China has lent substantial amounts to various countries for energy and infrastructure projects, primarily under its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

These debts reflect China’s extensive global investments in energy, transport, and connectivity projects, often resulting in significant financial obligations for borrowing nations.

Main projects Driving Pakistan’s Debt to China

Pakistan’s debt to China is primarily driven by projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship initiative of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Here are the main projects contributing to Pakistan’s debt:

Energy Projects. A significant portion of Pakistan’s debt stems from energy infrastructure, including coal, hydro, wind, and solar power plants. These projects were designed to address Pakistan’s chronic energy shortages but have resulted in substantial financial obligations due to high-interest loans and capacity payments owed to Chinese companies. Under the Energy Framework Agreement, Pakistan is required to allocate funds to ensure Chinese investors are compensated for any shortfalls, further adding to its financial burden.

Infrastructure Development. CPEC includes the construction of highways and motorways, such as the Karakoram Highway and the Multan-Sukkur Motorway, which aim to improve connectivity within Pakistan and with China. The modernization of Pakistan Railways, including the Main Line-1 (ML-1) project, is another key component of CPEC. This project alone is estimated to cost $6.8 billion.

Gwadar Port Development. The development of Gwadar Port and its associated infrastructure has been a central focus of CPEC. This includes port facilities, an international airport, and free trade zones aimed at making Gwadar a regional trade hub.

Special Economic Zones (SEZs). CPEC includes the establishment of SEZs across Pakistan to promote industrialization and attract foreign investment. However, these zones have yet to deliver significant economic benefits.

Pipelines and Energy Transmission. Projects include oil and gas pipelines as well as energy transmission lines to facilitate energy distribution across Pakistan.

While these projects have improved infrastructure and energy availability in Pakistan, they have also created a heavy debt burden due to high-interest loans, limited economic returns from the projects, and inefficiencies in project management. As of 2023, China accounted for approximately 30% of Pakistan’s external debt, with much of it tied to CPEC-related initiatives.

Debt Converted to Ownership

China’s “debt-trap diplomacy” refers to instances where countries, unable to repay loans for major infrastructure projects funded by China, have ceded control of strategic assets. Below are notable examples where this has occurred:

Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka leased the Hambantota Port to China Merchants Port Holdings for 99 years in 2017 after failing to repay $1.4 billion in loans from China. This has been widely cited as a classic example of debt-trap diplomacy, granting China strategic influence in the Indian Ocean.

Laos. In 2020, Laos ceded a 90% stake in its electricity grid (Électricité du Laos Transmission Company) to a Chinese company after struggling with debt repayments. This move gave China significant control over the country’s energy infrastructure, raising concerns about its ability to influence domestic energy supplies.

Tajikistan. Facing challenges in repaying Chinese loans, Tajikistan reportedly granted mining rights for gold and silver deposits to Chinese companies. This arrangement has been viewed as a way for China to secure valuable natural resources in exchange for debt relief.

Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan, heavily indebted to China, risks losing control over key infrastructure such as the Bishkek thermal power plant and the Datka-Kemin power transmission line if it defaults on its loans.

Zambia. There have been concerns that Zambia might lose control of ZESCO (electricity company) due to its inability to service Chinese loans tied to energy and infrastructure projects. While no formal transfer has occurred yet, the situation highlights the risks of debt dependency.

These examples illustrate how China’s lending practices can lead to significant economic and strategic leverage over borrowing nations, often involving critical infrastructure or natural resources. However, it is worth noting that some analysts argue that these cases are exceptions rather than standard practice and that many countries willingly accept such terms due to their pressing financial needs.

The post CHINA How China’s Debt Traps Work appeared first on IMR.

The post SIPRI Report: Pakistan’s Military Heavily Reliant on China  appeared first on IMR.

India’s defence industry is now capable of manufacturing wide variety of high-end requirements e.g. tanks, armoured vehicles, fighter aircrafts, helicopters, warships, submarines, missiles, electronic equipment, special alloys, special purpose steels, and variety of ammunition.

The value of indigenous defence production for Financial Years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 was Rs 84,643 crore and Rs 94,846 crore respectively.

Domestic Procurements

The Government, in the last three years, ie, from 2019-20 to 2021‑22 and current year (2022-23 up to September, 2022), had accorded Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) to 163 proposals worth Rs 2,46,989.38 crores approximately, under various categories of capital procurement which promote domestic manufacturing as per DAP-2020.

The share of domestic procurement in the total procurement has seen an upward trend. In 2018-19, the domestic procurement stood at 54% of the total procurement; this figure jumped to 59% in 2019-20 and to 64% in 2020-21. In 2022-23, it has been increased to 68% for domestic procurement, of this 25% budget has been earmarked for procurement from private industry.

With focus of Government on indigenisation and procurement of defence products from the domestic resources, the expenditure on defence procurement from foreign sources has reduced from 46% to 36% in the last four years i.e. from 2018-19 to 2021-22.

Domestic Projects Realised

With focus on indigenisation and procurement from domestic industries, all the major areas of domestic defence production ecosystem such as weapons, ammunition, fighter aircrafts, helicopters, missile systems, warships, submarines, armoured vehicles, radars, communication systems, surveillance systems, etc. have benefited from the initiatives and also given boost to the growth of domestic industries including MSMEs and start-ups.

Many significant projects that have been produced in the country during the last few years include (alphabetically listed):

• 155 mm Artillery Gun system ‘Dhanush’
• 25 ton Tugs
• Advanced Light Helicopter
• Anti-Submarine Warfare Corvette (ASWC)
• Arjun Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicle
• Armoured Personnel Carrier ‘BMP-II/IIK’
• Bi-Modular Charge System (BMCS) for 155mm Ammunition
• Bridge Laying Tank,
• Cheetah Helicopter
• Dornier Do-228
• Fast Interceptor Boat
• High Mobility Trucks
• INS Chennai
• INS Kalvari
• INS Khanderi
• Inshore Patrol Vessel
• Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS)
• Lakshya Parachute for Pilotless Target Aircraft
• Landing Craft Utility
• Light Combat Aircraft ‘Tejas’
• Main Battle Tank ‘Arjun’
• Medium Bullet Proof Vehicle (MBPV)
• Offshore Patrol Vessel
• Opto Electronic Sights for Battle Tanks
• Software Defined Radios (SDR)
• Su-30 Mk1
• Surface to Air Missile system ‘Akash’
• T-72 Tank
• T-90 Tan
• Unmanned aerial vehicles
• Water Jet Fast Attack Craft
• Weapon Locating Radar (WLR)

Further, for the first time, a Made-in-India Advanced Towed Artillery Gun (ATAG) howitzer gun developed by our industry was part of the 21-gun salute during the Independence Day celebration at Red Fort in Delhi.

Policy Initiatives to Encourage Self-Reliance

These projects are the result of several policy initiatives and reforms taken by Government in the past few years to encourage indigenous design, development and manufacture of defence equipment, there by promoting self-reliance in defence manufacturing in the country.

 These initiatives include:

• According priority to procurement of capital items of Buy Indian (IDDM) category from domestic sources under Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP)-2020.
• Earmarking of 25% of R&D Budget for Industry led R&D.
• Establishment of two Defence Industrial Corridors, one each in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.
• Implementation of Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order 2017.
• Launch of an indigenization portal namely SRIJAN to facilitate indigenisation by Indian Industry including MSMEs.
• Launch of Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX) scheme by involving Start-ups & Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs).
• Launch of Mission DefSpace.
• Liberalisation of Foreign Direct Investment(FDI) policy allowing 74% FDI under automatic route.
• Notification of  four  ‘Positive  Indigenisation  Lists’  of  total  411  items  of  Services  and  three  ‘Positive Indigenisation Lists’ of total 3738 items  of Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs), for which there would be an embargo on the import beyond the timelines indicated against them.
• Opening up of Defence Research & Development (R&D) for industry, start-ups and academia with 25 percent of defence R&D budget.
• Progressive increase in allocation of Defence Budget of military modernisation for procurement from domestic sources, etc.
• Reforms in Offset policy with thrust on attracting investment and Transfer of Technology for Defence manufacturing by assigning higher multipliers.
• Simplification of Industrial licensing process with longer validity period.
• Simplification of Make Procedure.

Specific provisions have been introduced in DAP-2020 under ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’ and ‘Buy (Global – Manufacture in India)’ category, wherein indigenous production is carried out with Transfer of Technology (ToT) from foreign OEM.

To enable adoption of Artificial Intelligence in defence, Defence AI Council (DAIC) and Defence AI Project Agency (DAIPA) has been created. Further, an AI roadmap has also been finalised for each Defence Public Sector Undertaking (DPSU) under which 70 defence specific AI projects have been identified for development.

