RUPEE NEWS: Recording History, Narrating Archives, Strategic Intellibrief Analysis: Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | اخبار روپیہ

THE INDIA DOCTRINE by Dr. Munshi of Bangladesh

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻  | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース  | Notizie di Rupia |  PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | June 15th, 2008 | Moin Ansari |  معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

Book Review: ‘ The India Doctrine’ by Isha Khan bdmailer@gmail.com

Adorned in a saffron red jacket and embellished with a detailed map of South Asia the concept of an India Doctrine has been introduced to the readers in Bangladesh recently. The book ‘The India Doctrine’ has been published by the Bangladesh Research Forum and edited by Barrister M.B.I. Munshi and is priced at Tk. 300. Munshi’s contribution to the book constitutes the largest section with several other writers from Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka providing some useful and informative chapters.

The book comes complete with a foreword written by esteemed scholar, Professor Ataur Rahman of Dhaka University who sets the theme of the book. We are reminded by Prof. Rahman that while India might have its own rationale for framing its regional policy compatible with its national interests, the fact remains that constant apprehensions, mistrust and tensions between India and the smaller neighbors including Bangladesh had its negative effects on any meaningful cooperation and security in the region.

This introduction neatly moves us into the chapters written by Munshi which are a series of discussions that covers the relations between India and East Pakistan/Bangladesh from 1947 to the present. It attempts a historical and geo-strategic appraisal of relations between the two countries but also offers a more wide ranging analysis involving the Indian external intelligence operations in Bangladesh and outside. The central idea of the chapters when taken as a whole appears to be that the India Doctrine as implemented by successive administrations in India is not limited to simply harming the economic interests of [its neighbours] but also has a historical and intellectual underpinning that comes from the thoughts and writings of Jawaharlal Nehru and Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar amongst others. The idea of a United India (or an ‘Akhand Bharat’) according to the author is still a goal of Indian policy making in South Asia.

Prof. Rahman is forced in his foreword to contend that this thesis may seem implausible and ‘far-fetched’ but also points out that Munshi supplements his ideas with an exhaustive and elaborate set of references and notes to back up his argument. However, a defect in this intricate framework of references is that the chapters lack a bibliography which would have made it easier to verify the arguments advanced by the author. The chapters also seems to be hampered by the fact that they were written originally as a 3 part article and the author clearly has had some difficulty in framing his arguments within this constriction. However, as we all know Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington both started their seminal works in a similar manner with articles in prominent journals before they were rendered into book form and this does not seem to have affected the stream of their discussion and thoughts.

As this may be, the principle cause of disquiet will certainly be Munshi’s interpretation of significant historical events and his commentary on the motivations of characters such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ayub Khan who are all now long dead. I was certainly surprised by some of his findings but it was difficult to find fault here as most of his views are backed-up with thorough research and investigation. His chapters on the 1971 war and the insurgency in the CHT are probably the most tantalizing in terms of historical data and comparisons.

Some of Munshi’s arguments are further buttressed by a short chapter by Khodeza Begum who makes reference to events that occurred during the 1990’s related to clandestine meetings held in Dhaka concerning the reunification of the subcontinent. In her chapter, there is an extensive discussion on the policies being pursued by the Indian government that according to her is detrimental to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bangladesh. She analyses the concept of a United Bengal that has featured in some of the Indian political literature in recent years. She has also summarized the tactics and strategies adopted by the Indian government and its intelligence agency to undermine the unity of Bangladesh and to inculcate the population of the country with a perspective adverse to the nations integrity.

Although solidly written there is a problem with the length of the chapter as well as the dated materials used by the author. A more contemporary approach may have served better but the evidence seems irrefutable and the author should update her research before a second edition is considered.

In a sudden change of location Brig. Gen. M. Sakhawat Hossain inexplicably takes us all the way to the Indian Ocean and the emerging strategic scenarios being played out in the area. One may legitimately question the relevance to the overall context and theme of the book but the author makes this abundantly clear when he remarks that rivalries in the South Asian region are primarily based on events in 1971 and India’s intent on dominating the region has had to appreciate the ground realities that this cannot be achieved alone. Hossain expertly explains the intricate alliances being forged in the region and the importance of the Indian Ocean in the strategic thinking of India , China, the USA and Pakistan. His comments on the North-East insurgency and the recent uprising in Nepal are highly commendable and very insightful especially in the latter case where he had visited prior to writing the chapter.

Following the chapters by the Bangladeshi authors mentioned above come the section written by the Nepali writers. In the case of Madan Prasad Khanal, Nishchal Basnyat and Sanjay Upadhya their contributions to the book are highly articulate, elegant and almost near impeccable. Each author discusses differing aspects of Indian interference and intervention in Nepali internal affairs and in some cases provides possible solutions to these problems. But with a clear conception of the implications of Indian domination on Nepal Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant appeared a little confused in his expressions.

