Translate

Thursday, April 09, 2020

Indian Defence Industry Founder Krishna Menon’s Flawed Brilliance

Not many people passing by the side of the Sena Bhavan in New Delhi pay attention to the brooding statue just off the road of V K Krishna Menon, freedom fighter, diplomat and defence minister of the country between 1957-1962.
The location is, perhaps, symbolic. His stewardship of the Ministry ended in a flaming crash of the disaster of the 1962 Sino-Indian war. But the issues that emerged at the time, have not quite gone away.
Menon’s attitude was, in some ways, a natural outcome of his years in the UK where he got his higher education
History never gets stale because contemporary concerns light up newer areas of the past and what look like known facts, reveal facets that were earlier unseen. So it is not surprising that a look back at Krishna Menon on his 45th death anniversary gives us new perspectives on our contemporary dilemmas.

Krishna Menon’s Flawed Brilliance

Menon’s imprint in the immediate post-independence history of India is unforgettable. As an Indian freedom fighter living in the UK, who became the top-most diplomat to the country that had ruled India,  as India’s representative to the United Nations, and eventually as Defence Minister, Menon was a brilliant and flawed personality whose list of enemies and critics read off from Dwight D Eisenhower, President of the United States.
Under him, the India League became a formidable lobby on behalf of the independence movement.
Menon’s attitude was, in some ways, a natural outcome of his years in the UK where he got his higher education and––among his other accomplishments––helped establish the highly popular Pelican imprint of Penguin Books.
Given his education, the times and the circumstances, it was not surprising that he came under the influence of the left-wing intellectuals and politicians. Combined with the fact that he was a passionate advocate of India’s freedom, he came under the scrutiny of the British intelligence who monitored him closely.
Under him, the India League became a formidable lobby on behalf of the independence movement and Menon emerged as the foremost spokesperson of the movement in UK.
His life there added a touch of bitterness against imperialism and the West, something that became manifest when he shaped Indian foreign policy as India’s representative to the UN. In this position he was involved in issues relating to peace making in Korea, the fighting in Indo-China, disarmament and decolonization. From 1949 onwards, the world had split into two camps—the American and the Soviet.

Menon’s Criticism of the Global West

The fact that democratic India with its western educated elite chose not to automatically side with the US rankled in the West. India paid for it when the UK skewed the Kashmir issue in the UN against India. Western resentment against India made it appear as though Nehru had virtually taken India into the Soviet camp. But this was not true.
Dwight D Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States.
Dwight D Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States.
Photo Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons
Menon’s acerbic criticism of the US got under the skin of its leaders, who were simply not used to the idea that the poor Third World could have independent positions of their own. Some of this came from India’s stand in the Korean war, the Suez Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Hungary.
Mind you, all this was at a time when the United States had taken Pakistan into the fold of its military alliance system and began a process that completely altered India’s strategic paradigm. Where Pakistan, much smaller than India, would have adopted a cooperative policy, it began to take a belligerent stance, encouraged by the fact that equipment assistance from the US had given its military an edge against India.

Menon, the Founder of India’s Defence Industry

In his book “The Guilty Men of 1962” the former editor of Indian Express D R Mankekar, entitled the Chapter on Menon as “A Dynamic Minister.” He describes how Menon’s entry into the ministry was like a breath of fresh air “that blew away the cobwebs and layers of dust accumulated on the portfolio over the years.”
It was Menon who laid the foundations of a modern Indian defence industry.
While Menon’s leadership of the ministry was to end in disaster, it was not foreordained that it would be so. Under him, the Ministry which had all been sidelined in the heady post-Independence decade, came to life again with a Minister who had clout with the Prime Minister. As Mankekar put it, he enhanced the pensions of the personnel, restored their ration allowance, revised the salary scales upward, and took up issues related to housing and welfare.
It was Menon who laid the foundations of a modern Indian defence industry. He did not let an alleged jeep scandal distract him from giving the Army better wheels. In 1959, the Vehicle Factory Jabalpur started manufacturing the Shaktiman truck, built under a license from Germany. They served as the Army’s basic truck till 1996.
He initiated the plan to re-equip the Army with a basic semi-automatic rifle, the 7.62 SLR, which India simply copied from a Belgian gun. The SLR is still in service in India.
Likewise, there were several projects such as that of the Jonga jeep, Nissan light truck, and 120mm Brandt mortars that fructified in the mid 1960s. It was under Menon that the MOD obtained a license to manufacture the Alouette helicopter in India beginning 1962. As the Chetak, it has provided yeoman service to all three wings of the armed forces since.
Fly past of Chetak Helicopters at the passing out parade of 82nd Helicopter pilot conversion course held at INS Rajali, Naval Air Station Arakkonam near Chennai on June 5, 2014. 
Fly past of Chetak Helicopters at the passing out parade of 82nd Helicopter pilot conversion course held at INS Rajali, Naval Air Station Arakkonam near Chennai on June 5, 2014. 
(Photo: IANS)
Perhaps the most consequential deal in his period was that for the supply and manufacture of the MiG21 for the Indian Air Force. When western countries balked in providing India with a supersonic interceptor, in 1961, Menon negotiated with the Soviet Union and got an agreement not only for acquiring the aircraft, but a full technology transfer to manufacture it in India. Variants of this aircraft still fly with the IAF.