Government has notified the ‘Strategic Partnership (SP)’ Model which envisages establishment of long-term strategic partnerships with Indian entities through a transparent and competitive process, wherein they would tie up with global Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to seek technology transfers to set up domestic manufacturing infrastructure and supply chains.

The expenditure on defence procurement from foreign sources has reduced from 46% of overall expenditure in 2018-19 to 36.7% as per data till December 2022.

Research & Development

Defence Research & Development (R&D) has been opened up for industry, start-ups and academia with 25 percent of defence R&D budget earmarked, to promote development of defence technology in the country.

Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) identified nine thrust areas for focused research, namely Platforms, Weapon System, Strategic Systems, Sensors & Communication Systems, Space, Cyber Security, Artificial Intelligence & Robotics, Material & Devices and Soldier Support.

Technology Development Fund (TDF) Scheme also funds industries, especially – Start-ups and MSMEs upto an amount of Rs. 10 Crore, for innovation, research and development of defence Technologies in the field of defence and Aerospace.

Defence Industrial Corridors

To achieve ‘Aatmanirbharta’ and realise the goal of ‘Make in India’, Government of India has established two Defence Industrial Corridors (DICs) in the country, one in Uttar Pradesh and other in Tamil Nadu. These are expected to attract investments in Aerospace & Defence sector and established a comprehensive defence manufacturing ecosystem in the country. Moreover, the respective State Governments have also published their Aerospace & Defence Policies to attract private players as well as foreign companies including Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) in these two corridors. The two State Governments have already signed MoUs/Agreements with various industries for investment worth total value of about Rs 24,000 crore. Investments worth Rs 2,242 crore and Rs 3,847 crore have been made in Uttar Pradesh Defence Industrial Corridor (UPDIC) and Tamil Nadu Defence Industrial Corridor (TNDIC) respectively.

DPSUs carved out of OFB

The seven new DPSUs carved out of erstwhile Ordnance Factory Board have been incorporated as wholly owned Government companies under the Companies Act 2013 in October 2021. Government has taken steps to initially handhold and support these new defence companies in starting their business as corporate entities. In this regard, outstanding indents with erstwhile OFB were grandfathered and converted into deemed contracts valuing about Rs 70,776 crore for the next five years. These deemed contracts provide annual targets for delivery of products. Every year, 60% of amount pertaining to that year’s target would be paid by the Services to the new DPSUs as advance as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the deemed contract. The advances provide the working capital to the newly constituted DPSUs. With more functional and financial autonomy, these new DPSUs are focusing on widening their customer base, including exports to augment the volume of defence production.

Defence Innovations

An innovation ecosystem for Defence titled Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX) was launched in April 2018 to foster innovation and technology development in Defence and Aerospace by engaging Industries including MSMEs, Start-ups, Individual Innovators, R&D institutes and Academia. iDEX provides them grants/funding and other support to carry out innovations/R&D which has potential for future adoption for Indian defence and aerospace needs. Under iDEX, 233 problems have been opened, 310 Start-ups have been engaged, 140 contracts have been signed. ‘iDEX Prime’ framework under iDEX has been launched in 2022 to support Start-ups with Grant-in-Aid up to Rs 10 crore to enable the development of high-end solutions.

Till October 2022, a total of 595 Industrial Licences have been issued to 366 companies operating in Defence Sector.

The post Policy Initiatives for Self Reliance in Defence appeared first on IMR.

Mystery Over Terms and Conditions

The terms and conditions of the loans and projects being executed by China in Pakistan as part of CPEC have been a subject of controversy and criticism from some quarters. Some of the key concerns include:

• Interest Rates: One of the main concerns is that the loans being provided by China to Pakistan are on high-interest rates. Some estimates suggest that the interest rates are around 5-7%, which is higher than what Pakistan can obtain from international markets.

• Debt Burden: Another concern is that Pakistan’s debt burden is increasing rapidly as a result of the loans being provided by China. Some estimates suggest that Pakistan’s external debt to China could reach around $40 billion by 2025, which could put a strain on Pakistan’s economy and its ability to repay its debts.

• Lack of Transparency: There are also concerns about the lack of transparency in the terms and conditions of the loans being provided by China. Critics argue that the details of the loans and projects being executed under CPEC have not been made public, which makes it difficult to assess their impact on Pakistan’s economy and its people.

• Security Concerns: There are also security concerns surrounding some of the projects being executed under CPEC. For example, the Gwadar port, which is a key component of the project, has been a target of attacks by militants in the past.

Despite these concerns, the Chinese government and the Pakistani government have defended the project and its terms and conditions. They argue that CPEC is a vital project that will help Pakistan address its infrastructure deficit and spur economic growth. They also argue that the project is being executed in a transparent and responsible manner and that the security concerns are being addressed through appropriate measures.

Loan Repayments

The loans given by China for Pakistan’s CPEC projects are typically structured as long-term loans, with a repayment period of 20-25 years. However, the specific terms and conditions of each loan may vary depending on the nature of the project and the agreement between the Chinese and Pakistani governments.

Once a project is completed and starts generating revenue, Pakistan is expected to use that revenue to repay the loans. The repayment schedule is typically designed to be flexible, taking into account the cash flows generated by the project and the economic conditions in Pakistan.

The terms and conditions of the loans and the repayment schedule have been a subject of controversy and criticism about the lack of transparency. Critics argue that the high interest rates and the debt burden associated with the loans could put a strain on Pakistan’s economy and its ability to repay its debts.

Projects Under CPEC

The following is a list of the major projects that have been proposed or are currently under construction as part of CPEC:

Energy Projects:

• Port Qasim Coal-fired Power Plant (1320 MW)
• Sahiwal Coal-fired Power Plant (1320 MW)
• Engro Thar Coal-fired Power Plant (660 MW)
• Suki Kinari Hydro Power Project (870 MW)
• Kohala Hydropower Project (1100 MW)
• Gwadar Coal-fired Power Plant (300 MW)
• Matiari-Lahore Transmission Line (660 kV)

Infrastructure Projects:

• Gwadar Port and Free Zone
• Havelian-Thakot Motorway (120 km)
• Karachi-Lahore Motorway (1,152 km)
• Karachi Circular Railway (KCR)
• Lahore Orange Line Metro Train (27 km)
• Quetta Mass Transit System
• Multan-Sukkur Motorway (392 km)
• Thakot-Raikot Expressway (136 km)
• Dera Ismail Khan-Zhob Road (210 km)
• Upgradation of Karachi-Lahore-Peshawar Railway Line
• New Gwadar International Airport
• Gwadar Eastbay Expressway (19.5 km)

Industrial and Economic Zones:

• Gwadar Free Zone
• Rashakai Special Economic Zone (1,000 acres)
• Dhabeji Special Economic Zone (1,000 acres)
• Allama Iqbal Industrial City (3,200 acres)
• M-3 Industrial City (4,000 acres)
• ICT Model Industrial Zone, Islamabad (1,000 acres)
• Bostan Industrial Zone (1,000 acres)

Agriculture Projects:

• Modernization of Agriculture Sector
• Development of Fisheries and Fish Processing Plants
• Establishment of Livestock Farms and Meat Processing Plants
• Construction of Water Storage Dams and Irrigation Infrastructure

Telecommunication and IT Projects:

• Cross-border Fiber Optic Cable Network
• Upgradation of PTCL Network
• Construction of Data Centers

Health and Education Projects:

• Upgradation and Construction of Hospitals and Health Centers
• Construction of Universities and Technical Institutes

Note that this is not a comprehensive list and there may be other projects that are part of CPEC or proposed to be included in the future.

Projects Completed

Only a handful of projects under the CPEC have been completed or are near completion. Here are some examples:

• Gwadar Port: The Gwadar port is a key component of CPEC and has been completed. It is a deep-sea port located in southwestern Pakistan and is expected to serve as a gateway for trade between Pakistan, China, and other Central Asian countries.

• Thar Coal Power Project: Located in the Thar desert in Sindh province has been completed and is expected to add 660 megawatts of electricity to the national grid.

• Havelian-Thakot Motorway: A 120-km long highway that connects Havelian in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province to Thakot in northern Pakistan. It has been completed.

• Lahore Orange Line Metro: A rapid transit system in Lahore, the capital of Punjab province, has been completed.

• Karachi-Lahore Motorway: A 1,152-km long highway that connects Karachi to Lahore. A portion of this motorway has been completed, and the remaining sections are under construction.

Many other projects, including energy projects, highways, railways, and special economic zones, are currently under construction or in the planning stage.

Projects Cancelled

Some projects under the CPEC have faced delays or cancellations due to various reasons, including changes in political priorities, security concerns, financial constraints, and environmental issues. The following are some of the major projects that have been reportedly cancelled or put on hold:

• Diamer-Bhasha Dam: The $14 billion hydroelectric dam project in Gilgit-Baltistan was dropped from the CPEC portfolio in 2018 due to disagreements over funding and ownership between Pakistan and China.