The final chapters of the book are by two Sri Lankan writers Dr Rohan Gunaratna and Arbinda Acharya. Both writers collaborated to produce a single chapter on the Sri Lankan attitude to Indian interference or as the authors themselves put it, “India’s involvement in Sri Lankan ethnic imbroglio has been one of the most controversial, ironic as well as tragic aspects of New Delhi’s foreign policy.” While concentrating on the Sri Lankan situation the writers also manage to draw in examples from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan to back up their case on Indian aspirations in South Asia. Of significance is the Indian involvement in the protracted and apparently insoluble conflict with the Tamils. The chapter also involves a geostrategic appraisal of Sri Lanka and its growing relationship with China and Pakistan. It is unfortunate therefore that the authors were not as forceful about Indian interventions in Sri Lanka especially during the time of the premiership of Rajiv Gandhi. The chapter seems somewhat apologetic about Indian intervention rather than condemnatory which would have been an appropriate response from Sri Lankan nationals.  Isha Khan
bdmailer@gmail.com

RAW : An Instrument of Indian Imperialism Isha Khan

bdmailer@gmail.com (from our Rupee News regular contributor and columnist Isha Khan in Dhaka Bangladesh ). Mr. Khan is also the contributor of Dhaka Dairy: RAW vs ISI by Prem Raj

The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), created in 1968, has assumed a significant status in the formulation of India’s domestic and foreign policies, particularly the later. Working directly under the Prime Minister, it has over the years become and effective instrument of India’s national power. In consonance with Kautilya’s precepts, RAW’s doctrine is based on the principle of waging a continuousseries of battles of intrigues and secret wars.

RAW, ever since its creation, has always been a vital, though unobtrusive, actor in Indian policy-making apparatus. But it is the massive international dimensions of RAW operations that merit a closer examination. To the credit of this organization, it has in very short span of time mastered the art of spy warfare. Credit must go to Indira Gandhi who in the late 1970s gave it a changed and much more dynamic role. To suit her much publicized Indira Doctrine, (actually India Doctrine) Mrs. Gandhi specifically asked RAW to create a powerful organ within the organization which could undertake covert operations in neighboring countries. It is this capability that makes RAW a more fearsome agency than its superior KGB, CIA, MI-6, BND and the Mossad.

Its internal role is confined only in monitoring events having bearing on the external threat. RAW’s boss works directly under the Prime Minister. An Additional Secretary to the Government of India, under the Director RAW, is responsible for the Office of Special Operations (OSO), intelligence collected from different countries, internal security (under the Director General of Security), the electronic/technical section and general administration. The Additional Secretary as well as the Director General of Security isalso under the Director of RAW. DG Security has two important sections: the Aviation Research Center (ARC) and the Special Services Bureau (SSB). The joint Director has specified desks with different regional divisions/areas (countries):

Area one. Pakistan: Area two, China and South East Asia: Area three, the Middle East and Africa: and Area four, other countries.

Aviation Research Center (ARC) is responsible for interception, monitoring and jamming of target country’s communication systems. It has the most sophisticated electronic equipment and also a substantial number of aircraft equipped with state-of- the art eavesdropping devices. ARC was strengthened in mid-1987 by the addition of three new aircraft, the Gulf Stream-3. These aircraft can reportedly fly at an altitude of 52,000 ft and has an operating range of 5000 kms. ARC also controls a number of radar stations located close to India’s borders. Its aircraft also carry out oblique reconnaissance, along the border with Bangladesh, China, Nepal and Pakistan.

RAW having been given a virtual carte blanche to conduct destabilization operations in neighboring countries inimical to India to seriously undertook restructuring of its organization accordingly. RAW was given a list of seven countries (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Pakistan and Maldives) whom India considered its principal regional protagonists. It very soon systematically and brilliantly crafted covert operations in all these countries to coerce, destabilize and subvert them in consonance with the foreign policy objectives of the Indian Government.

RAW’s operations against the regional countries were conducted with great professional skill and expertise. Central to the operations was the establishment of a huge network inside the target countries. It used and targeted political dissent, ethnic divisions, economic backwardness and criminal elements within these states to foment subversion, terrorism and sabotage. Having thus created the conducive environments, RAW stage-managed future events in these countries in such a way that military intervention appears a natural concomitant of the events. In most cases, RAW’s hand remained hidden, but more often that not target countries soon began unearthing those “hidden hand”. A brief expose of RAW’s operations in neighboring countries would reveal the full expanse of its regional ambitions to suit India Doctrine (Open Secrets. India’s Intelligence Unveiled by M K Dhar. Manas Publications, New Delhi, 2005).

