Pakistan army veto hurts India-China interests (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER MADHAV NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/madhav-nalapat

Salman Khurshid and Wang Yi in Beijing on 5 May. PTI onday will see the arrival of Li Keqiang, China's new Prime Minister, to India. Thanks to the ill-timed and indefensible entry of some People's Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers into the territory around the Daulat Beg Oldi airstrip in Ladakh, he will land in a country deeply suspicious of Beijing. For weeks after the 15 April incursion, the media in India was filled with blood-curdling rhetoric from those whose only exposure to combat is watching it on television. Because of the neglect of indigenous private industry by the Ministry of Defence since the 1980s, this country has earned the doubtful accolade of being the world's top purchaser of armaments. Hence, any talk of war would be music to the ears of arms manufacturers in Russia, France and other countries that together are the sources of India's growing purchases of weapons systems, whether land, sea or air. Not surprisingly, the intelligence agencies of these countries, especially France, which is now desperate to stave off depression through a boost of its arms sales, specialise in planting reports about the imminence of an attack by China on India. The 15 April incursion was itself presented as at the very least the prelude to a full-scale attack on India. Certainly, the Chinese military has within its ranks several individuals, who look at India through lenses manufactured by the Pakistan army. In the past, it was US policy towards India that was subject to a veto by the Pakistan army, the factor which prevented Bill Clinton from taking advantage of the opportunity provided by the 1992 collapse of the Soviet Union and a non-Nehru family PM to forge an alliance with India. The Clinton administration was obsessed with Kashmir and allowed the chance to slip, much as the Kennedy administration had in 1963, and for the same reason, the impulse to get India to surrender that part of Kashmir, which was in its possession before Jawaharlal Nehru's 1949 cease-fire decision took effect. Indeed, despite the adoration that Monica Lewinski's partner in aerobic exercise excites in India, the reality is that the Clinton administration was viciously hostile to India, not only in the matter of Kashmir, but on the issue of India's nuclear program and its need to ensure high-tech platforms. Subsequently, it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who led the successful charge within the so-called Obama (but in actuality Clinton Lite) 2009-2012 administration to deny India the hi-tech exemptions, which would have ensured that US companies had an edge in business dealings with India. Hillary Clinton's love for India has mostly been expressed in visits to ethnic restaurants in pricey hotels in India and not in more practical ways. Until China escapes from the death-grip of the Pakistan army's Indiaphobia, relations between Beijing and Delhi will continue to be hostage to the PLA's Pakistan-centric view of India as a threat rather than as China's biggest international opportunity. In telecom, energy and infrastructure, only the India market can allow Chinese companies to win back the markets lost as a result of the EU slowdown. Chinese companies price their offerings about 30% to 40% cheaper than do their international competitors, and hence are attractive to Indian corporates looking at options which would enable the consumer to have the benefits of telecom and electric power at rates other than extortionate. Unfortunately for them, the PLA's friskiness on the border (which it has ensured remains undelineated) threatens to have the effect of blocking access in India to Chinese companies. Hopefully, President Xi and Premier Li will be able to educate the generals about the fact that the economy, which is sustaining PLA expansion, needs India if it is to continue to grow near the levels seen during the past three decades. It is time Beijing overrode the Pakistan army's veto and exchanged maps with India which show the exact ground position of troops on both sides of the frontier. Not only with India but across the arc of Asia, the PLA has become almost as negative a factor for China as the Pakistan army is for Islamabad. The immense goodwill secured during earlier decades because of Deng Xiaoping's policy of peaceful rise is being dissipated by muscle flexing directed at India, Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines. Should the Obama administration shed its Clintonite coils and go in for a 21st century version of Lend Lease, transferring surplus military equipment to these four countries, Washington would gain two additional allies (in India and Vietnam) besides Manila and Tokyo. The PLA's aggressive posturing is helping to create an Asian military alliance which excludes China, besides helping international competitors to get regional governments to block Chinese competition. Until the military is brought under control, China will not be able to actualise the vast synergy possible between itself and the neighbourhood.