• Karachi Circular Railway (KCR): The $2.4 billion project to revamp the 43-km KCR track in Karachi has been stalled since 2018 due to land acquisition and financial issues.

• Matiari-Lahore Transmission Line: The 878-km high-voltage transmission line project was cancelled in 2018 due to financial constraints.

• New Gwadar International Airport: The $230 million project was reportedly delayed due to security and environmental concerns.

• East Bay Expressway: The 19.5-km expressway project in Gwadar was reportedly halted due to issues related to land acquisition and compensation.

Properties Pledged as Collateral

Pakistan has pledged national or state-owned properties as collateral for loans from foreign countries or organisations, notably from China, as follows:

• Port Qasim coal-fired power plant: For $1.5 billion loan to China’s Exim Bank.

• innah International Airport: For $238 million loan to Asian Development Bank (ADB).

•  Islamabad-Lahore Motorway: For $2.5 billion loan to China’s Exim Bank.

•  National Highway Authority: For various loans, including $300 million to ADB.

•  Gwadar Port: For $10 billion loan to China.

•  Karakoram Highway: For $325 million loan to China’s Exim Bank.

• Thar coal-fired power project: For $1.9 billion loan to China’s Exim Bank.

• National Power Parks Management Company: For $700 million loan to China’s Exim Bank.

• Lahore-Sialkot Motorway: For $275 million loan to ADB.

• Pakistan Steel Mills: For $500 million loan to Russia.

• Sukuk bonds: These are Islamic bonds that represent ownership in a tangible asset, as collateral for loans. In 2014, Pakistan issued $1 billion worth of Sukuk bonds and pledged them as collateral for a $1.5 billion loan from China’s Exim Bank.

Pledging of national or state-owned properties as collateral for loans can have economic and political implications, as it can lead to a loss of sovereignty and control over key assets.

The post China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Projects in Limbo appeared first on IMR.

READ ALSO: Can There Be Rapprochment Between India and China—Part 2)

Events of the last three years in and around China, in the Indo-Pacific, in Europe and Russia have been fast paced.

The Chinese have become increasingly assertive in recent years, especially since Xi Jinping consolidated his position. Even before the pandemic set in, wolf warrior diplomacy emerged in 2017 characterised by the use of confrontational rhetoric by Chinese diplomats and coercive behavior. It was tied to Xi Jinping’s political ambitions and foreign policy inclinations. There was a backlash and a realignments have begun to take place to keep China in check.

Since the outbreak of the pandemic China has sparred with Malaysia and Vietnam, with Philippines and the US in the South China Sea, threatened Taiwan, revoked Hong Kong’s autonomy, chased Japanese fishing boats, traded barbs with the US and is now challenging India at the Line of Actual Control.

Territorial Fronts

China has opened four territorial fronts in the last decade, deploying coercive tactics 1) in the East China Sea, 2) South China Sea, 3) China-India border, and 4) toward the US on the question of freedom of navigation.

The China-India border was once thought to be among the more stable of these fronts. What is surprising is that China has taken up all these fronts at the same time.

China has increased domination in affairs outside its borders along with modernisation of its armed forces to conduct operations in the western Asian region and to protect its eastern seaboard from US carriers and bombers

China has increased its role in the Indian Ocean by building naval bases and also making incursions using its navy and the naval militia flotilla

China has fortified and militarised islands in the South China Sea as well as the Sea of Japan.

Aggressive Behaviour

China has thrown its weight around across the globe in the last three years, unmindful of whom it offended.

Early in 2020, Chinese officials escalated their “wolf warrior” diplomacy, aggressively and undiplomatically attacked countries and individuals they believed had slighted China.

In April 2020, China retaliated against Australia’s call for an inquiry into the origins and spread of the coronavirus by launching a trade war.

In July 2020, Beijing imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong designed to crush the pro-democracy movement.

China was aggressive as well in its dealings with Taiwan as the Trump administration strengthened its ties with Republic of China.

China also continued its systematic repression of its Uighur minority in Xinjiang.

The Chinese communist state with capitalist characteristics has become a country developed enough to export small and big products and weapons to the developing world. China has become the factory of the world, with its cheap labour.

But by end 2020, China was convinced that it was winning its economic contest with the West and it embraced steps designed to decouple its economy from the West on its own terms.

China is also trying to control a number of small nations through debt trap strategy.

What is China Doing Against India?

On the Indian borders, a deadly bloody clash took place, on 15 June 2020, for the first time in 45 years, during the period of lockdown, in the Galwan Valley of Ladakh, in which 20 Indian soldiers died and an unknown number of PLA soldiers were killed in hand-to-hand combat. No shots were fired. I will return to this later.

Till 2020, China’s aggressive attitude was mainly focused on the South China Sea but now it’s turned in India’s direction.

Besides creeping up into India territories, China is trying to surround India by getting involved in its neighbouring countries.

PLA Navy ships have increased their forays into the Indian Ocean region. Chinese submarines and destroyers have been docking in countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

China is also strengthening airbases in Xinjiang and Tibet, some of which are for both civilian and military use.

India, by contrast, has always played it very cautiously with its powerful neighbour. It’s never made a statement on minorities in Xinjiang, an extremely delicate subject for the Chinese. Similarly, when it comes to Hong Kong, India has not uttered even a murmur.

India obviously has to play it super-carefully with its powerful and super-aggressive neighbour which has an economy that is about five times India’s.

India-China Relations in Brief

India gained independence in 1947 and established diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army defeated the Kuomintang and took over Mainland China, establishing the PRC on 1 October 1949. India was the first non-communist nation in Asia to establish diplomatic relations and recognize PRC as the legitimate government of both Mainland China and Taiwan on 1 April 1950.

In 1950 China marched into Tibet and, in 1954, India signed an agreement recognising Tibet as part of China. In 1959 the Dalai Lama escaped and sought political asylum in India. Today, a Tibetan govt-in-exile functions from India. China is extremely sensitive about the Dalai Lama’s political activities.

Border disputes resulted in a short but traumatic war for India on 20 Oct 1962. In the north, China occupied Aksai Chin in 1957 and has not vacated it since then. Instead it made an all-weather highway through it to Xinjiag. In the East, it reached the plains of Assam before declaring a unilateral ceasefire on 21 Nov 1962 and withdrawing.

India has strengthened its defences and infrastructure on the Chinese border and also modernised its armed forces. So have the Chinese. There have been agreements to open the Nathula Pass in the East for symbolic local trade and a route for annual pilgrimage by Indians to Mount Kailash in Tibet.

During bilateral visits, agreements for maintaining peace on the Line of Actual Control and Confidence Building measures have been signed.

There have been some significant border stand-offs

* The 2013 Depsang standoff lasted for three weeks

* In September 2014 People’s Liberation Army entered two kilometres inside the Line of Actual Control in Chumar sector.

* In June 2017 Chinese troops began extending an existing road southward in Doklam, a territory which is claimed by both China as well as India’s ally Bhutan. This posed a security threat to India’s narrow Siliguri corridor. The stand-off ended in August 2017, when both sides agreed to disengage in Doklam.

* On 10 May 2020, Chinese and Indian troops clashed in Nathu La in  Sikkim, leaving 11 soldiers injured.

India’s China Policy

As I said earlier, When India recognised the PRC on 1 April 1950, it broke off relations with Taiwan and also recognised Tibet as a part of China. Adhering to its One China policy was understandable provided India-China relations were stable. Delhi is aware that, any deviation or even a hint of deviation from this policy has an immense psychological impact on China, especially since India hosts the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile.

The Dalai Lama has a huge following amongst Tibetans the world over. He is a demi-God. One word from the Dalai Lama can cause riots and self immolations in Tibet.

Since the Ladakh standoff, India has stopped using the term One China policy. India has also become more open in supporting the Dalai Lama thus challenging China’s core beliefs.

Disputes  with India

For ease of understanding, the India-China border can be divided into three areas – western sector, middle sector, and eastern sector as shown on this map.

Western Sector

This sector comprises the area between Ladakh to Tibet and the Kunlun mountain range and also extends from Wakhan (Afghanistan edge) to the Karakoram Pass, thereafter following the alignment of the Kunlun mountain range.

The border length of the western sector is 1,597 kms. India’s claim is based on the Treaty of 1842 which was signed between the representative of Maharaja Gulab Singh, former ruler of J&K, with Lama Gurusahib of Lhasa and the representative of the Chinese emperor.

It needs to be understood that China was ruled by the Qing dynasty till 1911 before it was replaced by Chinese nationalists led government, called the Republic of China or ROC in 1912. In 1949, power shifted to the People’s Republic of China or PRC.

