President APJ Abdul Kalam began his three day (March 8-10, 2006) state visit to Myanmar on March 8 at the invitation of Sr General Than Shwe who himself had visited India in October 2004. The visit began on International Women's Day: whether this was a mere coincidence or carried any hidden symbolism (to draw attention to the continued house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi) is open to interpretation. However, one thing is certain. The first visit by an Indian head of state to this Southeast Asian nation shows that New Delhi attaches great importance to this geopolitically crucial country irrespective of the kind of political system it currently has.

During his visit President Kalam is expected to visit Yangon University, Shwe Dagon Pagoda, and the memorial (mazaar) to the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, besides seeing Bagan and Mandalay. Myanmar has had a steady stream of high level visits from India. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi paid a visit in 1987. India's three service chiefs who have held office at different times have deemed it important to visit Myanmar. The Indian Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat's visit to Myanmar in November 2003 was an important landmark. There were equally significant visits by the Indian External Affairs Minister at different times (Jaswant Singh in April 2002, and Natwar Singh in March 2005). Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, who had served as India's Ambassador to Myanmar, paid a visit in October 2004. He has described the current visit of the President as a very important visit to a very important neighbour. The then Home Secretary NN Vohra had visited Myanmar in 1994 and the process was continued by his successors right upto VK Duggal in October 2005.

Viewed from Myanmar's perspective, its objective is clearly to attain greater integration with the international community and greater manoeuvrability in its foreign relation (which would in a sense be an extension of its earlier emphasis on nonalignment).This explains its urge to have a vibrant relationship with China, which country Myanmar Prime Minister Soe Win visited between February 14 and 18, 2006). Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono paid a visit to Myanmar on March 1-2, 2006. During this visit, Indonesia's foreign minister, Hassan Wirajuda who accompanied the President, offered to share his country's expereince in transition to democracy. The Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar is waiting in the wings to visit Myanmar.

When US President Bush came to India recently, he did criticise Myanmar's human rights record in his speech but what is significant is that Myanmar did not find a mention in India's joint declaration with the United States. From India's standpoint, the objectives it views as signifcant are: energy requirements, infrastructure projects, counter-insurgency, counter-narcotics policy, development of the northeast, and promotion of the Look East policy.

There seems to be an urgency to India's need to import natural gas from an offshore block close to the Arakan coast of Myanmar in which the Gas Autority of India Limited (GAIL) and ONGC Videsh Limited (OVL) have stakes. India and Myanamar are expected to sign an agreement on gas supply from Myanmar's Arakan coast. Following Bangladeshi recalcitrance over this issue, India is left with only two options - a (far more expensive) pipeline bypassing Bangladesh through India's northeastern states, or shipping the gas by converting it into LNG. The latter appears to be a viable option and could be finally adopted. Keeping in view India's rapidly growing import dependence for energy (to keep pace with the requirements of GDP growth) it is worth taking Myanmar seriously as a source of energy.

The Kaladan multi-modal transport project is also expected to get a boost with the President's visit. A multi-modal transport from Mizoram to Sitwe could provide "an alternative outlet to the sea for Northeast India in addition to transit through Chittagong" or through the Siliguri neck and Assam.

Following the successful operation in Bhutan against militant outfits in December 2003, similar hopes were expressed for the Indo-Myanmar border. Talks held during General Joginder Jaswant Singh's visit in November 2005 covered security along the Indo-Myanmar border. During his October 2004 visit to India, Sr Gen Than Shwe had assured India that it would not allow insurgents to operate from the territory of Myanmar. Following that visit the armies of the two sides cooperated in counter-insurgency operations along the border in November 2004. India's Home Secretary VK Duggal visited Myanmar for the eleventh round of talks between Home Secretaries of the two countries, during which an agreement was reached on co-operation in tackling insurgents, arms smuggling drugs, etc. on October 14, 2005.

India's trade with Myanmar has steadily increased after border trade was opened at Moreh-Tamu in April 1995 and was targeted at $1 billion this year. India is among Myanmar's top export destinations. But as relations between the two countries deepen, co-operation in other areas like human resource development, education and biotechnology will need to be emphasized.

Military-to-military contacts between India and Myanmar have grown. The Indian Army Chief's visit in November 2005 was followed by the visit of India's Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Arun Prakash in January 2006. In February 2005 the Myanmar Chief of Naval Staff Vice Admiral Soe Thein visited India. Two Indian warships, guided missile destroyer INS Ranjit and the missile corvette INS Kuthar, visited Yangon to participate in some basic exercises with the Myanmar Navy between December 22 and 26, 2005. A corvette of the Myanmar Navy participated in the multi-nation exercise Milan-06 off the Andaman coast (January 9-14, 2006).

A strong and stable Myanmar is in India's interest and it is equally in India's interest to promote agriculture on which Myanmar deeply depends. During his visit President Kalam is expected to discuss the setting up of a ground station in Myanmar which would receive relevant data for better crop management from Indian satellites.

From the Indian point of view, a stable Myanmar is a good in itself and must not be construed as illustrative of Indian rivalry with China. If economics is the prime mover behind India's Look East policy, the economic transformation of India's eastern neighbour could play a very powerful role in its political transformation to a more democratic regime. The process may be gradual but if Myanmar is helped along in this process by neighbouring ASEAN States (including Indonesia which has an experience in this regard) and India, the results may be more enduring and least disruptive.

