Chanakya misunderstood
Amjed Jaaved

THE inflexibility in Indian government’s foreign policy reflects adherence to notion ‘all neighbouring countries are actual or potential enemies’ (attributed to Chanakya). Indian government’s foreign policy could best be understood if viewed as a combination of two concentric circles. India is lukewarm, if not altogether apathetic, in resolving disputes with her neighbours (within shorter-radius circle). But, it is very fond of strengthening her friendship with distant countries like the USA. This policy is apparently in consonance with the Chanakyan notions of matsynyaya (‘way of the fish’, big fish eats the small one) and mandal (inter-relationship). But, the harsh truth is that Chanakya was no fool. He subjugated all his thoughts to overriding consideration of ‘common sense’ or ‘ingenuity of mind’. In Chankyan age, the Indians abhorred travel abroad or sea journeys. Chankya improved his breadth of his vision by extensive travel and discussions with people of different nationalities, particularly Grecians of the Seleucusian age. Chankya says,`Man’s glory is in common sense, dictating us the grace that man is made to live and love the beauteous Heaven’s embrace”.
History tells us that common sense meant different things to different military commanders_ (a) Leonidias of Spartas (died 480 BC). ‘I know enemy archers are so numerous that the flight of their arrows darkens the sun. So much the better. We shall fight them in shade’. (b) Sun Tzu. ‘War is an art, not an exact science. Know the enemy and know yourself, and you can fight a hundred battles without a defeat’. (c) Alexander (3356-323 BC). ‘I was interested in philosophy, medicine and science’ (Aristotle smothered my interests. As a result, I was defeated by General Mosquito). He taught me ‘all non- Greeks should be slaves’ (I disobeyed Aristotle by marrying a barbarian Persian princess). ‘Also, Macedonia is too small for me. I have to look out for a kingdom worthy of myself’. (d) Hannibal (247-183 BC). I never require others to do what I could not and would not do myself’. (Scipio Africanus (236-183 BC). Never collide with an enemy force head on. When at all, you so do, win’. (e) Gaius Marius (157-86 BC). ‘Contrary to law and custom, I enrolled in my army poor men with no property qualifications. (f) Julius Caesar 100-44BC). ‘I came, I saw, I conquered’. (g) Arminus (18BC to AD 19). ‘My fight has been open, not treacherous, and against men, not women’. (g) Claudius (10BC to AD 54). ‘I ensured that no future emperor could rule without support of the army’. (h) Attilla the Hun (AD 406-453). ‘Where I have passed, the grass will not grow again’. Belasarius (AD 505-565). ‘With just 8,000 men, I held Rome against a force of 50,000 Goths’. (j) Saladin 1137/38-1193). ‘I would rather be famed for skill and prudence than for mere audacity’. (k) Genghis Khan (1162-1227). ‘I knew the importance of horses and meadows for mobility and importance of Chinese engineers for siege craft. I consolidated my rule by slaughtering en masse those who stood against me’, is sparing harmless religious men. (l) Tamerlane (1336-1405). ‘As there is but one God in heaven, there ought to be but one ruler on earth’. (m)Gustavivus II of Sweden (1594-1632). ‘I am perhaps the first commander to integrate artillery with my infantry and cavalry at the Battle of Breitenfeld (1631)’. (n) Prince Rupert (1619-1682). ‘I am a scientist and an artist, a dashing cavalier’. (o) Napoleon Bonaparte 1769-1821). I understand importance of correct time-calculations well fed soldier’s belly. At the battle of Lodi (1796), the little Corporal personally led the bayonet charge against the Austrian rearguard. At the battle of Austerlitz (1805), his 68,000 troops defeated 90,000 Austrians and Russians. ‘At the Battle of Waterloo (1815), I would have won if I had not delayed my attack from early morning until noon to allow the field to dry sufficiently for my cavalry to charge. This would have given the Prussian forces under Field Marshall Gebhard Leberecht von Bucher the time they needed to reach the battlefield. Power remained my mistress until my calculations went awry because of misunderstandings of my companions’. (p) Heinz Guderian (1888-1954). `If the tanks succeed, then victory follows’. (q) Erwin Rommel (1891-1944). `My motto is I must not stand still or we are lost. On October 26, 1917, I bayonet charged Italian mountain stronghold of Caporetto with just 200 men. I captured 9,000 men and 81 heavy guns’. During the battle for France, with 42 Panzers and 2,500 men, my “ghost division” took 100,000 prisoners and destroyed 450 enemy tanks along with thousands of other vehicles and artillery pieces. I would have taken Cairo if not starved of required tanks. Again I was starved of supplies and Panzer reserve when the allies landed at Normandy’. (r) Mao Tse-Tung (1839-1976). ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun’. (s)Vo Nguyen Giap (born 1912). ‘North Vietnamese Army losses in Vietnam were an estimated 900,000 _fifteen times those of the U.S. and five times the South Vietnamese army losses. That did not prevent me from invading Cambodia to end the genocidal regime of Pol Pot in 1978 and defending Vietnam’s northern border against the Chinese in 1979’. Look at me. ‘I could lose every battle and still win the war. US Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara had worked out that I was controlling the frequency and scale of engagements to deep my losses just below the birth rate that way the Vietnamese could fight for ever’ (Nigel Cawthorner, Victory: 100 Great Military Commanders, 2003, Arcutus Publishing Limited, London)
Chanakya did not live in nuclear age. If he had, he would have suggested that conventional wars between nuclear-capable neighbours are useless. Resolving disputes with neighbours to pave way for peace is the only choice. Unfortunately, India continues to believe in ineffectiveness of Pakistan’s nuclear capability against India’s capability. It wants to maintain three to one superiority in nuclear arsenal against his neighbours (a la Sun Tzu’s or Clausewitz’s logic). Indian thinking is well reflected by Thalpya and Misra in their Select Battles in Indian History (page 761: (a) ‘Pak Nuclear Arsenal: With the existing facilities, Pak is capable of Producing 60-70 nuclear weapons by 2005 and close to 100 by 2010 (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: ‘Pakistan may manufacture 50-110 nuclear weapons by year-end’). About India’s nuclear arsenal, the authors adds, ‘India has the capability of producing upto 125 weapons from available fissile material and in the next 25-30 years it is likely to have 300 plus weapons’.
Sincerity and flexibility, not deceit and obduracy, should be hallmark of India’s relations with her neighbours. Even Chanakya supported koota Yuddha or maya Yuddha (unethical warfare) in extraordinary circumstances. In Mahabarata, it is the rikshasas who were proficient in koota yuddha. They, specially the sons of Ravan, were expert in hiding themselves (camouflage) and they could fly in the sky like a bird (air surveillance). Generally, even Ravan abided by war ethics (dharam yuddha). Ravan did not kill Ram’s spies-cum-diplomats who had been dispatched, in the battle of Rima: (a) to gather the first hand information of the enemy’s camp, (b) to sow the seeds of dissension, (d) to sabotage the enemy’s property. Hanuman acted both as a spy and a messenger (diit). Despite the fact ‘Hanuman annoyed Ravan very much, he was not killed because the diitas were avadhyas’ (not to be killed).
Chankya, also, believed in concept of dharma yuddha which allowed: (a) use of force (danda) as the last recourse (after exhausting the options of sima, dima, and bheda). Chnakya’s flexibility of thoughts is obvious from his revisional advice to Chandragupta Maurya_ Gupta suffered reverses because of having attacked the core, instead of periphery of enemy’s forces. If Pandit Chanakya been alive, he would have advised India to pursue lasting peace with her neighbours. United States is the most powerful country today. Yet, even it has begun to realise that wars cannot be won with might alone. Believably, she is negotiating peace even with `terrorists’ in Iraq, and elsewhere. The lesson for India from Mahabarata and Chankyan thoughts is that times have changed. India should make its foreign policy a bit flexible so as to pave way for resolving disputes.