At various times in history the British drew lines on the map to depict the border in Aksai Chin as they saw fit. The Johnson Line is shown in grey dashes on the outer edge of Aksai Chin. The McCartney Line is shown in Green. The final line was the Johnson Line of 1912, which India followed after it got Independence and it when it published the map of the area in 1954.

By all standards, this area is the most challenging task for the border negotiations. The China-Pakistan collusivity, Karakoram highway, CPEC corridor and the renewed infrastructure development with increased settlement of the civil population has further reduced the flexibility of negotiations. China Land Border Law, which came into effect on January 1, 2022, has already changed the tenets of territorial disputes to sovereignty disputes.

Middle Sector

This comprises the states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. This is the least disputed sector and covers 545 km of Indian borders. Except for one large claim in the Barahoti sector in Uttarakhand, other claims and counterclaims are minuscule.

Eastern Sector

The eastern sector conventionally refers to Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, but both these states have Bhutan separating them. Though Sikkim has a land border of only 220 km and has been witness to both the 1962 as well as 1967 Nathula-Chola conflicts, the situation has normalised a lot after it joined the Indian state on May 16, 1975.

China finally recognised Sikkim as part of India in 2003 in a reciprocal statement by India to re-emphasise Tibet being part of China. An understanding with Bhutan will also be essential for the resolution.

Direct discourse between the British and Tibetans continued till 1908. In 1911, in the last year of the Qing dynasty, Tibetans revolted and asked for British intervention.

A tripartite conference was held at Shimla between the representatives of British India (McMohan), Tibet and China. Deliberation commenced in November 1913 and the McMohan Line was drawn and initialed by all the three representatives in the draft document on April 27, 1914. This document was not formally signed by Chinese representatives in the main document.

The land border, as per this line, covers a length of 1,126 km. This document was finally signed by Britain and Tibet on July 3, 1914.

The border in Arunachal Pradesh, as per the McMohan Line, has been a part of China’s formal offer for border settlement but not by itself. It has been proposed only in lieu of seeking a concession in the Aksai Chin area in Ladakh. The LAC also has a large number of areas of differing perceptions which remain a cause of regular skirmishes or local conflicts.

There have been Efforts to Resolve Disputes

A Special Representatives mechanism was institutionalised between India and China for talks on the boundary question. The 22nd edition of talks was held in New Delhi in December 2019. The SR talks have developed a three-part role — the original mandate of searching for a political settlement to the boundary question, management of borders, and a forum for strategic dialogue.

One important achievement to their credit is the the agreement of 2005 on political parameters and guiding principles for the boundary settlement.

On the substanbtial issue of the boundary disputes there has been no traction. There is not even an agreement of which maps to use while discussing the each other’s positions.

Water Sharing Disputes

Besides territorial disputes, India and China have water sharing disputes.

A total of seven rivers that start in Tibet flow through India.

India’s formal recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet constitutes the single biggest security blunder with lasting consequences for Indian territorial and river-water interests.

India has concern with China’s water–diversion, dam–building and inter–river plans. Moreso, in a conflict, India fears that China can use the rivers as leverage. China has already constructed ten dams on the Bhramaputra and its tributaries and there has been talk of China building a mega–dam at the “great bend before the Brahmaputra river enters India.

China does not cooperate with regard to timely sharing of information related to projects which would impact water sharing; nor does China allow Indian experts to visit dam sites.

READ ALSO: Can There Be Rapprochment Between India and China—Part 2)

The post Can There Be Rapprochement Between India and China? – Part 1 appeared first on IMR.

Deputy Inspector General (DIG) CTD Javed Iqbal Wazir made these remarks while speaking to reporters in Peshawar city on 30 December.

He said that the anti-terrorism wing has busted five major groups of Islamic State – Khorasan Province in Peshawar and Bannu region since 2020.

“Three of the major groups were busted by the CTD Peshawar region while two were busted by the CTD Bannu range. The held terrorists were involved in over 40 incidents of target-killing, including attacks on polio vaccination teams,” Pakistani newspaper The News International quoted Wazi as saying.

The CTD chief added the arrested and killed terrorists included a number of most wanted people who were carrying millions of rupees as head money.

The assertions of the top official are in stark contrast to a US report which has claimed that Pakistan failed to take adequate steps to counter-terrorism and prosecute terrorists including masterminds of the 2008 Mumbai attacks such as Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) founder Masood Azhar and Lashkar-e-Taiba’s (LeT) Sajid Mir.

It also said that Pakistan made “limited progress” in its pledge to dismantle all terrorist organizations without delay or discrimination.

Pakistan made limited progress on the most difficult aspects of its 2015 National Action Plan to counter-terrorism, specifically in its pledge to dismantle all terrorist organizations without delay or discrimination,” the US State Department report said in its 2020 ‘Country Reports on Terrorism’.

At the same time, the US report stated that Indian security agencies are effective in disrupting terror threats and respond “in a timely manner” to the requests made by the United States for information related to terrorism investigations.

The post Terrorists operating in Afghanistan targeting CPEC projects: Pakistan appeared first on IMR.

China is keeping a hawkish eye on the mineral resources in Afghanistan, especially on lithium and copper. Also, China wants to ensure the security of 60,000 Chinese present in Pakistan for the project linked to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Beijing Meet

Meanwhile, suggesting a willingness to cooperate, Wang Yi hosted a nine-member Taliban delegation, led by the head of the Afghan Taliban Political Commission, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, on July 28 in Tianjin. That the meeting preceding the Taliban victory must have been used to discuss a concrete roadmap for the Taliban. Praising them as “an important military and political force”, Wang Yi urged them to “make a clean break with all terrorist organisations, including the ETIM” and attack them resolutely and effectively. Replying, Baradar hoped for Chinese assistance in reconstruction efforts and assured the Taliban will “never allow any force to use the Afghan territory to engage in acts detrimental to China.” He apparently sidestepped specific mention of the ETIM.

Diplomatic Moves

Within days of the Taliban taking over Kabul, the Chinese foreign ministry said the current Taliban appeared more “clear-headed and rational” than they were when they were in power from 1996 to 2001. Taliban spokesperson Suhail Shaheen told Chinese national broadcaster China CGTN TV that China cold play a big role in the “rebuilding, rehabilitation, reconstruction of Afghanistan.”

China hopes the Afghan Taliban can unite with other political parties and with all ethnic groups and build a political framework in keeping with national conditions that is broadly inclusive and will lay the foundation for enduring peace,” foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said after the Taliban took over.

Nervous About Instability

As one of six countries on its border, China has had years to engage inside Afghanistan. Now the landlocked country is even more unstable and without an external presence like U.S. and NATO troops to provide security guarantees.

It sees the success of a radical Islamist movement in Afghanistan as an inherent threat, leaving it even less likely to want to invest in the kind of infrastructure that might open up an already dangerous borderland even further.

Pakistan has deep ties with the Taliban and has long played the role of intermediary with Beijing. Whenever terrorist groups with links with the Taliban have targeted Chinese nationals and projects – in Pakistan, Beijing pressed Islamabad to find those responsible. China has never been fully confident that Pakistan had a real handle on these insurgent groups

China has all along opposed the various UN resolutions and pleas by several global powers to designate the JeM as a global terrorist organization. By implication, therefore, it can be said that China has been supportive of terror groups patronized by Pakistan for cross-border terrorism, targeting India in particular.

China wants to leverage its stranglehold over the Taliban leadership and control Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to remain a prime mover in the Afghanistan scheme of things.

Concerns About Xinjiang

Beijing is more concerned that terrorist insurgencies do not spill over into its Xinjiang province, where international human rights organizations and countries like the U.S. and U.K. say China is committing widespread abuses against the local Muslim Uyghur population. Beijing has consistently denied these claims.

Afghanistan could become a potential haven for the Uyghur extremist group, which could retaliate against the “widespread repression of Uyghurs.” Instances of Islamic extremist-linked violence have also occurred in other Muslim-dominated pockets in China, like the Ningxia-Hui Autonomous Region and Yunnan.

Chinese intelligence is aware that Uyghurs have been trained at Al Qaeda training camps in northern Pakistan and Afghanistan and of their presence among the Taliban.

The Taliban’s Chechen, Uzbek, Tajik, Uyghur and other fighters are, however, motivated by jihad, adventure, power and cash. Their victory will attract many others from around the world. They are unlikely to agree to halt the bid to expand their Emirate. Chinese analysts are also apprehensive that China’s problems will increase as the US will now focus its attention on containing China and its rise.

Mineral Rich Country

Afghanistan is home to the world’s largest reserves of lithium – the key ingredient of the large-capacity lithium-ion batteries that are widely used in electric vehicles and the renewable energy industry. And since China dominates Lithium-Ion Battery Production worldwide, it may seek long-term a contract with the Taliban to develop Afghanistan’s massive untapped lithium reserves in return for mining rights and ownership arrangements.