Bangladesh

Indian intelligence agencies were involved in erstwhile East Pakistan,now Bangladesh since early 1960s. Its operatives were in touch with Sheikh Mujib for quite some time. Sheikh Mujib went to Agartala in 1965. The famous Agartala case was unearthed in 1967. In fact, the main purpose of raising RAW in 1968 was to organise covert operations in Bangladesh. As early as in 1968, RAW was given a green signal to begin mobilising all its resources for the impending surgical intervention in erstwhile East Pakistan. When in July 1971 General Manekshaw told Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that the army would not be ready till December to intervene in Bangladesh, she quickly turned to RAW for help. RAW was ready. Its officers used Bengali refugees to set up Mukti Bahini. Using this outfit as a cover, Indian military sneakeddeep into Bangladesh. The story of Mukti Bahini and RAW’s role in its creation and training is now well-known. RAW never concealed its Bangladesh operations. Interested readers may have details in Asoka Raina’s Inside RAW: the story of India’s secret service published by Vikas Publishing House of New Delhi.

The Indians played upon Bengali sentiments in the aftermath of the 1965 Pakistan-India war through RAW so that when opportunity struck the Indians were well-prepared. It was RAW that gradually converted Sheikh Mujibur Rehman from being a staunch supporter of Pakistan as a student leader to envisaging himself as the possible ‘Father’ of a new nation – Bangladesh. Indian sources, including journalists, have put on record how much before 1971 RAW had established the network of a separatist movement through ‘cells’ within East Pakistan and military training camps in Indian territory adjoining East Pakistan. The Mukti Bahini were all in place organisationally to take advantage of the political trouble in 1971 and carry out acts of sabotage against communication lines so that Indian forces simply marched in at the ‘right’ time. RAW agents provided valuable information as well as acting as an advance guard for conducting unconventional guerrilla acts against the Pakistani defence forces. A Bengali, who was a Mukti Bahini activist, Zainal Abedin, has written a revealing book which includes his personal experience in Indian training camps, entitled RAW and Bangladesh. It was the post-fall of Dhaka period which exposed the Indians’ true intentions and made Abedin realise that It was evident from the conduct of the Indian Army that they treated Bangladesh as a colony … It is now evident that India had helped the creation of Bangladesh with the aim that it would be a step forward towards the reunification of India.

Because Mujib returned, Indian forces could not remain in Bangladesh permanently and so it fell on RAW to initiate other fronts to undermine the sovereignty of Bangladesh. RAW has since been seeking to create Indian dominance culturally, ideologically and economically in Bangladesh.

In addition, RAW has also created another insurgency force: The Shanti Bahini (Fighters for Peace). This force comprises the Chittagong Hill Tracts Hindu and Buddhists tribesmen (the Chakmas) and the intention is to bleed the Bengali military and keep the border area tense. The Chakmas used to embarrass the Bangladesh government especially when the latter protested over Indian policy on the sharing of waters’ issue (http://www.defencejournal.com/jan99/rawfacts.htm).

Continued after these graphics…

RAW’s involvement in Chittagong Hill Ttacts : some admissions

The Chakma guerrillas had closely assisted RAW operatives. They were assisted during and after the liberation War. The Chakmas, after the change of govt in 1975, contacted the RAW. The Chakmas offered to infiltrate among the Mizo rebels and pass on information to the Indian govt in lieu of assylum. This offer was accepted (Inside RAW : The Story of India’s Secret Service, Asoka Raina, Vikas Publishers, New Delhi, 1981, pp.86-87).

In 1975, the RAW was instructed to assist the Chakma rebels with arms, supplies , bases and training. Training was conducted in the border camps in Tripura but specialized training was imparted at Chakrata near Dehra Doon. Shantu Larma’s Shanti Bahini members were flown to Chakrata and then sent back to Tripura to infiltrate into Chittagong Hill Tracts. A RAW office and its operatives at Agartala monitored the progress of the trainees. In 1976, the Shanti Bahini launched its first attack on the Bangladesh force. A new insurgency had been born and India’s secret war in the hills of Bangladesh had begun (South Asia’s Fractured Frontier, Binalaksmi Nepram, Mittal Pablishers, New Delhi, 2002, pp-153).

The RAW was involved in training rebels of Chakma tribes and Shanti Bahini to carry out subversive activities in Bangladesh (RAW’s role in Furthering India’s Foreign Policy, The New Nation, Dhaka, 31 August 1994).

The Indian intelligence had collaborated the armed rebels of Chittagong Hill Tracts to destabilise the region ( Indo-Bangladesh Relation, Motiur Rahman, daily Prothom Alo, 10 December 2002).