S&P sacrificing India for the European Union (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  NEW DELHI | 19th May 2013

he recent warning by Standard & Poor's (S&P) of a future downgrade of India to junk status is motivated by the urgent need to divert funds worldwide from emerging markets back to the European Union, claim key players in the London and Singapore financial markets off the record. "Should Greece go under, and this is what its fundamentals indicate, the resultant domino effect will finally claim France, which is incapable of implementing the reform measures needed for fiscal stability", an analyst said. Hence, he claims, "the need to divert funds back into the EU" from emerging markets such as India. An analyst in Singapore estimated that "more than $30 billion deposits would almost immediately flow back to developed markets from India should there be a ratings downgrade". He warned that "although the fundamentals in India warrant an upgrade rather than a downgrade, the interest of the agencies is their own markets, and to try and secure these, they are ready to sacrifice India". Those in touch with the rating agencies refute this by saying that no such trade-off exists, and that "our ratings are fair". Given their sorry record during the 2007-09 financial crisis and their persistent refusal to admit that Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain (otherwise known as the PIGS) are bankrupt, there are not too many takers for such an endorsement. Investors, many in developing markets in South Asia, East Asia and West Asia, have lost close to US$4.2 trillion during 2007-09 "because they relied on the misleading and wholly inaccurate rankings given by these agencies on the financial instruments they held," a Singapore banker pointed out, adding that "investors in Asia have learnt nothing from that crisis. They continue to trust their savings with the same western financial conglomerates that caused them to make such huge losses just a few years ago." A London analyst at a merchant bank warned that "the agencies know that telling the truth to Asian investors about the situation in Europe will cause panic, and are hence once again giving certificates of health even to those countries in the EU that they know are flat broke". A Singapore analyst contrasted the "over-optimistic rankings" given to entities across both sides of the Atlantic with the more pessimistic evaluation given to India, and said that the reason for this "is to ensure a higher return for investors in North America and the EU out of India". He pointed out that "a downgrade would sharply increase the returns earned by those investors remaining in India", most of whom channel their moneys through the same financial institutions that "have a vested interest in higher returns". This allegation is denied by sources within top US and EU financial firms as "figments of a hyperactive imagination". What is, however, clear is that these entities are making a lot of profits out of India because of the foreign fund-friendly policies adopted by Team Manmohan. An economist at a Singapore financial enterprise pointed out that "investible cash is mostly there in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and in China, Japan and Taiwan", and wondered why India was "ignoring these markets and continuing to look to the West for deliverance". It may be mentioned that intelligence agencies within Government of India remain opposed to direct FDI from China and in several instances from the GCC. "This suits the financial conglomerates in the West, who want any funds flowing to India to be routed through them, for them to increase their profits and to regulate the flow of cash to India," a London banker said. While the rating agencies deny suggestions of bias, others in the industry warn that the threats of a downgrade are ploys to divert money to collapsing European markets and to increase the already high returns from placing funds in India. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/sap-sacrificing-india-for-the-european-union

Imran Khan: Favourite of NATO & Taliban (PO)

M D Nalapat

Friday, May 17, 2013 - It is the easiest task in the world to influence commentators in the NATO bloc. Any individual who socialises with them, breaks bread, quaffs wine and enjoys the company of the opposite sex is seen as a “liberal”, a “person like us (PLU)”, thereby deserving of support. Or, if the mannerisms and lifestyles of such favoured folk deviate from the NATO-bloc norm, all that is needed to win the favour of media in the military bloc is to endlessly repeat such catch phrases as “human rights”, “freedom” or “self-determination”. Libya is a recent example of the way in which groups whose core ideology is toxic to western precepts won the backing of a gullible and reckless Nicholas Sarkozy.

Sadly, there is no statue in Benghazi or Tripoli to commemorate the man who was instrumental in the downfall of Muammar Kadhafi, the leader who followed the advice of his son Saif to surrender his WMD and his secrets to the UK and the US in exchange for protection. That amnesty lasted for less than nine years. By 2011,Kaddafy’s 2003 surrender of his fighting capacity was forgotten, and money, training and weapons given to the groups warring against his regime. Paris was only responding to the cues tossed in their direction by big buyers of French armaments (as well as fripperies). Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE wanted Kadhafi to go, a desire shared by Turkey, which has under R T Erdogan adopted the same geopolitical vision as the GCC. Forgotten is the fact that the ruling families of the GCC have reached their eminence because they were willing to fight against Turkey during the time of the Ottoman Empire. As discussed, the reason why Francois Hollande backs the same groiups supported by the Ankara-Doha-Riyadh alliance (or ADR for short) is his anxiety to please some of the largest buyers of French defense equipment.