Afghanistan is also rich in several other resources such as gold, oil, bauxite, rare earths, chromium, copper, natural gas, uranium, coal, iron ore, lead, zinc, gemstones, talc, sulphur, travertine, gypsum and marble.

But even though Chinese companies (and mining companies in general) have a higher-than-average tolerance for risk, few have made the decision to enter the market in the war-torn nation.

China has already been burned by failed investments in Afghanistan, most notably the copper project at Mes Aynak, which sits just 25 miles (40 kilometers) outside Kabul. The Taliban had made specific commitments not to attack the mine, but even then, China decided to discontinue its operations.

Belt and Road Projects

Afghanistan’s stability is key to protecting the approximately $60 billion in Belt and Road projects in neighboring Pakistan that provide an overland route to the Indian Ocean.

Taliban spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid, on 6 September, expressed that the group “desires” to join the CPEC. CPEC is a part of China’s most ambitious project ‘Belt and Road Initiative’, aimed at renewing the country’s historic trade routes in the coastal countries of south-east Asia. With CPEC, Beijing aims to expand its influence in Pakistan and across Central and South Asia in order to counter the influence of the United States and India.

China’s BRI could get more reach if it able to extend the initiative from Pakistan to Afghanistan, with a Peshawar-to-Kabul motorway. The road, which is already being discussed, would create a much shorter land route for faster and convenient access to markets in the Middle East for Chinese goods. A new route through Kabul would also render India’s reluctance to join BRI less consequential.

American Air Bases and Equipment

In what could have serious security implications for India, the Taliban could hand over the Bagram airbase to China and Kandahar base to Pakistan for operational purposes. America’s former envoy to the United Nations Nikki Haley told Fox News, on 1 September, “We need to watch China, because I think you are going to see China make a move for Bagram Air Force Base.”

While a team of aeronautical engineers of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) had inspected all the five airbases in Afghanistan, including Kandahar, Bagram and Kabul, a delegation of Chinese leaders held a meeting with the Taliban top hierarchy to discuss various security-related issues, including the possible takeover of the Bagram military airfield, sources connected to the ongoing developments said.

The military hardware left behind in Afghanistan by the US could potentially lead to arms proliferation in entire Asia and beyond. Tanks and special vehicles left behind by the Americans in Afghanistan are already being shipped to countries like Pakistan and Iran.

The collusion between Pakistan and China could ultimately land the leftover American military hardware in the hands of Beijing which could reverse engineer the technology to upgrade its military. China could also exploit the detailed analysis of the American military technology for developing counter-technologies like radars and jammers to foil the operational edge of the American military hardware being used by the Indian Defence forces

Comments

The Chinese expect that Afghanistan could form an inclusive and broad-based government, adopting a foreign and domestic policy that is prudent and moderate so as to echo and meet the aspiration and shared will of the international community and its own people. Independent analysts, however, feel that such claims on part of China are mere rhetoric to keep the Taliban and Pakistan in good humour. In reality, Chinese plans are unpredictable and diabolical.

China does not indulge in charity. It is evident that China has already made a deal with the Taliban to extend critical strategic, military, financial, governance support and give Taliban the international authenticity it requires to operate freely. In return, the Taliban has to protect Chinese interests in the region, and allow free access for Chinese colonization of Afghanistan.

Supremacy in the region has a lot to do with controlling the geography of the region. China is going about its old tricks, with natural ease.

The Pakistan state is fully compromised and embedded with China, to work for Chinese strategic, military and political interests. China will use Pakistan to ensure the Taliban will not work against China’s interests and keep tabs on it.

China will exploit the unstable geography around India with its aim to be a global military super-power, sooner than later. China is making its nefarious moves to gain full geo-political control of the region, before taking its challenge to the West.

The Taliban will no doubt offer all kinds of assurances but no one knows how they will govern. Recognizing the group as the de facto political authority and engaging with them makes sense for China.

The post China Eyeing Strategic Space in Afghanistan appeared first on IMR.

Senator Mushahid Hussain is Chairman of Pakistan’s Parliamentary Committee on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and founding Chairman of the think tank Pakistan-China Institute. This is an abridged extract of an article which was first published in the Pakistan Army Green Boo 2020. The views expressed do not represent the views of IMR

After the annexation of Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IOJK), it is clear that Modi has bitten off more than he can chew by spawning a crisis that is hitting at the heart of the Indian State, transforming its very character in a manner that it’s narrow-minded, bigoted Establishment could never have anticipated.

Consider the consequences and far-reaching implications of this decision:

•             Modi has divided India on political and communal lines that can have grave implications for Indian national unity and domestic stability.

•             Kashmir has been internationalized in a manner that was never done to this extent not since the 1965 India-Pakistan War, with wholesale condemnation of the Indian action from Beijing to Brussels.

•             The Kashmir dispute has been discussed for the first time in the UN Security Council since the 1998 nuclear tests, when the UN Security Council, on June 6, 1998, passed the last unanimous Resolution # 1172, mentioning Kashmir by name: ”Urges India and Pakistan to resume dialogue between them on all outstanding issues… and encourages them to find mutually acceptable solutions that address the root causes of those tensions, including Kashmir”.

•             Modi’s move has galvanized separatists within India ranging from the Nagas who are now setting new pre-conditions in their talks with New Delhi, for example, seeking their”separate flag and constitution” as part of broader autonomy, while the Sikhs are actively campaigning for a Khalistan Referendum in 2020.

•             China has been alienated since China, now like Pakistan and the Kashmiri people, is directly a party to the dispute because of Modi’s action to partition IOJK and declaring Laddakh a Union Territory. It was, therefore, not surprising that high-powered Chinese Military Delegation that visited Pakistan on August 26, included the People’s Liberation Army Commander for ‘Southern Tibet’, the area on the Chinese side bordering India.

•             The worst possible consequences have been within IOJK where resistance to repression has been rising, with an unprecedented curfew and complete lockdown, complete cutoff of all communication, a situation that did not even prevail during the height of the siege of Stalingrad or Leningrad during World War II. 6000 Kashmir is have been arrested without any charges and sent outside IOJK to jails in India ranging from the octogenarian former Chief Minister Dr. Farooq Abdullah to young teenage girls whose only crime has been to talk of ‘Azadi’ (freedom).

•             While there is a lot of bluff and bluster in Indian posturing, even nuclear sabre-rattling with the August 16 statement of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh questioning the utility of India’s professed “No First Use” policy on nuclear weapons. The fact is that, deep down, the Indian Establishment, particularly the RSS gang led by Modi, combines a curious mixture of hatred and fear of Pakistan. They have what can be termed as a “Mehmood of Ghazni Complex”, in other words, a fear of the Muslim inclination to ‘go against the tide’ to challenge injustice and wrong irrespective of an unequal size or strength! Sultan Mehmood of Ghazni has always been a very fascinating figure for the Hindutva ideologues, who, for them, symbolises what they view as “Muslim hordes from the North” with the Pakistan State seen as his contemporary potential ‘successor’.

Modi, who is from Gujrat, also knows that the famous Somnath Temple, located in his State, was a favourite target of Sultan Mehmood of Ghazni. A deep-seated loathing of Sultan Mehmood is embedded in the Hindutva mindset. In 1978, when the then BJP Chief and Foreign Minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee, went on an official visit to Afghanistan, the only special request he made was to visit Ghazni. His Afghan hosts were surprised, they said ”Ghazni is just a small town, it’s not a tourist spot, it has no 5-star hotels, why would you wish to go to such a place?” Vajpayee said ‘Ghazni is like a thorn that continues to hurt us as Sultan Mehmood, the marauder who looted India several times, came from there!” Conversely, Allama Iqbal, who was invited by King Nadir Shah to visit Afghanistan in 1933, also requested for a special visit to Ghazni to pay homage to the memory of Sultan Mehmood, in whose honour he penned a few famous couplets. It is thus no accident that Modi declared his intention to “free India from1200 years of slavery” in his speech to the Indian Parliament on June 12, 2014. Clearly, Modi’s reference is to the period of Muslim domination in India as the British rule lasted for only 200 years.

For Pakistan, it should be clear that an existential threat is posed by Modi’s India as the annexation of IOJK is the most important development for South Asia since 1971, given that the geography of the region has been changed. Modi and his RSS gang are also fervent believers in the notion of “Akhand Bharat” (Greater India). So a fascist India will likely become more aggressive with Pakistan through low-intensity conflict, proxy wars, covert operations, threat of war and nuclear blackmail.

This situation should also be viewed in the context of the new global scenario where the balance of economic and political power is shifting from the West to the East. The 21st Century is an “Asian Century”, particularly China’s transition from a regional to a global power. Then there are makings of a New Cold War with the US National Security Strategy of 2018 terming China and Russia as a “more serious threat than Al Qaeda or ISIS”.