Pakistan resists US demands
Sadaf Yunus

ACCORDING to reports, the US has put forth 11 outrageous demands to the government of Pakistan. The demands violate Pakistan’s sovereignty. One marvels at the naiveté of those in American who thought that Pakistan would be so silly as not to understand the motives behind the demands. Two of the demands are especially galling. The first is that the personnel posted be exempted from Pakistan’s laws and instead be covered by the US criminal system. Tied to this is a demand for the waiver from any claim to damages for loss of property or death caused by US personnel. This implies that the US troops would not be asked to account for killing Pakistani citizens, whether military or civilian, or destroying their properties. Is this not a license to kill?
Although the Foreign Office and the Law Ministry have rejected these demands, the audacity of the US to present these demands show how Pakistan is regarded there : a subservient country that would bend under any pressure if the sole superpower so wishes. By putting forward these demands, the US has clearly challenged Pakistan’s sovereignty and is treating it as a colony. Can the US ever think of putting forward these demands to any European country or other developed nations? Just because Pakistan became a US ally after the US threatened to ‘bomb it to the Stone Age,’ does not necessarily mean that it can get away with dictating anything and everything.
The US has not done Pakistan any favour by giving it $10 billion on military aid since Pakistan became its ally in the war against terrorism, as it was mere acknowledgement of services provided by the Pakistan’s army. In fact, there are reports that the US has withheld $70 million bill presented by Pakistan’s army in payment for the services rendered in the war on terrorism. Pakistan has not only given the US its bases, logistic support and shared intelligence with its forces in Afghanistan; our military has also suffered scores of casualties while combating terrorism on our side of the Durand Line, especially in the tribal area. Due to the failure of the US forces and
NATO troops in Afghanistan, the country that has suffered the most is Pakistan. There has been a huge spillover of militants from Afghanistan who have taken refuge in Pakistan’s tribal areas only because the US and NATO forces were unable to eliminate them. The perception that Pakistan if fighting the war against terrorism at the behest of the US has led to hundreds of terrorist attacks all over the country, including suicide bombings targeting our security forces. In the 1980s Pakistan had fought a proxy-war for the US and as soon as the US had achieved its agenda (withdrawal of the Russian troops from Afghanistan), it had left Pakistan in a lurch. The repercussions of the Afghan war are still being suffered by Pakistan in the form of Islamic militants, the supply of narcotics and arms, etc.
If accepted, these demands would give the US personnel complete freedom of action in Pakistan – in fact, they would take control of events in areas of their interest. It is no wonder that Pakistan has reacted with a negative response. Any hesitation or weakness that the US senses on the part of Pakistan may result in increasing instability. We need to deal rationally with our indigenous terrorist problem and also create credible space between ourselves and the US. It is good that our government has made it clear point blank that Americans will not be allowed to trample sacra sanctity of our territory. However, our cooperation in the war on terror will continue subject to the condition that terrorist targets are not hit without our consent.