Now that India is paying out more than $20 billion to purchase French military aircraft, thereby saving the industry from closure at the expense of jobs in India, the other likely markets are mostly within the GCC and ASEAN, and Hollande is hoping that the lifting of the EU arms embargo on Syria will quickly be followed by orders for defense equipment from Doha, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh.

As for the UK, it is no secret that London is the destination of much of the moneys made by the GCC countries from the sale of oil. To ensure that these important customers of the high-cost and clearly risky UK financial markets continue to trust London with their immense capital hoard, it is vital that David Cameron fulfill the desire of these capitals to get the EU embargo lifted. Although Germany does sell defense equipment to the GCC, as well as act as a magnet for some GCC cash, it is to the credit of Chancellor Angela Merkel that this self-interest has not prevented her from being open about the risks involved in arming those who are visibly cannibalistic in their nature. Tragically, such fiends use the name of a great religion to boost their support base, when each of their actions is wholly contrary to the great faith of Islam.

France and the UK have joined US Secretary of State John Kerry (who has the same outlook as the Clintons when it comes to foreign policy, that only Europe counts and within the rest, only those with cash to spare matter). It was Hillary Clinton who caused the long-term disaster to US interests that is the “Arab Spring” and the Libya-Syria intervention, and it will be John Kerry who continues down the path blazed by Hillary Clinton, the spouse of the US President who enabled the Taliban to take power in Kabul in 1996.

It was, again, Hillary Clinton who ceaselessly weakened the civilian government of Asif Ali Zardari by her hidden and overt interventions in matters internal to Pakistan, and it was Hillary who had a distaste for Mian Nawaz Sharif, the new civilian leader of Pakistan. Had Hillary her say, it would have been Imran Khan and his party who would have got a majority in the Pakistan National Assembly. The handsome and articulate Niazi Pathan leader knows how to mix and mingle in NATO-bloc society, just as Benazir Bhutto did in the past. However, the fact is that Imran Khan has been assisted in his electoral quest by none other than the Taliban, which exempted his party from the murderous assaults to which it subjected the others.

Several million voters who favoured the ANP and the PPP in particular were afraid to come out and vote because of the fear that they would not return from the exercise alive. This, plus the boost given to Imran Khan’s party, ensured that they were hopelessly weakened, while the electoral victory of the Lion of the Punjab, Mian Nawaz Sharif, was a borderline triumph rather than the comfortable majority he would have won, had voters not been confused and intimidated by the Taliban and the groups supported by them. Watching the crowds of affluent youth waltzing along with Imran Khan, it is impossible not to be reminded of the way similar youth joined hands with Ayatollah Khomeini to throw out the Shah of Iran, only to find themselves in a worse position than before.

Those in the NATO bloc who are admirers of Imran Khan — and this columnist was recently in London, and noted that the English countryside is dotted with stately homes where boosters of the Niazi Pathan leader stay — will need to look at the way he manages Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, now that he has seized the province from the ANP. His well-wishers, the Taliban, will seek to enforce their own version of law in the province, and make it a safe haven for their fighters. Imran Khan will very soon come face to face with the reality that Pakistan has far more dangerous elements than those backing Asif Ali Zardari or Nawaz Sharif. In the view of this columnist, the former cricketer has entered into a Faustian bargain with groups that seek nothing less than the destruction of the Pakistan state.

It was telling that Imran was the only major politician specifically exempted from the Taliban’s vicious assault on democracy. Not that any of his NATO-bloc admirers bothered about such a choice of friends. Indeed, in his rush to come to power, Imran Khan has made compromises that will severely limit his freedom of action in the province that he now controls. Should he convert Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa into a Taliban stronghold, rather than join hands with the ANP to weaken and in time eliminate the militia, he will be doing a disservice to Pakistan.