Therefore, Pakistan needs to understand the nature of the challenge posed by Modi’s move:

•             The challenge is multi-dimensional: military, diplomatic, media, legal, all of which require sustaining a long-term strategy over a protracted period for the rest of Modi’s term, at least 3-5 years.

•             70% of the battle is in the domain of public diplomacy and propaganda, the battle of narratives, the ‘battle of ideas’, through media, think tanks, NGOs/civil society, human rights groups, parliamentary diplomacy, keeping up the Kashmiri morale while promoting a cohesive and credible Pakistani narrative, which we can sell at home and abroad.

•             Clarity about the kind of enemy we are facing: this is the die-hard ideological Hindutva crowd who hate Muslims and Pakistan, who presided over the ethnic cleansing of over 2000 Muslims in India’s Gujrat State in 2002, who actually believe in ‘Akhand Bharat’, and who are proud successors of the killers of Mahatma Gandhi. They will give no quarter and we should have no illusions about them either, as they will goto any extent to damage Pakistan.

Given this context, Pakistan needs to pursue a multi-pronged strategy with a kind of clarity and commitment that Pakistani policy makers demonstrated while building the Nuclear Bomb. Once the decision was taken in 1974, the Bomb project was pursued to its logical conclusion in a relentless, single minded manner, irrespective of any pressures and it achieved success when Pakistan detonated its own homemade nuclear device on May 28, 1998, undoubtedly, Pakistan’s finest hour. Such a strategy should target Modi and his RSS gang, and separate them from the broader Indian society and polity that opposes Modi, along with a united front of all Kashmiris and the linkup of the Kashmiri resistance with other insurgencies inside India. Close coordination with China and the rest of the international community through a strategy sustained by national stamina are the need of the hour.

A good example of an unconventional approach is the legal initiative taken by the Kashmir-Khalistan Referendum Front in an American court of law. The 73-page law suit accuses Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah as well as IOJK Commander, Lt Gen Kanwaljeet Singh Dhillon, of carrying out “extra judicial killings, wrongful deaths, crimes against humanity” against Kashmiris. The law suit against the Indian Prime Minister was filed under a Federal American statute, Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which allows civil suits on US soil against foreign officials who have violated Human Rights. Similar law suits in European courts, which also have a universal jurisdiction on Human Rights, can embarrass and damage the Indian leadership and expose the crimes that are being committed by them in the IOJK.

For starters, the focus should be on a Pakistani narrative. Indian writer Arundhati Roy’s classic article in The New York Times of August 15, 2019,”Silence is the Loudest Sound” provides some useful pointers, since it says it all:

•             Modi’s annexation of IOJK has a “distinct whiff of colonialism in the air”.

•             ‘RSS is the State’ in Modi’s India.

•             ‘An Architecture of Indian fascism is quickly being put in place’ by Modi and the RSS gang.

•             “There has not been a single year since 1947 when the Indian Army has not been deployed within India’s borders against its ‘own people’. The list is long: IOJK, Mizoram, Nagaland, Manipur, Hyderabad, Assam,…”

To meet this existential threat, Pakistan needs single-minded determination with clarity and commitment. Luckily, Pakistan has got strategic space to pursue the Kashmir cause for the next couple of years due to changes in the regional scenario:

•             Pakistan’s timely ‘course correction’ on the flawed Afghan policy of the past, reinforced by a clampdown on domestic extremism and militancy, Pakistan will no longer be caught in a ‘nutcracker’ like situation of being tied down both on the Western and Eastern borders.

•             President Trump has linked his re-election in2020 with the Afghan peace process in which Pakistan’s role is pivotal, hence, he feels that the road to the White House lies through Pakistan. Sooner than later, the Afghan peace talk will have to be revived.

•             Thanks to China, which is providing strategic “air cover” to Pakistan through CPEC, the Pakistan-China alliance will be further strengthened for the common cause of a joint strategy to counter India.

•             With the Gulf in turmoil and tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the last thing the International Community will want is a conflict between the two South Asian nuclear neighbours.               

After India’s annexation of Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, the future course of events will depend on three factors. First, while the Indian attempt is to seek a semblance of ‘normalcy’ through the diktat of their bayonets and bullets, with almost a million men under arms trying to enforce the annexation as a fait accompli. The Kashmiri determination to seek “Azadi” which is undeterred by any kind of force, will certainly supercede India’s ‘might is right’ approach as historically ‘right is might’.

Second, Pakistan, as the principal defender of the Kashmiri people and leading exponent of the Kashmir cause, must maintain the resolve and stamina to sustain a long term strategy of supporting the Kashmiri people and resisting Indian hegemony so that the status quo, which is untenable and unacceptable to the Kashmiri people, is changed. Third, the China factor would be key in any strategy as China, being Pakistan’s strategic partner provides Pakistan an entry into the international system, especially the UN Security Council, the G-20 and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

China’s leadership role in world affairs is a plus for Pakistan after having made the successful transition from a regional power to a global power. As Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi stated on March 18, 2019 during his meeting with his Pakistani counterpart: “no matter how things change in the world and the region, China will firmly support Pakistan in upholding its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and dignity”.

The China factor is also pivotal for two reasons in the context of Kashmir. China’s voice matters in the councils of power globally and when China speaks for Kashmir, that voice is heard loud and clear. An assertive China now has a global voice that resonates in key world capitals. As President Xi Jinping told the Communist Party Congress in Beijing on October 18, 2017 that “China has now become a great power in the world and it is time for us take centre stage in the world and to make a greater contribution to humankind.”

The other factor is China’s growing military might which was on display during the massive October 1, 2019, Chinese National Day military parade in Beijing, which shows that China now has the military prowess as well as the political will and the economic clout to pursue its interests in the region and the world. A key component of those interests is China’s strategic partnership with Pakistan which, as the China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said on September 24, 2019, is “unbreakable”.

The biggest challenge for Pakistani policymakers is going to be on the military front as India’s international image has suffered badly because of Modi’s August 5 blunder and for the first time in30 years, the situation in IOJK is not being blamed on Pakistan, rather the onus is on Indian actions alone. The Indian Establishment, including their military high command and the RSS gang might wish to divert attention away from their own follies and crimes in IOJK and shift the onus on Pakistan either via a “false flag” operation or even a tactical military move on the Line of Control. Such threats have been openly hurled by the Indian military brass. For example, General Bipin Rawat, the Indian Army Chief told the Indian media on September 30 that “if we have to go across (the LOC), we will through the air or the ground route or both. The red line has been very clearly drawn as to what will be the future course of action” and in the same interview, he repeated the canard about “Pakistani terror training camps in Balakot”.

History teaches us that military might cannot crush a people’s will to be free. Vietnam, Afghanistan, racist South Africa and America’s own experience of ‘shock and awe’ in the post 9/11 period are instructive examples of failures of brute force to subjugate a people determined to resist. On August 5, Modi used a tried, tested and failed formula, deploying 900,000 armed men to browbeat 8 million defenceless but resilient and defiant Kashmiris. He assumed, like the Americans did in Iraq in 2003, that it would be a ‘cakewalk’.

Like others of his ilk, that decision has boomeranged and Modi’s India is bound to get stuck and sink in the Kashmir quagmire. This action is a precursor of new challenges and opportunities for Pakistan to seize and to pursue a clear doable strategy that best preserves, protects and promotes the interests of Pakistan and the Kashmir cause that we as a Nation are committed to espouse. Above all, it is a test of our leadership and the mettle of our people. As the Quaid-e-Azam said: ”Let it not be said that we did not prove ourselves equal to the task”.

The post Pak View on India’s “Annexation” of Kashmir appeared first on IMR.

Farzana Shah is a Peshawar based journalist. This is an abridged extract of an article which was first published in the Pakistan Army Green Book 2020. The views expressed do not reflect the views of IMR

On August 5th, 2019 India unilaterally revoked Article 370 of its Constitution which promised autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, i.e., Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IOJK). This unlawful decision with its dire pending consequences has triggered an outrage, not only in the region but also at the global level. The entire state has been put under siege with total communication blackout, enforced by deploying thousands of fresh troops. Over 3000 political figures including former chief ministers of the state were arrested under so-called Public Safety Act (PSA).

India also divided the state into two; an act through which she changed the geography of the disputed land, hence practically ending the 1971 Simla Agreement. This agreement has remained a critical milestone for both Pakistan and India, as it was this agreement based upon which both countries established what the world later on recognized as Line of Control (LoC). Not only that, August 5th action also undermined the very foundation of Indian constitution, as Article 370 was obliterated without the essentially required consent of state government and that’s why this action was not a constitutional reform, but a blatant coup in total disregard to the pending UNSC resolutions /UN Charter.