The creation of Bangladesh was masterminded by RAW in complicity with KGB under the covert clauses of Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation (adopted as 25-year Indo-Bangladesh Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation in 1972).RAW retained a keen interest in Bangladesh even after its independence. Mr. Subramaniam Swamy, Janata Dal MP, a close associate of Morarji Desai said that Rameswar Nath Kao, former Chief of RAW, and Shankaran Nair upset about Sheikh Mujib’s assassination chalked a plot to kill General Ziaur Rahman. However, when Morarji Desai came into power in 1977 he was indignant at RAW’s role in Bangladesh and ordered operations in Bangladesh to be called off; but by then RAW had already gone too far. General Zia continued to be in power for quite some time but he was assassinated after Indira Gandhi returned to power, though she denied her involvement in his assassination( Weekly Sunday, Calcutta,18 September, 1988 ).

It has also unleashed a well-organized plan of psychological warfare, creation of polarisation among the armed forces, propaganda by false allegations of use of Bangladesh territory by ISI, creation of dissension’s among the political parties and religious sects, control of media, denial of river waters, and propping up a host of disputes in order to keep Bangladesh under a constant political and socio-economic pressure ( “RAW and Bangladesh” by Mohammad Zainal Abedin, November 1995, RAW In Bangladesh: Portrait of an Aggressive Intelligence, by Abu Rushd, Dhaka).

Educated, better to say trained, in school at the Rashtriya Indian Military College in Dehra Dun, Saikia recently researched on so-called Islamic Militancy in North East India under the aegis of a Ford Foundation fellowship, which was awarded for the year 2003. The research was conducted at the Program in ‘Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security’(ACDIS) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It is an astonishing and utter folly how ‘For Foundation’ could sponsor and allow Saikia to use his fellowship on such an issue, which is not only controversial, but also baseless and false and a part of India’s anti-Bangladesh media campaign.
Saikia’s effort cannot be termed as research work, as this type of stories is written almost daily in India. India’s electronic and print media, including websites, are poured with such fabricated anti-Bangladesh items. It is assumed that Indian intelligence outfit RAW(Research & Analysis Wing) managed and possibly financed ‘Ford Foundation’ to award fellowship to Saikia, which he used not only to defame Bangladesh, but also to prepare a ground for India to invade Bangladesh.

Realising the duplicity of Indian government, ULFA in July 1992 publicly declared the Bengali speaking migrants, which also include the Muslims, as friends. In a publication addressed to the ‘East Bengal migrants’ ULFA stated: “East Bengal migrants are considered Assamese. Without these exploited lot, ULFA cannot be successful. These are people who are educationally, economically backward. They cannot be our enemies.

These hardworking people are ULFA’s protection shield. Their contribution to the national income is immense. They can produce essential things from a small piece of land, sell without any profit, work hard for the betterment of Assam, sacrificing them for the future of the state. They are our real well wishers, our friends, better than the Indians. (’The Revolution Comes Full Circle: Bibhu Prasad Routray.)

In the same publication, ULFA went on to define the term ‘Bidekhi’(foreigner). “Those who do not regard this state as their own, accept it as their motherland, are not ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of this country, are aliens, ‘Bidekhis for us.” Saikia should have read this statement of ULFA. He should also know that the Bengali Muslims accepted Assamese as their mother tongue and identify them as Ahoms not as Bengalis. The new generations of the Muslim Ahoms even do not know Bengali. They are not antagonistic to the interest of Assam. All these factors prompted ULFA not to brand the Muslims as foreigners.

But India could never prove any of her allegations against Bangladesh. India officially challenged that there are 195 camps or training centres of the Northeast insurgents in Bangladesh and supplied a list mentioning their whereabouts. According to the list, training centres and camps are situated in hospitals, police stations, residential colonies, government offices, playgrounds, etc. Bangladesh repeatedly requested India to come and show on-spot the existence of these camps and centres. But India never accepted the offer, as Indian policymakers know that there is not even single such centre or camp of the northeast militants, not to speak of 195.

Still the propagandists in New Delhi deliberately continue their fabricated allegations against Bangladesh, whose brief ulterior reasons I have mentioned earlier. I really feel pity for Saikia as well as Ford Foundation for being used as the tools of RAW. How Ford Foundation could accept such a baseless research work which goes against a country, which is a main target of Indian expansionist design. I would request Ford Foundation to send a ‘fact finding mission’ to Assam and Bangladesh as well to inspect the ground realities. Such mission will surely find that all the allegations that Saikia mentioned against Bangladesh in his so-called research work are the products of exaggeration and misinformation. Ford Foundation, to uphold its neutrality and worldwide reputation and acceptability, should consider my suggestion and act accordingly(http://bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidDate=2005-04-26&hidType=HIG&hidRecord=0000000000000000042370)

Post- independence Sri Lanka, inspire of having a multi-sectoral population was a peaceful country till 1971 and was following independent foreign policy. During 1971 Indo-Pakistan war despite of heavy pressure from India, Sri Lanka allowed Pakistan’s civil and military aircraft and ships to stage through its air and sea ports with unhindered re-fueling facilities. It also had permitted Israel to establish a nominal presence of its intelligence training set up. It permitted the installation of high powered transmitter by Voice of America (VOA) on its territory, which was resented by India.

