The 2008 India-US civil nuclear deal is marked as one of the most significant event in the strategic landscape of South Asia in last 3 decades. This deal has been viewed as a beginning of special relationship between India and the US. However, after signing the nuclear deal, the first strategic dialogue between India and US took place on 2010 at Washington. It is unfortunate that since its inception, the strategic implications of the deal on the South Asian calculus has remained the most significant part of debate. This research aims to analyze various dimensions of Indo-US strategic cooperation which include nuclear politics in South Asia, arms race instability, Non-Proliferation and regional security and stability.
The aim of India-US partnership was to enhance India’s strategic role in the South Asia, while ignoring the impact on the regional stability and states especially Pakistan. The civilian nuclear agreement between India and the US is a comprehensive framework contract, comprised of multiple agreements. The 2005 deal is considered as very facilitative in nuclear commerce and trade. Therefore, various agreements have been signed between both states after the operationalization of nuclear deal. Subsequently, in order to engage in nuclear commerce or trade various changes has been introduced by the US in its domestic laws, and most important step was provision of NSG(Nuclear Suppliers Group) waiver to India.
The intense and heated debate on the nuclear cooperation agreement between India and US has remained focused on the following three issues: First, impact of nuclear deal on Strategic Stability on South Asia; Second, implications of deal on arms race between India and Pakistan; Third: non-proliferation implications of the deal.
Strategic partnership is viewed as foundation to India-US nuclear deal comprised of rebalancing actor in region, pivot of Asia and key actor in “Indo-Pacific” policy of US. Pakistan’s strategic analysts have showed their concerns on the India-US strategic cooperation as it has ability to disturb the Balance of power in region: which is dangerous for peace and security of regional states.
Under the Indo-US nuclear cooperation, India insisted that its own nuclear armament plans will not be affected by the nuclear cooperation with US. This factor has threaten the region with a new arms race because regional counterparts; Pakistan and China are likely to respond to India’s nuclear weapons buildup to ensure the deterrence equilibrium in the region. This factor instigates arms race instability in the region.
Indo-US nuclear deal is question mark on the spirit of non-proliferation regime. As per article I of NPT states that, there shall be no transfer of the nuclear technology from the NWS to the NNWS, but it does not address the transfer of technology from the NWS to another NWS. Despite being Party to the NPT, the US has assisted India in nuclear technology since the early 1990s. Similarly, the Indo-US nuclear deal has provided special waiver to India for the NSG membership that aims to assist India in enhancing its nuclear arms capability. The Indo-U.S. nuclear deal allows India poses a serious risk to regional and global security. This also permits other nuclear states like Russia and China to sell their nuclear technologies to other states. Such nuclear deal reveals about the discriminatory international system and the role of hegemonic powers in changing the global norms. Furthermore, under the nuclear agreement India has be granted the NSG Waiver that is against the norms of Non-proliferation regime. Therefore, such arrangements have definitely weakened the NPT and its mission of preventing nuclear proliferation.
Therefore, ten years of India-US strategic partnership has brought immense repercussions on strategic landscape of South Asia. Since 2008, the United States has been pursuing the policy of discrimination and nuclear exceptionalism towards India. This factor is posing dangerous impact on regional stability and security, arms control efforts, instigating arms race instabilities and weekend the Non-proliferation Treaty and multilateral export control regimes.
Major Challenges for Pakistan in 2022
Pakistan has been facing sever challenges since 1980s, after the former USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan. The history is full of challenges, but, being a most resilient nation, Pakistan has faced some of them bravely and overcome successfully. Yet, few are rather too big for Pakistan and still struggling to overcome in the near future.
Some of the challenges are domestic or internal, which can be addressed conveniently. But, some of them are part of geopolitics and rather beyond control of Pakistan itself. Such challenges need to pay more attention and need to be smarter and address them wisely.
Few key areas will be the main focus of Pakistan in the year ahead. Relations with China and the US while navigating the Sino-US confrontation, dealing with Afghanistan’s uncertainties, managing the adversarial relationship with India and balancing ties between strategic ally Saudi Arabia and neighbor Iran.
Pakistan has to pursue its diplomatic goals in an unsettled global and regional environment marked by several key features. They include rising East-West tensions, increasing preoccupation of big powers with domestic challenges, ongoing trade and technology wars overlying the strategic competition between China and the US, a fraying rules-based international order and attempts by regional and other powers to reshape the rules of the game in their neighborhood.
