India News Online » News Analysis » Security Issues » 

Defence Notes

	April 11, 2005

Pakistani charged with exporting N-devices



A Pakistani businessman, Humayun A. Khan, was charged with arranging the shipment to his homeland of equipment used in nuclear weapons development in violation of US export restrictions, the US Homeland Security Department has said.

A federal grand jury in Washington week indicted Khan, 47, on charges of conspiracy and violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of 35 years in prison, according to a news release from Homeland Security’s Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Khan is believed to be at large in Pakistan, said Dean Boyd, a Homeland Security spokesman. As part of the case, US authorities unsealed a guilty plea by Asher Karni, 51, an Israeli national who lived in Cape Town, South Africa, before his arrest in 2004. He admitted making unlawful exports to Pakistan and India.

US agents arrested Karni on Jan. 1, 2004, as he attempted to enter the US at Denver International Airport. His guilty plea last Sept. 14 to five federal felonies was kept under seal until this week.



Colonel exposed by Tehelka begins prison term Former Col. Anil Sehgal has begun a four-year prison term handed down by a military court that tried him and other senior officials in a defence scandal uncovered by the now defunct Tehelka website in 2001.

“The findings and sentence awarded to Col. Anil Sehgal by the General Court Martial were promulgated Friday at Ambala Cantonment after confirmation,” a Defence Ministry statement said.

Sehgal was charged with five offences under the Army Act that included unbecoming conduct and acting in a manner prejudicial to good order and military discipline.

He was found guilty on four charges. The trial began in 2004.



Indian space mission

In 2007, the world will see the first Indians take

a space holiday. The two Indians, whose names

are not being disclosed, are paying $20 million each for “this out of the world experience”.

The cost includes three months training at Nasa, the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Centre in Moscow and accommodation in Russia before the launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome aboard a Soyuz-FG launch vehicle.

They will spend eight days in space and live aboard the International Space Station. They will orbit the earth 120 times, travelling over three million miles at 26,720 kmph.

Till now, only two people have been space tourists - American businessman Dennis Tito in 2001 and Mark Shuttleworth, the first African in space, in 2002.

Space Adventures CEO Eric Anderson, in India to finalise the deal and impress other Indian millionaires, told this correspondent in an exclusive interview, “Space travel is today a trillion dollar industry. However, following the Columbia disaster, nobody wanted to go into space. So we couldn’t sell seats. The next flight is in 2006, when two people - an American and a Japanese - will go up. In 2007, the world will see the first Indians travel to space for a holiday. One of them will fly in fall, the other in spring.”

“India has a lot of billionaires. And I am certain more people will come forward to experience space travel. The Soyuz-FG launch vehicle goes from 0 to 17,000 miles per hour to reach orbit in nine minutes. It takes a day from there to reach the space station. Floating weightless in zero gravity for 10 days is a real high. Besides, the sight of earth from outer space is worth more than $20 million,” he added.

Individuals who wish to fly to the ISS need to be flight certified by passing the Space Adventures Orbital Flight Qualification Exam. So they have to go through 1,000 hours of training and are taught minute details about space, the shuttle, safety procedures, the launch vehicle and space suits. They also experience weightlessness in a zero gravity jet and learn how to live and operate aboard the ISS.

“In the ISS, the visitor will be given company by the four permanent members of the space station. There he can do many things to enjoy - write a book, explore science missions, make movies, broadcast live and be part of reality television. Mr Tito enjoyed photography and took pictures of the earth from 246 miles above its atmosphere. Mark used his time aboard the ISS to conduct his own research on AIDS.”

“Space travel is totally safe. The Soyuz TMA is recognised as one of the world’s most reliable spacecraft,” he said, adding, “Space will soon become a very popular tourist destination. Therefore we are trying hard to increase the present seat capacity of two tourists a year to eight passengers in the next five years.”





Chinese Premier’s visit

Guiding principles and trade on top of talks list

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is due to hold

talks with Prime Minister Manmohan

Singh on bilateral and other issues in New Delhi on April 11. Wen arrived in Bangalore on April 9. There besides holding talks with the State Chief Minister, the Chinese leader visited the Tata Consultancy Services, the ISRO Satellite Centre, the headquarters of Huwei (India) Ltd., an India-China joint venture, and the Indian Institute of Science.

Ahead of Wen’s visit, the Prime Minister had a meeting with his predecessor, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who had visited Beijing in June 2003. On April 10 the Special Representatives of the two countries, M.K. Narayanan and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Dai Bingguo, held talks on the proposed guiding principles or political parameters to address the boundary issue.

The Singh-Wen discussions will cover issues relating to the boundary question, including the work of the Special Representatives, CBMs and clarification and confirmation of the Line of Actual Control. Discussions would also focus on economic cooperation, including trade and investment which constitutes an important dimension of a stronger India-China bilateral relationship. The two powerful economies which are moulding their relationship now with a strategic outlook on the regional and global levels, are keen on removing other irritants in the bilateral ties. A feasibility study has been ordered for the two countries to sign a Free Trade Agreement.

Over a dozen agreements are expected to be inked during Wen’s visit. These include pacts in the areas of civil aviation, trade, Customs cooperation as well as water resources cooperation. The water resources management agreement is aimed at avoiding issues like the Parechu dam last year and cooperate in an exchange of information and expertise on the cross-border rivers. The agreement on civil aviation will allow for direct flights between the commercial capitals of Mumbai and Shanghai.

Among the focus areas of the Chinese leader’s visit will be upgradation of economic ties – an important dimension of Sino-Indian relations. A large business delegation is accompanying the Chinese Prime Minister. With the two-way trade estimated to touch $14 billion, China is slated to be India’s largest trading partner in the coming years.

A movement forward on the Free Trade Area arrangement to integrate the two biggest markets in the world is being expected. The joint study group, which was set up to explore the feasibility of the FTA will present its report and recommendations to the two leaders who will then decide on the future course of engagement.

On the outstanding boundary issue, India will make it clear to the Chinese leader that the issue cannot be left parked in the warehouse. New Delhi believes it must pro-actively resolve all outstanding differences and that the two countries “should not leave issues for another generation to resolve”, say official sources. In this, they identify the border issue as a major area that needs forward movement. To this end, the highlight of Wen Jiabao’s visit would be an agreement on the “guiding principles and political parameters” for the border issue that would pave the way for a mutually agreed framework to address the matter on the ground.

