The Hindu Business Line : F-16s for Pakistan — Implications for India-US relations

The US supply of F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan and the offer to India has raised the bogey of arms race in the sub-continent. Indeed, the US offer was in response to India's world-wide enquiries and, more important, is Washington's offer of cooperation in the development of nuclear energy. India's effort, says G. Parthasarathy, should be to develop a bipartisan consensus in the US on issues of vital security interest to us.

THE efficacy and lethality of the F-16 aircraft seem to have assumed larger than life and even mythical dimensions in public thinking, both in India and Pakistan. There are some 4,000 F-16 aircraft deployed by the United States and its partners across the world, with roughly half these aircraft deployed by the USAF. The F-16 is regarded as highly potent primarily because it has been used by the Americans and Israelis against adversaries who were far weaker and lacked modern early warning and air defence systems and effective electronic warfare capabilities. There was naturally concern in India when the Reagan Administration announced in 1981 that it would be supplying 40 F-16s to Pakistan to enhance Pakistani capabilities and `confidence', following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Our concern then was understandable. Neither did we have any comparable aircraft, nor was the Soviet Union then in a position to supply us an aircraft with matching capabilities. In these circumstances Indira Gandhi decided to acquire 40 Mirage 2000 aircraft from France. These aircraft were seen as being comparable in some ways to the F-16. But before the end of the decade the Indian Air Force was in a position to meet any challenge posed by the F-16s with the acquisition of the MiG 29 aircraft from the Soviet Union.

When the Cold War ended, Pakistan was denied virtually all access to American weapons. Even signed contracts for additional F-16s were rescinded. In the meantime, India made drastic and unwise cuts in Defence expenditure. We discovered around 1995 that it was imperative to modernise the IAF in the wake of rising tensions following Pakistan's resort to jehad in Jammu and Kashmir. The result was the decision to go in for the highly sophisticated Russian built Sukhoi-30 MKI aircraft, whose performance was enhanced by French, Israeli and Indian inputs. Most observers agree that the SU-30 MKI s are superior to the SU-30 MKs supplied to China by Russia. (Despite all the revived talk of "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai", peace with China as sovereign equals is best guaranteed when we are well prepared militarily.) We also decided to acquire early warning Phalcon systems from Israel that are being mounted on Russian aircraft manufactured in Uzbekistan.

Pakistan, in the meantime, concluded a deal with China, under which it is to acquire 100-120 JF-17 `Thunder fighters to replace its ageing Chinese-built F-7s. India, in turn, had scheduled a modernisation of its air force by replacing the obsolete MiG-21 aircraft and outdated MiG-23s with new multi-role strike aircraft. Among the companies approached for making offers for this requirement were manufacturers of the F-16s and F-18s in the US; the Mirage 2000 in France, and advanced MiG-29s in Russia.

Do the American decisions to supply F-16s to Pakistan and offer similar aircraft to us constitute an effort to spark an arms race in the sub-continent? Even before the Americans made their offer of F-16s formally to Pakistan we had entered the world market and sought bids from manufacturers in the US for 126 modern fighter aircraft. It is, thus, ridiculous to talk of the Americans promoting an `arms race' in the sub-continent, as they have merely responded to our inquiries for the supply of high performance fighter aircraft. Senior US Administration officials have made it clear that for the first time since our Independence they are looking forward to a relationship with India which would involve `defence transformation' including `transformative systems' in areas such as command and control, early warning and missile defence systems. Predictably, the Communist parties, which maintained a deafening silence on the supply of over 100 JF-17 aircraft by China to Pakistan, raised a huge hue and cry over our keeping options open to get the internationally best available weapons systems, at the most competitive prices.

The US' entry into the list of potential suppliers of modern defence equipment will give us far greater bargaining ability to see that our armed forces are properly equipped in a manner that is best affordable. It is equally important that this effort should be integrated with efforts we make to expeditiously develop capabilities to produce our own world class light combat aircraft. The American decision to respond positively to our inquiries for supply of defence equipment has been followed by agreement to expedite cooperation in the transfer of high technology and in the areas of space and nuclear technology.

But the most significant development has been the US decision to consider cooperation with India in the development of nuclear energy. Cooperation in nuclear energy between the US and India is important for three reasons. First, India's demands for energy supplies are growing rapidly. Second, the US and its G-8 partners cannot expect us to take measures to curb global warming and environmental pollution if they deny us environmentally clean nuclear power, even as they extend EXIM Bank credits amounting to $5 billion to China to construct nuclear power plants.

Finally, doubts about the reliability of the Americans as suppliers of nuclear fuel and fighter aircraft will remain because of past actions of Washington, when it unilaterally terminated an agreement to supply nuclear fuel for the Tarapur Nuclear Power Plant, through domestic legislation enacted in 1978.

Adding to concerns about Defence supplies from the US are the sanctions the US imposed on spares for Defence equipment that we had purchased from the UK following the nuclear tests in 1998. There is also a tendency on the part of the US Congress to resort to sanctions on the flimsiest of pretexts. A process to end such misgivings could commence, when the US ends its sanctions on supply of nuclear fuel and nuclear power reactors to India.

India-US relations are constrained by the baggage of history. If the US regarded us as a virtual Soviet ally during the Cold War, we viewed American relations with China and Pakistan as an attempt to encircle us strategically. Even after the Cold War ended, the Clinton Administration made its effort to "curb, roll back and eliminate" our nuclear independence the central theme of its approach to us for over six years. The Bush Administration, however, seeks a more realistic relationship with us. Senator Hillary Clinton also spoke recently of the need for efforts to get around the current nuclear impasse with India. Our effort should be to develop a bipartisan consensus in the US on issues of vital security interest to us.

India has to learn how to use its growing market to extract political trade offs and technology transfers from the Western world. The Chinese, for example use their purchasing power for American products ranging from Boeing aircraft to wheat, to mould Washington's political approach to the Middle Kingdom. The Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, would be well advised to learn a few tricks of the trade on this score from his Chinese counterpart, Mr Wen Jiabao during the latter's forthcoming visit to India.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
F-16s for Pakistan — Implications for India-US relations

Making cyber safe

What is the future of the travel agent?

Economic, demographic challenges for EU

Plastic rules: Light at the end of tunnel?

Protecting the `real' investors

The Papal encounter-II

GDP targets

Grooming indiscipline

India-China ties