It was because of these ‘irritants’ in the Indo-Sri Lanka relations that Mrs Indira Gandhi planned to bring Sri Lanka into the fold of the so-called Indira Doctrine (India Doctrine) Kao was told by Gandhi to repeat their Bangladesh success. RAW went looking for militants it could train to destabilize the regime. Camps were set up in Tamil Nadu and old RAW guerrillas trainers were dug out of retirement. RAW began arming the Tamil Tigers and training them at centers such as Gunda and Gorakhpur. As a sequel to this ploy, Sri Lanka was forced into Indianpower-web when Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 was singed and Indian Peace-Keeping-Force (IPKF) landed in Sri Lanka.

Up to the mid-seventies the Sri Lankan government had kept India happy by following policies which followed the Indian line – domestically and externally. The trouble began in 1977 when the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) lost power to the Jayewardene-led United National Party in elections. He moved towards a more cooperative policy with the United States and Sri Lanka chose to oppose the Indian demand for the withdrawal of all foreign naval forces from the Indian Ocean. Mrs. Gandhi had already been irked by Sri Lanka’s support to Pakistan during the 1971 war when it allowed landing and fuelling facilities to Pakistan’s East-West commercial flights. So RAW saw a perfect opportunity to exploit within the prevailing dispute between the Sinhalese majority (74 percent) and Tamil minority (14 percent) over distribution of economic and social spoils of independence. Before the two sides could work out a compromise, India, through its RAW, managed to polarise the two sides as well as militarise this essentially political conflict.

On the Mukti Bahini model, RAW built up terrorist training camps in India for a number of Tamil terrorist organisations, while India suddenly began orchestrating a public campaign feigning concern because of the links the Tamils had with the 50 million Indian Tamils of Tamil Nadu state – which was separated from Sri Lanka by the Palk Straits. It was only a matter of time before the militants trained in India began sidelining the moderate Tamils and instead demanding complete independence – Ealam. Ironically, the presence of Tamil training camps in Tamil Nadu often created a law and order situation when large arms were captured by the state police. The surprise for the state government came when New Delhi ordered that such captured material be returned.

Maldives

Under a well-orchestrated RAW plan, on November 30 1988 a 300 to 400-strong well trained force of mercenaries, armed with automatic weapons, initially said to be of unknown origin, infiltrated in boats and stormed the capital of Maldives. They resorted to indiscriminate shooting and took high-level government officials as hostages. At the Presidential Palace, the small contingent of loyal national guards offered stiff resistance, which enabled President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom to shift to a safe place from where he issued urgent appeals for help from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Britain and the United States.

The Indian Prime Ministe Rajiv Gandhi reacted promptly and about 1600 combat troops belonging to 50 Independent Para-Brigade in conjunction with Indian Naval units landed at Male under the code-name Operation Cactus. A number of IAF transport aircraft, escorted by fighters, were used for landing personnel, heavy equipment and supplies. Within hours of landing, the Indian troops flushed out the attackers form the streets and hideouts. Some of them surrendered to Indian troops, and many were captured by Indian Naval units while trying to escape along with their hostages in a Maldivian ship, Progress Light. Most of the 30 hostages including Ahmed Majtaba, Maldives Minister of Transport, were released. The Indian Government announced the success of the Operation Cactus and complimented the armed forces for a good job done.

The Indian Defense Minister while addressing IAF personnel at Bangalore claimed that the country’s prestige has gone high because of the peace-keeping role played by the Indian forces in Maldives. The International Community in general and the South Asian states in particular, however, viewed with suspicious the over-all concept and motives of the operation. The western media described it as a display of newly-acquired military muscle by India and its growing role as a regional police. Although the apparent identification of the two Maldivian nationals could be a sufficient reason, at its face value, to link it with the previous such attempts by the mercenaries, yet other converging factors, indicative of involvement of external hand, could hardly be ignored. Sailing of the mercenaries from Manar and Kankasanturai in Sri Lanka, which were in complete control of IPKF, and the timing and speed of the Indian intervention proved their involvement beyond any doubt.

Nepal

Ever since the partition of the sub-continent India has been openly meddling in Nepal’s internal affairs by contriving internal strife and conflicts through RAW to destabilize the successive legitimate governments and prop up puppet regimes which would be more amenable Indian machinations. Armed insurrections were sponsored and abetted by RAW and later requests for military assistance to control these were managed through pro-India leaders. India has been aiding and inciting the Nepalese dissidents to collaborate with the Nepali Congress. For this they were supplied arms whenever the King or the Nepalese Government appeared to be drifting away from the Indian dictates and impinging on Indian hegemonic designs in the region. In fact, under the garb of the so-called democratization measures, the Maoists were actively encouraged to collect arms to resort to open rebellion against the legitimate Nepalese governments. The contrived rebellions provided India an opportunity to intervene militarily in Nepal, ostensibly to control the insurrections which were masterminded by the RAW itself. It was an active replay of the Indian performance in Sri Lanka and Maldives a few years earlier. RAW is particularly aiding the people of the Indian-origin and has been providing them with arms and ammunition.