The Many Weaknesses of Krishna Menon

Curiously enough, Menon failed in an area where he should have known better—international politics. He simply did not give credence to the threat posed by the Chinese. This is something for which, of course, his boss and mentor Jawaharlal Nehru was primarily responsible.
First Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru inaugurates the Asian Games in 1951. 
First Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru inaugurates the Asian Games in 1951. 
(Photo courtesy: Pinterest)
The other problem was his arrogance and inability to get along with the Army brass for which we must blame his circumstances. He was a freedom fighter who had lived and worked in the UK while the Army brass––having served the British––affected British upper-class mannerisms. A less arrogant person may have done things differently. But, Menon was Menon. However, it would be fair to say that the 1962 failure was as much that of the military leadership as the civilian.
Today, 45 years after his death, the ghost of Menon has not quite been exorcised from the Indian defence system. The foundations of the Indian defence industry he had laid have yet to be built upon. For one reason or the other, India remains dependent on imported equipment.
A second issue is the relationship between the military and the civilians. After Menon’s tenure, governments have run the MOD through civilian bureaucrats and not involved themselves in providing the armed forces strategic guidance. This has led to a civil-military dissonance which makes India’s defence system sub-optimal. Today, more so than ever before, war is total––involving the land, sea, air, under-sea, space, and the electromagnetic spectrum. This requires a united and sophisticated leadership which can cope with the hybrid nature of modern warfare. We did not have that leadership in 1962, we don’t have it today.
The Quint October 5, 2019

Why Pakistan’s First Nobel Laureate Could Never ‘Rest in Peace’

Anand Kamalakar’s powerful Netflix documentary, Salam – The First ****** (Muslim) Nobel Laureate — a biographical account of  mathematician and theoretical physicist, Abdus Salam — is a poignant tribute to the genius who once saw himself as the world’s first ‘Muslim and Pakistani’ Nobel laureate, but had to have the posthumous ignominy of having “Muslim” ‘erased’ from his own gravestone, and reduced to a second-class citizen in his home country.
Grave of Prof. Dr. Abdus Salam (1926-1996) in Rabwah. In the English inscription the phrase “the first Muslim Nobel laureate” the word “Muslim” has been erased with paint.
Grave of Prof. Dr. Abdus Salam (1926-1996) in Rabwah. In the English inscription the phrase “the first Muslim Nobel laureate” the word “Muslim” has been erased with paint.
(Photo Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons)
New York-based director Kamalakar, whose documentary was released on Netflix on 1 October, has handled a delicate and even controversial theme with great finesse, and as a result, the documentary has received several international awards and has been screened in over 30 cities across the world. But the driving force behind the documentary were its producers Omar Vandal and Zakir Thaver, who put in a decade’s effort to bring their project to fruition

Why Ahmadis are ‘Non-Muslims’ in Pakistan

Not many in India are familiar with the sectional strife within Islam, except the knowledge that there are Shias and Sunnis. In reality, there are scores of fault lines based on tribal and sectarian identities. But the Ahmadi sect to which Dr Abdus Salam belonged, has had a chequered history in Pakistan. Founded in the 19th century in Qadian, now in Indian Punjab, the movement strongly supported the creation of Pakistan. But the Ahmadis have since faced intense persecution in Pakistan because they believe that their founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the promised Mahdi or Messiah awaited by the Muslims.
A central tenet of Islam is that Muhammad (PBUH) is the last prophet.
However, the Mahdi occupies a different and distinct position in Islamic history, but many Muslims believe that the Ahmadi belief is tantamount to heresy.
Since 1974, a constitutional amendment has officially declared them to be ‘non-Muslims’ and have given them the status of ‘apostates’, something dangerous in Islam.

