India ust re are or a ‘single continuous war’

Veteran Indian diplomat on the nature of the conflicts India might be involved in in coming years, and where the US and Russia would stand on these.

A“serious and growing asymmetrical relationship” with China, which has indulged in four instances of “salami slicing” along the un-demarcated border since 2012, and an increasingly bellicose and belligerent Pakistan means that India has to be prepared for a “single continuous war” along two fronts and not a two-front war - sans any assistance from the US or Russia, says a scholarly work by veteran diplomat Rajiv Dogra.

Dogra examines hotspots around the world through the prism of the principal stakeholders and concludes that “whichever path the world chooses in the difficult decade ahead, it should keep reminding itself that history is the consequence of its choices”.

“Since India no longer faces just unidirectional threats, it has to take a 360-degree view and prepare accordingly. Making the challenge dire is the fact that it is not a mere two-front war that India faces, but more likely a ‘single continuous war’ along two fronts. This war, when it happens, might stretch from one extremity of the Indo-Pak boundary to the other end of the Indo-China border,” Dogra writes in Wartime: The World In Danger (Rupa).

“In that case, India will have to contend with a ‘collaborative war’ that involves interoperability between China and Pakistan across the entire military spectrum. Such a war will be fought both in the deep seas and on the high Himalayas,” adds Dogra, who was India’s Ambassador to Italy, prior to which he served as Ambassador in Romania and as India’s last Consul General in Karachi.

Any willingness on India’s part to respond forcefully to China might be “welcomed” in the US, where successive administrations have sought to integrate India into America’s IndoPacific strategy. But “this does not mean that the US will promptly jump into the fray”, Dogra writes, adding, “When this war breaks out, India could well be reminded that the US has 47 treaty allies and it is not one of them.”

Noting that the nascent Quad partnership “has yet to create its charter” and “languishes uncertainly”, Dogra writes that President Biden’s promise to transfer advanced technology, including submarine nuclear propulsion to Australia under the AUKUS alliance “throws into stark relief India’s failure to acquire any significant high technology” from the US.

“All that India has to show for its ‘strategic partnership’ is the nearly $22 billion worth of military hardware purchased from US companies,” he writes.

Dogra is also harsh on the US for its “mercantile” manner of dealing with India.

“Even if the US wishes to pursue a transactional relationship with India, it has to recognise the basic rule of transaction – that there are two parties to it. A relationship where only one side is expected to place high-value purchase order cannot, by definition, be termed transactional. As a result, doubts crop up and questions are raised by the Indian analysts: why did the US act so generously by transferring high technology and making huge investments in China? Why did the US lavish money and arms on Pakistan? In stark contrast, why is it so mercantile and demanding when it comes to dealing with India?” the author asks.

“So, can India ever be an equal friend with the US? It seems unlikely as long as America’s approach to relationships is transactional,” Dogra maintains.

Russia, he writes, “has continued to feel threatened by the West as it had been during the Cold War and in the centuries before that. As a consequence, it has chosen to walk into the willing arms of China”.

Even today, there continue to be many in Russia who consider the Indian relationship to be precious, “yet, the last few years, India has let it slide”, the author notes.

“One indication that Russians are miffed about it is (President Vladimir) Putin’s steadily briefer visits during Indo-Russian summits. These are among other signals that all is not well with India’s relationship with Russia. Indo-Russian strategic linkages demand that these concerns should be quickly addressed, but India has been busy wooing the US,” Dogra writes.

In such a situation, with “no longer the assurance of a 1971-type of treaty with the Soviet Union to turn to in the time of need”, and with Russia and China “locked in an anti-America embrace, it leaves India in an uneasy position”, the author maintains.

Russia may be China’s “current brother but it has been India’s friend over decades. In war, it might steer clear of taking sides. Therefore, it may pass on a few critical items to India and intelligence information to China. Whatever the ultimate alliances and partnerships, the consequences of an Indo-China war will be bad enough, but with Pakistan joining in, it will be the stuff of nightmares for India,” Dogra writes.

What then, are India’s options? Dogra suggests a nine-point plan of action:

■ India needs to upgrade military technology with the latest in AI, drones and electronic warfare.

