TERRORISM : Pan Am Flight 73

 

 

 

SOURCE:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_American_World_Airways












search    

For the Lockerbie bombing, see Pan Am Flight 103.

Pan Am Flight 73

 

A similar aircraft in 1985
Hijacking summary
Date	September 5, 1986
Summary	Hijacking
Site	Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan
Passengers	361
Crew	19
Injuries (non-fatal)	120
Fatalities	20
Survivors	360
Aircraft type	Boeing 747-121
Aircraft name	Clipper Empress of the Seas
Operator	Pan American World Airways
Registration	N656PA
Flight origin	Sahar International Airport Mumbai, India
Stopover	Jinnah International Airport Karachi, Pakistan
Last stopover	Frankfurt am Main Airport Frankfurt am Main, West Germany
Destination	John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport New York, United States

Pan Am Flight 73, a Pan American World Airways Boeing 747-121, was hijacked on September 5, 1986, while on the ground at Karachi, Pakistan, by four armed Palestinian men of the Abu Nidal Organization. The aircraft, with 360 passengers on board, had just arrived from Sahar International Airport in Mumbai, India, and was preparing to depart Jinnah International Airport in Karachi for Frankfurt Airport in Frankfurt am Main, West Germany, ultimately continuing on to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, United States.^[1] A June 2001 grand jury charged that the militants were planning to use the hijacked plane to pick up Palestinian prisoners in both Cyprus and Israel.^[2] However, in 2006, surviving hostage Michael Thexton published a book^[3] in which he claimed he had heard the hijackers intended to crash the plane into a target in Israel (in the manner of 9/11).^[4]
Twenty of the passengers were killed during the hijacking; twelve of them were from India and the rest were from the United States, Pakistan, and Mexico. All the hijackers were arrested and sentenced to death in Pakistan. However, the sentences were later commuted to life in prison against the wishes of India and the United States. Neerja Bhanot, head attendant on the flight, gave her life up to save 360 others. She first hid the passports of American passengers so that they could not be distinguished from non-Americans. This was because the hijackers decided to take the passports of all passengers in order to identify the American citizens present and make them targets. 17 hours later, the hijackers opened fire on passengers and planted explosives, at which point Bhanot opened an emergency exit to let the passengers through. She was fatally shot while sending a group of children off the plane before her.^[5]

Contents

 [hide] 

• 1 Hijacking at Karachi, Pakistan
  • 1.1 Safarini takes control
  • 1.2 Assault
• 2 Passengers
  • 2.1 Nationalities
• 3 Aftermath
  • 3.1 Trial and sentencing
• 4 Libyan involvement and legal action
• 5 Reward and reported killing of accused
• 6 Aircraft
• 7 In Popular Culture
• 8 See also
• 9 References
• 10 Further reading
• 11 External links

Hijacking at Karachi, Pakistan[edit]

The incident began as passengers boarded the Frankfurt-bound aircraft in Karachi. A subsequent CIA investigation revealed that the hijack occurred despite the presence of armed agents near the aircraft. The four hijackers were dressed as Karachi airport security guards and were armed with assault rifles, pistols, grenades, and plastic explosive belts. At about 6:00 a.m. local time, the hijackers drove a van that had been modified to look like an airport security vehicle through a security checkpoint up to one of the boarding stairways to Pan Am Flight 73.


The hijackers stormed up the stairways into the plane, fired shots from an automatic weapon, and seized control of the aircraft. Neerja Bhanot was able to alert the cockpit crew using intercom, allowing the pilot, co-pilot, and flight engineer to flee through an overhead hatch in the cockpit.^[6] This was to prevent the hijackers forcing the plane to take off. The plane was effectively grounded at the airport.