Abdus Salam: Typical South Asian Story of Hardship & Achievement

Salam’s was a typical story of South Asian achievement. Born in 1926 in a village in the Jhang region to middle-class parents, he studied by candle-light and saw electricity when he went to Lahore for higher education. He was fortunately nurtured by his family, and studied mathematics and won a scholarship to St Johns College, Cambridge. Upon his return in 1951, he was appointed Chairman of the Mathematics Department at the Lahore College University, at the young age of 25. But frustrated by the lack of any research, and, more importantly, the anti-Ahmadi riots of 1953, Dr Abdus Salam went back to the UK in 1954. In 1957, he accepted a chair at the Imperial College, a position he held for life.
This appointment, in turn, gave him a leg up in Pakistan, which then designated him as the Chief Scientific Advisor to the President, who was the military dictator Ayub Khan, and he worked for the government till 1974.
Salam was the founder of the Pakistani Space Agency SUPARCO, and led the Theoretical Physics Group in the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. Indeed, as the documentary shows, he was instrumental in the establishment of Pakistan’s first nuclear power plant near Karachi.

Pakistani Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam’s Life Work

His role in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme has been ambiguously presented in the documentary. But it does say that Salam was one of those who attended the secret meeting convened by Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Multan in 1972, where Pakistan decided to embark on a nuclear weapons programme.
But today, Pakistanis are unlikely to accept that an Ahmadi played a significant role in their nuclear weapons programme.
Two years after the Multan meeting, Salam resigned from his government positions after Bhutto moved the Second Constitutional Amendment that declared Ahmadis as ‘non-Muslims’ in 1974. Salam’s Islamic faith became deeper, and he then became an avowed campaigner against nuclear weapons. But he did not give up on Pakistan and his fierce loyalty to it.
The documentary dwells on the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) that he founded with the help of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) even before he won the Nobel.
The unique feature of this centre is to bring together physicists of the developing world with Western physicists, and carry on their research. In the era when there was no internet, this was a means of ending the kind of isolation Dr Abdus Salam had felt when he had returned to Pakistan from Cambridge.
People associated with Salam, his first wife Hafiza, his sons, associates and fellow physicists, his staff — all bring to life his work and personality. Indeed, some years ago, Pakistani physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy summed him up as being “strong, assertive, enthusiastic, vibrant, bluntly authoritarian, and with a mind sharp as a razor’s edge”.

Role of Religion in Abdus Salam’s Life

Religion was a central driving force in Dr Abdus Salam’s life. Indeed, he said in an interview, that ‘Tauheed’ or the one-ness of God, played an important role in seeking unity among four forms of energy — strong nuclear, gravitational, electro-magnetic and weak nuclear forces. The achievement for which Salam got the Nobel, was to show the mathematical link between weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism. Salam came up with this around the same time that Steven Weinberg of MIT did, and the two, along with Sheldon Glashow, shared the Nobel for Physics in 1979. In addition to this, he had several other notable achievements in other fields of physics and mathematics.
An interesting facet of the documentary is the part which notes that the young Salam was actually onto the research on the laws of parity, which led to major discoveries in elementary particles.
But he was discouraged from proceeding because he was strongly discouraged by the celebrated physicist Wolfgang Pauli to publish his work. In 1956, Pauli publicly apologised to Salam for his role in discouraging him. The following year, two Chinese American physicists, Chen Ning Yang and Tsung-Dao Lee got the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1957 for their breakthrough paper in the area.
Like so many ironies that featured in his life, the timing of the award, too, came at a time when General Zia ul Haq — who had seized power in 1977 and hanged Bhutto — “supplemented” the Second Amendment to add further the disabilities against the Ahmadi community. Zia did meet him, somewhat reluctantly, but Dr Abdus Salam was feted elsewhere, including the AMU in India.

The Erasure of Identity

Actually, if anything, the director has been a bit too subtle in showing the boorish manner in which Pakistan treated Salam. When he died in Oxford at the age of 70 in 1996, his body was brought back to Pakistan for burial in Rabwah, the hometown of the Ahmadi community, whose name has been forcibly changed to Chenab Nagar to erase its association with the Ahmadis. The state refused to get involved in the burial of this hero, and no official functionary attended.
Some ‘good’ citizens of Jhang, near Rabwah, were present at the funeral to ensure that no rituals or prayers associated with Islam were conducted. The tombstone said ‘Abdus Salam, First Muslim Nobel Laureate’. Soon after, the police and a magistrate arrived to erase the world ‘Muslim’.
The Quint October 14, 2019