■ It needs to move away from its traditionally defensive approach because it is physically impossible for it to guard every inch of the over 6,800 km stretch of borders it shares with China and Pakistan.

■ It must invest in grey zone operations in the enemy areas.

■ It must adopt a whole of government approach in countering threats to its security.

■ Increasingly, India will have to find responses to the ‘cognitive war’ tactics of its enemies in addition to the possibility of ‘no contact’ warfare and the use of unmanned platforms in war.

■ There is no reason to expect that, in any future war with China and/or Pakistan, India will understand their nuclear Rubicon or that the Indian armed forces will not inadvertently cross one or more.

■ India must lessen its economic dependence on China in critical sectors.

■ The US has become an increasingly critical partner for India. But this dependence raises serious questions as to whether it actually enhances India’s strategic imperatives or if it opens up new vulnerabilities.

■ India’s effort should be to create issue-based coalitions. It will have to work with other countries who feel threatened by the overwhelming preponderance of the two great powers and who fear their marginalisation in a world of contention and strife. Happily, many of these recommendations are already works in progress.

Vishnu Makhijani

Swastika ban ill not a e t South Asian aith o unities S introdu es si ilar ill

Victoria has become the first Australian state or territory to ban the public display of the Nazi symbol in recognition of its role in inciting antisemitism and hate.

The Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Symbol Prohibition) Bill 2022 was passed on 21 June, making it a criminal offence for a person to intentionally display the Nazi symbol (the Hakenkreuz, often referred to as the Nazi swastika) in public.

Penalties will accrue up to the amount of $22,000, 12 months’ imprisonment or both.

Victoria’s Minister for Multicultural Affairs Ros Spence said, “These laws are part of our unwavering commitment to challenge antisemitism, hatred and racism wherever and whenever they occur.”

Importantly for Victoria’s South Asian community, the Bill recognises the cultural and historical significance of the swastika for the Buddhist, Hindu, Jain and other faith communities as an ancient and sacred symbol of peace and good fortune. The Bill does not prohibit the display of the swastika in such religious and cultural contexts.

On the same day 21 June, the NSW Government introduced a bill into its Parliament to ban the public displays of Nazi symbols and to provide further safeguards against hate speech and vilification.

NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman said the Government’s Bill will amend the Crimes Act 1900 to create a new offence of knowingly displaying, by public act and without reasonable excuse, a Nazi symbol.

“Under the proposed amendments, the maximum penalty for the new offence will be 12 months’ imprisonment or a $11,000 fine or both for an individual; or a fine of $55,000 for a corporation,” he said.

Again, exclusions apply for the display of a swastika in connection with Buddhism, Hinduism or Jainism – these will not constitute the display of a Nazi symbol, the NSW Bill explicitly states.

The Bill also provides that it is not an offence to display of a Nazi symbol where there is a reasonable excuse, including artistic, academic or educational purposes or any other purpose in the public interest.

The move towards a Swastika ban comes after much community consultation in both states.

For the faith communities of South Asia, the swastika is a sacred symbol; it was misappropriated by the Nazis as a symbol of hatred and violence.

There was much concern therefore when the strengthening of the anti-vilification laws was mooted in Victoria last year.

However, it gave community stakeholders an opportunity to educate government departments as well as the general publicon facts about the ancient Swastika (such as its root words Su and Asti which mean ‘good’ and ‘existence’ respectively, referring together to ‘wellbeing’, and what the four arms signify).

This created broader awareness of the need for differentiating between the terms ‘swastika’ and ‘hakenkreuz’, a distinction that is becoming much better understood today.

Victoria’s new law and the Bill in NSW both respond to reports of rising incidents of unacceptable anti-Semitic and far-right extremist activities.

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies CEO Darren Bark said, “In recent years we have seen a surge in the use of these symbols by right-wing extremists and for other faithbased attacks, both in-person and online.”

The Victorian legislation will come into effect in six months to allow for time to implement this campaign. This has been brought forward after consultation with affected groups and their feedback.

For South Asian faith communities the world over, this is a start to the reclaiming of the Swastika from its Nazi misappropriation.