By now, it’s somewhat of a cliche to discuss the new Great Game. We’ve all been reading about the scramble for Central Asia and the Caucasus and know who the two biggest players are at the moment, Russia and the United States. On top of that, we constantly hear about the Chinese. Yet, the most underreported Central Asian news is probably on the Indians who now sport a fully operational air base in Tajikistan. Surprised?
Farkhor Air Base is the only Indian military base situated in a foreign country, at Farkhor/Ayni in Tajikistan. The base is located 80 kilometres (50 miles) south of Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan near the Afghanistan border. The agreement between the two countries was signed in 2003 and became operational in late 2004. It stipulates the presence of the Indian Air Force and Indian Army to be permanently stationed there, and ward off any external threat to the country’s security. Details of the composition of the base are not known but it is speculated that Indian military matériel acquired from Central Asia might be stationed there. Almost seventy percent of India’s arms are procured from Russia and former Soviet republics.
That’s from Wikipedia. EurasiaNet has more:
the Indian base is expected to host between 12-14 MiG-29 fighter bombers, according to various reports. India’s intention to open its first base located on foreign soil was first reported in 2002. At that time, some reports claimed, that the Ayni facility was already operational, and, therefore, could have been used for operations against either Islamic militants operating in Central Asia or Pakistan. Indeed, the origins of this base lie in Pakistan’s closure of its air space to India during their crisis of 2001-02, and India’s resolve to get around this restriction for both its commercial and military aircraft, while also gaining an ability to strike in Pakistan’s rear.
EurasiaNet, however, contradicts itself about the base. While listed as Farkhor Air Force Base, it’s located in Ayni (or Aini) about 8 miles SW of Dushanbe. EurasiaNet now reports its further east in a town called Farkhor near the Afghan border which is incorrect. After googling and sorting through satellite imagery, I’ve finally found it. An older EurasiaNet article confirms this as well as the Indian Ministry of Defense in a press release.
So, being India’s first foreign base, is this a move against Pakistan or power projection in Central Asia. The truth seems to be more of the latter than the former. As Indian officials note, the IAF” had more than adequate capability” to defend India against Pakistan. While a base enabling India to potentially attack Pakistan from the rear is surely a nice benefit, the Tajik IAF base is more likely India’s opening move designed to make inroads in Central Asia, enable it to better combat Islamic fundamentalism in the region, be closer to future energy sources and get a head start against China.
Being a bit crowded already in Central Asia, it’s only a matter of time till the Chinese formally enter the game. I highly recommend reading the entire EurasiaNet article though.
While some thought US bases would disappear as soon as Afghanistan was in order, they aren’t likely to go soon. With Russia having coerced its way into the various CIS republics, no one in the region is likely to ask Washington to leave as long as Moscow remains. Now free of Russian bondage, the Stans can go back to doing what they’ve historically done best, playing great powers off against each other.
No wonder some governments are uneasy about satellites!!
From EURASIA INSIGHT:
_India obviously will not accept being confined to an exclusively South Asian geo-strategic role any longer. . . But India’s determination to project power throughout Central Asia is not just for military purposes. Access to Central Asian energy is vitally important for India._
An earlier post here told us of the “proposed Nabucco Pipeline”:http://www.cominganarchy.com/2006/06/27/stupidity-is-expensive/ that will transport Caspian and Middle East gas to the European Union. The entry ends: “Meanwhile, things are looking interesting in Central Asia. More on that later.”
IJ: This was the post that was coming.
“While some thought US bases would disappear as soon as Afghanistan was in order, they aren’t likely to go soon.”
Does this mean you think Afghanistan won’t be in order soon (true) or that the bases won’t go even if it ever does get in order?
“Now free of Russian bondage”
I object to two parts of this phrase:
“free of”: Nobody who is in debt and in need is really free, and they all need Russia, which has provided much more than (as all the Stans now realize) America can or ever will.
“Russian bondage”: Do you mean, Russian colonialism? Surely, the thousands of schools built, hospitals built, teachers and doctors trained, the subsidized vaccines for children, the no-visa agreements allowing Tajiks to work in Russia with registration only, the scholarships to MGU for a certain number of Tajik kids each year, the low-interest loans, and continued military support must count for more than mere bondage.