Understanding the dynamics of an unpredictable world is important especially as unilateral actions by big powers and populist leaders, which mark their foreign policy, have implications for Pakistan’s diplomacy. In evolving its foreign policy strategy Pakistan has to match its goals to its diplomatic resources and capital. No strategy is effective unless ends and means are aligned.
Pakistan’s relations with China will remain its overriding priority. While a solid economic dimension has been added to long-standing strategic ties, it needs sustained high-level engagement and consultation to keep relations on a positive trajectory. CPEC is on track, timely and smoothly progress is crucial to reinforce Beijing’s interest in strengthening Pakistan, economically and strategically. Close coordination with Beijing on key issues remains important.
Pakistan wants to improve ties with the US. But relations will inevitably be affected by Washington’s ongoing confrontation with Beijing, which American officials declare has an adversarial dimension while China attributes a cold war mindset to the US. Islamabad seeks to avoid being sucked into this big power rivalry. But this is easier said than done. So long as US-China relations remain unsteady it will have a direct bearing on Pakistan’s effort to reset ties with the US especially as containing China is a top American priority. Pakistan desires to keep good relations with the US, but, not at the cost of China. In past, Pakistan was keeping excellent relations with US, while simultaneously very close with China. When the US imposed economic blockade against China and launched anti-communism drive during the cold war, Pakistan was close ally with the US and yet, keeping excellent relations with China. Pakistan played vital role in bring China and the US to establish diplomatic relations in 1970s. Yet, Pakistan possesses the capability to narrow down the hostility between China and the US.
Pakistan was close ally with the US during cold war, anti-communism threat, war against USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1980s, and war on terror, etc. Pakistan might be a small country, but, possesses strategic importance. As long as, the US was cooperating with Pakistan, Pakistan looked after the US interest in the whole region. In fact, Pakistan ensured that the US has achieved its all strategic goals in the region. Since, the US kept distance from Pakistan, is facing failure after another failure consecutively. The importance of Pakistan is well recognized by the deep state in the US.
US thinks that withdrawal from Afghanistan has diminished Pakistan’s importance for now. For almost two decades Afghanistan was the principal basis for engagement in their frequently turbulent ties, marked by both cooperation and mistrust. As Pakistan tries to turn a new page with the US the challenge is to find a new basis for a relationship largely shorn of substantive bilateral content. Islamabad’s desire to expand trade ties is in any case contingent on building a stronger export base.
Complicating this is Washington’s growing strategic and economic relations with India, its partner of choice in the region in its strategy to project India as a counterweight to China. The implications for Pakistan of US-India entente are more than evident from Washington turning a blind eye to the grim situation in occupied Kashmir and its strengthening of India’s military and strategic capabilities. Closer US-India ties will intensify the strategic imbalance in the region magnifying Pakistan’s security challenge.
Multiple dimensions of Pakistan’s relations with Afghanistan will preoccupy Islamabad, which spent much of 2021 engaged with tumultuous developments there. While Pakistan will continue to help Afghanistan avert a humanitarian and economic collapse it should not underestimate the problems that may arise with an erstwhile ally. For one, the TTP continues to be based in Afghanistan and conduct attacks from there. The border fencing issue is another source of unsettled discord. Careful calibration of ties will be needed — assisting Afghanistan but avoiding overstretch, and acknowledging that the interests of the Taliban and Pakistan are far from identical. Moreover, in efforts to mobilize international help for Afghanistan, Islamabad must not exhaust its diplomatic capital, which is finite and Pakistan has other foreign policy goals to pursue.
Managing relations with India will be a difficult challenge especially as the Modi government is continuing its repressive policy in occupied Kashmir and pressing ahead with demographic changes there, rejecting Pakistan’s protests. The hope in establishment circles that last year’s backchannel between the two countries would yield a thaw or even rapprochement, turned to disappointment when no headway was made on any front beyond the re-commitment by both neighbors to observe a ceasefire on the Line of Control.
Working level diplomatic engagement will continue on practical issues such as release of civilian prisoners. But prospects of formal dialogue resuming are slim in view of Delhi’s refusal to discuss Kashmir. This is unlikely to change unless Islamabad raises the diplomatic costs for Delhi of its intransigent policy. Islamabad’s focus on Afghanistan last year meant its diplomatic campaign on Kashmir sagged and was limited to issuing tough statements. Unless Islamabad renews and sustains its international efforts with commitment and imagination, India will feel no pressure on an issue that remains among Pakistan’s core foreign policy goals.