All pomp, little to show

Prime Minister Narendra Modi spent a week in the US at the end of September. Ostensibly, the visit was to attend the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, but fresh from his election victory and his Article 370 ‘surgical strike’ on Jammu & Kashmir, he decided to make it a larger exercise of displaying India to the world.
The most theatrical feature of the visit was the ‘Howdy, Modi!’ event in Houston. This was a strategy trade-marked by Modi in 2014, when he participated in a major rally at the Madison Square Garden stadium in New York. The loud political rally generated considerable attention in Washington DC by the time Modi arrived for his official visit. This was a riposte of sorts to the US for denying him a visa for more than a decade before.
This time around, fresh from his sweep in the General Election, Modi was in the capital of the Indian diaspora, Houston, and not only spoke to a larger and adoring audience of NRIs, but also had roped in the POTUS himself for the tamasha.
Houston was about messaging. Both leaders were talking politics to different audiences—Modi to the millions who would have been watching the wall-to-wall TV coverage back home. And Trump electioneering with a category of voters who had overwhelmingly voted Democratic the last time around. There was nothing more, though, than the glitz, as became evident as the week unfolded.   
Importantly, Modi was not able to strike a trade deal with the US. For some time now, Trump has been raising the issue of the trade imbalance with India, and in May, Washington revoked the benefits India was getting under the GSP. In July, Trump himself weighed in when he tweeted, ‘India has long had a field day putting tariffs on American products. No longer acceptable!’
There has been brave talk by people like Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal that India wants to build up export competitiveness, rather than depend on the GSP. But in troubled times such as these, the $6.4 billion benefit to Indian exporters is not insignificant. Expectations that his over-the-top ‘friendship’ with Trump would help persuade the US to back off were belied. Modi couldn’t even manage a waiver of the March 2018 duties the US placed on national security grounds on Indian aluminum and steel, several countries, though, have managed to get exemptions.
The Prime Minister did hold a glitzy roundtable with US CEOs and business leaders in Houston and New York, but the net result was the lone, and somewhat controversial, MoU between Petronet and the American oil and gas major, Tellurian. American majors do not seem to be too interested in investing in India, given the quirky ways of the government.
The most important context of the US tour was the Jammu & Kashmir issue. After the unprecedented informal meeting of the UN Security Council in August, there were worries about how it would play out in the UNGA.
India was on the offensive from the outset, when in Houston Modi attacked those who had ‘put their hatred of India at the centre of their political agenda’ and those who supported terrorism and ‘who nurture terrorism’. The time had come to ‘fight a decisive battle against terrorism and against all the people who promote terrorism,’ he said, and sought to draw Trump into the battle.   
But Trump was evasive. He did denounce the threat of ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ to applause from the audience. But later he clarified that he was thinking more about Iran, than Pakistan.
Modi largely stuck to the high road in his remarks at the UNGA, but he couldn’t resist returning to the issue of terrorism, which he said somewhat floridly, was a challenge to ‘the entire world and humanity’.
World leaders would have been bemused about the messaging here from someone who had just referred to Buddha’s message of peace. At a time when the world community was fixated on global warming, the Indian PM appeared not to want to let go of his primary electoral weapon—attacking Pakistan/Muslims on account of terrorism.
Despite efforts, the J&K issue has grabbed the attention of the world community. Beyond disclaimers by the administration, Trump remains fixated on his role as a mediator, most recently articulated before his meeting with Imran Khan in New York last week. Meanwhile, the US has also let it be known that its relatively benign attitude is conditional on India being able to rapidly lift the restrictions and release those who have been detained in the state.
That Kashmir has been internationalised because of the government’s ill-considered actions is apparent from the ambiguous position of the US, the stand of the UK Labour Party,  and the full-fledged support being given to Pakistan by Malaysia and Turkey. This may not mean much at present. But it is a needless distraction for a country that should be focusing on its economic growth and whose economy is in a difficult place. So, despite the self-praise and hype generated by a friendly media, the outcome of the US tour was, as they say, mixed. Neither the NRIs nor the CEOs or Trump himself have been persuaded to do something, except mouth nice words about India.
The Tribune October 1, 2019

J&K and PoK: Why MEA Jaishankar’s Comment Isn’t the Last Word

There is a bit of over-interpretation going on over Union External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s statement, that Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) is a part of India, and the country expects to have “physical jurisdiction” over it one day.
What else is a Union Minister to say when he is asked at a press conference to comment on statements of his colleagues, that talks with Pakistan will henceforth only be on PoK and not Kashmir ?
The reason why India must insistently assert its claim is because the international community and the United Nations believes that Jammu & Kashmir is disputed territory, whose future needs to be worked out through dialogue between India and Pakistan. Were India to concede that, maybe, India would be content to live with the status quo; it would be a poor negotiation strategy to concede your final position at the beginning of the negotiations.