Of course, guided as they are by the extremist-infiltrated intelligence agencies of some of the West Asian states, the NATO bloc is likely to turn as blind an eye to this development as they did to the steady and largely silent growth of the Taliban in Afghanistan during 2005-7. However, for the many well-intentioned people who supported him in the elections, the way he administers this crucial frontier state will be core in deciding whether, by dancing with wolves, Imran Khan has become a problem rather than a solution.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=207028

CBI not a caged parrot but a hound dog of Authority (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER MADHAV NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/madhav-nalapat

CBI director Ranjit Sinha (right) during the investiture ceremony of 16th batch of CBI sub-inspectors in Ghaziabad on Friday. PTI shwani Kumar has been known in Delhi more for his stylish hairstyle than for anything related to his politics. Along with Anand Sharma and others equally schooled in ways of charming the powerful, he has formed a prominent part of the Delhi "inside track", i.e., those with access to the founts of authority. With his selection as Law Minister, reportedly because both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as well as his immediate family have a deep reserve of personal affection for him, Ashwani Kumar entered into a new stage of orbit, where from a supplicant he became a "decider", in the language of George W. Bush of Iraq. Because precedents are important in law in India, with several arguments being based on what is said to have taken place in faraway locations during times long gone, Law Minister Ashwani Kumar followed the precedent adopted by his predecessors and took a personal interest in the work of CBI investigators. Should there ever be an honest probe into the functioning of the CBI over the past two decades, it will become clear that the so-called "independent watchdog" is in reality not so much a "caged parrot" as a faithful hound dog of Authority. Indeed, in practice, deferring to the views of the Prime Minister's Office and the Law Minister by the CBI is standard practice. Should any enquiry be ordered into the Ashwani-CBI episode, it will have very little effect except on the political career of Kumar and his boss Manmohan Singh. What is needed is for an independent commission to examine the entire two-decade functioning of the CBI and determine the extent to which the agency's conclusions were tainted by orders conveyed by the government of the day. A few simple parameters would suffice. Rather than the voluminous list of cases that the CBI is called upon to investigate, and which has been the source of the lifestyles of former CBI officials and their families, a list of just ten top cases can be culled out, and the investigation confined to just this list. Clearly, it would need to cover each government that has been in power since 1993, beginning with that headed by P.V. Narasimha Rao and going on to Deve Gowda, I.K. Gujral, A.B. Vajpayee and now Manmohan Singh. In particular, certain spectacular failures of the CBI need to be examined in minute detail, such as the trajectory of cases against prominent politicians and fixers, both domestic and foreign. All too often, the CBI has lost cases in court, giving rise to the suspicion that the agency was less than eager to ensure that justice got meted out. Was there any involvement of the then PMO or the then Law Minister in such cases? Was there an order to the CBI to lose, and was the brief given to the lawyers arguing the case for the prosecution vitiated by such an interest in ensuring that the guilty escape? In several instances, the CBI has managed the feat of losing cases in court that ought to have been walkovers. As everywhere else, there is a tendency in India to go for simple solutions. Anna Hazare, with his invaluable experience in public affairs, is of the view that a Jan Lokpal with the same powers that Zia-ul-Haq enjoyed in Pakistan would be able to finish off corruption in this country. This miraculous being would have the time and the will, besides the patience, to investigate cases of corruption involving any of several million government officials. Certainly, especially if someone within the Anna Hazare retinue became the Jan Lokpal (hopefully someone who has had the privilege of a "lal batti" on his car) this scourge of the wicked would never himself turn corrupt. There are those, and this columnist is among them, who are cynical enough to say that the Jan Lokpal as conjured by Anna Hazare and his acolytes would very soon be a wealthy man, as would those having access to him. Meanwhile, corruption in India would continue to gallop. The same sorry result will happen if action gets taken only against Ashwani Kumar, who has clearly obeyed one order too many from his superiors. What is needed is a commission comprising not just of present and retired folks on government salaries, but chosen from among the overwhelming majority of the population who have all their lives been at the receiving end of the endemic mismanagement which passes for governance in India. This team should delve into the 10 cases selected and at the very least, name and shame those connected with the functioning of the CBI who have bought and sold justice for thirty pieces of silver. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/cbi-not-a-caged-parrot-but-a-hound-dog-of-authority

Foreign banks using NRIs to make money (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  New Delhi | 11th May 2013