As for the base, the news in Russian is just as confusing, if not more so (though the question of Farkhor never even came up).
News from Avesto in April 2006 says that this was all rumours. In 2005 a number of sources reported that India was helping Russia to re-build the base. Other news sources only reported the Russian use of the base. Still other news sources report that Russia and India will share the base.
Those articles that clearly report that the base will be used by India tend to use exactly the same text as one another.
All of them emphasize that the purpose of the base will be training of Indian pilots.
Chirol,
The US State Department are prioritising energy security. Russia, China, India etc are doing the same. Pity the EU can’t get their act together.
As you know, John Hopkins University is hosting lectures to re-examine the principles of war. One of the speakers lined up is FRANK VERRASTRO – Director & Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Energy Program. His talk next month is ‘Energy Security in a Changing Global Marketplace’. “His paper”:http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/032006_verrastro_energy_security.pdf in March for the CSIS was especially informative.
Elizabeth: First of all, thanks for the Russian news links. However, I wouldn’t put too much weight on the “training only” news. While that may be true for the short term, I doubt it’s so in the long term. Either way, we’ll see.
As for Afghanistan, I’d like to hope it’ll be better sooner than later but realisticlaly it’s pretty unlikely, especially since it’s been going downhill lately.
As for Russia, you’re right there were some benefits of Russian/Soviet colonialism for Central Asia, however, do people there think of it that way? (It’s a serious question, I know Indians for example are split as to whether the Brits did a lot for them or not).
Lastly, while Russia still holds a lot of sway in the region, I wouldn’t automatically count heavy influence as not being independent.
Chirol-
I agree. I think this is one of those things that might have been said and is latched onto by certain elements of the Russian press for their own reasons. I just mentioned it because it was bizarre.
And yes, many long for the days of Russian subsidies. The majority of people long for the days of electricity, running water, proper law enforcement, universal free education, central heating, pensions, universal health care and enough money to have a one-worker family of four that could take a two-week holiday anywhere in the USSR, every single year. They didn’t have cars but public transport was cheap.
Remember how North Americans used to feel sorry for Soviets because they had waiting lists to buy cars? Well, if you thought that was bad, consider how much worse it must be to sell your bicycle parts piecemeal to buy your wife counterfeit medication “made” in Iran. Or how much worse it must be never to go on vacation for the rest of your life.
Of course- tee hee- now, if they wanted, TECHNICALLY, they could go to France. Now France won’t give them visas. Besides… no vacation time, no money… oh, the bitter, bitter irony of “freedom”.
What, exactly, do you think people gained from losing the USSR, here in Central Asia and let’s say, in remote Eastern Europe (Belarus, Ukraine, etc.)? What are they supposed to be so thankful for? Their own football team (to pay for)? Most Tajiks and Ukrainians- not the nouveau riche but the normal people- still feel a sense of pride from every Soviet footballer, and will happily tell you all about them.
Yes, many wanted independence. But hindsight is another story.
An Uzbek merchant I talked to at a GUM knew where I was talking about when I said I was from Portland, Oregon. Turns out he was a big fan of Arvydas Sabonis, and therefore, the Portland Trailblazers.
I’m still not sure I really see the angle in Central Asia for India; for Russia, the stans are like Kashmir to India; for China, its about oil supplies and controlling the Muslims inside their borders, perhaps to make sure they aren’t supported from outside; for the West, access to oil also plus logistical advantages in dealing with Afghanistan. But India? I suspect this relates to balancing – encircling? – Pakistan than gaining power in the region per se. One more ally for India by definition means one less for India.
Kirk: India has just as big of an interest in Central Asian energy as Russia, China and the US. And also, it has its own Muslim problem and hence Central Asian radical Islam is also a national security issue.Encircling Pakistan is nice, but not overly necessary imo because India already has the upper hand.
Chirol- with an enemy, you can never have enough of an upper hand, especially when you suspect that US funds are still going through Pakistan. Though I agree that India wants to expand in general, economically. Central Asian natural resources have been vastly under-exploited (from the economic, not environmental, point of view).
However, I would disagree that India has a “Muslim problem”. India has a fundamentalist problem. Hindus have carried out more terrorist attacks than Muslims in India.