With normalization of ties a remote possibility, quiet diplomacy by the two countries is expected to focus on managing tensions to prevent them from spinning out of control. Given the impasse on Kashmir, an uneasy state of no war, no peace is likely to continue warranting Pakistan’s sustained attention.
In balancing ties with Saudi Arabia and Iran, Pakistan should consider how to leverage possible easing of tensions between the long-standing rivals — of which there are some tentative signs. With Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman keen to use economic power to expand his country’s diplomatic clout by making strategic overseas investments, Pakistan should use its political ties with Riyadh to attract Saudi investment through a coherent strategy. Relations with Iran too should be strengthened with close consultation on regional issues especially Afghanistan. The recent barter agreement is a step in the right direction.
In an increasingly multipolar world, Pakistan also needs to raise its diplomatic efforts by vigorous outreach to other key countries and actors beyond governments to secure its national interests and goals.
Afghanistan: UN launches largest single country aid appeal ever
The UN and partners launched a more than $5 billion funding appeal for Afghanistan on Tuesday, in the hope of shoring up collapsing basic services there, which have left 22 million in need of assistance inside the country, and 5.7 million people requiring help beyond its borders.
Speaking in Geneva, UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths said that $4.4 billion was needed for the Afghanistan Humanitarian Response Plan alone, “to pay direct” to health workers and others, not the de facto authorities.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi called for $623 million, to support refugees and host communities in five neighbouring countries, for the Afghanistan Situation Regional Refugee Response Plan.
“Today we are launching an appeal for $4.4 billion for Afghanistan itself for 2022,” said Mr. Griffiths. “This is the largest ever appeal for a single country for humanitarian assistance and it is three times the amount needed, and actually fundraised in 2021.”
Needs could double
The scale of need is already enormous, both UN officials stressed, warning that if insufficient action is taken now to support the Afghanistan and regional response plans, “next year we’ll be asking for $10 billion”.
Mr. Griffiths added: “This is a stop-gap, an absolutely essential stop-gap measure that we are putting in front of the international community today. Without this being funded, there won’t be a future, we need this to be done, otherwise there will be outflow, there will be suffering.”
Rejecting questions that the funding would be used to support the Taliban’s grip on de facto government, Mr. Griffiths insisted that it would go directly into the pockets of “nurses and health officials in the field” so that these services can continue, not as support for State structures.
UN aid agencies describe Afghanistan’s plight as one of the world’s most rapidly growing humanitarian crises.
According to UN humanitarian coordination office OCHA, half the population now faces acute hunger, over nine million people have been displaced and millions of children are out of school.
Asked to describe what might happen if sufficient support was not forthcoming, the UN emergency relief chief replied that he was particularly concerned for one million children now facing severe acute malnutrition. “A million children – figures are so hard so grasp when they’re this kind of size – but a million children at risk of that kind of malnutrition if these things don’t happen, is a shocking one.”
But humanitarian agencies and their partners who will receive the requested funding directly can only do so much, Mr. Griffiths explained, before reiterating his support for the 22 December UN Security Council resolution that cleared the way for aid to reach Afghans, while preventing funds from falling into the hands of the Taliban.
“Humanitarian agencies inside Afghanistan can only operate if there’s cash in the economy which can be used to pay officials, salaries, costs, fuel and so-forth,” he said. “So, liquidity in its first phase is a humanitarian issue, it’s not just a bigger economic issue.”
Stave off disease, hunger
He added: “My message is urgent: don’t shut the door on the people of Afghanistan. Humanitarian partners are on the ground, and they are delivering, despite the challenges. Help us scale up and stave off wide-spread hunger, disease, malnutrition and ultimately death by supporting the humanitarian plans we are launching today.”
Highlighting the need to avoid a wider regional crisis emanating from Afghanistan, UNHCR chief Grandi, insisted that what was needed most, was “to stabilize the situation inside Afghanistan, including that of displaced people who are displaced inside their country. Also, to prevent a larger refugee crisis, a larger crisis of external displacement.”
Nonetheless, Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours had sheltered vulnerable Afghans for decades, Mr. Grandi explained, as he appealed for $623 million in funding for 40 organizations working in protection, health and nutrition, food security, shelter and non-food items, water and sanitation, livelihoods and resilience, education, and logistics and telecoms.
