|
|
|
|
US 'spying' raises Indian hackles
By Sultan Shahin
NEW DELHI - India's defense establishment is sending distress signals to
sections of the country's media over what it considers inordinate United States
interest in the affairs of India's sensitive, insurgency-infested northeast.
Military officials are deeply unhappy over the ever-growing access US diplomats
and military personnel are getting to disturbed areas in the region.
An Asia Times Online investigation has revealed that the disquiet is almost a
decade old, though it has grown exponentially since US ambassador to India
Robert Mulford wrote to the chief ministers of Assam and Nagaland directly
offering help in counter-insurgency operations in the wake of terrorist
violence in October, 2004. He did not bother to go through the proper channels;
that is, through the ministry of external affairs. This raised a lot of
questions and controversies in the media; the central government,
too, was not happy about it. But the matter rests there, and no further
explanations have emerged as to why the US ambassador chose to go over the
heads of the central government.
Army officers recall it was in 1995 that, for the first time, American
intelligence officials were allowed to visit remote areas in the state of Jammu
and Kashmir. The excuse then was the kidnapping of several foreign tourists who
were never found. This neither helped the missing tourists, according to
sources in the army, nor the government of India in any way. It only provided
the US with an opportunity to visit remote areas normally inaccessible to
foreign intelligence agencies and study how India was fighting the insurgency
in those parts.
But the biggest complaint of all is directed at the no-longer ruling right
government of prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which allowed low-intensity
training of US soldiers in guerrilla warfare at the Counter-Insurgency and
Jungle Warfare School at Vairengte in Mizoram. A retired brigadier, who
regularly writes on defense-related issues, told Asia Times Online: "The same
training could have been very well imparted in the benign jungles of Madhya
Pradesh or Tamil Nadu. Why open up insurgency-prone Mizoram to foreign troops?
One can understand the government's desire to develop strategic ties with the
United States. But we can do things more intelligently, without jeopardizing
our own security interests. Why do we need to show foreigners how we are
fighting our insurgencies?" (Like several other officers quoted in this
article, he insisted on anonymity given the sensitive nature of the subject
matter.)
In his view, the main problem is not so much the access being given to US
diplomatic (invariably including intelligence) and military personnel to
India's sensitive areas, but that it is taking place despite military
objections. "The main problem in India," he said, "is that the left hand
doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The MHA [ministry of home affairs]
would do things the MOD [ministry of defense] would not be aware of. There is
very little coordination on a day-to-day basis. With coordination between the
two it would be possible to provide access to foreign officials without
jeopardizing our security."
Referring to an incident that is still causing controversy, he said: "A lot is
being made, for instance, of former US ambassador Robert Blackwill being
allowed by former minister of home affairs Lal Krishan Advani to visit the
sensitive Nathu La Pass with the Chinese on the other side of the border
videotaping his every movement. But if he went on an Indian military
helicopter; then I don't see how this would compromise our security. That would
happen only if he went on an American military plane that would undoubtedly be
electronic intelligence mounted. Also, there is criticism of his being briefed
by army officers. But you know as well as I do how bland military briefings
are. I very much doubt Blackwill would have learnt anything much on the trip if
it was managed well."
Sources in the defense ministry have recently briefed a section of the media
about several notes of dissent that had been sent to the central government
opposing the access to the northeast being given to the US military. As such
notes can only be sent through proper channels and be forwarded to the
government by the chief of a military wing, it has to be assumed that this has
taken place at that level. And if that is the case, it has to be further
assumed that a policy review must be under serious consideration by the
government. But Asia Times Online could not get any confirmation of the same
from either the MHA or the MOD.
Some officers, meanwhile, warn against making much of the US interest in the
region. A retired major-general, for instance, told Asia Times Online: "The US
is interested in every part of the world. Why should it not be interested in
the northeast? It has signed Status of Forces Agreements [SOFAs] with perhaps
92 countries, including Bangladesh. It must be able to access our borders from
the Bangladesh side. What is the big deal, if it is also given access from our
side?" (SOFA would facilitate unhindered entry of US troops into Bangladesh.
They would not need to comply with even visa and passport formalities.
Equipment and supplies would also be allowed to be brought in without being
subjected to customs formalities, though the Bangladesh army would not have
similar facilities in the US.)
Former Indian navy chief Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, however, strongly disputes
this line of argument. Commenting on this, he told Asia Times Online: "I can
only say that where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise." Reflecting on
episodes like the former US ambassador visiting the strategic pass at Nathu La
and the present ambassador disregarding established diplomatic procedures in
directly dealing with Indian states and thus setting a precedent to be followed
by other diplomats, unless strongly countered now, Bhagwat pointed out that the
Indian military had been totally opposed to foreign entry into the northeast
and other strategic and sensitive areas.
Bhagwat revealed that top military officers had repeatedly cautioned the
political leadership on this issue. A US ambassador being allowed to closely
interact with military officials guarding India's borders with China and
Myanmar, as Blackwill was by the Vajpayee government merely because he had
formed a close rapport with Advani, is a precedent that needs to be strongly
countered so that it doesn't become regular practice, he said.