The East-East economic axis
Johan Defterios

EVEN in China, a country of more than a billion people, it would have been difficult to miss His Highness Shaikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and his delegation, representing five and a half million people. Shaikh Mohammed brought an entourage of 50 business leaders and throngs of government support to advance trade between the two economies which are both expanding around 10 per cent a year. While a great deal of this was largely for the cameras, with President Hu Jintao for example handing over the official invitation in a Beijing ceremony, there is a lot to be said about the emerging axis between the Middle East and China. There was hope and early talk of $2 billion worth of deals to be announced on this trip. Nothing really materialised beyond a research agreement between regional mobile operator Etilisat and Huwaei Technologies of China.
Merchandise trade however between China and the UAE has been growing 30 per cent or more each year for the last four years. Dubai is home to one of the largest retail and wholesale centres in the world, the Dragon Mart, and Chinese companies are busy constructing buildings across the region. These are the headline numbers, but what may be more fascinating is what could be on the way. The Chairman of Dubai World, Sultan Ahmad bin Sulayem, talks of the “excellent” bi-lateral relations and his group has placed investments on port projects in Qingdao and Shanghai. Unlike the P&O deal in the US, which created a fuss in Washington, there was no resistance to the capital investment from the Gulf into China.
During an interview this week on Marketplace Middle East, the former prime minister of Pakistan, Shaukat Aziz, underscored the point saying there are no competing interests. The Gulf needs Chinese goods, capital and construction groups. China wants access to a potential market of 430 million people in the Middle East and North Africa region and open access to their oil and natural gas reserves. After a landmark visit to Beijing in January 2006, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia signed a deal to set up a refinery for the Kingdom’s oil on Chinese soil.
While energy security may represent the lion’s share of Chinese foreign policy and its investment decision making (look at Africa for inspiration), it is re-drawing the map of the Silk Route which is literally being re-built from the Middle East to Far East Asia. Good business deals, lead to good relations and open markets for goods and capital. With Washington and Brussels jittery over the Chinese trade surplus and the inability to compete on a low cost basis in certain sectors, Beijing wants to hedge its bets. Sovereign Power-Play Beyond trade links, there is a less obvious common ground that China and the UAE share these days, investments by their sovereign wealth funds. While the transatlantic rhetoric has calmed down over the past month, the two countries have been at the forefront of the more high profile stakes in US banks and retail brands such as Barney’s. Dubai International Capital, Istithmar, Dubai World and China Investment Corporation (CIC) are names we are familiar with after the global spending spree that heated up last autumn.
While Shaikh Mohammed was busy exploring bilateral investments, a key executive at CIC sounded more “Gulf like” when he said “we are facing rising protectionism and nationalism”. After seeing his stakes in Citigroup and Blackstone suffer, CIC has publicly stated it is looking for conservative returns for their $200 billion fund.Expect more discussions on this front and some unusual partnerships. Overlooked in analysis over a US economic slowdown was a discreet meeting in Washington recently. It was a different type of Asia-Middle East partnership; this time Singapore and Abu Dhabi. Representatives from sovereign funds GIC and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority met with US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt and agreed on the principles that will govern best practices for investments. This process will wind its way through organisations like the International Monetary Fund and the OECD, the Paris based think-tank for industrialised countries. While that gathering did not capture the headlines of Shaikh Mohammed’s delegation, it is another example of the new East-East economic axis and the deals and partnerships that are set to emerge along with these markets.

—Khaleej Times