Decades of shelter
No-one should forget “that there is a regional dimension to this crisis, represented by the Afghan refugees but also Afghans with many other ‘stay’ arrangements in neighbouring countries in particular,” Mr. Grandi said, “especially in Pakistan and Iran that have hosted Afghans for more than 40 years, but also Central Asian States.”
Since the Taliban takeover last August, women’s and girls’ rights have continued to come under attack, OCHA noted in a statement, “while farmers and herders are struggling amid the worst drought in decades and the economy is in freefall”.
On the issue of protecting fundamental rights, Mr. Griffiths underlined the fact that UN humanitarians were continuing to hold “conversations” with Afghanistan’s de facto authorities at a national and sub-national level, on issues such as aid and education access for all.
Echoing that message, UN refugee chief Mr. Grandi noted that humanitarians on the ground were well aware of the importance of stressing the need to protect the rights of minorities and other vulnerable Afghans.
“Our colleagues are there every day, and that’s what they talk about every day; they certainly talk about access, and delivery and needs, but they also talk about women at work, women in school – girls in school – rights of minorities, but it’s that space that we need to preserve.”
Hinduisation of India
India’s constitution calls upon its citizens to imbibe the spirit of “scientific inquiry” and humanism”. Oblivious of their constitutional duty, India is still wedded to dogmas. This fact is obvious from the recent calendar “invented’ by the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. The calendar is intended to play to the tune of Hindutva ideologues, Bharatiya Janata party and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
This calendar claims that the invasion of the Aryan race is a myth. They were a “race indigenous to India”.
The BJP and RSS consider the Aryans to have been indigenous to India and long opposed the dominant ‘Aryan invasion’ theory. The calendar disbelieves that the Aryans came along with the Vedic culture from the Central Asia. That they introduced this culture to the aboriginals, predominantly the dark -skinned Dravidian race. That the Harappa-Mohenjo-daro civilisations did not predate the Vedic era. Vedic Culture and the Indus Valley Civilisation (7000 BCE – 1500 BCE) were synonymous.
The BJP-led Union government is trying to rewrite India’s history textbooks and “saffronise” education. Hindu right wing claims that the creators of the Vedas always belonged to India. Muslims and Christians are ‘invader’ races with respect to India, as opposed to the supposedly indigenous Aryans.
Museum renamed after Shiva
Yogi Adityanath often showed abhorrence to Moghul icons. He mocks the expenditure of such monuments. He vowed not to spend a penny on even Muslim graveyards, and by corollary, even mosques. India’s Supreme Court y ruled that a mosque is not necessary for the Muslim mode of worship. He renamed the upcoming “Mughal Museum” in Agra after Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Yogi believes that he himself is a scion of the Maratha warriors.
Yogi says “how can Mughal be our heroes?” Thus he is up against 396 of its 1 lakh-plus villages and towns bearing the names of the Mughals. What about
Bihar with 97, Maharashtra 50, and Haryana 39 villages named after the Moghul?
About 50 percent of the villages bear standalone names such as Akbarpur, Aurangabad, Humayunpur and Babarpur. In addition, there are also syncretic names such as Akbar Nivas Khandrika and Damodarpur Shahjahan.
The most common name is Akbarpur of which there are nearly 70 across the country, followed by Aurangabad, which is the name of 63 places.
Since coming to power in 2017, Yogi has renamed several places in the state including railway junction Mughalsarai renamed as Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Allahabad as Prayagraj, and Faizabad as Ayodhya. The renaming falls in line with the Sangh Parivar’s ideological commitment to reclaiming the “original” lost glory of India in pre-Islamic times.*
Hyderabad or Bhagyanagar
Hindutva lobby, as led by Yogi, wants to rename Hyderabad as Bhagyanagar, Taj Mahal as “Ram Mahal, Krishna Mahal, or even Rashtrabhakt (patriot) Mahal”. They want to rename Delhi as ”Indraprastha”, Lucknow as ”Lakhanpur”, and Victoria Palace in Kolkata as Janaki Palace
A Varanasi court ordered Archeological Survey of India to conduct a survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque compound adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple to find out whether it was a “superimposition, alteration or addition or there is structural overlapping of any kind, with or over, any other religious structure”.
The decision is preposterous as no evidence was produced before the court to infer that there was a prior existing temple at the site of the mosque.