Safarini takes control[edit]

This section possibly contains original research. Relevant discussion may be found on Talk:Pan Am Flight 73. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (August 2013)

Within a short time after seizing control of the aircraft, hijacker Zayd Safarini realized that the crew had escaped off the plane and therefore he would be forced to negotiate with officials. First and business class passengers were ordered to go towards the back of the plane. At the same time, passengers at the back of the plane were ordered forward. Since the plane was nearly full, passengers sat down in the aisles, galleys and door exits. At approximately 10:00 a.m., Safarini then went through the plane and arrived at the seat of Rajesh Kumar, a 29-year-old Indian American resident of California who had recently been naturalized as an American citizen. Safarini ordered Kumar to come to the front of the aircraft, to kneel at the front doorway of the aircraft, and to face the front of the aircraft with his hands behind his head. He negotiated with officials, in particular Viraf Daroga, the head of Pan Am's Pakistan operation, that if the crew wasn't sent on the plane within 15 minutes then Kumar would be shot. Shortly thereafter, Safarini became impatient with the officials and grabbed Kumar and shot him in the head in front of witnesses both on and off the aircraft. Safarini then heaved Kumar out of the door onto the tarmac below. Pakistan personnel on the tarmac reported that Kumar was still breathing when he was placed in an ambulance, but he was pronounced dead on the way to the hospital in Karachi.


Safarini then joined the hijackers and ordered the flight attendants to collect the passports of all passengers. The flight attendants complied with this request, risking their own lives. During the collection of the passports, one stewardess, Neerja Bhanot, the senior attendant, believed passengers with American passports would be singled out by the hijackers. She proceeded to hide some of the American passports under a seat, and dumped the rest down a rubbish chute.


After the passports had been collected one of the crew members came onto the intercom and asked for Michael John Thexton, a British citizen, to come to the front of the plane. He then went through the curtain into the front of the plane where he came face to face with Safarini who was holding Thexton's passport. He then asked Thexton if he was a soldier and if he had a gun, Thexton replied "No". He then ordered Thexton onto his knees. Safarini then told the officials that if anyone came near the plane that he would go on to kill another passenger. Viraf Daroga then told Safarini that there was a crew member on board who was able to use the cockpit radio and asked him to negotiate through radio. Safarini then went back to Thexton and asked him whether he would like a drink of water, to which Thexton replied "Yes." Safarini also asked Thexton if he was married, and claimed he did not like all this violence and killing and said that the Americans and Israelis had taken over his country and left him unable to lead a proper life.


Then one of the hijackers ordered Thexton back through the plane to a seat. The hijack stalemate continued on into the night. During the stalemate, flight attendant Neerja Bhanot secretly removed a page from her manual that explained all the procedures for the 3R aircraft door and placed it inside of a magazine and then handed it to the passenger near the door. She instructed him to "read" the magazine and then close it up, but refer to it later if necessary. This page included information on how to open the exit door and deploy the slide down to the apron. About 9:00 p.m. the auxiliary power unit shut down, all lighting turned off, and emergency lights came on. Passengers at the front were ordered toward the back, while passengers at the back were ordered forward. Since the aisles were already full of passengers, those passengers standing just sat down.
With the plane out of power and sitting in near darkness a hijacker at the 1L door said a prayer and then aimed to shoot at the explosive belt the other hijacker at the 1R door was wearing. The intent was to cause an explosion massive enough to kill all passengers and crew on board, as well as themselves. Since the cabin was so dark, the hijacker missed, causing only a small detonation. Immediately the hijackers began shooting their weapons into the cabin at passengers and attempted to throw their grenades. Yet again the lack of light caused them to not pull pins fully and create small explosions. Ultimately, bullets created most damage since each bullet would bounce off the aircraft and create crippling shrapnel. The flight attendant at the 3L door decided it was time to take action and opened the door; although the slide did not deploy, several passengers and crew jumped down the fifteen feet to the tarmac. The passenger that was near 3R had read the page the flight attendant earlier gave him and was able to successfully open that door. It was the only door opened to have the slide deploy. Ultimately this slide allowed for more passengers to evacuate safely and without injuries. Neerja Bhanot assisted a number of passengers to escape from the flight, then she laid down her life shielding three children from the bullets fired by the terrorists. Twenty passengers were killed and over a hundred were injured.