Modi government with full backing from hardliner Hindu groups, abolished IOJK’s autonomous status under a fabricated security threat perception to conceal the real intent. Pak-US peace overtures in Afghanistan had made Delhi very nervous because of the simple fact that any settlement between the US and Taliban would have enabled Pakistan to move almost 200,000 of its troops or at least a large number of these to its eastern borders in Kashmir and elsewhere. Indian desperation to counter Pakistan and limit her growing role in Afghan peace process led to such an abrupt abrogation of special status of IOJK and this timing was no coincidence.

Media reports suggest the Indian intelligence agencies were desperately waiting for this opportunity to strike. Delhi had sensed that a possible deal managed by Pakistan for US troops’ withdrawal from Afghanistan could eventually renew US military assistance for Pakistan.

Reportedly, to scuttle Afghan peace deal and legitimize Indian stance over Kashmir, Indian spy agency RAW’s new chief Samant Goel called on Narendra Modi on July 5th, 2019 and apprised him of the plan to abolish the Article 370 for IOJK. Preparations for the move were already in place in Delhi as a number of high profile military and intelligence visits were made to IOJK including those by RAW’s chief Goel, Indian NSA Ajit Doval and Indian Army Chief General Bipin Rawat in the months preceding August 2019. On July 24, Doval also held a meeting with Indian military chiefs and heads of all three intelligence agencies including National Technical Research Organization (NTRO), in the same context.

Media also reported that India had flown Israeli Heron drones across the Pir Panjal range to rehearse controlling mob in case of protesteruption3; military aircrafts made a number of sorties flying relief supplies including food, water and medicines into the Valley for the Indian troops.

After Indian decision of obliteration of Article 370, LoC has become potential conflict with Pakistan under the nuclear overhang because of the simple fact that Delhi has changed the goalpost for future talks on Kashmir. According to Indian leadership, now talks will be on Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

Post August 5th environment suggests that India with obliteration of Article 370 actually risked a high intensity insurgency in an already volatile state of IOJK; something India could not have done alone without external backing.

Pakistan’s Current National Security

Predicaments Developments in IOJK are neither random nor isolated as far as their impact on Pakistan’s national security is concerned. It is a dilemma imposed by our geography that Pakistan cannot stay isolated from regional developments. Even in some cases, extra regional developments also impact Pakistan’s security milieu; fast evolving situation in Middle East and ongoing trade war between US and China, are cases in point.

United Nations on April 21, 1948 adopted Kashmir resolution after India took the issue to the UN under article 35 of Chapter VI. Kashmir was declared disputed territory and call for a plebiscite was made as the said chapter outlines the means for a peaceful settlement of disputes. The shadowy annexation of IOJK by India and insistence upon

its fabricated history has resulted in 3 out of4 Indo-Pak wars. With current clampdown on basic human rights in IOJK, there is a clear and present danger of yet another round of conflict. LoC is already red hot; both countries are already exchanging artillery fire. Earlier, in February 2019,both sides deployed air power. India lost 2 fighter jets on 27/2 with one pilot becoming POW; who was immediately returned by Pakistan as a goodwill gesture.

India is desperate to get a role in the region, belittling what Pakistan has been doing for regional stability. This is critical for India to present Pakistan as a perpetrator of global terror, while fact is Pakistan has been the biggest victim of non-state actors’ actions within and without.

Two most important strategic goals of India are:

•             Bigger role, both in the region and world.

•             Solving Kashmir through UNSC resolutions, but after changing its demography to ensure a win. Solving Kashmir will pave the way for permanent UNSC seat; vital prerequisite for India to embark on Akhand Bahart agenda of RSS.

Indian threat has been intensified even more after August 5, 2019. Kashmir has dominated the security debate as it’s going to impact both internal and external security dynamics. How things will unfold in coming weeks and months, depends on how Pakistan formulates and executes its strategy on Kashmir.

Apart from the traditional foe in the east, the country has been fighting an endless war on the west, which despite clear gains, remains a perpetually bleeding front albeit with reduced fatalities.

Notwithstanding these obvious kinetic threats, Pakistan’s security landscape is inevitably affected by certain other factors as well, like peaceful rise of China and her ensuing trade war with the US, culmination of US’ longest war in history in Afghanistan and growing strategic competition around various parts of Asia including South China Sea, Indian Ocean, North Korea, and stand-off between US allies in Strait of Hurmuz against Iran. All these geopolitical development swill directly or indirectly impact Pakistan. Hence, it is likely to continue to be in the eye of global security storm due to its geography and may continue to suffer if not steered wisely.

Pakistan’s Significance to China

Chinese trillion-dollar Belt & Road Initiative(BRI) is pivotal for turning China into a world commercial empire. The region of Azad Jammu and Kashmir gains unprecedented importance in the wake of US-China emerging geopolitical competition worldwide. US wants to hit CPEC just like India for almost similar reasons; CPEC has in fact comprehensively demolished the US envisaged strategic encirclement of China in South China Sea, notwithstanding US quadrilateral alliance with Japan, Australia, and India. Idea was that CPEC brings global connectivity to China, so that Beijing can invest hundreds of billions of US dollars in its reserves to reignite the growth engine, which has slowed down during last 5-7 years (from10% annual to 6.5%). Beijing has plans to expand BRI to 70 countries and CPEC remains a critical part of this Chinese enterprise. Road to China’s strive for challenging American dominance passes through CPEC.

Apart from this economic dimension, the north eastern region of IOJK is attractive due to its close proximity to Russia, China and Pakistan. The Indian action in IOJK gives the US deep state an opportunity for furthering its own scheme of geopolitical maneuvering in Afghanistan, which is instrumental in containing Russia-China-Pakistanat the same time.

While US has remained stranded in Afghan quagmire, China’s BRI has been helping Beijing in positioning China to rise peacefully as a peace broker to the conflict zones like Afghanistan and Iraq in near future through trade compulsions. These very aspects substantiate the growing geostrategic prominence of Pakistan /Kashmir.

The changing geopolitics has forced Pakistan to adopt a more robust offensive maritime policy, apart from safeguarding its interests attached to land component of CPEC. Pakistan Navy has embarked on an ambitious project of acquiring eight submarines along with multiple advanced naval ships. All these may help restore some balance of power in South Asia /IOR.

China – India – Pakistan Paradigm

Recent, Sino-India skirmishes in Doklam went full circle in locking both the nuclear powers into a possible warlike situation. India has recently expressed her envisioned two front war strategy, which basically relies on the premise of preventing Chinese ingress across the LAC amid a high intensity short lived Indo-Pak conflict adopting Cold Start Doctrine (CSD). After initial denial, the top Indian military brass has not only publically acknowledged its presence, but has also hinted at considering unleashing CSD against Pakistan.

Indian aggressive attempts to outmaneuver Pakistan’s nuclear threshold forced it to adopt a full spectrum deterrence posture, while retaining/displaying the resolve to adopt policy of first use. Though it carries a great promise of strategic stability, but still there is a sizeable Indian defense intelligentsia that conceives this as a weakness in conventional balance of power, hence sees an opportunity of a limited, high-intensity conflict aimed at shallow gains across LoC/IB. This community of India is of the view that such gains will serve a devastating blow to Pakistan’s national morale. Indian strategy is to choke Pakistan economically, while raising cost of its deterrence by triggering an arms race.

Adding current volatile situation in IOJK into above discussed strategic contest between conventional Indo-Pak militaries and growing US-China wrestling for dominance, it would be safe to assume that the probability of an armed conflict in this region was never this high in last 72 years, as it is now.

Critical Appraisal of Pakistan’s Response Strategy

Let us begin with the most critical question, i.e., if all these preparations as highlighted in earlier part of this discourse were underway in India, why Pakistan remained oblivious to these developments about IOJK or was it caught totally unaware /surprised like rest of the World? A critical and candid appraisal is needed.

It would be safe to assume that Pakistan missed the opportunity to preempt and did very little or nothing before August 5th on diplomatic and media fronts to expose and pressurize India. Whatever and wherever it reacted, it did once unilateral annexation of IOJK by Modi had already occurred.

In the wake of Indian move over IOJK, Pakistan repeatedly reiterated its intention to undertake preventive measures to counter threats hurled by India. Such a move had always been seen by the US and her allies as jeopardizing War on Terror, a metrics which puts Pakistan at a crucial position with regard to peace in the region. The equation exhibits importance of Kashmir conflict and consequences of Indian attempt of redrawing map of erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir for the world peace and stability.