Also, Wen will be expected to articulate Beijing’s “authoritative” position on Sikkim. Although Chinese Ambassador to India, Sun Yuxi told newsmen in New Delhi last week that the Sikkim issue is “completely solved” and there is “no problem on it”, New Delhi is yet to get Beijing’s formal signature on Sikkim. “We would like to put that behind us”, sources in New Delhi said. New Chinese maps will depict Sikkim as part of India, New Delhi has been assured. But, India is yet to be fully satisfied with the Chinese assurance and is pushing for a formal and open declaration.

Another rankling issue is China’s position on India’s candidature for a permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Open support for India’s candidature to the Security Council is still a way away and the Chinese position is stuck at the Tang Jiaxuan formulation that China “understands India’s aspirations” and understands and supports a larger role for India in international institutions and the UNSC.

Sources say while China expresses sympathy for India’s aspirations as a major global player, “it needs to spell out its position” on the UN Security Council issue”. Last week, the G-4 countries – India, Brazil, Japan and Germany – were delivered a freezing message from China’s UN Ambassador, Wang Guangya who said, any decision on the issue should be made not by vote in the General Assembly but through consensus. There is thus genuine fear that the UNSC members China and the US, may succeed in scuttling the process even though Britain, France and Russia have expressed their support for India’s candidature.

While officials were tightlipped over what the guiding principles on the border issue were, sources said it would take into account aspects like geography, the profile of population and the existing legal framework for specific areas to work as a guide for the Special Representatives in future negotiations. The two sides are expected to firm up a protocol on CBMs flowing from agreements signed in 1993 and 1996 to maintain peace along the border.

Sources further say, agreement on the guiding principles would determine the future agreement in which details of territory swaps, if any, would be worked out when the representatives of both the countries meet next. During these discussions, India is likely to contest China’s claim over certain parts of Arunachal Pradesh.



Trade ties – Wen talks of FTA

The Chinese Premier has said a solution to the boundary issue was possible if the two sides showed mutual accommodation “while taking the reality into account.” In an interview with PTI in Beijing before he embarked on the South Asia tour which also took him to Pakistan and Bangladesh, Wen Jiabao who suggested that India and China handle their relations from a “strategic high ground”. India-China relations have entered a “new period of comprehensive cooperation” which far outweigh differences. He said both sides should view and handle the relations from a strategic high ground bearing in mind the larger picture and refuse to let questions left over from history disrupt and impede the development of bilateral relations.

Calling for a “broader and deeper” relationship in economy and trade between the two countries, he said this would not only serve them but also accelerate the process of regional economic integration. He said, there was “huge potential” for the two sides to step up trade and economic cooperation. Two-way trade in 2004 touched 13.6 billion dollars, 13 times more than what it was ten years ago, he noted. Maintaining that establishment of a free trade area between China and India has become a “logical agenda” item, the Chinese Premier expressed the hope that the two sides will soon begin a feasibility study on a free Trade Agreement.



Boundary dispute – India not willing to put it on backburner

Although India is not averse to developing trade links with China, it differs from the Chinese policy of leaving the boundary dispute in cold storage for the next generation to resolve. India would like to see progress in the talks on settlement of the boundary dispute side by side with the improvement of relations in other fields including a Free Trade Agreement. That is why India is keen that the Special Representatives of the two countries should expedite finalization of the guiding principles and political parameters for the settlement of the boundary dispute. The very purpose of appointing the two Special Representatives during the visit of the then Prime Minister Vajpayee was to give a political thrust through these special appointees by the two Prime Ministers, to the resolution of the boundary dispute.

For long, the Chinese have used terms such as a “fair and reasonable solution” based on mutual accommodation and mutual understanding”, but refrained from stating clearly what these mean in the public domain. Now, however, a former Chinese Ambassador to India, Cheng Ruisheng, has clearly spelt out what Beijing means by these terms. In May 2004, Cheng wrote in the official journal of the China Institute of International Studies that during the talks at the Vice-Minister level between 1981 and 1987, the Chinese side put forward five principles to resolve the boundary dispute : equality, friendly consultations, mutual understanding and mutual accommodation and fair, reasonable and complete settlement. As Premier Wen has arrived in India, it would appear that India and China are going to take one more step in the direction of a boundary settlement by agreeing upon guiding principles.

Given their earlier entrenched positions and the complexity of the issues involved, it is by no means surprising that progress has been slow since the tentative beginning of talks following Chinese Foreign Minister Huang Hua’s visit to India in 1981. A major breakthrough occurred during late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to China in December 1988 when India and China agreed to broaden bilateral ties in several areas, and to work towards a “fair and reasonable settlement” of the border dispute. In concrete terms, the visit yielded two important decisions – the holding of annual diplomatic consultations between their respective Foreign Ministers and the establishment of a joint ministerial committee on economic and scientific cooperation – besides the one to set up a Joint Working Group on the boundary issue.

It has been a long haul since. While the late P.V. Narasimsha Rao’s Prime Ministership saw agreement on important measures to ensure border tranquillity and the adoption of a set of confidence building measures, it was the visit by Vajpayee, to China in June 2003 that led to the appointment of Special Representatives by both countries to hasten progress in border talks and the opening up of India-China border trade through Nathu La Pass, leading to China’s subsequent recognition of Sikkim as an integral part of India. Significant progress has followed and the 15th meeting of the Joint Working Group on the boundary issue in Beijing on March 30 and 31 has reportedly finalised that the guiding principle in respect of a border settlement should be not to disturb settled populations and each other’s security interests. This has been a sensible step given the realities and, political observers say, that during Wen’s current visit, the effort should be to clinch a formal agreement on it to facilitate movement towards a final settlement of the border dispute.

Two key accords that have stood the test of time and improved the environment between Beijing and New Delhi are the agreements on maintenance of peace and tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control [September, 1993] and military confidence-building measures along the LAC [November, 1996]. While the first was signed during the visit of Narasimha Rao to Beijing, the second was agreed upon when President Jiang travelled to New Delhi. In June 2003, India and China accommodated each other’s concerns on Tibet and Sikkim. They now agree that neither Tibet nor Sikkim is an issue in their bilateral relationship. Also, during Vajpayee’s visit, the two sides agreed to the appointment of Special Representatives to explore from the “political perspective of the overall bilateral relationship the framework of a boundary settlement.” The Special Representatives have worked on a set of guiding principles which are likely to be formally issued during Premier Wen’s visit.

India has, however, played down the fact that any “guiding principles” agreement has not been preceded by complete agreement on what constitutes the Line of Actual Control. China has so far refused to exchange maps of its existing position in Aksai Chin, despite India being ready with its version. This would prompt the conclusion that any agreement on “guiding principles” would be purely cosmetic. China, it would seem, will not be verse to keeping the settlement of the boundary dispute in abeyance till a more opportune moment.