International Community’s Stance On J&K

If and when serious talks do take place between India and Pakistan, the position could change, as indeed it has in the past. India’s goal has largely been to go along with the status quo. For this, there are historical and demographic reasons, as well as realpolitik ones.
As for the international community, its position is summed up by the 8 August statement of the UN Secretary General, which notes that the position of the UN “on this region is governed by the Charter of the United Nations, and applicable Security Council resolutions.” But it also referred to the Simla Agreement of 1972 which says that the status of J&K be settled “by peaceful means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”
The current mandate of the UN comes from resolution 307 of the UNSC, which was passed 13 to none, with Poland and Soviet Union abstaining.
This authorised the organisation to remain institutionally involved through the United Nations Military Observers Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP).

Why India Failed to Recover ‘Azad Kashmir’ Through Military Means

The primary reason why India failed to recover the band of territory called ‘Azad Kashmir’ through military means, is that it is populated by non-Kashmiri speaking Muslims who were strong supporters of Pakistan. In 1947, the Indian Army quickly cleared out the areas of the Kashmir Valley occupied by the indigenous ‘raiders’. But when they tried to go beyond Uri, they found the going tough.
Further, by the end of December 1947, the political leadership had to worry about the safety of Poonch, Naushera, Rajauri and Jammu. The fall of Mirpur and the horror stories of Hindu women being raped and sold, persuaded the government to put all the efforts to shift the initiative to the region.  This was not an easy task — intense fighting took place in the region around Kotli, Jhangar, Naushera, and Poonch itself was besieged for nine months.
The Indian Army had to worry not just about the Punjab border, but also the ongoing issues with Hyderabad.
For this reason, they lacked adequate forces to recapture Gilgit and Skardu. The Indian Army was hard put to defend, though it eventually retained Kargil, Dras and Leh.

PoK & the Big Demographic Question

Today, even if Pakistan were to quietly hand back PoK to India, things will not exactly be easy. True, India will have a border with Afghanistan and break the overland connectivity between Pakistan and China. But it will be faced with holding down a population that is not — by any stretch of imagination — favourable to India. Indeed, the 44 lakh strong population of the sliver of territory called ‘Azad Kashmir’ is populated by a mix of Sudhans, Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs — a mix of martial groups who are hostile to India.
The 20 lakh people of Gilgit-Baltistan, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, too, are not too inclined towards India, and over the years, Sunni migration has reduced the salience of the Shias in the region.
The big question, of course, is whether the BJP, which is not particularly inclined towards Muslims anyway, will be happy with the addition of 65 lakh more Muslims, to the 125 lakh population of Jammu & Kashmir — of which 67 percent are Muslims.
Beyond its specious political claim on J&K, Pakistan has its military compulsions for strongly holding on to ‘Azad’ Kashmir. A look at the map shows that if India controlled the region, it would be just 35-50 kms away from Islamabad and the Pakistani heartland. For this reason alone, the Pakistan Army will strongly defend the region.

Balakot is One Thing — Physical Re-Capture Is Another

These days there is a lot of fantasy about how the Indian military can recapture the territory through a war. If the past has lessons, this is unlikely to happen, and attempts in that direction could lead to disaster. There is nothing in the balance of forces to show that India can overwhelm Pakistani defences in the region. You can carry out strikes like Balakot, but physically recapturing the region is another thing.
An important consideration for ceasefire by December 1948 was that by that time, India controlled the Kashmir Valley and the road to Ladakh. There was a feeling that maybe Pakistan would be happy with what it had.
But in the ensuing years, Pakistan —which was beset by issues of unity — decided to make Kashmir its raison d’ĂȘtre.
Subsequently, it developed a fake narrative which decreed that Kashmir was the ‘unfinished business of Partition’.
Even so, faced with the need to get India to release Pakistani POWs after the Bangladesh War, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto agreed to work towards making the ceasefire line into a permanent border. To this end, the Simla Agreement of 1972 was renamed as the ceasefire line, a military fact, into a neutral-sounding ‘Line of Control’. This may have been one reason that led to his overthrow by Zia ul Haq five years later.
Again, between 2001-2007, the two countries, under Prime Ministers Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh on the one hand, and President Pervez Musharraf on the other, were near an agreement that would have frozen the borders where they were. Unfortunately, Musharraf lost traction in Pakistan, and that was the end of that.
In these circumstances, you can be sure that Jaishankar’s declaration, no matter how vehement, is not the last word on either Jammu & Kashmir or its Pakistani occupied portion.
The Quint September 18, 2019