Commentary
Find our newspaper columns, blogs, and other commentary pieces in this section. Our research focuses on Advanced Biology, High-Tech Geopolitics, Strategic Studies, Indo-Pacific Studies & Economic Policy
Instead of Taliban talks, India must stand up for Afghan resistance despite Panjshir fall
Kabul fell to the Taliban on 15 August 2021. On 18 August, Ahmad Massoud, the son of Ahmed Shah Massoud, appealed to the West for help from Panjshir – “No matter what happens, my mujahideen fighters and I will defend Panjshir as the last bastion of Afghan freedom. Our morale is intact. We know from experience what awaits us. But we need is more weapons, more ammunition, and more supplies. America and its democratic allies do not just have to fight against terrorism in common with Afghans. We now have a long history made up of shared ideals and struggles. There is still much that you can do to aid the cause of freedom. You are our only remaining hope.”
Should India worry about China's military exercises in Tibet?
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army is undertaking more military exercises across all theatre commands, including Tibet, to be prepared for real-time contingencies. It recently conducted two days and one night, combined armed forces, blue versus red army military exercises in Tibet last week. Its Tibet Military District (TMD) reportedly deployed more than ten combat units for these military exercises. These units were divided into two teams, the blue and red armies. The red army was the PLA, while the blue army most likely resembled India. This is not the first time such exercises were conducted by the PLA’s TMD, Western Theatre Command (WTC) or Xinjiang Military District’s (XMD) South Xinjiang Military Command – all three are directly or indirectly responsible for a contingency on the border with India.The article was originally published in the Times of India's TOI+
Exploring a new geopolitical partnership — the India-Russia-Japan triangle
Climate Change Is the Biggest Threat to Indian Ocean Security
By Arjun Gargeyas
“The Indian Ocean is warming at a higher rate than the other oceans around the world,” revealed Swapna Panickal, a meteorological scientist at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, based on the recently released IPCC report. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the issues concerning the Indo-Pacific. But the threat of an existential crisis due to natural disasters for a number of island states in the region requires a joint plan of action to tackle the current situation.The dormant Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) has the ability – and the need – to take the initiative on protecting the region’s interests amid the unfolding climate crisis.
Russia-China alliance could be shaken by fisheries
Read the full article on Asia TimesBeijing may be trying to coerce Moscow into letting it fish gratis in Russian watersSince at least 2014, Russia and China have seen their interests conflating against the United States and its allies. It is no surprise that both Russia and China (and their adversaries) see this “alliance” as flexible, pragmatic and based on mutual benefit, but not at the expense of either party’s distinct national interests – especially economic.With the recent joint military exercises, hysterical discourse around a supposed joint Russia-China front across domains is emerging, yet despite this, not all is well between the Dragon and the Bear.An undeclared quasi trade war on fisheries is ongoing between Russia and China. As early as October 2020, Russian media reported Chinese authorities were restricting fisheries imports from the Russian Far East.With the Covid-19 pandemic raging, the cited reason was “traces of the coronavirus on the seafood’s outer packaging.” This may have had some overlap with Chinese authorities’ desire to deflect the blame over the origins of the Covid-19 virus in Wuhan, China.Almost 60% of Russian seafood exports have been to the Chinese market alone, in previous years. The restrictions are still in force, and the response of the Chinese authorities has been less than engaging. The Russian Far East’s fisheries economy is set to bear losses in the range of 27% decline in revenue.For a measure of how drastic the situation has been, in March, Alexei Chekunkov, the Russian minister for the development of the Russian Far East and Arctic, went so far as to say that Far Eastern fishermen can safely delete the year 2021 from their calendar.The most affected regions in Russia are Sakhalin Oblast and Kamchatka Krai, which export much of their fish to China. In response to the crisis, the Russian fishing industry refuses to adopt a defeatist approach. Its efforts have been multifaceted – finding new alternatives to the Chinese market, seeking economic state intervention from the Russian government, and pushing for mitigating measures at relevant joint forums with China.Read the full article on Asia Times
NDA, military can learn from US how to tweak standards for women without sacrificing fitness
Gender justice in the Armed Forces won yet another round when the Supreme Court passed an interim order to allow women to take the admission exam to the National Defence Academy, or NDA, that is scheduled for 5 September this year. Kush Kalra’s writ petition invoked the Articles pertinent to Fundamental Rights while the Additional Solicitor General, relied for defence, upon the principle of judicial non-interference in policy matters. In reality, the defence had no chance, for the ramparts of the male bastion had already suffered a major breach in early 2020 when the Supreme Court had passed orders for grant of permanent commission to women officers in the Army. The case took a decade to be decided. Justice was delayed but not denied.