Assault[edit]

This section possibly contains original research. Relevant discussion may be found on Talk:Pan Am Flight 73. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (December 2010)

Pakistan quickly sent in the Pakistan Army's Special Services Group (SSG) commandos and Pakistan Rangers were put on high-alert. The 16-hour long hijacking came to an end when the hijackers opened fire on the passengers at 9:30 p.m Pakistan Standard Time, but soon ran out of ammunition. resulting in some passengers fleeing the aircraft through the aircraft's emergency exits. The SSG responded by storming the aircraft and capturing the hijackers. The SSG commando unit was headed by Brigadier Tariq Mehmood and the Shaheen Company of the SSG's 1st Commando Battalion carried out the operation.^[7]

Passengers[edit]

The 380 total passengers plus crew on Pan Am 73 were citizens of 14 different countries. Citizens of India represented roughly 25% of the people on board the flight, and 65% of those killed

Nationalities[edit]

^{[citation needed]}

Nationality	Passengers	Crew	Total	Victims
Algeria	4	-	4
Belgium	2	-	2
Canada	30	-	30
Denmark	8	-	8
France	4	1	5
West Germany	81	3	84
India	91	8	99	13
Ireland	5	-	5
Italy	27	-	27
Mexico	8	-	8	2
Pakistan	44	-	44	3
Sweden	2	-	2
United Kingdom	15	4	19	1
United States	44	0	44	2
Total	361	19	380	20

Aftermath[edit]

 

Trial and sentencing[edit]

On July 6, 1988, five Palestinian men were convicted in Pakistan for their roles in the hijacking and murders and sentenced to death: Zayd Hassan Abd al-Latif Safarini, Wadoud Muhammad Hafiz al-Turki, Jamal Saeed Abdul Rahim, Muhammad Abdullah Khalil Hussain ar-Rahayyal, and Muhammad Ahmed al-Munawar.^[8] The sentences were later commuted to life in prison against the wishes of India and United States.


Safarini was handed over to FBI from a prison in Pakistan in September 2001.^[9] He was taken to the United States where on May 13, 2005 he was sentenced to a 160-year prison term.^[8] At the plea proceeding, Safarini admitted that he and his fellow hijackers committed the offenses as members of the Abu Nidal Organization, also called the ANO, a designated terrorist organization.



The other four prisoners have escaped from Adiala jail Rawalpindi, reportedly in January 2008.^[8]

Libyan involvement and legal action[edit]

Libya has been accused of sponsoring the hijacking, as well as carrying out the bombings of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 and UTA Flight 772 in 1989.


In August 2003, Libya accepted responsibility for "the actions of its officials" in respect of the bombing Pan Am Flight 103, but was silent on the question of the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking.^[10] Libya offered $2.7 billion USD in compensation to the families of the 270 victims of Pan Am Flight 103 and,^[10] in January 2004, agreed to pay $170 million to the families of the 170 UTA victims.^[11] The seven American UTA victims' families refused the offer and instead filed a claim for $2.2 billion against Libya. From 2004 to 2006 the U.S. and UK opened up relations with Libya, including removing sanctions and removing the country as a sponsor of terrorism.


In June 2004, a volunteer group of families and victims from the incident, Families from Pan Am Flight 73, was formed to work toward a memorial for those killed in the incident, to seek the truth behind this terrorist attack, and to hold those responsible for it accountable. On April 5, 2006, the law firm of Crowell & Moring LLP, representing the surviving passengers, estates and family members of the hijacking victims, announced it was filing a civil suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking $10 billion in compensatory damages, plus unspecified punitive damages, from Libya, Muammar al-Gaddafi and the five convicted hijackers. The lawsuit alleged Libya provided the Abu Nidal Organization with material support and also ordered the attack as part of a Libyan-sponsored terrorist campaign against American, European and Israeli interests.^[12]


British media that was critical of normalisation of relations between Gaddafi and the West reported in March 2004 (days after Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Tripoli) that Libya was behind the hijacking.^[13]



As of September 2015 about $700million of funds that Libya gave the USA to settle claims related to Libyan sponsored terrorism has not been distributed to families of victims who were Indian passport holders.^[14]

Reward and reported killing of accused[edit]

As mentioned, hijacker Zayd Hassan Abd al-Latif Safarini was extradited to the US by Government of Pakistan.10 He is serving his 160-year sentence at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana.