Elizabeth: True true. As for India, I’m thinking of the Indian perspective. To them it’s more of a Muslim problem which of course dates back to 47. Granted, I agree with you that objectively it’s fundamentalism on both sides. However, what the Indians don’t want, is that Muslim fundamentalists hook up with those in Central Asia who could provide more funding, fighters and know how to an already seriosu problem the Indians have. That’s what I meant.
That might be the Hindu perspective in India, but with one of the largest Muslim populations on the planet, I doubt that the statement can really be called the “Indian perspective”.
Yes, Hindus have a reason to worry about Muslims from outside supporting theirs, but one wonders how much of this is due to their treatment of Muslims. The country, and even Hindus, would do better to emphasize India’s Muslim-ness and joint heritage with Central Asia than to treat Islam as a problem.
Perhaps that’s what it’s trying to do here?
Elizabeth: I completely agree, I’m not taking sides here, but rather expressing what I imagine to be the probable government perspective. Of course, like elsewhere, India’s treatment of Muslims and the Hindu nationalists have aggravated the situation and are thus partly to blame.
As for recognizing India’s joint heritage, that’s a very interesting idea. In fact, could that the angle that India uses to help placate its Muslims and to get into Central Asia?
“In fact, could that the angle that India uses to help placate its Muslims and to get into Central Asia?”
Beats me- I’m far from an India expert (I’ve never even been there), but it seems to me not a bad idea.
Indeed, it’s also not my area of expertise, though it seems we may be onto something. Perhaps Cynical Nerd could comment.
Obtaining energy is not only the priority of India. The G8 will no doubt think that “Russia’s move to Syria”:http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=520&language_id=1 is part of its plans for energy security.
Meanwhile “the US frets”:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG01Ak02.html about how it will cut consumption, in the teeth of political opposition.
Uh, you guys have the complete wrong image of Indian Muslims…They aren’t random alienated people who are united and hate Hindus and India. They aren’t like European Muslims who seem distant from the majority of the population. They are just like any other Indians. They do the same things other Indians do and have the same feelings for their country.
And Chirol, can you please describe to me what “treatment” India has given it’s Muslims? I never heard of anything India has done to it’s Muslims. Muslims are easily treated better in India than any other country where Muslims are a minority. That I easily guarantee.
Also, there is no question of India projecting its “joint heritage”. Why would they have to? It’s common sense that India has a strong heritage of Muslim/Hindu syncretism. For example, when you think of India, what do you think of? Yoga and the Taj Mahal!
Chirol: True, India has interests in petroleum security, but in contrast to Russia and China, those interests are completely in line with those of the West, and I don’t see how it does them that much good in this regard. Maybe it does and I just haven’t looked at it closely enough.
I’m more persuaded by your point about the “Muslim problem,” but not in the since that you and Elizabeth are discussing. I’m thinking support for Kashmiri jihadists. Pakistan has an active Central Asia foreign policy, and the jihadist groups stretching from Kashmir to Chechnya rely on the same elan – the Islamization of secular Muslim states and the expulsion of non-Muslim rulers where relevant. Radicalization in Central Asia would be very, very bad for India.
I think it should be noted how amazing it is that India has a military base in a Muslim country – they are considered polytheists, those who commit the worst sin in Islam, shirq, associating others with God. This would be inconceivable in the Arab world.
Namantra:
Treated better by who? I cannot comment on political or legal rights, but with regular riots, the occasional destruction of Mosques, and death tolls from regular unrest reaching the hundreds, you’d be hard-pressed to argue that there isn’t a lot of mutual suspician and animosity between two communities.
Try checking the “latest news.”:http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&q=India+Muslim+Riot&btnG=Search+News
Regular riots huh? Where do these regular riots occur? In the same four or five cities every time! A couple in Gujrat, and Ayodhya (a city in UP). The only places where these occur. So it’s not that “India treats its Muslims badly”, it’s “certain people in a couple cities in Gujrat and Ayodhya, UP treat their Muslims badly”. So how does that translate to even a significant proportion of the nation? The conflict is between not even 0.00001 of the nation.
Mosque destruction… I challange you to give me one other example of Mosque destruction outside of that Babri Mosque (once again, in the city of Ayodhya). You can’t, right?