While the previous battles for gender justice were confined to serving women officers, simultaneous thrusts are now aimed at the Armed Forces entry system. The Supreme Court is also hearing a petition regarding denial of admission to girls in the Sainik Schools. However, in November 2019, the Ministry of Defence had already announced its decision on opening Sainik schools for girls.Read the full article in ThePrint
Why China is Building Missile Silos
Satellite pictures have revealed what appears to be an ongoing Chinese project to prepare vast new fields of missile silos that could possibly be used to launch nuclear weapons at China’s adversaries, including the United States and India. Why is China digging these silos?
Satellite images have revealed that China is building at least three missile silo fields in Yumen in Gansu province, near Hami in Xinjiang province, and at Hanggin Banner, Ordos City, in Inner Mongolia.
India’s domestic politics makes China-Pakistan nexus more potent in Taliban era
The establishment of the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ on 19 August was announced through a tweet from the handle of its official spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid. The common wisdom in India is that terrorist threats to India would increase because Afghanistan will be used as a haven, as it happened during the earlier period of the Taliban rule in 1996-2001 with the hijacking of the Indian Airlines plane in December 1999 being a prime example.
The only problem is that this time around India’s vulnerability has exponentially increased, not so much by the increase in the scale of threat as by India’s domestic political trajectory, which may have set itself up. It would not take much for India’s adversaries to light the fire that exploits modern India’s historically rooted communal fault line.
The setup was symbolised through the announcement by Prime Minister Narendra Modi that India would observe 14 August as ‘Partition Horrors Remembrance Day’. Former foreign secretary Shyam Saran described the announcement as a move aimed “to reopen the wounds of yesteryear, to reignite ugly passions, where past horrors are regurgitated so they may be re-enacted with renewed passion”.Read the full article in ThePrint
What Taliban's victory means for Pakistan and therefore India
This article was first published in the Times of IndiaTaliban's takeover of Kabul is forcing India to reassess its aims and objectives concerning Afghanistan. Of primary interest is the impact of this development on Pakistan. On this question, two views have come to light over the last few days.The first view cautions against the increase in terrorism from Pakistan. The recommendation arising from this view is that India needs to coalesce anti-Pakistan factions in Afghanistan. The counter-view focuses on the inevitability of a split between the Taliban and Pakistan. The assumption being that once the Taliban assumes political control over Afghanistan, it is bound to take some stances that will go against the interests of its sponsor. The recommendation arising from this view is that India should sit back. It should let things unfold because Pakistan's victory is a Cadmean one — it comes with massive costs for Pakistan's economy, society, and politics.Which of these two divergent views is likely to play out?To understand what the Taliban's victory means for Pakistan — and hence India — it is useful to model Pakistan as two geopolitical entities, not one. The first entity is a seemingly normal Pakistani state, presumably concerned first and foremost with the peace and prosperity of its citizens. The second entity is what my colleague Nitin Pai has named the Pakistani military-jihadi complex (MJC). Comprising the military, militant, radical Islamist and political-economic nodes, the MJC pursues domestic and foreign policies to ensure its survival and dominance. For the MJC, positioning and defeating the existential enemy — India — is key to ensure its hold over the other Pakistan.Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan will be perceived differently by these two Pakistani entities. The non-MJC Pakistan would be worried about the Taliban's march to power. It would fear the spillover of terrorism inside its borders, orchestrated by groups such as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. Politically, a powerful Taliban would pose the threat of breathing new life in the Durand Line question. On the economic front, the prospect of a dependent Taliban government further draining Pakistan's dwindling resources would be another cause of concern. In short, if this entity were in charge of Pakistan's foreign policy, it wouldn't have doggedly invested in the Taliban.That's quite clearly not the case. Taliban's takeover, on the other hand, is a strategic victory for the MJC. Over the last two decades, it has played a risky game sheltering and guiding the Taliban's actions while also supporting the US in its Afghanistan campaign. When things went wrong, the MJC was able to pass the blame to the other, weaker Pakistan. Recently, it played a role in steering the Afghan Taliban to sign the Doha agreement. It worked over the last two decades to reduce the Indian economic and political footprint in Afghanistan. Given the efforts it has put in, the MJC is sure to perceive the Taliban's comeback as an indisputable victory. This success would bolster the MJC's strategy of long-term commitment to terrorist groups. More importantly, it consolidates its relative dominance over the other Pakistan.