Political observers point out that from the time Mao Zedong smiled enigmatically at the Indian Ambassador in the mid-seventies to Deng Xiaoping’s famous interview suggesting that differences must await another generation for a resolution, it is China that invariably makes the first move. India is reduced to responding. This time too, Wen Jiabao bowled a veritable googly by asserting that the creation of a Free Trade Area between India and China had become a “logical agenda” in view of the ten-fold increase in bilateral trade in the past decade. Whether the Chinese initiative owes anything to the US offer to transform India into a world power, is a matter of conjecture. However, the timing of the offer seems to be linked with China’s anxiety to project itself as a world power that values economics above politics. Since the US discovery of India as a potential strategic partner is not unrelated to Washington’s concerns over China’s possible emergence as he dominant power in Asia, it would be safe to conclude that China will leave no stone unturned to reassure New Delhi that it has nothing to fear, apart from legitimate commercial competition from Beijing.

Clearly, signing an FTA with India is part of Beijing grand design of what is called he Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere that China has been trying to cobble together with countries on its periphery. The economic compact with India is, however, centred on Myanmar. The multitude North-South corridor [built by the Chinese over the years with their money] connecting China’s border with the warm water ports on the Bay of Bengal, other than providing routes for trade and commerce for the landlocked provinces like Sichuan and Yunnan constitutes one of its priority. This would provide China’s relatively poor interior direct access to Indian, Myanmarese and Bangladeshi markets. While China’s coastal areas have gained enormously from globalization, its landlocked hinterlands remain underdeveloped. China desperately wants to realise the “growth quadrant” because it sees in it the solution for the easing of tensions by reaching dangerous proportions between the rich coastal states and the impoverished hinterland provinces which more than any other single reason, threatens to tear that country apart. The ensuing inequalities post a significant threat to the Chinese experiment. But, these regions can prosper only if their natural trading zones are opened up and they can access ports outside China. Hence China has had a southward thrust in its trade policy for sometime. China is looking for a diversified market for its manufacturing and believes that free trade agreements are a faster way of securing these markets than WTO negotiations.

In the event, the FTA [and the larger umbrella concept of the “growth quadrant”] comprising the Chinese south-western States, India, Myanmar and Thailand] may be seen by the Chinese as an economic inducement to New Delhi to [1] nix the “Ganga-Mekong” programme which would offer an alternative east-west oriented set-up for infrastructure development and economic cooperation pivoting on India; [2] blunt the entente between India and the United States directed at containing China; [3] push Beijing’s tried and tested encirclement or counter-encirclement strategy vis-à-vis India, and most significantly, [4] prevent the break-up of a totalitarian China.

The strategic question New Delhi has to ask itself is this: should India help China resolve its internal problems or should it try and exacerbate the pressure cooker situation emerging within that country owing to differentials in economic development and frustrate China’s attempts to open up its hinterland via access to entrepots on the nearest seaway?



LoC bus unites divided Kashmiris

Suicide attack fails to dampen celebratory spirit

The “karavan of unity” on April 7, 2005

brought together the divided families of

Jammu and Kashmir when some 30 special bus passengers from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and about 20 from the Indian side of J&K crossed the newly renovated bridge, named by India the Peace Bridge, earlier known as Kaman Bridge. They came from their side of Kashmir, crossed the bridge on foot and boarded another bus to take to the two capitals of divided Kashmir. There were scenes of emotional upsurge as the passengers hugged each other and almost cried in joy as they were united after many years.

It is almost after 60 years that the Line of Control (LoC) has been opened for a limited bus service under an agreement between India and Pakistan to let the divided families meet and visit each other. The buses rolled on despite a terrorist attack on the Tourist Centre in Srinagar where the passengers were housed for safety reasons and the earlier threat by four militant groups to turn the buses into coffins if they were run.

It took more than eight hours for the vehicles to reach their destinations across the LoC as there were receptions all along the 170-km route. Those coming from the Pakistani side received an enthusiastic sendoff, first at the Government reception in Muzaffarabad, the PoK, capital and subsequently at every town and village along the 60-kilometre route to the last inch of territory under Pakistan control. Many cars and other vehicles followed the bus up to the LoC. The Government in Muzaffarabad had declared a public holididay. Political observers were unanimous that in decades PoK has not witnessed such spontaneity. People poured on to the streets to greeet the first travellers to cross the border, legally from Chakoti, in exactly five decades. For all the fears in their minds about the implications of the terrorist attack a day earlier, the passengers showed no signs of worry. The PoK authorities say that going by the current frequency of a fortnightly bus service to carry just 30 passengers on each trip, they have a waiting list of two years. About 1500 people are on the waiting list.

The April 7 schedule of the inauguration of the bus service remained undisturbed despite a suicide bomb attack on the Tourist Reception Centre in Srinagar where over two dozen passengers headed for Muzaffarabad were housed.

Unlike India, Pakistan played down this confidence-building measure (CBM), treating it, officially at least, as just any other new bus service within Kashmir. For instance, while from the Indian side the bus service was inaugurated at a colourful function presided over by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the presence of dozens of political leaders from the State and the Centre, from the Pakistani side of Kashmir, it was flagged off by the PoK “Prime Minister”, Sikandar Hayat Khan. Pakistan President Musharraf did not take a visible interest and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz turned down an invitation from Hayat Khan to be present at the function.

The travellers from the Pakistani side were treated to a colourful reception in Srinagar. A welcome committee received them with flowers at the gate of the Sher-e-Kashmir International Convention complex. They were later received by Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed. Military bands belted out Bollywood numbers on the banks of the Dal Lake. Firecrackers and cheers greeted the visitors.

Similarly, those from the Indian side of Kashmir had a treat waiting for them. As the bus left Srinagar after being flagged off by the Prime Minister, the travellers were cheered by people all along the route. As the bus reached Uri, the last border town in the Valley, there was unprecedented joy among local people. At Salamabad, hundreds of residents waited impatiently to greet the passengers while children waved flags, bands played on and peace slogans filled the air.

It took weeks of hard labour for both the Army and the civilian authorities to demine and repair the 18-kilometre-long stretch between the last post and the border town of Uri so that all was in place before the inauguration of the bus service. The last post has been named after Lt. Col. Kaman Singh Pathania. During his tenure as head of the Uri sector this post was established in 1956. The 18-km stretch of road between Uri-Kaman bridge has not been in use for the last 58 years and more than 400-metre-long stretch near the LoC was mined. These problems had to be overcome within a short period of time.