RAW’s gameplan for Sikkimization of Nepal

An interesting new insight has been provided into the current thinking of the Maoist leadership by Baburam Bhattarai, one of its leading lights, via a write-up which seeks to explain what he terms as a “gameplan” for Nepal’s “Sikkimization” and its nexus with the rationale of the “People’s War”.

Beginning with the “so-called” India Today’s “Nepal gameplan” report, a product of RAW (India’s external, super secret intelligence agency), the Maoist stalwart (who incidentally holds a Ph.D degree from the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi) concludes with an appeal to all “patriotic” forces “to come together and, through a united front, confront all external expansionist forces” operating against Nepal.

The said write-up appears in the latest issue of Maoist-friendly vernacular weekly Jana Ahwan. Bhattarai says that against the chain of events starting with the “neo-colonialist 1950 Treaty and including the Kosi-Gandak-Mahakali agreements, the Kalapani problem, the Laxmanpur barrage and the recent bill to amend the citizenship act”, it is abundantly clear that the “process for the Sikkimization of Nepal has accelerated and has greatly advanced.” He also makes the point that the RAW-inspired India Today “Nepal Gameplan” report makes it obvious how deeply RAW, and other Indian intelligence agencies, have penetrated Nepal.

He then rhetorically asks: “If the intelligence agency of a country which does not border Nepal and whose political, economic, cultural relations and interest in Nepal is negligible in comparison with India’s has as extensive and high level connections as is made out, how much more profound would the hold of India’s intelligence agencies be, considering that Nepal is surrounded on three sides by an India which has immeasurably greater political, economic, and cultural stakes in Nepal than any other country in the world.”

To underscore that salient point, the erudite Maoist leader says that if penetration by the intelligence agency of a country whose embassy has just 25 staffers is as extensive as claimed, how much greater would that be by intelligence agencies of a country whose embassy has 300 personnel?

Recalling events leading to the “merger” of Sikkim with India, including propaganda about “China” and a “CIA” threat, Bhattarai says it is not difficult to understand the motivation behind the hue and cry about alleged ISI activities today. He then angrily refutes allegations made in a report said to be provided to the Nepal police by the Indian Embassy (disclosed in Himal magazine, 1-7 Asar, 2057 issue) charging that Timila Yami, sister of Yisila Yami (Bhattarai’s wife) has been used by the ISI for contacts with Nepalese Maoists.

Moving on, Bhattarai claims that the ruling class in India has sought support from “Hindu fascists” as it is reeling against the impact of “national liberation movements from Kashmir to Tamilandu, from Punjab to Nagaland” and the struggle against “Indian expansionism in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan” in South Asia. In particular, he claims the Indian ruling class has become unbalanced seeing the impact of the People’s War in Nepal which aims not only at “class liberation” but also at “national liberation.”

What is particularly sad, he maintains, is that Nepal’s mainstream political parties and other political forces have fallen into the Indian “trap” vis-a-vis the Maoists’ struggle. Significantly, he also declares that, today, forces supportive of and against “Indian expansionism” in Nepal can be found in “the palace, Congress, RPP, UML and even in other small groupings.”

Equally meaningful is Bhattarai’s reference to an observation by nominated Upper House member Ramesh Nath Pandey who has been quoted (vide Kantipur, 16 Jestha 2057) as having said: “In my opinion, Maoists will not precipitate a national calamity; rather, it should be preserved for safeguarding the nation in case of a calamity.”

RAW has also infiltrated the ethnic Nepali refugees whohave been extradited by Bhutan and have taken refuge in the eastern Nepal. RAW can exploit its links with these refugees in either thatare against the Indian interest. Besides the Nepalese economy istotally controlled by the Indian money lenders, financiers andbusiness mafia ( RAW’s Machination In South Asia by Shastra Dutta Pant, Kathmandu, 2003).

Afghanistan

Since December 1979, throughout Afghan War, KGB, KHAD (WAD) (former Afghan intelligence outfit) and RAW stepped up their efforts to concentrate on influencing and covert exploitation of the tribes on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. There was intimate co-ordination between the three intelligence agencies not only in Afghanistan but in destabilization of Pakistan through subversion and sabotage plan related to Afghan refugees and mujahideen, the tribal belt and inside Pakistan. They jointly organized spotting and recruitment of hostile tribesmen and their training in guerrilla warfare, infiltration, subversion, sabotage and establishment of saboteur force/terrorist organizations in the pro-Afghan tribes of Pakistan in order to carry out bomb explosions in Afghan refugee camps in NWFP and Baluchistan to threaten and pressurize them to return to Afghanistan. They also carried out bomb blasts in populated areas deep inside Pakistan to create panic and hatred in the minds of locals against Afghan refugee mujahideen for pressurizing Pakistan to change its policies on Afghanistan.