Bankers are worried RBI’s high interest rate regime is working on behalf of foreign banks. he interest rate regime of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has resulted in a bonanza for both foreign banks as well as Indians holding offshore accounts. Bankers in India are concerned that the RBI's high interest rate regime is working on behalf of foreign banks, working through a section of the NRI community to make huge profits through the NRI deposit route. A central banker warned that "much of the money coming into NRI deposits is in fact money borrowed specifically from foreign banks, for placing in Indian banks as dollar deposits. He pointed out that foreign bank loans "seldom charge more than 4% interest, while the NRI depositor gets 7.5% on his dollar deposit with an Indian bank". Bankers in Dubai, Singapore and Hong Kong in particular said that it is becoming a common practice for some banks to make loans to NRIs, which are immediately placed as NRI deposits in India. "If the RBI were to simply ask if the money coming in were own funds or borrowed, the extent of the scam would become immediately clear", a senior banker in Mumbai said. A central banker claimed that "the top brass at the RBI is so deferential towards foreign banks that oversight of their arbitrage and speculative activities is minimal". Other RBI contacts refuted this, saying that no such bias (towards foreign banks) existed within the RBI leadership. A senior banker, just retired, claimed that citizens of India having huge illegal offshore accounts "were now sending family members abroad as NRIs so that they could recycle the offshore funds in NRI accounts", thereby earning a high interest rate, in contrast to the much lower or even zero interest paid by many Swiss banks. An official in Delhi tracking money flows claimed that several of the NRIs, who are making huge deposits in Indian banks, do not have salaries enough to afford such deposits. He added that "an effort should be made by the RBI to have a Know Your Customer (KYC) for NRI accounts, so as to identify those who are not genuine investors but are merely conduits for foreign banks eager to make money out of the Indian banking system". Also, a scan needs to be made of Indian nationals recycling illegal cash through relatives sent abroad for the purpose. Of course, looking at recent Cobrapost exposes, it would appear that KYCs are largely a farce in India as well. A retired official in an economic department of the government pointed towards the government's disinterest in introducing a scheme of Infra Bonds for those holding money abroad. "Is this because in such a case, the money would be locked up for five or ten years, but NRI deposits can be withdrawn at any time?" he asked, pointing out that "politicians and officials in India have much more money abroad than businesspersons and therefore tweak policy to favour themselves rather than the country." He added that much of the bulge in NRI deposits, despite hard times abroad, was because "banks operating in select financial centres abroad have discovered that the NRI deposit route is the perfect way to milk the Indian banking system because of the much higher interest paid as compared to their competitors abroad". Another official was apprehensive of "the instability caused by such hot money being treated as bona fide deposits by Indian banks, and used as justification to make loans, many of which may become non-performing assets (NPAs) because of economic woes". He pointed out that NPAs in India are on track "to cross Rs 550,000 cr before the next Lok Sabha elections in 2014". A senior official said that Finance Minister P. Chidambaram is "fully aware of the devastation that a ratings downgrade would cause to the banking system in India, by leading to a huge surge in redemptions of NRI deposits". He credited the FM with "doing the best possible job to prevent a downgrade, given the RBI's blindness to foreign banks using loans to NRIs to create an artificial bulge in NRI deposits". He wanted clear KYC norms to be effected for such deposits "so that the scheme does not become a conduit for speculation by foreign banks or Indian holders of black money in foreign banks". As for the Prime Minister, the consensus of these sources was that Manmohan Singh shared the reported bias of the RBI top brass towards foreign banks, despite the many scandals that have come to light about them. Of course, should Singh shed his aversion to a disclosure scheme for Indian nationals holding offshore accounts, such a measure may bring grief to foreign banks, but would benefit the economy by bringing in money via infra and other bonds that are not subject to the risk of a sudden withdrawal. However, steeped as they are in the culture of the foreign financial institutions benefitting from the absence of such an amnesty, the prospect of the PM's economic team agreeing to such a step seems distant. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/business/foreign-banks-using-nris-to-make-money

Pakistan elections and India (PO)

M D Nalapat

Friday, May 10, 2013 - During the 1980s,official and “semi-official” ( ie NGOs,commentators and academics close to those in government) unhesitatingly backed Benazir Bhutto,the articulate and attractive daughter of the founder of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (or “Zulfie” to his many friends in India). When Benazir became the first lady to hold the post of Head of Government in any modern Muslim-majority country,there was celebration in Delhi.The expectation was that she would sharply tone down the rhetoric against India,and would work towards the normalisation of ties that was envisaged by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi at Shimla in 1972.