Where are you coming up with this stuff? How do you explain Muslims being India’s Presidents, Ministers of all sorts (even Cheif), representing us on the Cricket feild, tennis court, the UN and in different nations, running the entire movie industry as actors, directors, producers, etc, and being the nation’s richest men (Azim Premji)?
The thing you guys don;t realize about India is that there are no “two communities” in India. India is not Hindu and Muslim. It is a country made up of Tamil, Gujrati, Punjabi, Marathi, Hindustani, Bengali, Assamese, Bodo, Telugu, etc people. Ethnic lines have much more impact than religious lines. And all the ethnicities get along. Obviously there will be a couple exeptions, but for the most part what I said is true.
As for the “latest news”. Kashmir deaths have nothing to do with Hindu Muslim clashes. Muslims make up majority of the police in Kashmir, and Muslims are always the victims of terrorist attacks by fellow Muslims.
As for those 2 girls who were killed in the new “Hindu/Muslim” conflict. It’s important to note that right now the relations are at a temporary low because foreign terrorists (let’s not be naive, you and me both know that they are from Pakistan and/or Bangladesh) have realized that they can cause conflicts by attacking both sides (look at the recent Jama Masjid bombing, Ayodhya attack, now this). It’s a temporary exeption that will get dealt with as the Indian security gets better and the people realize that it’s foreigners who cause problems, as there is no real problem between Indian Muslims and Hindus.
But yes, I’ll admit that Hindu nationalists are definitely suspicious of all Muslims and Muslim religious leaders are generally suspicious of all Hindus. But this hardly trickles down to the people.
Then:
Now:
My colleague may have been incorrect when he spoke of how India treats its Muslims with the implication that it does not treat them as full citizens. And certainly Muslims in India are an indigenous minority, as opposed to the immigrant minorities of Europe who are barely a generation old. But to deny that several regions in India see very nasty riots and reprisal killings on a regular basis is fact and shouldn’t be ignored. It doesn’t mean India is rascist. Lynchings in Mississippi and anti-Asian measures in California didn’t mean America was racist. But there were racial problems in America and there are sectarian problems in India.
I don’t think any of us should confuse domestic affairs and personal prejudices with the international relations between states. The Islamic Republic of Iran is good friends with Christian Armenia. The US loves the Saudis. India’s moves in Central Asia are all about national interest, and who is Muslim or Hindu or whatever is pretty irrelevant.
Curzon:…I don’t think any of us should confuse domestic affairs and personal prejudices with the international relations between states. The Islamic Republic of Iran is good friends with Christian Armenia. The US loves the Saudis. India’s moves in Central Asia are all about national interest, and who is Muslim or Hindu or whatever is pretty irrelevant.
In the Muslim world religious identity is usually pretty relevant to international relations. The U.S. troops presence in Saudi Arabia, while approved by the rulers, was highly offensive to much of the population. To an extent that was because of a specific rule believed to have been set down by Muhammad that there should be no religion in Arabia but Islam (this is how the KSA justifies banning Bibles). Moving U.S. troops to Qatar and Bahrain releived the controversy. But at least troops from a Christian nation are part of ahl al-kitab, fellow monotheists. I’m pretty sure this is the first time ever in history in which a Muslim country voluntarily allowed the entry of troops from a polytheistic country. I find this pretty amazing.
Kirk: That’s an interesting observation with regard to polytheism. I wonder if this irks the Tajiks at all?
Elizabeth: Have you heard anything about that?
Chirol and Kirk: While the invitation to a polytheistic power to set up an airstrip is interesting trivia, I would be surprised if it had any significant meaning. I mean, forget foreign bases — the Tajiks used to be _ruled_ by a Christian Orthodox power that later became a _pagan_ empire. Also, I don’t think your analysis is technically correct — the Monglian Empire was technically invited by some people and they believed in everything (the major world religions of the world were “fingers of one hand, but Buddhism is the palm.”