Pakistan

Pakistan’s size, strength and potential have always overawed the Indians. It, therefore, always considers her main opponent in her expansionist doctrine. India’s animosity towards Pakistan is psychologically and ideologically deep-rooted and unassailable. India’s war with Pakistan in 1965 over Kashmir and in 1971 which resulted in the dismemberment of Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh are just two examples.

Raw considers Sindh as Pakistan’s soft under-belly. It has, therefore, made it the prime target for sabotage and subversion. RAW has enrolled and extensive network of agents and anti-government elements, and is convinced that with a little push restless Sindh will revolt. Taking fullest advantage of the agitation in Sindh in 1983 and the ethnic riots, which have continued till today, RAW has deeply penetrated and cultivated dissidents and secessionists, thereby creating hard-liners unlikely to allow peace to return to Sindh. Raw is also involved similarly in Balochistan.

RAW has an extensive network of agents and anti-government elements within Pakistan, including dissident elements.Pakistan’s size, strength, and potential have always overawed India.It has always considered Pakistan to be the main opponent to its expansionist doctrine.India’s animosity toward Pakistan is psychologically and ideologically deep-rooted and unassailable.

India’s 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan over Kashmir, which resulted in the dismemberment of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, is just two examples.Pakistan remains RAW’s primary concern.It runs thousands of agents and spends millions of rupees in its operations against Pakistan.It has made a three-pronged attack against Pakistan in an attempt to destabilize it,Propaganda,Espionage, and Subversion. RAW is totally committed on all these three fronts and is engaged in launching covert operations in consonance with India’s hostile foreign policy.All aspects of Pakistani activities, economic, military, industrial and cultural receive a close scrutiny of RAW. It goes to its credit that it has accomplished or at least continued in a motivated manner its assigned objectives.The Indian government spelling out the task for RAW in this regard has stated,’Pakistan should be so destabilized internally that it could not support the ‘Kashmir cause even morally, diplomatically or politically’.

Whenever and wherever there is a kidnapping, a bank robbery, a financial scandal, a bomb blast, or what have you, the I.S.I. is deemed to have.Ashok A Biswas, a Delhi-based research scholar, in his recently compiled study RAW – An Unobstructive Instrument of India’s Foreign Policy, (as quoted by Pakistan Observer in ‘A RAW deal for South Asia, 03 May, 1998) states that ‘the aim of RAW is to keep internal disturbances flaring up and the ISI preoccupied so that Pakistan can lend no worthwhile resistance to Indian designs in the region.’ He concludes, ‘RAW over the years has admirably fulfilled its task of destabilizing target states through unbridled export for terrorism had a hand in it.Reference: (See “R.A.W.: Global and Regional Ambitions” edited by Rashid Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Saleem, Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Asia Printers, Islamabad, 2005).

RAW is also being blamed for confusing the ground situation is Kashmir so as to keep the world attention away from the gross human rights violations by India in India occupied Kashmir. ISI being almost 20 years older than RAW and having acquired much higher standard of efficiency in its functioning , has become the prime target of RAW’s designs, ISI is considered to be a stumbling block in RAW’s operations, and has, therefore, been made a target of all kinds of massive misinformation and propaganda campaign. The tirade against ISI continues unabated. The idea is to keep ISI on the defensive by fictionalising and alleging its hand is supporting Kashmiri Mujahideen and Sikhs in Punjab. RAW’S fixation against ISI has taken the shape of ISI-phobia, as in India everyone traces down the origin of all happenings and shortcomings to the ISI . Be it an abduction at Banglaore or a student’s kidnapping at Cochin, be it a bank robbery at Calcutta or a financial scandal in Bombay, be it a bomb blast at Bombay or Bangladesh, they find an ISI hand in it (RAW :GLOBAL AND REGIONAL AMBITIONS” Edited by Rashid Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Saleem, Published by Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Asia Printers, Islamabad, 2005).

RAW over the years has admirably fulfilled its tasks of destabilising target states through unbridled export of terrorism. The India Doctrine spelt out a difficult and onerous role for RAW. It goes to its credit that it has accomplished its assigned objectives due to the endemic weakness in the state apparatus of those nations and failure of their leaders.–
Contributed by Isha Khan, who can be reached at bdmailer@gmail.com

FUTURE ADDITIONS TO THIS ARTICLE:

1) RAW in China and Indian machination in Tibet

2) More details on RAW gangs controlling drug money in Afghanistan for Karzai..(RAW head scolded Karzai)

3) RAW in Mayanmar and Thailand

4) RAW in Africa, specially East Africa where there are huge Indian populations

5) RAW in Haiti

6) RAW alliance with Hinduvatava?

