are elected by the states, who have ratified the covenant.Parties to the covenant have to file reports to the committee on their observance of the stipulations contained within. States send mostly their attorney general to defend their reports. Members of the committee grill representative of the states. They do not publicise much of the report within their own countries or the contents of their reports. Both err on the side of exaggeration.
Unfortunately, civil liberties movements in the Third World are generally not articulate nor well-equipped. The exception that stands out is the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan based in Lahore whose prominent chairperson, the late Mr I.A. Rehman, never failed to stand up for civil rights.
In India, following Indira Gandhi’s defeat in the election in 1977, a liberal government came to power which ratified the UN covenant in March 1979. They ratified it only with certain conditions but these did not concern Article 21 of the constitution of India that says very clearly that “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”.
The Indian supreme court has ruled that fundamental rights can be exercised outside the country. In 1978, the apex court had to deal with Maneka Gandhi’s case concerning the impounding of her passport. The supreme court held:
“…[F]reedom to go abroad is one of such rights, for the nature of man as a free agent necessarily involves free movement on his part. There can be no doubt that if the purpose and the sense of state is to protect personality and its development, as indeed it should be of any liberal democratic state, freedom to go abroad must be given its due place amongst the basic rights.
“This right is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. It is a right which gives intellectual and creative workers in particular the opportunity of extending their spiritual and intellectual horizon through study at foreign universities, through contact with foreign colleagues and through participation in discussions and conferences.
“The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right.
“Moreover, this freedom would be a highly valuable right where man finds himself obliged to flee: (a) because he is unable to serve his God as he wished at the previous place of residence, (b) because his personal freedom is threatened for reasons which do not constitute a crime in the usual meaning of the word and many were such cases during the emergency, or (c) because his life is threatened either for religious or political reasons or through the threat to the maintenance of minimum standard of living compatible with human dignity.” This ruling has stood the test of time.
The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.
If visitors pay USD at airport, no fuel queues for them
The above statement was made by Manusha Nanayakkara our Labour & Foreign Employment Minister. How the Minister is going to do it is not known.I wish to make a few suggestions to the Minister for his consideration to implement his proposal. Tourists, migrant workers and the dual citizens were the people whom the Minister referred to in his proposal. Many expat Sri Lankans of whom some could be dual citizens visit home once a year to spend their holidays with their families. Since Covid this might have slowed down.
With the Covid jabs even though one could catch Covid people have started to travel. Travelling to Colombo again will slow down due to the pathetic situation that exist with a shortage of everything, particularly fuel, gas and medicines. The Minister’s statement is some encouragement, but he must place his plan for the consideration of the prospective travellers and shoe by action.
The Bank Of Ceylon Branch at the Airport can sell a Dollar debit card to expats, migrant workers and tourists or in other words those who arrive with a return ticket. The minimum value can be USD 500 with provision to put more dollars attending any BOC Branch. When selling the card, a separate certificate in a little booklet format can be given with the Passport details of the traveller entered. The registration details of the vehicle the traveller intends to use can be entered in the booklet by any BOC branch after the traveller finds the vehicle, that is hired or owned by a relation. If the traveller changes the vehicle the new vehicle details can be entered only after 3 days of the first registration. This will help to prevent misusing the debit card.
The traveller must be able to purchase fuel and other rare commodities on production of the certificate to pay by the debit card referred to in the certificate.
Expats and the tourists visit to travel, and fuel must be available at petrol stations, at least one station ear marked in every town with stock always available for this category. Purchase of fuel can be restricted to at least 15 litres per day that will be good to run about 150kms approximately.
I have suggested the above as a base for the Minster to work out a reasonable plan. Once it is made and implemented whether it works smoothly or with hiccups will be known to prospective travellers through the newspapers. If the system works well, the travellers will have confidence in visiting Sri Lanka and there will be many wanting to visit in the near future.
‘CEB restructure must be apolitical says CEBEU’ – a reply
The above captioned news item appearing in your Sunday issue quotes CEBEU mentions that Cabinet approval has been granted to commence restructuring of Ceylon Electricity Board [C EB] and a committee has been appointed to submit its recommendations within a month; a very important and urgent action indeed seeing and learning the mismanagement and conflicting views and action taken to serve two masters viz, the Ministry for Power and Energy and the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka [PUCSL] and also political interferences as correctly stated by CEB engineers –”The engineers stressed that political non-interferences is of paramount importance”. The interference of the Minister to award a tender for the construction pf 350 Mw LNG plant at Kerawalapitiya to a Chinese construction Company as against the recommendation of the Tender Board, causing a delay of over four years, and the cabinet approval for a wind farm in the north by an Indian company without consulting CEB are a couple worthy of mentioning. It should be emphatically stated, CEB has knowledgeable expert electrical engineers and I believe there are none outside, other than those retired CEB engineers who have set up lucrative consultancy firms, internationally recognized. During my time serving this sector for nearly two decades, with directives by the Ministry, in electrical engineering, administrative and financial matters, the CEB ran to the satisfaction of consumers and also invested elsewhere which made the Treasury to compel CEB to invest on Treasury Bills. The interferences in the administration and matters were directly settled by CEB and also directives of the Ministry have now to obtain the approval of PUCSL.
I remember that the PUCSL called for tenders to remove electric poles, a minor job done by area engineers. There was an instance where the PUCSL sought legal action against CEB for not consulting the PUCSL on a certain matter. Recently, the PUCSL has reduced the tariff worked out by expert proposed by the CEB. What does this mean, the CEB will have to cut down or cancel certain items which it had, to accommodate PUCSL reduction. For efficient running of the CEB, the committee should recommend an end to PUCSL interference with CEB. Do not forget consumers of electricity, commuters etc., could directly place their grievances to the authorities or through organizations, associations concerned and Trade Union, to get redress. The interference I mentioned is not my not my view alone. This was a request made by former Ministry for Power and Energy, Dallas Alahapperuma to the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa; it was approved but overruled by the then Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Mahinda Rajapaksa. For reasons perhaps ut ab ordine – chaos from order.
It is hoped the Committee appointed will look into what is stated above and make recommendations accordingly.
G. A. D.S irimal
Former Assistant Secretary, SLAS, Ministry P&E.
Herath: COPE dissolution must not hinder probe into economic crisis
JVP: Both President and ruling party MPs must be sent home
Stakeholders’ proposals to be made available
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
U.S. Congress to probe assets fleecing by US citizens of Sri Lankan origin
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
News3 days ago
The brother’s saga according to Mahinda
News3 days ago
FSP vows to fight back
News4 days ago
SJB challenges clearing of MP on the basis of committee report
News7 days ago
Sampanthan, Wimal, Champika ready to join all-party govt.
News6 days ago
How tax revision that caused revenue loss of Rs 500-600 bn triggered collapse …
News2 days ago
Ranil claims some TNA MPs “voted for me”
Editorial7 days ago
Hold your horses!
News6 days ago
Govt. retains two foreign firms to restructure ISBs