The Muslim world is no different from Christendom as far as the natives being unhappy with alliances with powers of a different faith. From the Christian Crusader kingdoms and their Muslim allies, the British alliance with the Ottomans against Russia, to the US alliance with the Saudis, there have and are always people in the West who oppose alliances with Muslim and pagan nations. There are varying reasons for this, based on some sence of morality, religion, values, or whatever. I would surmise that Tajikistan, being probably the (politically) weakest nation in former Soviet Central Asia, wants whatever help it can get. Perhaps some Tajiks do care about this, but I would be surprised if most Tajiks gave more than two figs.
On that note, the concept of countries with different values and religions nevertheless forming alliances for the purpose of peace is most keenly addressed in Kissinger’s _Diplomacy_ in Chapter 4, “The Concert of Europe: Great Britain, Austria, and Russia.”
Curzon: I suspect that Tajiks, being pretty secularized and very much in need of allies who don’t threaten them, as you note, probably aren’t overly exercized over the Hindu presence. We haven’t read about any protests. But I have to reassert that there is a big difference between even nominally Christian powers and a polytheistic power – Muslim-Christian cooperation, while not the norm, has not been so uncommon historically. And yes, there were Britons who opposed Britain’s pro-Ottoman policy in the 130-odd years it lasted. But from the Muslim perspective, at least they are monotheists. Even the atheistic Soviet Union would be theologically preferable to those who commit shirq.
As for the historical point, we could debate that. I’m not as familiar with the history of Iran and Central Asia during the Mongol period, but the Arabs resisted the Mongols to the death (see ch. 6 in my book). My understanding is that what was left of the Seljuks in Persia didn’t seriously resist the Mongols, but they adopted Islam pretty quickly. But since the Muslims in our 12th-century example were facing death if they resisted, I’m not sure that is analogous to the India-Tajik alliance here.
The only people in Tajikistan who would like to decide all alliances based purely on Qur’anic suras etc. are nearly all in jail, if they had any power, or are powerless, as their leaders are in jail. I have never heard anyone complain about polytheists on Tajik soil.
Anyway, Israelis are “people of the book”, but if you ask members of any Muslim nation whether it would be better to have a military alliance with China, India, or Israel, well. I don’t think I even need to explain here.
Kirk, by the way, Tajiks are not “pretty secularized” at all- except in the capital city. Even so, you will still find at least 5% of women in Arabic hijabs, and around 85% of other women in traditional dress (in Dushanbe: in some areas, it’s 50% Arabic hijabs, otherwise Tajik hijab, no modern dress, and it varies between these extremes). Mosques are filled every evening and fuller every Friday, causing minor traffic jams on some streets.
NGOs and businesses nearly always open new projects with prayers, and you hear “bismullah-r-rahmoni-r-rahim” at least fifteen times a day, even walking around the center of town.
People here are very faithful- but they are not usually Islamists, and the Islamists are oppressed.
You also would not see any protests against the killing of an innocent man, the closing of an opposition newspaper, the widespread use of bribery, the closing of necessary bus lines, government takeover of private property.
This is because people are afraid of war. Not that I think they would protest the Indian base even if they could protest- but lack of protests in Central Asia just means that the governments here are still oppressive, not that there is public approval of something.
Elizabeth,
I’m not very familiar with Tajikistan so I’ll gladly defer to you on the details. I don’t think that changes the – from a historical point of view – remarkeable nature of this phenomen. The current hostility toward Israel relates to modern events, but all else held equal, if theology is the only factor it is incredible that India would have a base in a Muslim country.
Regarding my “pretty secularized” comment, perhaps a better term could be used. Terminology is difficult in the Islamic context because writing in English we naturally use English-language terms which have different means in an Islamic context, and “secular” is one of those. I could have written “non-Islamist,” which I think would be more accurate even if more cumbersome than “secularized.”
Kirk: I think that Israel is just one example of how majority-Muslim, Islamic, Islamist, and Muslim countries might not act as one would expect, diplomatically, based on the feelings of many of their Muslim citizens. I again refer back to Olivier Roy, who has pointed out again and again how regional and national interests tend to trump the Ummah on a regular basis (Egypt and Israel, Saudi Arabia and America, the Stans and Russia, etc.).
Regarding “non-Islamist”, I would say rather, “not Islamist”. Many estimate that 30% of the country would vote Islamist in a free election, and I suspect this is true.
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Is There or Isn’t There?