On international fora, India always presented Kashmir as a bilateral issue, supposed to be solved under Simla Agreement at bilateral level without any third party intervention. While on the bilateral level, Indian policy on Kashmir is immoveable as it always maintains that Kashmir is an integral part of Union, hence no bilateral dialogue is possible. On the contrary, India showed willingness to discuss Azad Jammu Kashmir and Northern Areas(parts of heretofore Kashmir state) of Pakistan for which nation gave blood in 1947-48 to liberate from the clutches of Dogra Raj; putting added pressure on our diplomacy.

Despite the fact that since 9/11 Pakistan’s security challenges have grown manifold, it has made abundantly clear that Pakistan cannot and will not remain oblivious from what goes on inside the Kashmir valley; any undertakings however, demand a comprehensive understanding of the total security paradigm. Pakistan will have to work pro actively and diplomatically support the indigenous KFM, else the state will be dragged into yet another regional conflict with India, giving her the advantage to choose time and place of her liking.

Notwithstanding initial surprise, post August 5th Pakistan’s political leadership has repeatedly and quite forcefully warned the World at large about the potential threat to global peace emerging from regional conflict in Kashmir in near future; it’s a nuclear flashpoint that has the latent potential to engulf the entire world.

Geo-Strategic Implications

Strategically speaking, the clash of interests among big powers alone makes Kashmir a bone of contention; contested directly by three nuclear powers (intrinsically linked are the strategic interests of two extra regional nuclear powers i.e. US, Russia).

Gilgit-Baltistan region has for centuries been the most vital part of Jammu and Kashmir. It is now a key part of CPEC, the cornerstone of China-Pakistan axis and the flagship project of China’s BRI for global trade domination; it aims at connecting South Asia with Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East /Africa; the shortest route from Arabian Sea ports of Karachi and Gwadar.

The growing competition in different fields(fanning economies and military insecurities) is forcing China and India to gain access to energy rich CARs. International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) was envisioned by India as alternative to CPEC. This corridor connects CAR to Iran and to India through Arabian Sea. Obviously, the route is not only much costlier due to its length, but also tremendously insecure as it goes through Iran and Persian Gulf, regions far from stable for long term investments and economic activities. The only alternative short and direct route for India passes through Azad Kashmir and Pakistan’s northern areas. Sooner or later, India will make a move to extend its jurisdiction over this area; current overture in IOJK may have this latent desire imbedded in it.

Apart from economic and strategic dimensions, Kashmir issue has become a cultural and social question as well.

Modi is planning to change the religious demography of IOJK, through ethnic cleansing and Hindu settlements in disputed territory on the lines of Jewish settlements by Israel. This drive itself is being fueled by right-wing Hindutva gangs, who have taken over India and have completely distorted her secular face. Hindutva ideology, much like Hitler’s Nazism, believes in supremacy of their own faith and considers all minorities in India as impure and hence, must be culled from Indian soil.

Modi appealed to the Indian society to”embrace Kashmiris” on Independence Day. It was sensible from both the domestic and international perspectives. But the news coming out of IOJK and even from mainland India, indicates that Hindutva’s control over Indian society has put Indian minorities in grave danger. Lynching of Muslims and Kashmiri students even within Indian cities has become new normal. This explains why Modi was compelled to ensure a complete media clampdown in the IOJK. Apart from that, Modi is now faced with severe internal pressure to act against Pakistan on AJK.

Apropos, it is beyond any doubt that the current fascist regime in India has nefarious designs against Pakistan /Muslims. Ruling RSS/ VHP/BJP has built anti-Muslim/anti-Pakistan sentiment so hard in Indian mainstream media and public discourse that BJP will have to continue undertaking some sort of anti-Pak overtures every now and then, to stay in power; hence current misadventure should not be taken as last.

Possible Emerging Scenarios and their Impact on Pakistan’s National Security

It is evident from the analysis so far that an Indo-US-Israel nexus is at play against Pakistan at multiple levels to close the Kashmir chapter once and for all. Hence, it is now prudent to examine the possible outcomes of Indian political discourse vis-à-vis Pakistan (Table Opposite).

A critical appraisal of the above scenarios suggests that Pakistan will have to walk a very thin line to fight for the Kashmir cause. Biggest challenge is that Pakistan will have to take the initiative and yet not to be seen as an aggressor as per international law. Having tested Pakistan’s response in February 2019, India may not escalate the situation along LoC any further than routine ceasefire violations, without consolidating control over IOJK. India’s best bet in current scenario is to maintain status-quo with a complete information and media control on developments inside IOJK particularly in the valley. This is where Pakistan will have to respond along with aggressive, non-apologetic and bold diplomacy. Proactive Foreign Office (FO) will produce results. If Pakistan keeps waiting for Indian action to react; Islamabad will be playing a losing game from the very onset.

Policy Recommendations

So far, Pakistan has given a standard response to Indian action of August 5th. Prevailing security crisis however, demands a robust and out of box solution, and that too in quick time. International community at best, will not go beyond condemning India over human rights violations in IOJK. In order to do that Pakistan will have to take the war into non-kinetic domains:

•   Information / Cyber Warfare

•   Electronic Warfare (EW) Spectrum

Relevant establishments must provide support to diplomatic efforts being done by government through operations in these two domains with focused goal of extracting authentic information from stakeholders in IOJK most importantly from general public facing the brutalities of Indian oppressive forces. Once information gathered, FO must disseminate it with proper narrative of the state of Pakistan.

A single video clip or picture can change the perception of India, which it has built so painstakingly over the years. Pakistan needs to keep world attention on IOJK and in order to do that communication links inside the valley must be established. Indian decision of communication blackout in IOJK was not random, but part of the planning. Pakistan’s response in these two domains will be purely non-kinetic, denying any involvement of arms. If executed properly anda local uprising occurs inside IOJK, it will make it extremely difficult for India to keep selling the terrorism card on IOJK. Burhan Wani was a local hero, India could not blame his action on Pakistan. Only a native uprising will be just and politically defendable for Pakistan on international forums. Even such an uprising will need support in the information domain.

EW Spectrum would be critical as it will enable Pakistan to keep Indian preparation in check. There is a possibility that India creates a deception in IOJK and opens war across IB on a spot like Pakistan’s soft-belly (Rahim Yar Khan – Kashmore) to sever Karachi from rest of Pakistan. There are rumors suggesting similar planning going on in Indian military headquarters; Pakistan must take requisite safeguards.

Pakistan must also keep refining standard diplomatic response along with taking into consideration above mentioned suggestions. Few areas where improvement can be made are mentioned below:

•             Pakistan, according to UN charter, can openly help Kashmiris in their fight. Indian intervention in East Pakistan and recent Syrian conflict between Russia and the US are clear examples.

•             India may try to capture areas 5 to 7 km inside AJK to make claim on the area. Pakistan army must have own similar plans and be executed preemptively.

•             Question of Kashmir must be debated among legislators on regular basis so that policy can be kept proactive rather than calling session of parliament on special occasions. Kashmir’s importance as vital strategic national interest must be seen by whole nation. Kashmir demands and deserves more pragmatism than emotional outburst.

•             Pakistan’s foreign policy needs more consistency, more inclusiveness of security institutions and constant review of emerging developments around the world particularly in South Asia.

•             Kinetic intervention from Pakistan has proven counter-productive as far as larger goals of Kashmir’s freedom is concerned. It created problems locally as well. State must adopt transparent policy in this regard. Proscribed organizations must remain ineffective and immobile.

•             Pakistan must establish a dedicated and permanent desk at FO focused on human rights violation in India against minorities. These efforts must be driven not by shallow patriotism, but true humanitarian grounds. In this regard, contacts must be established with oppressed groups within Indian society. This desk must be tasked to constantly arranging seminars and programs for this single purpose. Kashmir Committee must work along with this desk.

•             Especial efforts must be put on proactive diplomacy on Kashmir in P-5 nations. Pakistan embassies must conduct seminars, conferences and round tables with local intellectuals about Indian oppression in the valley.

Conclusion

Indian government has gravely endangered the global peace by unilaterally changing the status of disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir. Due to RSS/BJP actions in IOJK, future of 8 million Kashmiri Muslims is at stake with a probability of their systematic genocide or forced exodus from their native land. The subsequent strategic situation demanded an appraisal to assess the way forward for the state. This paper is an attempt in the same direction. It argued and examined various vertices of Kashmir’s geography, its linkage with national security and impacts of various policy options. Pakistan will have to act proactively. Standard diplomatic response will not be enough and a delay in decisive line of action will be suicidal.

Pakistan must ensure regional peace by adopting an aggressive and just policy on Kashmir, while also ensuring that state must not be seen as aggressor till the time an armed conflict with India becomes inevitable. Information and EW Spectrum domains must be explored for non-kinetic operations against Indian political and military leadership so that Pakistan can expose Indian atrocities and can achieve higher moral ground before any open conflict.

The post Pak View of Emerging Geopolitical Scenario Post Article 370 Abrogation appeared first on IMR.