How does this affect India?
As the MJC's domestic position strengthens, its anti-India aims will grow stronger. There is a possibility of the MJC moving its terror outfits to Loya Paktika in eastern Afghanistan, a hotbed of anti-India activities in the past. This scenario would allow the MJC to use terrorism against India while claiming it has no control over these elements.Many commentators have argued that the world in 2021 will not let off perpetrators of terrorism easily. But they seem to forget that the return of the Taliban illustrates that the opposite is true. As long as terrorism is portrayed as an instrument of a domestic insurgency, the world will continue to look away. For instance, the Taliban continued terrorist attacks inside Afghanistan even as it was negotiating with the US at Doha. And yet, the US, UK, Russia, and China chose to bring the group back in power.Second, to see the MJC threat from the issue of terrorism alone is to miss the bigger picture. By demonstrating the success of its policies in Afghanistan, the MJC would be energised to use other methods of asymmetric warfare against India. More than the means, the Taliban's victory is the reaffirmation of its objectives.
What should India do?
First and foremost, India must prepare for a reduced economic and diplomatic footprint in Afghanistan. Given the positive role India has played there over the last two decades, a sunk cost fallacy might drive India to make overtures to the Taliban. Such a policy is unlikely to pay dividends. The MJC will ensure that India's presence is severely restricted. In Afghanistan, it would be better to wait for the tide to change.Second, India would need to raise its guard on the Pakistan border. With the perceived threat of Indian presence close to Balochistan going away, the MJC is likely to be more adventurous in using conventional and non-conventional warfare against India. Domestically, it means returning Jammu & Kashmir to near-normalcy becomes all the more urgent. More the discontent there, the easier it would be for the MJC to exploit the situation.Third, strengthen the partnership with the US. The MJC has always been dependent on external benefactors for its survival. While China is playing that role today, it alone is insufficient to bear the burden. The MJC will be desperate to get the US to finance its ambitions based on its credentials to influence outcomes in Afghanistan. Hence, it's vital that India's relationship with the US must remain stronger than the relationship that MJC has with the US. Finally, amidst the current focus on US failures in Afghanistan, it shouldn't be forgotten that both India and the US need each other to confront the bigger strategic challenge: China.Regardless of the turn that Taliban-Pakistan relations take, an ideological victory for the MJC is bound to have repercussions in India. India must prepare to face the renewed challenge.
Quality of India’s military leadership under test. Moral fibre can overcome political bias
The recent news of the Indian Ministry of Defence examining the selection criteria to the higher echelons of the military hierarchy took me back to what I wrote in 2017 – “India’s march to modernity will necessarily involve dismantling entrenched feudalism that privileges birth and seniority over merit. The selection of the senior military leadership should not remain tethered to a feudal framework that underlies existing practices. Modern India must embrace merit over everything else. No efforts should be spared in improving the quality of military leadership, on which, hangs the effectiveness of India’s military power.” Nearly four years later, contrary to reactions on the news, I don’t think I need to change my stand. Here’s why.