At that conference,where unbiased obsevers believe Z A Bhutto got the better of the Indian PM, more than 93,000 PoWs held after the 1972 war were sent home to Pakistan,without any binding commitment from Rawalpindi about accepting the ceasefire line in Kashmir as the international boundary between India and Pakistan. Bhutto played skilfully on the distaste of policymakers in India towards the Pakistan military,telling his interlocuters that only by strengthening his position by - in effect - unconditionally releasing the PoWs could it be assured that there would never again be military rule in Pakistan. About Kashmir,if those participating in talks on the Indian side are to be believed, Bhutto claimed that “over time”,he would ensure that the 1948 ceasefire line got accepted as the boundary. However,once he got the PoWs back as well as other steps which reversed the military gains for india of the 1971 war,Prime Minister Bhutto took no steps whatsover to convert the Line of Control into the international boundary.To this day,the LoC remains exactly that.the LoC.

And when daughter Benazir took power in the elections which followed the death of General Zia,after a brief period of bonhomie when Rajiv Gandhi was still Prime Minister,she reverted to the hawkish line of the Pakistan military,allowing the floodgates of assistance to those eager to replicate the Afghan jihad in Kashmir.Indeed,some of her speeches were extreme by any standard,such as her public characterization of then Kashmir Governor Jagmohan, who she said would be subjected to the “jag jag mo mo han han” treatment.Such language dismayed her many admirers in India,as did the fact that she participated fully in the recruiting,training and arming pf youth fro Kashmir eager to win freedom from India.

Despite her moderate views and Sufi outlook in her personal life,Benazir acted as a willing booster for Bill Clinton when the US President devoted resources to building up the militia that by 1994 became known as the Taliban, so much so that in the US and the EU,the role played by Washington in setting up the militua has been forgotten,and instead of the true “Fairy Godmother” of the Taliban, then US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphel,it is Benazir who is being accused in the strategic literature there of having midwifed the Taliban together with her friend and supporter Naseerullah Babbar. Analysts in the key member-states of NATO have an infinite capacity to airbrush away any mistake that they have made,pinning these instead on the dupes who carried out the policies originated within the NATO bloc,and so it is with the Taliban.

Apart from those who had been personal friends of Benazir Bhutto,and who were entranced by her poise and charm,policymakers in India saw the inheritor of Z A Bhutto as a hard-headed realist who would do whatever was needed to ensure that her influence remained intact. Indeed,more than Benazir,it was husband Asif Ali Zardari who was more willing to take on the religious radicals and the military,and would have done so four years ago,if he were not weakened by the fact that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backed the Pakistan army against the civilian government,and specifically supported General Kayani over President Zardari. This was despite the fact that Zardari is - the way the Bhutto family overwhelmingly remains - Sufi. He has not a trace of the conservative religious upbringing of his chief political rival Nawaz Sharif,whose family was the beneficiary of the goodwill of General Zia,who sought to ensure as close a fit as possible between the societies of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

What about Nawaz Sharif? The Sharif family’s close ties to the Pakistan Jamaat-i-Islami — which, unlike the Indian branch,is extremely conservative - may give some pause, but overall the perception of the PML(N) leader is that he is a man with whom business can be done. The Kargil conflict has not been laid at his door,although it is impossible that at least a single officer did not tell the then PM what his (hand-picked) Chief of Army Staff was planning. An ideal scenario would be for both Zardari and Sharif to work together to restore Civilian Prerogative over the military in Pakistan, but this is seen as unrealistic. However,the expectation is that Sharif would not plunge Pakistan into the full-throated backing for armed groups fighting the Indian state the way Benazir Bhutto did in her first stint in power. War between India and Pakistan is bad for business,and the Sharif family is seen as first and foremost a business family, with politics being only the means to ensure business success.

However,the real favourite so far as Delhi is concerned is Imran Khan. The former cricket captain captured not only several wickets but also many hearts in India,especially in the homes of the rich and well-connected. The elite of India have many friends within the elite of the UK,and in country homes across England, there are several welcome mats for the handsome Pathan batsman. Of course,should he come to power,Imran is likely to go the way of Benazir Bhutto,talking moderation but practicing a hawkish policy. The reality is that India does not have any champion within Pakistan,except the commonsense and peaceful instincts of the Pakistani people.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=206279

Afghanistan beckons China, India (China Daily)

M D Nalapat

The world is paying a heavy price, three times over, for the mistakes committed by the United States and its NATO allies in Afghanistan. During the 1980s, the CIA refused to help Pashtun nationalists eager to fight the Soviet Union, and instead confined its largesse to Pashtun (and other) religious extremists.