The Uri-Muzaffarabad Road

The Uri-Muzaffarabad Road was closed in 1947 after armed men from the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan raided Kashmir, leading to a war that India and Pakistan fought for a year. In 1948, when a ceasefire was announced, India controlled Kashmir on the eastern side of the border, leaving the region beyond the Kaman Point – the last post in India – to Pakistan. Ever since then, the two governments seldom allowed visits between people and after militancy first rocked the Valley in 1989 and there were no telephone links.

The Srinagar-Muzaffarabad Road – better known as the Jhelum Valley Road – was the only road that the people took for travel and trade. Till 1947, the Jhelum Valley was the mainline of Kashmir. Historically too, the road – and its adjuncts – have been openings to influences and communication. Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang mentions the ancient Jhelum Valley route – connecting Kashmir with Hazara, Taxila and Kabul – and Kashmir University historian Mohammed Ishaq Khan points out that this was the road that Sufism took to Kashmir.

The modern road came up in 1890, changing the lives of people who, till then, used the river for travel. Isolation broke down when the road opened up, but a barrier was created in 1948 after the tribals raided Kashmir. The road veers its way from Muzaffarabad to Pindi, Lahore, Aitsar and Delhi. The ruling PDP in Kashmir resurrected the demand to reopen the Uri-Muzaffarabad Road in the run-up to the 2002 State Assembly elections, and included it in its poll manifesto.

There has been a combination of factors at play in the opening up of the road ever since it was taken up by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. There were, of course, the usual arguments of protest when the idea was first mooted. Some feared that it would be a route for militants from across the border. It would be easier to keep an eye on militants who come in with passports, Vajpayee was believed to have retorted at a meeting attended by senior Kashmiri leaders. Those in favour of opening the road thought it would give an advantage to India. Seeing Muzaffarabad, many argued, would give a glimpse to people on this side of Kashmir of a comparatively underdeveloped region. Locals point out that Kashmir has a lot more to boast of – a relatively freer society, better education facilities and a more prosperous middle class.



Terrorists’ threat and attack on Tourist Centre

One day before the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus was supposed to roll, terrorists attacked and set aflame the safe house where passengers were lodged. They also torched the bus depot at the Tourist Reception Centre complex at the heart of Srinagar.

The four militant groups, which had threatened the drivers of the bus and its passengers – Al-Nasreen, Al-Aarafeen, Farzandane-Millat and Save Kashmir Movement, have claimed responsibility for the attack on the Tourist Reception Centre. However, the intelligence agencies attributed the attack to the Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Intelligence sources say that of the four above-mentioned lesser known outfits, Al Nasreen and Al-Aarafeen have emerged out of Lashkar-e-Taiba, while the so-called Save Kashmir Movement is a joint venture between LeT and Hizbul Mujahideen. Farzandan-e-Millat is an Hizbul affiliate. Security agencies suspect that hardliners among Pakistan’s ISI are out to scupper the pitch for the bus, billed to be the most important among the CBMs recently attempted.

The jehadi gangs and their IS handlers are opposed to the bus service since they view it as leading up to the eventual de jure recognition of the LoC as the border.

The intelligence agencies note that the tepid response of Pakistan to the bus service may only encourage the ISI hardliners and their protégés. Pakistan’s response to the idea to revive the bus service was negative and it came on board after New Delhi agreed not to insist that Muzaffarabad-bound passengers carried Indian passports.

Yet, this symbolic triumph of love over hatred despite heavy odds, is an occasion that calls for some celebration on both sides of the political divide. The Indian Government could not have been overly faulted if it postponed the inaugural run, citing the safety of passengers after the terrorist attack on the Tourist Centre. Only time will tell whether the commencement of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service will be a watershed in bilateral relations, but the strong, quiet support extended on the ground to the process of détente and normalization by people on both sides of the LoC is reassuring. Political observers say, while the opportunity provided for meetings between members of the divided families is of value in itself, this demonstration of the benefits of India-Pakistan amity at the people-to-people level can have implications over the longer term. It has always been India’s case that the dispute with Pakistan will be more easily resolved if the peoples of the two countries develop trust in each other through more frequent and easier interaction. With Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri expressing his appreciation for the merits of the Indian argument, there is hope that the two countries will intensify the process of positive engagement.



LoC – creation of India’s military mistakes

Meanwhile, a look into the genesis of the LoC issue can certainly help to better understand the trickiness of today’s situation.

At the end of October, 1947, raiders from Pakistan entered the Kashmir Valley. They had been ordered by their bosses in Karachi to celebrate Id [October-end] in Srinagar. Unfortunately for their Pakistani sponsors, they lost too much time looting, raping and arsoning in Baramulla. Maharaja Hari Singh realized the seriousness of the situation and was persuaded by V.P. Menon to sign the Instrument of Accession to India on October 26. The next morning, Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar. The Maharaja’s State was saved. After a decisive battle at Shalatang [outside Srinagar], the Indian troops began to chase out the retreating raiders. Lt. Gen. Sinha, the present J&K Governor, was a young Major posted at the Army headquarters in Delhi. He writes in his memoirs: “We advanced to Pattan, 17 miles from Srinagar, the same day and were in Baramulla the following afternoon. The enemy had been completely shaken and demoralized after the hard knock at Shalatang.” Four days after liberating Baramulla, the Indian troops liberated Uri on Nov. 13. The powerhouse at Mahura that provided much of electricity to the Valley was restored.

What was the next step? Brig. “Bogey” Sen and his officers needed to receive orders from the Army Headquarters to continue advancing though they all believed that this first success should be fully exploited “while the enemy was on the run”. According to Gen. Sinha, the recommendation to Delhi was that “we should continue to advance to Muzaffarabad on the Pakistan-Kashmir border and demolish the two bridges on the border over the Kishanganga at Domel and Kohala. Our troops should withdraw immediately thereafter. The brigade group in the Valley would be available as mobile reserve to deal with any further incursions by the raiders which in the circumstances appeared unlikely.”

At that time, Muzaffarabad could have been liberated in a few days, but the Army Headquarters decided otherwise. The army was ordered to stop its advance and divert its energy towards the garrison of Poonch. Gen. Sinha who says, the decision to stop the advance was taken at the highest Government level in New Delhi, adds that an advance to Muzzafarabad, when the enemy was off balance, would have been a risk worth taking. “It would have perhaps drawn the final curtain over operations in the Valley.”