But why should India be afraid of US military or diplomatic personnel visiting
the northeast? Insisting on anonymity, a former brigadier who is a member of
several expert committees advising the government at various levels explained
the issue to Asia Times Online: "India is not an ally of the US, despite all
the talk of India and the US being natural allies and so on. Also, we are
making nukes, while the US is spending at least a couple of billion dollars
annually in countering nuclear proliferation. They clearly don't like India
being or remaining a nuclear power. This means we have essentially an
adversarial relationship. Both countries may be sincere in seeking to better
ties at various levels; yet this essential fact remains and we have to always
keep this in mind. A large portion of the billions invested in
counter-proliferation since 1995 has been earmarked for India."
But what could visiting US personnel do that would amount to a breach of Indian
security? He explained further: "They could leave behind unmanned sensors in
strategic locations. They need to find out locations of our various military
installations. And yes, they do need to physically verify on the ground what
they see from their satellites. There is no question that these people have
been mapping these areas. Visits and close interaction with military personnel
gives them the opportunity for subversion of our personnel. They are always on
the lookout for human intelligence; after all there is a limit to how far
electronic intelligence can go. They have to try and work out our nuclear
doctrine. They need to get to know where our raw materials are coming from and
where our bombs are being made. They need to know our deployment areas. There
are sensitive locations called red areas that they should not see. We draw
inner lines where even Indian citizens would not be allowed; but if Americans
are left alone in the nearby areas, and given the slavish mentality of many
Indians towards the white complexion of our former colonial masters, who knows
where they might reach."
Another point he made was that while the US military is desperate to understand
Indian military doctrines and functioning as decades of Cold War deprived them
of close interaction, Indians don't have a reciprocal need as "the Americans
are an open book". This why many in the military believe that close interaction
between the two militaries is more advantageous to the US than it is to India.
In any case, India doesn't have global ambitions and knowledge of US doctrines
or vulnerabilities is not much use to it. On the other hand, acquainting the US
with its own strong points and vulnerabilities might some day prove costly to
India, as no one knows where America's ambition of world domination would lead
it, he added.
One retired major-general, however, tried to rationalize both the US need to
access the sensitive, insurgency infested northeast and the government of
India's compulsion to allow it to do so. For instance, Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh has just approved a US$2.6 billion development package partly from the US
for two restive northeastern states, Assam and Manipur. "You cannot receive
such large development assistance packages from a country and restrict its
personnel from visiting those areas for whom the financial package is meant.
They have to oversee how the fund is being utilized. Even if this is a ruse and
they are going for ulterior purposes, there is not much the government can do
about it."
Also, in his view India cannot be shouting from rooftops in this post September
11 world that a new sovereign Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship is in the
making in the northeast and expect the US not to want to get involved. He
referred to a recent series of articles written by the disinvestment minister
in the previous government, Arun Shourie, in the newspaper Indian Express in
which Shourie quoted intelligence reports to substantiate his fears of
Pakistani intelligence working towards this end in the northeast of India with
the help of sections of the Bangladesh army and ruling fundamentalists. Shourie
says that Islamic fundamentalism and its ally, left-wing extremism, are
responsible for grave threats to India, including the creation of a new Islamic
state, which in itself justifies US concern.
To appreciate this point, it is essential to quote from Shourie's article. He
wrote: "T V Rajeswar [former director of India's intelligence bureau], at
present the governor of Uttar Pradesh, had gone public with his warnings. He
had warned that [because of] the way we were shutting our eyes, a real prospect
had arisen that, after Pakistan and Bangladesh, a third Islamic Republic would
be carved out in the sub-continent. In important articles in The Hindustan
Times, [Rajeswar] had drawn attention to the districts bordering Bangladesh,
and the vast and strategic region whose demographic composition was getting
changed. From these figures, he had advanced two warnings. First, 'There is a
distinct danger of another Muslim country, speaking predominantly Bengali,
emerging in the eastern part of India in the future, at a time when India might
find itself weakened politically and militarily.' And second that the danger is
as grave even if that third Islamic state does not get carved out as a
full-fledged country."
With reference to this and other such writings and statements from right-wing
Hindu fundamentalists, the retired brigadier and now defense analyst said:
"With such fearsome dangers lurking in the country's northeast, how can the US
remain unconcerned. After all, it is engaged in a war against Islam
sugar-coated as a 'war against terror'. Even if we accept that US intentions
towards the Muslim world are as benign as it claims, still the fact that it is
engaged in an ongoing war cannot be denied. If we are so afraid of some
districts in a couple of Indian states acquiring a Muslim-majority status, then
we too would do better to become strategic partners in the US fight against
Islam rather than being afraid of US intrusion into areas that are left wing
and Muslim dominated."
Sultan Shahin is a New Delhi-based writer.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us
for information on
sales, syndication and
republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2004 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette South Asian Sex News
|
|
|