On December 3, 2009, the FBI, in coordination with the State Department, announced a $5M reward for information that leads to the capture of each of the four remaining hijackers of Pan Am 73, who were reported to have been escaped from prison in Pakistan in 2008.^[8][15]


One of the four, Jamal Saeed Abdul Rahim, was reported killed in a drone strike on January 9, 2010, in Pakistan. His death was never confirmed and he remains on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists and Rewards for Justice lists.^[16][17][18]


During his November 9, 2015 parole hearing at the federal prison in Terre Haute, IN, Zaid Safarini claimed to have been in touch with Jamal Rahim and the other hijackers recently - thereby confirming that the above news report of Rahim's death was false.

Aircraft[edit]

The aircraft was a four-engined Boeing 747-121 delivered to Pan Am on 18 June 1971, with registration N656PA^[19] and named Clipper Live Yankee by the airline. It was later renamed and at the time of the incident was named Clipper Empress of the Seas.

In Popular Culture[edit]

The film Neerja was released in 2016 depicting the hijacking and the actions of Neerja Bhanot.

See also[edit]

	Pakistan portal
	United States portal
	1980s portal
	Aviation portal
	Terrorism portal

• Neerja Bhanot-Senior Flight Purser and the youngest awardee of the highest Indian bravery award Ashoka Chakra. Also having received the United States Special Courage award and the Pakistani Tamgha-e-Insaaniyat.
• 1986 Bombing of Libya
• UTA Flight 772

References[edit]

1. Jump up ^ "Pan Am Flight-73 alleged hijacker ‘killed’ in drone attack in Pakistan". asiantribune.com. Retrieved 13 November 2015. 
2. Jump up ^ "United States of America v. Wadoud Muhammad et al Indictment" (PDF). justice.gov. United States Department of Justice. 2001-06-11. Retrieved 2015-04-18. 
3. Jump up ^ "One man's extraordinary story...". One man's extraordinary story... Retrieved 13 November 2015. 
4. Jump up ^ Das Gupta, Lila (2006-06-23). "'I still don't know how I cheated death'". The Telegraph (London, England). Retrieved 2015-04-18. 
5. Jump up ^ "24 yrs after Pan Am hijack, Neerja Bhanot killer falls to drone". The Times of India. Retrieved 13 November 2015. 
6. Jump up ^ Pan Am Flight 73: victims recount horrors DOJ May 13, 2004
7. Jump up ^ "BBC ON THIS DAY - 5 - 1986: Karachi hijack ends in bloodshed". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 13 November 2015. 
8. ^ Jump up to: ^{a b c d} http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/index.cfm?page=panam73&language=english
9. Jump up ^ http://www.edition.cnn.com/2001/US/10/01/inv.panam.hijacking.suspect/
10. ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} Independent Newspapers Online. "Libya takes blame for Lockerbie bombing". Independent Online. Retrieved 13 November 2015. 
11. Jump up ^ Libya Will Pay $170 Million In Bombing of French Airliner
12. Jump up ^ CROWELL & MORING LLP (5 April 2006). "Victims of September 1986 Hijacking of Pan Am 73 File US$10 Billion... -- WASHINGTON, April 5 /PR Newswire UK/ --". prnewswire.co.uk. Retrieved 13 November 2015. 
13. Jump up ^ Revealed: Gaddafi's air massacre plot The Times March 28, 2004
14. Jump up ^ "1986 Pan Am survivors pin hopes on Modi". Times of India. 29 September 2015. 
15. Jump up ^ "Rewards for Justice - Reward Offer for Pan Am Flight 73 Hijackers". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 13 November 2015. 
16. Jump up ^ U.S. airstrike reportedly kills terrorist, The Los Angeles Times, 2010-01-16
17. Jump up ^ "FBI — Most Wanted Terrorists". FBI. Retrieved 13 November 2015. 
18. Jump up ^ "Rewards for Justice - Wanted for Terrorism". rewardsforjustice.net. Retrieved 13 November 2015. 
19. Jump up ^ "FAA Registry". Federal Aviation Administration. 