What could have motivated the Government to abandon Muzaffarabad and Mirpur? The response is quite simple. These areas were ethnically, linguistically and culturally very different from the rest of the Valley. The Punjabi-speaking population of these areas was closer to one on the Pakistani side of the Jammu and Kashmir State border. The Maharaja, who as the only unifying factor for all the areas such as Gilgit, Baltistan, Ladakh, the valley or Jammu, complained bitterly to Sardar Patel (free India’s first Home Minister) that nothing was done to preserve the integrity of his State. The Maharaja was deeply unhappy that after the recapture of Baramulla and Uri there had been a standstill. He was so dejected that he told Sardar Patel that there was an alternative possible for him and that is to withdraw the accession. This was not acceptable to India.



Preparing for Musharraf visit : Track Two meeting

With Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s planned to visit to New Delhi less than one week away, back channel diplomacy is gaining ground . An important meeting between aides of the top leadership of India and Pakistan is on the cards in the coming days, expectedly in Dubai. From the Pakistan side, it will be attended by Tariq Aziz while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be represented by Satish Lambah, a former High Commissioner to Pakistan who has taken over the task of back channel parleys after the death of former National Security Advisor J.N. Dixit. On the other hand, Tariq Aziz, a confidant of President Musharraf, is the Secretary of the National Security Council. The Dubai meeting is expected to ensure that the Musharraf visit goes off smoothly. New Delhi obviously does not want any surprises and the effort will be to work out the entire programme in detail.

Gen. Musharraf will be coming to New Delhi on April 16 along with his wife and mother and will return to Islamabad on April 18. He will watch the Indo-Pak one-day cricket match on April 17 at the Firozeshah Kotla ground in New Delhi and later hold talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It is not yet clear whether there will be only one round of talks over dinner on April 16 or another session the next day. Sources in the PMO say Prime Minister Singh could meet Musharraf either on April 16 or 17. If the first meeting is inconclusive, since the two leaders are expected to discuss a whole gamut of issues , the second meeting will be planned. Gen. Musharraf is also expected to call on several other political leaders including Sonia Gandhi and BJP chief L.K. Advani who incidentally is expected to visit Pakistan in June this year.

The hype created in the two countries about the president’s visit has put pressure on their leadership to show some significant outcome of their second meeting. They had last met in September 2004 last year in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session. It is believed that since then the two leaders have kept in touch through back channel to keep the peace process going. Initially reluctant to elevate the visit to a summit level, Manmohan Singh responded favourably to the signals from Islamabad that Gen. Musharraf would like to combine his cricket visit with summit level talks with him. When asked by newsmen last week what the two leaders are expected to discuss, Manmohan Singh quipped, “When the two leaders meet they don’t discuss weather only.” The subsequent briefings from the Foreign Office have indicated that the Prime Minister will be open to discuss all outstanding Indo-Pak issues including Kashmir. However, he has made it clear that the talks on Kashmir should not be related to changing the borders and territories.

Sources say although it will not be a structured dialogue , on top of the menu will be the Kashmir issue and the Baglihar dam dispute . On Kashmir, though Musharraf is keen to show some progress, Singh has ruled out reopening the border issue. He is opposed to a redrawing of boundaries and a further partition on religious grounds. However, on the Baglihar issue, the Prime Minister is expected to show some flexibility. India, which has always preferred a bi-lateral resolution, held out the bait of some concessions but held them back after Pakistan took the issue of 450 MW Baglihar Hydro Power Project by India on the Chenab river in Doda district of Kashmir to the World Bank alleging that the construction of the dam constituted a violation of the Indus Waters Treaty. Since then, however, the World Bank has been perceived as being less enthusiastic on Pakistan’s petition than that country may have expected essentially clarifying its limited role. India said Pakistan’s objections had less to do with technicalities than with politics.

Political observers say there is a lot for the two leaders to talk about besides the various options to resolve the Kashmir dispute. More border openings in Jammu and Kashmir and Rajasthan after the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad border link-up. Water resources is another major issue that is threatening peace. It requires urgent attention and the two leaders will be expected to take this issue up in all seriousness, not to quibble or score points, but to work out a mechanism to tackle the current problems. The Indus Waters Treaty had worked so well for both countries, even through wars and tension. Concessions will have to be made and steps taken to ensure that misunderstanding over the sharing of river waters does not complicate bilateral relations further. Otherwise, this has the potential of turning into a major issue that can create much, and more, tension between the two neighbours as Kashmir. Little points are presently being scored by both sides. It is important for the two leaders to use their authority to break out of a mindset that tends to cripple efforts for peace.

At the same time, substantive issues are not really moving forward with decisions on SAFTA, trade and commerce a free flow of information and Siachen awaiting political clearance. Kashmir remains the sticking point as Pakistan is not willing to mover forward on these issues until options are discussed and the search for a solution begins in earnest. India has linked progress to an end to terrorism, and threats such as the recent one from the militants show that the issue does remain alive and that extremists and the terrorists are certainly not supportive of President Musharraf’s search for peace. He is caught in a bit of a blind alley, for he cannot do away with the militant groups altogether as they provide his surety for Kashmir. But he cannot do with them as well, as their agenda is assuming an independence of its own that takes away from his bargaining position with India. He will probably have to make a choice, and the progress of the peace process might just become dependent on that choice.

Meanwhile, the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) has decided to approach both President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when the Pakistan leader comes to New Delhi, with a resolution urging him to involve Kashmiris in the peace process and work for a settlement of the Kashmir issue within a specified time-limit.

In a related development, Musharraf is believed to have conveyed to the Hurriyat leadership that militancy and secessionism cannot be sustained for long in Jammu and Kashmir and that it is imperative they evolved a “political position in tune with the ground realities in Kashmir.” These details are part of a classified report prepared by the Union Home Ministry. Its says, Mirwaiz Omar Farooq, who met Gen. Musharraf in Sweden last October conveyed the Pakistan President’s message to the Hurriyat.



A.Q. Khan’s links with Al-Qaeda

It has now been revealed that the tainted

Pakistani nuclear scientists A.Q. Khan and

Bashirruddin Mahmood, a close associate of Khan, had a series of meetings with Al-Qaida chief, Osama Bin Laden and his close associate, Al Zawahiri, and others. According to the Pak weekly, Friday Times, after months of questioning and after being put to a lie detector, Bashirruddin Mahmood has admitted to having met Osama bin Ladan and other Al-Qaeda members repeatedly, including on the day the Al-Qaeda struck the twin towers of New York. The paper said another Pak scientist Sultan Mehmood, whose office was raided in Kabul by CIA in November 2001, told the American intelligence agencies that Osama had obtained fissile material from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan of Tahir Yuldashev, who is said to be hiding in South Wazirstan in Pakistan.He also claimed to have passed information regarding nuclear technology to Osama, but not discussed creating a “Hiroshima-like nuclear blast in America. The weekly also reported that Dr AQ Khan, who is involved in supply of centrifuge technology to a number of Islamic countries, was actively involved in activities of the Lashkar run by Hafiz Saeed. The United States is demanding accessed to A.Q. Khan, a demand rejected by Pakistan.