Even in the Ayodhya judgment, the ASI excavation was ultimately of no use. The ASI did not find proof that the Babri Masjid was built upon demolition of a temple. No evidence was produced before the court to suggest that there was a prior existing temple at the site of the mosque.
The Kashi Vishwanath Dam project
This dam is the biggest attempt at India’s civilisational restoration since the rebuilding of the Somnath temple.
Why emphasis on Arthashastra by the IIT, Kharagpur?
India wants to promote teaching of Arthashastra (Chanakya) through prestigious institutes as Chanakya postulates unethical, no-holds barred wars. India trained mukti bahini so-called freedom fighters) and attacked erstwhile East Pakistan when Pakistan least expected it.
The Ramayanas and the Mahabharata wars elucidate various types of yuddha (wars). In ancient India there were three schools of war. Bhishma’s school of warfare belonged to dharma yuddha (ethical or just war). Two other schools, Brihaspati and Krishna’s school of warfare belonged to koota yuddha (all-out war) or maya yuddha (war by tricks or stratagems). There is too much of negative publicity about Islamic jihad (struggle). But, there is little limelight on koota yuddha in India’s history.
Bhishma stressed chivalry and ruled out surprise and deception. But Brihaspati recommended that the king should attack an enemy only if the enemy’s strength is one-third of his own (`Udyog Parva’). He suggested that the king should never trust the enemy or spare him, no matter how old or virtuous he may be.
Keynote of Krishna’s military philosophy was `end justifies the means.’ He laid great stress on deception. `Truth may often have to be sacrificed in pursuit of victory’ (Karma Parva). He advocated use of force to defeat the enemy if he was superior in strength or capability (Shalya Parva). Opportunity once wasted never returns (`Shanti Parva’).
Even the enlightened Hindu and the military writers believe that India’s prosperity during various periods of history, for example during the Maurya and the Gupta periods, rose or fell pari passu with rise or fall of military leadership.
Since partition, the Hindu leaders have put a tab on their innate desire to expose their urge for koota yuddha with Pakistan because of political expediency. India’s confidence-building measures did not contribute to the solution of the Kashmir, or Sir Creek issues. They were dilly-dallying tactics to evade a plebiscite in disputed Kashmir.
Pakistani leaders, including previous prime-ministers and prime-ministers-to-be should take off their blinkers and try to understand how India, through koota yuddha, with like minded countries, is trying to wreck Pakistan’s economy and country.
Obviously India wants to erase non-Hindu history. It wants to glorify Hindu warriors to prepare India for a war against its neighbours
The role of CPC in supporting leadership schools in democratic countries
The Department of International Communication is officially under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China “CPC”, known by...
Guterres Calls on Private Sector to Help Developing Countries with Post-Pandemic Recovery
In a special address at the virtual World Economic Forum Davos Agenda 2022 on Monday, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres...
Modi Urges All Countries to Embrace Sustainable Lifestyles
Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India used his address to the Davos Agenda 2022 to call on all countries to...
China: $1.9 Trillion Boost and 88M Jobs by 2030 Possible with Nature-Positive Solutions
Nearly $9 trillion, two-thirds of China’s total Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is at risk of disruption from nature loss. Making...
UN-backed COVAX mechanism delivers its 1 billionth COVID-19 vaccine dose
With a 1.1 million jab delivery in Rwanda this weekend, the World Health Organization’s multilateral initiative to provide equal access...
Xi Jinping Calls for Greater Global Cooperation to Tackle Common Challenges
President Xi Jinping of China called for stronger international cooperation in overcoming shared global challenges including defeating COVID-19, revitalizing the...
Start your days with a better morning routine
Your morning sets the tone for the day to come. By starting the day with intent you’ll find yourself in...
Defense3 days ago
Why shouldn’t Israel Undermine Iran’s Conventional Deterrence
New Social Compact3 days ago
Age No Bar: A Paradigm Shift in the Girl Child’s Marriageable Age in India
Americas4 days ago
The Forgotten Analogy: World War II
Crypto Insights4 days ago
Unifying Cryptocurrency ESG Efforts Key to Boost Global Adoption
Crypto Insights3 days ago
The Bitcoin ETFs: An Instrument to be Reckoned With
Middle East3 days ago
Egypt vis-à-vis the UAE: Who is Driving Whom?
East Asia4 days ago
The global role of CPC and Xi Jinping in promoting a dialogue among civilizations
Science & Technology4 days ago
Ethical aspects relating to cyberspace: Self-regulation and codes of conduct