7) RAW funding for Indian supremacist candidates in the UK?

8) RAW in the Caribbean islands

9) RAW Hinduvata funding from Gujratis in USA

10) A RAW connection to Bobby Jindal and the USA?

11) RAW interference in Malysia

12) RAW’s role in money laundering from blood diamonds in Ghana

13) Cricket mafia and gambling. A RAW connection?

14) RAW and Mossad

15) RAW in Tajikistan

16) RAW supporting Jundallah against Iran

17) RAW in trail of terror from Tajikistan to Helmund to Baluchistan

18) http://www.hrcbm.org/ connection with RAW

İngiliz İmparatorluğu 1858 yılında girdiği Hindistan topraklarında büyük bir sömürge yönetimi kurdu. Ancak 20. yüzyılın ortalarında güçlenmeye başlayan Hindu direnişi, İngiliz yönetimini 1947 yılında bu topraklardan çekilmek zorunda bıraktı.

http://www.ademyakup.net/hinduizm/hinduizm6.html

69- Murtahin Billah Fazlie, Hinduism and Islam, A Comparative Study, Islamic Book Service, New Delhi, s.
70- Murtahin Billah Fazlie, Hinduism and Islam, A Comparative Study, Islamic Book Service, New Delhi, s.
71- Marzia Casolari, “Hindutva’s Foreign Tie-up in the 1930’s – Archival Evidence”, Economic and Political Weekly, 22 Ocak 2000, http://www.ffcl.org/history/pages/crpage06.htm
72- “Hindu Revivalism and The Hindutva Movement”, http://www.geocities.com/indianfascism/fascism/the_movement.htm
73- “An Inquiry into the Carnage in Gujarat, Preparation for Violence, Training”, Concerned Citizens Tribunal – Gujarat 2002, ttp://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/vol2/prepvio.html
74- M. S. Golwalkar, We or Our Nationhood Defined, Bharat Prakashan, 1938, Nagpur. http://www.foil.org/politics/hindutva/partha.html
75- Partha Banerjee, “RSS – The “Sangh”: What is it, and What is it not?”, http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/OnRSS.html M. S. Golwalkar. 1938. “We or Our Nationhood Defined”. Bharat Prakashan, Nagpur. http://www.foil.org/politics/hindutva/partha.html#4
76- Amin Maalouf, Ölümcül Kimlikler, çev Aysel Bora, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 1999, s. 50-51
77- “Aryan”, Encyclopædia Britannica 2002, Expanded Edition DVD
78- Sydney J. Jones, Hitler in Vienna, 1907-1913, New York, Stein and Day, 1983, s. 123
79- “India’s Swastika God”, http://www.swastika.com/india.html
80- Shrabani Basu, “The Spy Who Loved Hitler”, Rediff on the Net, http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/mar/27hitler.htm
81- Marzia Casolari, Hindutva’s foreign tie-up in the 1930s: Hindutva’s foreign tie-up in the 1930s: Archival Evidence, http://www.ffcl.org/history/pages/crpage06.htm
82- Arundhati Roy, “Fascism’s Firm Footprint in India”, The Nation Magazine, 30 Eylül 2002, http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/AR093002.html
83- Partha Banerjee, “RSS – The “Sangh”: What is it, and What is it not?”, http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/OnRSS.html
84- “Hindutva, An Anti-Indian Nationalist Ideology”, http://www.geocities.com/indianfascism/fascism/history_Indian_fascism.htm
85- “Hindu Extremism On The Rise In India”, Maranatha Christian Journal, 14 Şubat 2000, http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000214d.htm
86- Partha Banerjee, “In the Belly of the Beast: The Hindu Supremacist RSS and BJP of India-An Insider’s Story”, http://www.ercwilcom.net/~indowindow/sad/godown/secular/RSSinsid.htm
87- Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, “The Sang is My Soul”, Organiser, “RSS:Vision and Action Special”, 7 Mayıs 1995
88- “Vajpayee Reveals His True Colors”, CNN.com, http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/04/18/india.vajpayee/index.html
89- “PM defends Gujarat Govt. order on RSS”, The Hindu, 6 Şubat 2000, http://www.hinduonnet.com/2000/02/06/stories/01060001.htm
90- Praful Bidwai, “Hindu Supremacists Reign Supreme”, Asia Times, 17 Şubat 2000, http://www.tni.org/archives/bidwai/supreme.htm
91- L. Stanislus, “Hindutva and Marginalized, Christian Response”, http://www.missionstudies.org/IACM/Papers/Hinduvata%20and%20Marginalised.htm
92- Achin Vanaik, “Soldiers of Hindutva”, New Indian Left, Mayıs-Haziran 2001,