Historically, the Pashtuns have been a liberal and inclusive community. Until the CIA's war against Moscow in Afghanistan in the 1980s was followed by the US-backed Taliban takeover of the country during 1993-96, there was peaceful coexistence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as well between Muslims and non-Muslim communities such as, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists. Sikh, Hindu and Buddhist temples existed alongside mosques in Afghanistan.

But all that changed when NATO's support gave religious fanatics the upper hand over moderates. Today, very few non-Muslims remain in Afghanistan, while Shia-Sunni as well as other sectarian conflicts are multiplying. The CIA has converted a largely moderate community into one defined by trained fanatics within its ranks.

The US provided support exclusively for the fanatics and its military partners in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and for the Taliban in the 1990s. And not even the horror of September 11, 2001, was enough for Washington and its allies to change their old habit of supporting religious fanatics and ignoring moderates.

Within two years of the Northern Alliance (albeit with the help of the US) defeating the Taliban in mid-2002, NATO began taking measures to dilute the strength of the anti-Taliban forces and fund and arm religious fanatics. The reason: the Western military alliance believed the fanatics were a "reformed" lot and thus no longer posed a threat to security. Hundreds of millions of dollars were paid as bribe to warlords who subsequently helped re-energize the Taliban. As a result, by 2007 the Taliban had become a threat to NATO.

The US and its allies have met the same fate in Afghanistan that the Soviet Union did in the late 1980s, although skilful media management has thus far disguised this truth. Afghanistan, which was safe enough for NATO troops to travel by road from 2002 to 2005, is now off limits for the occupying coalition personnel. NATO troops now move around only in helicopters or aircraft, and that too in constant fear of being shot down. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan (to be completed next year) is perhaps in the same league as its withdrawal from Vietnam in the 1970s the inevitable consequence of a military disaster caused by defective strategy and self-defeating tactics.

The arming and training of extremists by the CIA, which began in the 1980s has created a security nightmare across the globe. It has worsened because of the unwise policy of handing over effective control of large parts of post-Muammar Gadhafi Libya to armed gangs, many of which have terrorist links. This mistake is being repeated in Syria.

Moreover, even after the Boston bombings proved once again how dangerous it is to back armed religious insurgents, in this case Chechens, US Secretary of State John Kerry is handing over to several groups $120 million, some of which will certainly end up in the hands of people planning attacks against the US and the European Union. It seems that NATO officials are no different from the Bourbon kings of France: it knows everything but understands nothing about religious extremism and its potential for destabilization.

Being neighbors of Afghanistan, both China and India have a vital interest in ensuring that post-2014 the country will not become a base for armed extremists to operate freely from once again.

Whatever its shortcomings, the Hamid Karzai-led government in Afghanistan is moderate. The same could be said about the opposition elements led by Abdullah Abdullah. In contrast, the Taliban remain a fanatic force, still unwilling to surrender Mullah Omar to justice, and still sheltering hundreds of al-Qaida elements. Should the Taliban retake Afghanistan (the US and the EU seem to be putting pressure on the Karzai government on behalf of the Taliban), the country will again become hell for women, smaller ethnic groups and Shiites, as well as Sunni Muslims who do not subscribe to the ultra-Wahabi views of the Taliban.

The Afghan people, including the Pashtuns, have suffered under the Taliban's rule and do not want a repeat of the Bill Clinton-sponsored experiment. They should be supported in their effort to safeguard their country against the fanatics who seek to destroy it. China and India both have suffered as a result of religious extremism. Both countries have an interest in ensuring moderates hold the reins of power instead of surrendering first a part and then all their power to the extremists, who seem to be supported by NATO. Afghanistan needs peace which only prosperity can provide, and for which Chinese and Indian investments are necessary.

Indeed, Afghanistan could become a theater for China-India cooperation. All three countries are victims of terrorism and all three seek a strong, multi-faith, multi-ethnic government in Kabul rather than a repeat of the religious dictatorship under the Taliban. It's time Chinese and Indian officials met with their counterparts in Kabul to unitedly prevent Afghanistan from falling into the hands of terrorists again. Kabul can bring Beijing and New Delhi together in a way that few alternatives can.

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2013-05/08/content_16483804.htm