Further reading[edit]

• Bobb, Dilip, M. Rahman, Zahid Hussain, and Ramindar Singh. "Pakistan's bloody blunder." India Today. September 30, 1986.
• Stettler, Jeremaiah. "25 years later, experiencing Pan Am hijacking still haunts Utahn." The Salt Lake Tribune. August 7, 2014.
• "New Security Measures for Pan Am Airlines." ABC News. December 6, 1986. Getty Images Clip #450000364

External links[edit]

• U.S. Department of Justice Attorney's Office For the District of Columbia Information on court proceedings of Pan Am Flight 73
• "UNITED STATES ARRESTS KNOWN HIGHJACKER FROM PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS FLIGHT 73" (Archive). U.S. Department of Justice. Monday October 1, 2001.
• U.S. Department of Justice May 13, 2004, press release on the Pan Am Flight 73 criminal case
• Crowell & Moring Pan Am Flight 73 civil suit against Libya, Gaddafi and the five hijackers
• Naqvi, Jawed. "This Karachi nightmare and that." Dawn. July 1, 2014.
• For the book by Mike Thexton about his experience on Pan Am Flight 73, 'What happened to the Hippy Man?', see the book's web page
• Photos of the airliner at airliners.net
• "Karachi hijack ends in bloodshed." bbc.co.uk.

[show] v t e Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan Korangi Creek crash (1947) PIA Flight 17 (1966) PIA Flight 631 (1972) Pan Am Flight 73 (1986) C-130 Hercules (1988) PIA Flight 404 (1989) PIA Flight 268 (1992) PIA Flight 544 (1998) Atlantique incident (1999) PIA Flight 688 (2006) Airblue Flight 202 (July, 2010) Beechcraft 1900 crash (5 Nov, 2010) Sun Way Flight 4412 (28 Nov, 2010) Bhoja Air Flight 213 (2012) Mil Mi-17 crash (2015)

[show] v t e ← 1985 Aviation accidents and incidents in 1986 (1986) 1987 → Jan 18  Aerovías Caravelle crash Mar 31  Mexicana Flight 940 Apr 2  TWA Flight 840 Apr 17  Hindawi affair May 3  Air Lanka Flight 512 May 3  China Airlines Flight 334 Jun 18  Grand Canyon National Park collision Jul 2  Aeroflot Flight 2306 Aug 3  LIAT Flight 319 Aug 16  Sudan Airways Fokker F-27 shootdown Aug 31  Cerritos mid-air collision Sep 5  Pan Am Flight 73 Oct 5  Corporate Air Services HPF821 Oct 19  Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash Oct 20  Aeroflot Flight 6502 Nov 6  British Int'l Helicopters Chinook crash Nov 17  Japan Airlines Flight 1628 Dec 12  Aeroflot Flight 892 Dec 25  Iraqi Airways Flight 163

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan_Am_Flight_73&oldid=707472146"

Categories:

• Aircraft hijackings
• Operations involving Pakistani special forces
• Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan
• Aviation accidents and incidents in 1986
• Pan American World Airways accidents and incidents
• Terrorist incidents in 1986
• Terrorist incidents in Pakistan
• 1986 in Pakistan
• Mass murder in 1986
• Jinnah International Airport
• Military Government of Pakistan (1977–88)
• Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 747

 

MARITIME :: Economics And Strategy Are Linked: Will India Keep Its Eastern Promises? – OpEd

SOURCE:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/28022016-economics-and-strategy-are-linked-will-india-keep-its-eastern-promises-oped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29



Economics And Strategy Are Linked: Will India Keep Its Eastern Promises? – OpEd

                                        By
                          Anita Inder Singh








Location of India. Source: CIA World Factbook.




 February 28, 2016

  

Economics and strategy are linked: will India keep its eastern promises? That question assumes a new importance in the wake of news that China has deployed missiles on Woody Island in the South China Sea. That news came soon before the three-day ASEAN-India Delhi Dialogue started on February 17, and shortly before the ASEAN meeting hosted by the US in Sunnylands ended. Reports a few days later, on February 23, stated that recent satellite images showed that China could be installing a high-frequency radar system in the Spratly Islands that could significantly boost its ability control the disputed South China Sea


China’s latest challenges to maritime security, and claims by Vietnam and Taiwan to Woody Island, will only increase the concern of India and its Asian friends about the freedom and security of international sea lanes including the South China Sea. The Asia-Pacific is of strategic and economic import for India, which favors negotiated settlements where there are overlapping maritime claims. Since September 2014, New Delhi has supported Washington’s position on freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Speaking at the Delhi Dialogue External Affairs minister Sushma Swaraj pointed out that maritime security was essential for India’s economy as most of its global trade flows across the straits of Malacca and beyond. International waters, including the South China Sea, are routes to India’s prosperity and security.