The current debate is in the context of the Narendra Modi government exercising its political judgement to select Army, Navy and Air Force Chiefs by disregarding seniority. It is framed as a binary choice between merit and seniority. As I have written earlier, the prime argument asserted to privilege seniority over merit has hinged on the necessity to maintain the Armed Forces as an apolitical institution, a contention that rests on the notion that it would otherwise open up the possibility of political favouritism, with military leaders attempting to cosy up to politicians, thus politicising the military as an institution. This is true and a perennial danger in a democracy.
Make China accountable for Taliban's actions
Going by international media reports on recent developments in Afghanistan, you would be forgiven for thinking that this is all about the United States. Sure, the spectacular collapse of the Ashraf Ghani government and the US-nurtured republican regime over the past few days certainly demonstrates the failure of Washington's two-decade-long policy to build a modern state in the country. The ignominious exit of the last of its officials and troops shames the Joe Biden administration. The popular view is that a declining superpower has taken a beating. The truth is that it is nothing of that sort.The United States pulled out because there is bipartisan political consensus in Washington that further presence does not serve its interests. Osama bin Laden is long dead and Pakistan dare not conspire in international terrorist plots. Washington has sophisticated air power to destroy militant infrastructure anywhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan should it be necessary. Failure of its expensive state-building side-project in Afghanistan apart, the United States has acted to avoid the sunk cost fallacy.Read the full article here.
Stop negotiated peace settlement with Taliban right away, it’s still a terrorist group
Afghanistan is now experiencing the pangs of US withdrawal. The Taliban has unleashed a reign of terror in the areas under its control and launched large-scale military offensives that threaten major population centres. A humanitarian disaster of catastrophic proportions is unfolding, and the people of Afghanistan are getting lip support in distant New York. A negotiated peace settlement is being touted as the best way forward. A pact with the devil is being heartily recommended.
The United Nations Security Council met on 6 August 2021 and heard the anguished voices of the Afghan people through their representatives. Deborah Lyons, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, said the country is at a dangerous turning point. “Ahead lies either a genuine peace negotiation or a tragically intertwined set of crises: an increasingly brutal conflict combined with an acute humanitarian situation and multiplying human rights abuses”.
Read the full article in ThePrint
PLA Turns 94 And More Threatening Than Ever
India must be cautious of at least four changes that will impact the border dispute with China The Chinese People’s Liberation Army celebrated its 94th founding anniversary on August 1. Formed in 1927, it has become the world’s largest armed force but it’s no longer a conventional land-centric army. Under the Central Military Commission Chairman Xi Jinping, it has undertaken military reforms intended to make it fully mechanised by 2020, informatised by 2035, and a world-class force by 2049.It has not yet achieved complete mechanisation, and Xi has also not defined what a world-class force means. But an informed guess is that it would mean being on a par with the US, UK, French, Russian and Indian armed forces.Although China’s primary strategic direction is reunification with Taiwan and to prepare for the US contingency during reunification, India and other Indo-Pacific countries are also impacted by its ongoing force modernisation. India needs to be cautious of at least four changes within PLA.Read more in the newspaper, the article was originally published in the Times of India.
Japan should think carefully about antagonizing Russia
Read the Full Article on Asia TimesThe recently published annual Defense of Japan white paper identifies the US as Japan’s “only ally” and the need to protect Taiwan if it is threatened by China.If read between the lines, it is a pragmatic expression of strategic clarity in the post-Shinzo Abe Japan’s geo-strategic posture. Japan acknowledges that it has no allies in its neighborhood and is willing to accept Taiwan as a quasi-protectorate.As evident from Russian Ambassador to Japan Mikhail Galuzin’s comments earlier this year, Russia does not see Japan as a threat, but is concerned about its security cooperation with the US. Despite this, Japan is on an ill-advised path of antagonizing Russia, paving the way for China and Russia to conflate their interests against Japan.On July 23, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with the permanent members of the Russian Security Council. After the meeting, it became apparent that an “unprecedented plan“ was in the works for engaging Japan in economic activities on the Kurils.The plan was broadly hinted at by Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin during his visit to Iturup island on July 26 and involves a new regime of tax exemptions and setting up a free customs zone on the Kuril Islands.
