The US Missile deployment in Poland & Reactions

The US decision to deploy patriot missile manned by US troops in Poland, close to the Russian borders will definitely have an immediate reaction from Russia. What we can look for ward to is a renewed support to Iran’s nuclear agenda by Russia. As has been announced by the US, a consensus had reached between the US, Russia and China as to what sanctions should served to the Iranians as penalty for continuing with their Nuclear ideas. This was immediately after the agreement between Turkey, Brazil & Iran to swap a major chunk of Iran’s Uranium stock with Turkey in exchange for enriched Uranium for Iran’s Medical Isotopes production.

It is clear that US is not exactly happy with this deal. The reasons should be that – the entire Uranium stock is not up for exchange as per the deal, and Iran is still capable of enriching the remaining Uranium for an alleged nuclear weapons program. – The fact that developing countries took a stand against proposed sanctions and were able to convince Iran on the swap deal may not have gone down very well with the US think Tanks. – Also US not figuring anywhere in the whole exchange itenary may also be a reason for dissatisfaction @ the US side.

Reading together Iranian Presidents statement calling for Russia to take a firm stand in favour of its “friendly and peaceful neighbour”, on its non-military nuclear agenda; and the US deployment of Patriot Missile systems in Poland, very close to Russian military base in Kaliningrad, it is clear that a fitting reply from Russian against the US move, where it hurts the most, would be back tracking from the agreement reached with it on sanctions against Iran and taking a pro-Iranian stand in its nuclear program. Given the fact that Russia had earlier announced its plan to complete the work on Busheshr Nuclear by August , indicates a move in this direction.

Maoists Vs Terrorists: who is a bigger threat.

The Maoists have clearly caught the entire Indian establishment on the wrong foot. We, the people, were under the impression that terrorism originating from Pakistan was a bigger threat to the nation, but naxalism was something which our leadership is capable of handling with deployment of the right resources. But the developments of the last few weeks have left the common man confused. 75 CRPF men were massacred in cold blood. This was followed by the civilian bus blow up yesterday, in which the number of deaths could be anywhere between 65 to 75. The front page article covering this incident in ‘The Hindu’ quotes a police official as saying, ”IEDs ( Improvised Explosive Devices) are like Maosts’ fast food.A mine can be planted(by them) in as little as 15 minutes”. This is a very scary statement. Leaves us to imagine as to what more are these guys capable of.

In a latest opinion poll by NDTV, 69% of the respondents felt the Government should use the Armed Forces to fight the naxalites. But in a recent discussion on Governments’ naxalite strategy, Mahendra Kumawat, former Special Secretary( internal security) in home ministry endorsed the government stand of not deploying the Army against the Maoists. The reason being the military not trained for the terrain and the kind of guerilla warfare the naxals engage in. Another interesting statement by D N mithra, a serving IPS officer in the same forum was - “ Army is too big a hammer to hit the Maoists”. These experts must definitely be right in their opinions. It is not be misunderstood as advocating use of military, but question that arises in one’s mind is – do we then have right machinery to hit back at the Maoists?. If the recent media reports coming out of Chhattisgarh are to be believed we only have ‘non-motivated’ CRPF battalions deployed in the affected areas, which did not follow the right protocols thus leading to the unfortunate mass execution. If that is the case, we are much better off in dealing with cross border terrorism, where we have resources such as the armed forces, RAW, NIA, ATS, STF and what not. What they have achieved is of course a moot point.

Union HRD Minister Kapil Sibal is said to have hailed the Home Minister and commented that the people felt the country’s security is in safe hands. This is definitely not agreeable. The criticism is not directed at the present Home Ministry alone, but at all those gate keepers we have had in the last decade and a half. If the Naxals have become experts in deploying IEDs, if they have planted landmines in large areas of forest lands, if they can successfully strategize to mass annihilate our security forces; then what was our Home Ministry & the Governments of the affected states doing when the naxals were accumulating these capabilities. Clearly they could not have acquired these competences overnight. Understandably we have let these anti-national elements gain strength, right under our nose as opposed to Islamic terrorism, which grew roots on the other side of the border. All we can hope now is to find the right “Hammer” before we end up in Srilanka-like situation where a rebel minority group grew in strength to wage a full fledged war against the Government for years and to hold the entire country’s development to ransom

July 15th

The stage is set for another round of dramatics. India and Pakistan will play protagonists once again. As you may have guessed already, the US will wield the megaphone as usual for this top rated franchise – ‘India-Pak Talks’, which has many more episodes in the offing. The location/venue, this time around is Islamabad.

After the 26/11 Mumbai massacre by Pakistan based terrorists, India had closed its doors to the ‘talks’ diplomacy. India had demanded strong action from Pakistan against elements responsible for the cruel act. Pakistan relented to the tremendous pressure from India and the US and arrested seven LET leaders .They were put to trial, the authenticity of which again seems to be questionable. But it has to be noted that Pakistan did not move against the LET founder & chief of JUD, Hafeez Saeed, who masterminded 26/11.

Even as the Pakistani side was constantly emphasizing on the need to get back to the discussion tables Indians seemed to be in no mood for it. But in February 2010, the Indian side surprised all by deciding to restart the talks process. Words were chosen carefully. It was decided that talks will not be composite, which meant that it will not be a full-fledged dialogue but one which will address only certain issues at the Foreign Secretary levels. It was stated that the ‘time was not ripe’ for resuming composite dialogue. The results of this non-composite dialogue on Feb 25th 2010, was there for all to see, when a sarcastic Salman Bashir, Pak For. Secretary discounted all those dossiers of evidence submitted by India as mere ‘literature’.

From 26/11/08 to 02/02/10 or from 02/02/10 to present day , what has Pakistan done for us to first agree to non-composite and then a composite dialogue. After 26/11, India demanded action against its perpetrators based in Pakistan, and the response was dismal. In Feb, 2010 we said the ‘time was not ripe’. From Feb 25th to May 12,2010 when the Foreign Ministers of both sides fixed a date for the meeting, have we seen any positive response from Pak, which ripened the conditions for a composite dialogue? Or are we just acting under external pressure? Are we not in a position to take a stand of our own?. It is time the Govt of India provides answers to some of these questions that crop up in the minds of any average educated Indian .