China’s provocative act explained why security is one three pillars of the tie between ASEAN and India – the other two are economics and culture. In early February, Indian Vice-President Hamid Ansari’s visit to Thailand and Brunei saw the upgrading of India’s defense ties with those countries. The agreements resonated with the wish of India, Japan, Australia Singapore Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei and the US to expand military collaboration and uphold maritime freedom and safety in the South China Sea.


Looking and acting east since the end of the Cold War in 1991, India has broadened and deepened its economic and political engagement with East Asia. In 2002 the first ASEAN-India summit was held in Pnom Penh, and in 2005 India was a founding member of the East Asia summit. ASEAN and India have set up mechanisms to deal with security, science, trade and environmental issues.
The economic importance of the Asia-Pacific for India is also reflected in its ambition to join APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) Closer engagement with East Asia could give India access to the region’s rich energy resources, attract investment from the area and enhance India’s strategic clout in global and regional forums.


India has a strong interest in expanding trade with ASEAN countries, investing freely in East Asia and increasing people-to-people contacts. Seeking investments in infrastructure, manufacturing, trade, agriculture, skill development and urban renewal India is urging ASEAN to participate in its major development projects including “Make in India”, “Digital India”, “Skill India” and “Smart Cities”.


Connectivity and people-to-people contacts were stressed at the Delhi Dialogue in the context of the building of a road linking India with Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Connectivity and strategic interests are intertwined: that planned highway could have its strategic significance: as a counter of sorts to China’s Silk Road.


Strategic interests count because India, its Asian friends and the US are all threatened by China’s growing military power and expansionism. That is why India is strengthening military cooperation with many East Asian countries. India’s participation in joint naval drills has been welcomed by ASEAN countries, who perceive India as helping them to challenge and counter China’s predatory tendencies. In fact, in the autumn of 2014 New Delhi defied Beijing by signing an agreement with Hanoi to explore oil resources in Vietnamese waters and by extending credit to Vietnam to enable it to buy naval vessels to strengthen its defenses in areas claimed by China.


China’s economic progress does not threaten Asia; it has strong trading ties with Asian countries and the U.S. It is the bellicosity of China’s nationalism that has sounded the alarm about China’s increased defense spending, diplomatic and economic influence. The list of assertive Chinese moves has been growing in recent years: it has staked claims to the territories of several neighboring countries – including India.

So the U.S., India, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines are anxious to counter China militarily. Beijing has done nothing to dispel their fears about its expansionist intentions.


In November 2013 China stunned Japan, South Korea and the U.S. when it unilaterally announced a new Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over a contested maritime area in the East China Sea overlapping with the already existing Japanese ADIZ. Beijing demanded that military or civilian foreign planes report flight paths through the zone to China. Refusing to obey China’s call the US has continued to send military flights through the zone. Last October and in January this year American naval ships sailed past international waters claimed by China. Nevertheless reports of Chinese missiles in Woody Island seem to have taken the US and China’s neighbors by surprise.


The reports worry New Delhi since Indian companies are involved in oil and gas exploration projects in the South China Sea. China has opposed India’s involvement in the projects.


India’s strategic role in East Asia will be shaped by four important factors.

First, an anti-China alliance is not on the cards, if only because ASEAN is divided on how to deal with the Chinese threat. China is also a member of the East Asia summit and APEC.

Second, India cannot take the US for granted. American policy in the Asia-Pacific could affect India’s efforts to strengthen its military ties with East Asian countries. This is partly because the strength of America’s pivot to Asia is uncertain. So question marks hang over the effectiveness of the ‘rebalance’ to Asia – especially in the context of Woody Island – and in a presidential year, about the Asian strategy of the post-Obama administration.

Third, American troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, whose stability is vital to India, remain on Washington’s agenda and Kabul is finding it ever harder to keep the Taliban at bay. Instability in Afghanistan will foment insecurity in Pakistan which could create a spillover in Indian Kashmir. India would then be preoccupied with its South Asian neighbors. Could that slow down the growth of India’s economic and strategical ties with East Asia?