The reactions to Mishustin’s visit by the Japanese government, diplomats and press can only be described as a tantrum meant to assuage domestic constituencies, with outrage trumping good sense.Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato in no uncertain terms called the visit “extremely regrettable.” After Kato’s comments, Galuzin was summoned by the Japanese Foreign Ministry and issued a diplomatic protest over the visit, which Galuzin called “inappropriate” and refused to accept.Read the Full Article on Asia TimesThe views expressed are the author’s own and don’t reflect the recommendations of the Takshashila Institution
What Pegasus says about Cyber Power and our National Security
Deniability is Pegasus Scandal’s Strongest Suit. And National Security is the Biggest Price
The storm of the recent Pegasus spyware episode raging in the international and domestic media discourses could have varied consequences for diverse constituencies. The revelations, led by Amnesty International, has India keeping company with Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Morocco, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Togo, and the United Arab Emirates. The list was promptly denied by the NSO Group — the Israeli corporate entity that marketed the spyware. Deniability revealed itself as the strongest suit of Pegasus.
Amnesty’s efforts cannot provide the sinews for legal challenges but they will fan political storms in democracies and India is the only one on the list. This should be a matter of concern. The heart of the issue is the possibility of abusing power in the garb of national security. The abuse lies in the feasibility of illegal deprivation of human rights, especially the right to privacy. Illegal, because snooping is supposedly being done without the due process of law.Read the full article in ThePrint
MoD and IDSA No Longer Separate
At the recently concluded annual general body meeting of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), the flavour of the discussion was the think tank’s autonomy. The meeting discussed the resolution on renaming the institute, by affixing Manohar Parrikar to its existing nomenclature. The Narendra Modi government had changed the name last year itself without consulting the institute’s executive council. Later, the government left it to the general body to take the final call.
Since its inception in 1965, the IDSA has had a tenuous relationship with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that has suzerainty over the institute, but at the same time is expected to respect its autonomy. By the end of the annual general meeting (AGM) on 15 July, its autonomy might have taken a body blow by the decisions of the very members who are supposed to protect it. The soul of late K. Subrahmanyam, the architect of the IDSA’s structural relationship with the MoD, could be restless over the changes thrust upon his brainchild.
How India can guard its Interests should Kabul fall to the Taliban
Army must ditch ‘superiority’ mindset. Distrust, Animosity will only hamper Military Reforms
It would be naïve to expect that anything good would emerge from the public spat between Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat and Air Chief Marshal Rakesh Kumar Singh Bhadauria on the politically mandated creation of the Theatre Command System. There is nothing wrong in professional disagreements but to air them in public is unacceptable to the military ethos. Worse, it comes at a time when threats to national security are assuming ominous proportions.
In all probability, both Gen Rawat and ACM Bhadauria would have got the political pipe down messages and one can expect that things will settle down. India’s military image would have temporarily taken a beating. But certain good things can come out of this unbecoming episode, if the next moves by the political leadership are appropriately and speedily managed.
Mint | Why liberal democracies have a distinct edge on cyber capability
By Nitin Pai
According to a recent report on the cyber capabilities of 15 countries, the US is the world’s only cyber superpower. China is the leading power in the next tier, along with Russia, the UK, Israel, France, Australia and Canada. India is placed in the third tier, alongside Iran, Japan, Malaysia, North Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia. The International Institute of Strategic Studies net assessment of Cyber Capabilities and National Power compares countries across seven dimensions ranging from doctrines to offensive capabilities, and concludes that China and Russia are much farther behind the US than popular media reports would suggest. Read the full article here.