Other reports too point to the A.Q. Khan-led Black Network helping Al-Qaeda acquire nuclear or radioactive material. The seizure of 10 lead-lined containers filled with radio active material, probably Strontium 90 (which can be used to make radioactive bombs) at a remote border in Kazakhstan in early 2000 could be a pointer. The material was marked to Ahmadjan Haji Mohammad, located in Quetta, Pakistan. It was suspected that the material could have been smuggled out of Kazakhstan for the Al-Qaeda. Kazakhstan has long been suspected to be a key staging post for nuclear smuggling networks. It was one of the outposts of the Black Network where B.S.A. Tahir, one of Khan’s key associates in Dubai and Malaysia, had one of the offices of SMB computers.

A Pakistani newspaper reported in 1996 that U-235 (enriched uranium), stolen from Kazakhstan’s Ust-Kamenogorsk province, was available for sale in Peshawar. In 1997, Russian Police officials caught seven residents of Altay region for trying to sell 5.2 kg of U-235 from the Ulba Metallurgy Plant in Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan, for $100,000. The material was being bought for either Pakistan or China.

It cannot be a coincidence that at about the same time when the Strontium 90 consignment was seized, the Al-Qaeda was persuading Pakistani nuclear scientists to share their knowledge and expertise in making radiation bombs. At least two of the scientists, Sultan Bashirud-din Mahmood and Chaudhry Abdul Majeed, met with Al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin-Laden, in Afghanistan and discussed the possibility of producing radiological dispersal devices. There is another possible linkage between smuggling rings, terrorist groups and the Khan network which is yet to be investigated.

A significant clue to this possibility could be found in the US State Department designation of Dawood Ibrahim as a global terrorist. Dawood is wanted by the Indian Government for several acts of terrorist crimes. “Dawood”, says the State Department notification “ has found common cause with the Al-Qaeda, sharing his smuggling routes with the terror syndicate and funding attacks by Islamic extremists. Ibrahim’s syndicate is involved in large-scale shipments of narcotics in the UK and Western Europe. The syndicate’s smuggling routes from South Asia, Middle East and Africa are shared with Osama bin Laden and his terrorist networks. Successful routes established over recent years by Ibrahim’s syndicate have been subsequently utilized by Osama.”

During her visit to Pakistan, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took the first step to signal to Islamabad that Washington was not likely to continue to swallow Pakistan “fairy tales” on A.Q. Khan being solely guilty for that country’s nuclear proliferation to Iran, Libya, North Korea and an Arab country that is yet to be identified. At a Press conference following her meeting with President Musharraf, she said in the presence of Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri: “But I do not doubt that we all have an interest in making sure that this network cannot operate in any way. And perhaps, most importantly, we all have an interest in knowing how it happened so that we can safeguard against this kind of blackmarket entrepreneurship in the future.”

This statement is in sharp contrast to ones that used to come from Rice’s predecessor, Colin Powell, and President Bush that Musharraf had handled the proliferation issue to the satisfaction of the US and that Pakistan did not pose the kind of danger that is perceived to be emanating from North Korea and Iran.Rice’s statement suggests that, [i] the US does not fully know what happened and, [ii] in the absence of that knowledge, it does not know whether there can be a safeguard from this black market.



Nepal

Maoist blockade affects daily life

The 11-day bandh (work closure) called by

Maoists in Nepal has affected oil supplies

and other essential goods for the people. The movement of oil tankers from India and Nepal has been reduced to a trickle.. Only 20 of the normally 100 carriers are crossing the Raxaul border in Bihar to Birganj in Nepal . It is feared that if the situation does not improve quickly, there could be a fuel shortage in the coming days, according to an Indian Embassy official. Army and police personnel have been escorting vehicles on major highways leading to Birganj and other parts of the country. The Maoists called an 11-day general strike from April to protest against the King’s power grab . Amid fears of blockade of the capital Kathmandu, travel on the nation’s major roads without armed escort has been banned . An overnight curfew has been clamped on some highways and the cost of fuel and other essential good process has risen.

The blockade also had an impact on tourism, a key sector in the impoverished Himalayan Kingdom. According to the Tourism Board, the number of tourist arrivals fell by 35 per cent in March compared to last year. February and March are considered Nepal’s peak tourism season, usually bringing thousands of trekkers and climbers .

Even as the authorities were coping with the Maoist blockade, the country’s major political parties called for a massive nationwide protest on April 8, coinciding with People’s Movement Day, demanding King Gyanendra to fully restore democracy and revoke emergency. At least 350 people, including several former Ministers, were arrested in government crackdown on the protesters in the stir called by the five major political parties against the royal takeover. The former Prime Minister, Girija Prasad Koirala, who was freed from house arrest last week has started political consultations with other political leaders to work out a mechanism to gear up the pro-democracy agitations. He has asked the King to lift the state of emergency immediately, restore all fundamental rights, initiate a dialogue with political parties and end the distortion of democracy in the country. Koirala said the takeover by the King has dealt a blow to the constitution of Nepal, which was drafted in the aftermath of People’s movement that resulted in the introduction of multiparty democracy in 1990.

Another former Prime Minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, was freed last month on the eve of the U.N Human Rights Commission session in Geneva where Nepal defended that its military action against Maoists had been necessary to protect democracy.

It is only a matter of time before Nepal Communist Party ( UML) General Secretary Madhav Nepal is also freed. In this context, political observers say, having released Koirala from house arrest after many others were also freed, King Gyanendra now faces two waves of rebellion - Maoists and political. Koirala calls the palace the biggest destabilizing force in the country wows to fight till the King has his back to the wall. The Government forces, however, claim that nearly 150 Maoists surrendered last week and another 50 rebels were killed in a nearly 12 hour gun battle when they tried to attack a security base in mid-western Nepal on April 8.