Fourth, the enhancement of India’s Asian security profile cannot mask the fact that India’s presence in East Asia can only be enlarged through economic progress. Contrary to what Sushma Swaraj said at the Delhi Dialogue, the relationship between India and ASEAN is not anchored in ‘deep and abiding historical and civilizational links.’ Ancient cultural ties – the third pillar of the ASEAN-India relationship – are symbolised by the spread, centuries ago, of Buddhism from India to East Asia. And there have since long been Indian communities in East Asian countries. But India has never had much economic and political influence in the region. To some extent its economic weakness explains why.
In the 1950s India’s economy was on a par with many East Asian economies but it was surpassed in the 1960s by Japan and South Korea. India’s rank – 130 – in the latest Human Development Index is lower than that of Japan (20), South Korea (17), Singapore (11), Brunei 31, Malaysia (62) the Philippines (115) Indonesia (110) amd China (90). Two-way trade between India and ASEAN currently stands at around $77 billion a year. That amount pales beside the fact that China-ASEAN trade was $ 443 billion in 2013. And China aims to elevate bilateral trade with ASEAN to one trillion U.S. dollars by 2020.

India and its East Asian friends have a long way to go. As during the Cold War the US sees democratic India as the main counterpoise to authoritarian China but that promise has yet to be fulfilled.

The ball is in India’s court. In the long run it is India’s own increased investments in education, infrastructure and more equitable development that will polish its credentials as a key driver of the global economy – and as an increasingly central contributor to Asian and international security in the 21st century


About the author:
*Anita Inder Singh is Visiting Professor at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution in New Delhi. Anita Inder Singh, a Swedish citizen, is Visiting Professor at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution in New Delhi. Her books include Democracy, Ethnic Diversity and Security in Post-Communist Europe (Praeger, USA, 2001) ; her Oxford doctoral thesis, The Origins of the Partition of India, 1936-1947 (Oxford University Press [OUP], several editions since 1987, published in a special omnibus comprising the four classic works on the Partition by OUP (2002, paperback: 2004) The Limits of British Influence: South Asia and the Anglo-American Relationship 1947-56 (Macmillan, London, and St Martin’s Press, New York, 1993), and The United States, South Asia and the Global Anti-Terrorist Coalition (2006). Her articles have been published in The World Today, (many on nationalism, security and democracy were published in this magazine) International Affairs, (both Chatham House, London) the Times Literary Supplement, the Guardian, the Far Eastern Economic Review, the Asian Wall Street Journal and the Nikkei Asian Review and The Diplomat. She has been a Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC and has taught international relations at Oxford and the LSE. Anita Inder Singh has written for the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Her interests include nationalism/security/diversity/integration in Europe and South Asia, democracy, governance, international organizations, and development and security.

TOPICS:APECASEANChinaEast AsiaEconomicsForeign PolicyIndiaSouth China SeaSoutheast Asia




RELATED ARTICLE


REPORT: INDIA CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE                 CHINA'S SUPPORT

[SOURCE:http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/india-can-t-afford-to-lose-china-s-support-report/203534.html ]

Beijing, March 1,2016

 

India cannot afford to lose China’s support by joining the US in patrolling the disputed South China Sea as it needs Chinese help for economic growth and for success of BRICS, a state-run daily said today.

In the second commentary within a week on the joint patrol issue, an article in the Global Times said: “The New Delhi government pursues pragmatic diplomacy and strives to reach a balance between the US and China. Some interpret New Delhi’s refusal (to jointly patrol the SCS) as retaliation against Washington’s approval of weapon sales to Islamabad last year.” 

“This may be true. Yet, the fundamental reason is that New Delhi understands the significance of a sound China-India relationship to the nation’s development. India cannot afford to lose China’s support, which serves as an economic engine for the nation’s growth.

“In addition, New Delhi has officially taken over the presidency of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) from Moscow last month and will host the eighth summit within a few months. A friendly atmosphere is significant for the upcoming summit,” the article said.

It said conducting joint patrol in an attempt to court the US in this backdrop is inappropriate. “By refusing the US proposal, India is taking a stand and showing goodwill to China.” — PTI