Meanwhile, a former General of the Royal Nepal Army has accused the Indian ambassador in Kathmandu, Shiv Shankar Mukherjee of instigating politicians against the King. He has demanded the expulsion of Mukherjee from Nepal, if the reports are true. Lt. General (Retd) Bharat Keshar Sinha , who is President of the Vishwa Hindu Mahasangh (VHM), to which India’s Vishwa Hindu Parishad is affiliated has alleged in a newspaper interview that the Indian Ambassador had not only been hosting dinners to politicians but also offering them help if they fight together against the King. He said Mukherjee has no right to gather politicians and instigate them against the King.

India has taken the charges very lightly since Simha is not an influential heavyweight.. The Indian Embassy in Nepal said, Sinha was a political non-entity and should not be taken seriously. In New Delhi, the Foreign Office spokesman, Navtej Sarna , refused to comment on what he called “stray comments by unidentified aides.”

But sources in the Indian establishment said they were not yet sure whether Simha who is close to the Palace, was trying to ingratiate himself with the King with anti-India comments or was being used as a “proxy” by other bigger players in Kathmandu. Relations between India and Nepal have come under strain since February 1 when King Gyanendra dismissed the Sher Bahadur Deuba Government and declared emergency. The monarch has refused to meet the Indian Ambassador despite a request pending for over a month. This is being seen as an attempt to express his anger at India’s public stand that democracy should be restored. India had also refused to commit future arms supplies to the kingdom, which is caught in the war with Maoists who are now enforcing an 11-day strike in Nepal. The latest sticking point has been New Delhi’s refusal to use its influence to water down a possible anti-Nepal resolution at the UN Human Rights Commission that is now in session in Geneva.



NOTES

Bangladesh crackdown on radicals

The Bangladesh Government has at last

initiated a crackdown on militant outfits,

bringing to the fore fissures within the ruling four-party alliance. According to sources, such offensive against Islamic militants was launched at the behest of the anti-Jamaat-e-Islami lobby within the BNP. The steps taken included the banning of Jagarata Muslim Janata of Bangladesh (JMJB), Jamaitul-Mujahideen (JUM) and the arrest of Asadullah-al-Ghalib, chief of the Ahle-Hadis movement.

Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia was initially not to keen to act tough with the fundamentalist groups, but the anti-Jamaat lobby within the BNP brought her round to launch the attack. Sources say that her son Tariq Rahman Zia, who is the BNP’s Joint General Secretary, Minister of State for Home Lutfuzzaman Babar, Minister for Local Governance Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan and Dhaka Mayor Sadeq Hossain Khoka played a key role in persuading Khaleda to act against the Islamic militant organizations.

Reporets say, it was the mounting pressure from the US and other donor nations that made the Tariq Zia camp compel the Government to take a tough stand against the Islamic outfits. The US State Department and the donor countries, at their recent meeting in Washington, expressed serious concern over the alarming rise in fundamentalism in Bangladesh. The Tareq Zia camp is also apprehensive of the BNP’s electoral prospects in the wake of an increasing political clout of Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) and Islami Oikyo Jot (IOJ)- both constituents of the ruling alliance. Also, the ruling party feels that instead of eating into the Awami League vote bank, the Islamic outfits are out to win over BNP voters.

The rift between Tariq Zia and the Jamaat-e-Islami is increasing . There are reports of frequent clashes between cadres of the Tariq Zia led Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal (JCD), student wing of the BNP, and Islami Chhatra Shibir, JEI students’ body, in various parts of Bangladesh. The IOJ, too, is feeling jittery over the manner in which the Khaleda Zia Government is trying to win over the confidence of the Western lobby by initiating a crackdown on fundamentalist outfits, with whom they enjoy a strong rapport.



Myanmar asks Dhaka to approve tri-nation pipeline deal

The authorities in Yangon have proposed to

Dhaka signing a memorandum of

understanding on the planned India-Myanmar-Bangladesh gas pipeline on April 20-21. The Director-General of Myanmar’s Energy Ministry, Soe Myint, in a letter informed Dhaka that his Government had finalized the draft of the memorandum that was prepared by officials of the three countries in February, adding that Yangon was ready to sign the treaty.

However, quoting sources in the Government, leading Bangladesh dailies said the Government was not ready to sign the document yet, as New Delhi had not discussed with it the three conditions it had set for laying the pipeline through its territory. Besides, Dhaka is yet to finalise the memo. Bangladesh wants India to provide transit facilities to import electricity from Nepal and Bhutan, extend facilities for trade with these two countries and reduce the current trade imbalance. India has opposed the inclusion of bilateral issues in the tripartite accord. According to Bangladesh Minister of State for Energy, A.K.M. Mosharraf. Hossain, the Indian Energy Minister had agreed to accept Bangladesh’s conditions but later, New Delhi changed its mind on the External Affairs Ministry’s advice. The first meeting of the three countries was held in Myanmar on January 11-12 with the respective Energy Ministers attending it.





Natwar Singh visiting US

F-16 issue likely to be on the table

External Affairs Minister, Natwar Singh, is

going to the US on April 12 and the day

he leaves New Delhi, the US Pacific Command Chief, Admiral Fallon will be coming to India on a two-day visit. Natwar Singh will hold talks with the US Secretary of State, Ms Condoleezza Rice, apart from a possible meeting with President Bush.

Although the Foreign Office briefing about Natwar Singh’s visit has not confirmed whether he will raise the issue of a US decision to sell F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan and its implications for the security of India, the possibility of it is not ruled out. The US announced its decision to sell 70 F-16s to Pakistan and made an offer to discuss with New Delhi the supply of F-16s and F-18s and their co-production in India soon after Ms Rice’s return to Washington. During her visit to New Delhi, the two sides had agreed to expand defence and energy ties and conclude soon the second phase of the Next Step in Strategic Partnership, which encompasses high technology trade. The US has conveyed to New Delhi that it was considering offering civilian nuclear energy and nuclear safety cooperation to India. Washington has also given its nod for participation by American companies in the bidding for multi-role F-16 combat aircraft to India.

India is in the market for the purchase of 126 multi-role combat aircraft in a deal which could be worth a whopping $5 billion. Reports say that India had added US aviation company Lockheed Martin to the shortlist to which a request for information had been sent late last year. While the IAF received a response to the letters from France, Sweden and Russia, the reply from Lockheed Martin did not come. Now that the US clearance to this firm could result in a bid that could constitute, as US Ambassador to India, David C. Mulford said, “an offer that will be very hard to turn down.

The Defence Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, had a round of talks with the US Ambassador to India, on the offer last week during which, Defence Ministry sources said, he made a “substantive offer”. The Defence Minister is expected to share the details of the discussions with the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet shortly. The US would not let go a $5 billion deal for the 126 fighter aircraft proposed to be purchased by America especially at a time when Lockheed Martin is starved of the fresh orders and had told President Bush, who is close to the top executives of this firm that they would have to give quit notice to some five thousand employees if enough orders were not received. So, the US would love to upstage the French [Mirage-2000Vs], Russian [MiG-29 M2] and Swedish [JAS-39 Gripen] contenders. The US officials admit as much, holding that their product was the best with the most competitive prices. The vision sketched out by Ms Rice with her Indian counterparts is not just about hardware like F-16s but an effort which, if it concludes successfully, could redraw the strategic map of Asia, a senior US Embassy official said. This vision envisages cooperation on issues ranging from defence and non-proliferation to energy and economic growth.

Despite the strong signals from the IAF which has made its preference for the French Mirage-2000V fighters quite apparent, the Defence Minister, Pranab Mukherjee has promised to look into the US offer of F-16s and F/A-18s, provided they served India’s strategic interests. The UPA leadership is of the view that its ally Left’s ideological reservations and armed forces’ technical considerations should not be allowed to come in the way of discussing the offer with the US. It is being argued that the US offer, besides helping the country buy major weapons platform will help New Delhi get more attractive terms from the Russian and French competitors of Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The armed forces have been taking a conservative view with its leadership preferring French Mirages and Russian Sukhois. According to them, the machines are not just user-friendly for Indian pilots, the two countries have been dependable allies of New Delhi. The political leadership, however, is citing the recent diversification in sourcing defence equipments – for instance, Phalcons from Israel – to reject the armed forces’ argument. Besides, the offer of co-production will ensure reliable supply of spares. The US will soon conclude a deal to supply two NATPQ-37 Firefinder weapon-locating radars and combat free-all parachutes for the Special Forces. Also on offer are the H-60C Sea Hawk long range naval helicopter, V-22 Osprey hybrid roto-craft, aircraft protection systems for non-combat transport planes. US Embassy officials also said, 56 students would travel to the US for defence studies under a $1.4 million programme.

The US offer is appealing for the political leadership as it could make India a production hub for the latest war machines. As the offer involves development of the latest variant of F-16s in India – as was done for Saudi Arabia – India could become a major player in the defence market. The political leadership is also assessing the American offer in the context of a broader relationship with the US which has signalled that it is willing to work together in the area of nuclear energy. Both sides are currently looking to chalking out a road map in nuclear energy cooperation and a beginning is expected to be made shortly with Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar inviting his US counterpart, Samuel Bodman for a dialogue on energy issues.

Apart from the F-16s, the US has offered a number of advanced systems to India. This includes command and control systems, the Patriot missiles, aircraft protection system and equipment for the network centrific warfare. The Indian side has shown interest in buying a number of equipment from the US. If the Navy is exploring the possibility of buying the long range maritime reconnaissance aircraft PC-3 Orion and H-60 Sea Hawk, the Indian Air Force is considering night vision devices and precision guided bombs. The US is already supplying spares for the Sea King aircraft and for submarine maintenance.

US Embassy sources say, a senior level delegation had been to New Delhi recently to make presentation to Indian defence officials on the Patriot missile systems. This in itself was a follow-up of the visit of three Indian observers who were invited to witness Exercise Roving Sands, the live demonstration trials of the missile shield system, at the missile defence facility in Texas. Officials maintain that the defence cooperation canvas could widen further with much bigger sales in the pipeline including upgraded P3C Orions, naval long range maritime and anti-submarine helicopters as well as SeahawkH-60C helicopters.

US Embassy officials further revealed on April 8 that the sophisticated air-borne warning and control systems [AWACS] of the US Air Force would be showcased for the first time in India this year-end. Used along with the latest variants of the F-16s, the exercise scheduled in November at the Kalakunda air base in West Bengal will be used to impress the Indian defence establishment. Mounted on a variety of platforms including Boeings, the AWACS are expected to provide a dazzling display of how they operate along with F-16s and help in persuading India to avoid any adverse decision on the multi-role fighter planes.

Admiral William Fallon, Commander of the US Pacific Command, will be coming to New Delhi on April 12 to work on this as well as several other engagements that US defence forces will be preparing for with the Indian military this calendar. During his visit, the two sides will sign an MoU to progressively chalk out cooperation in military medicine research. The submarine rescue agreement will also come up for discussion, though the actual agreement is likely to be signed only later this year.

The Government of India will also sign a critical defence agreement with Washington this year to allow sharing of drawing-board defence technology, prototype data and joint research and development of military hardware. Top US Embassy officials said on April 8, an MoU which South Block has been insisting on, will be signed this year with the DRDO. While clauses of the MoU are still being negotiated under the Joint Technical Group [JTG], joint R&D and production in the coming years are the likely equipment that Washington is already prepared to supply to the Indian armed forces. These include critical command and control equipment, network centrific battlefield surveillance equipment and early warning systems.

On the other hand, the US decision to sell F-16s is going to be challenged in the House of Representatives by senior Congressman Gary Ackerman, the Democratic Co-chairman of the Congressional caucus on India and Indian Americans. He proposes to introduce a Bill this week to prohibit the sale of F-16s to Pakistan unless it provides the US authorities access to discredited nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan. “It is incomprehensible that we would provide sophisticated military equipment to Pakistan when its President, Gen. Musharraf, refuses to let us interview Khan”, said Ackerman.

Attempts by US intelligence agencies to interview Khan about his proliferation have come a cropper because Musharraf would not provide them access, said Ackerman, adding that the full extent of the Khan network is still to be unravelled.



Uzbekistan President's visit

India and Uzbekistan have signed 12 bilateral

agreements, even as they reaffirmed

cooperation in fighting terrorism and setting up a trans-Afghanistan transport corridor.

This was stated in a joint statement issued at the end of the visiting Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov’s talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on April 5. An important area of discussion was Afghanistan, with both sides pointing out that the geographical location and traditional links provide possibilities for cooperation in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Both countries noted that the Zarean-Dalaream road stretch being built by India in Afghanistan would be a key segment in the route linking Uzbekistan with the Chahabahar port in Iran.

The joint statement underlined the importance of the early realization of the international trans-Afghanistan transport corridor. “Realization of the corridor will significantly decrease the distance and associated costs for transportation of goods” between India and Uzbekistan as well as provide a chance to Afghanistan to “integrate into the regional system of transport and communications”, the statement said.

The two countries also agreed to fight terrorism on a “long-term and sustained” basis and stated in the joint statement that international terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, constituted one of the “most serious threats” to peace and security.

Uzbekistan supported the entry of India