In the backdrop of President Bush's successful visit to India and the finalizing of the 'nuclear energy' deal minus the US Congress approval, many opinion-makers are coming out with bizarre theories about this deal either in its favour or against it and appear to be making a few mistakes knowingly.

In contrast, intellectual debate is entirely missing on bird flu and its future, particularly when the spread of bird flu has already started in the country. This clearly indicates the triviality of intellectual thinking, be it among academics, scientists or the media.

The concern is this: why are scientists talking only about nuclear issues seriously, while other than routine media briefs by some doctors nothing significant is being discussed on the status of preparedness to handle the threat from bird flu? Is it that the media fails to understand the gravity of the plausible situation if human-to-human transmission of the disease starts, and is currently only interested in counting the dead chickens! Probably, bird flu in particular and agriculture in general do not have the requisite 'sex appeal' the nuclear deal has, and hence the lack of analytical focus.

Interestingly, the texts of the Indo-US Joint Statement issued on July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006 make clear mention of a US-India Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture focused on promoting teaching, research, service and commercial linkages. But the media is totally devoid of any news on that front, barring an odd report talking about Indian Mango reaching Uncle Sam's country. Particularly for a country like India, agriculture is one of the most important sectors for social, economic and political stability. But little attention is being paid to revolutionalise this field, and lack of significant debate on these issues is bound to harm the country in the long run. Over the years, many times the Indian agro-scientific community has essentially been seen only haggling over issues related to Genetically Modified (GM) food. The other reason for agro-science not coming to the forefront could be the Brahminical treatment given to nuclear scientists in this country. Many of these scientists have shown an ability to become political scientists. But the poor agro-scientist remains mostly in the background, and in the farms.

On issues related to security and technology, the 'thinking community' just appears to be refusing to think out of the box. The strategic community in the country has become so obsessed with Pakistan, nuclear weapons and terrorism, that it fails to appreciate other facets of security, particularly human security. Human security essentially deals with protecting individuals and communities from any form of violence (civil war, genocide, etc.) and even a natural disaster could be defined as violence 'by nature'. It needs to be understood that secure States do not automatically mean secure people. National security may deal with protecting citizens from foreign attack, but does not guarantee protection in the holistic sense of the term.

The chaos in handling bird flu cases in rural Maharashtra is an indication of how little we understand the complexities of human security. Luckily, the threat is still at a nascent stage, but are we prepared to handle fallouts of any human-to-human transmission? Here, it needs to be understood that under such a scenario challenges would go much beyond providing simple medical treatment. Are we as a state prepared to handle the political and social fallouts of any spread of infectious diseases? A simple indicator to such fallouts could be the case of copying by students in Nawapur in board examinations. Since the police force was deployed to handle the situation arising due to bird flu, it could not be made available at examination centres. The Katrina hurricane disaster in the US has shown to the entire world how anti-social elements take advantage of such circumstances.

There also appears to be lack of interest in carrying out a "cost-benefit analysis" of money spent on security-related issues. Today, in India, the issue of national security has become more of a 'holy cow' and is unduly getting associated with 'nationalism'. Though a substantial amount of the budget is being spent on 'defence,' this is being done without undertaking proper threat and risk assessments. Issues like 'is nuclear energy the only viable, cheap and clean option' are not even getting discussed at the appropriate fora. A simple comparison of deaths caused by terrorism, investments made in counter-terrorism-related activities and human and economic losses incurred during recent natural disasters in the country indicates that the loss due to disasters surpasses investments in counter-terrorism.

Over the years the entire security apparatus of the state has come to be been seen as more reactive than proactive, probably because we ourselves are not too sure about what we should guard against. As a nation we have a responsibility to make sure that the natural world continues to survive for our future generations and to do so, if we have to kill a bird, we better kill a bird and if we have to kill a bomb, we better kill a bomb.

Of the several agreements signed during the recently concluded US presidential visit to India, one initiative that has been lost to sight is on Cyber Crimes. As part of the larger counter-terrorism effort and realizing the importance of cyber security and cyber forensic research, India and the US have agreed to enhance cooperation to tackle Cyber Crime. This will lead to a greater sharing of expertise in the areas of tracing computer viruses and software worms and network analysis. The agencies involved in this exercise will be the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) under the Department of Information Technology and the United States Cyber Security Division. The joint statement released after the talks between Manmohan Singh and George Bush also stated that the two countries would be discussing a draft protocol on cyber security.

As a part of the larger counter terrorism dialogue, former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Bush had agreed to set up an India-US cyber security forum in November 2001. Under the auspices of this forum, high power delegations from both sides met for the first plenary in the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) on April 29-30, 2002. Since then three plenary meetings have taken place, the third one was held on January 17, 2006.

The 21st century international system is inter-connected with information highways, and Information Technology (IT) has become the buzzword. Speaking philosophically, while the industrial revolution had already "solved" the problem of food, the information revolution solved the problem of "problems". After the initial euphoria subsided, the world slowly started realizing the shortcomings of this information revolution, which had eradicated the problem of "problems" only to lead to an even greater problem. IT can be called an enabling technology, for it enables the user to solve the problem by providing multiple solutions to the problem. The masters of binary logic who are also called computer wizards are responsible for this. But there is another breed of computer wizards who are responsible for cyber crimes. These cyber crimes encompass several nefarious activities like propagating disinformation, defacing websites, spreading computer viruses and software worms, phishing and hacking. Visualizing the problems ahead, a common vision is required to ensure cyber security and prevent cyber crimes.

As is widely acknowledged, terrorism is a threat in all it forms and manifestation. Cyber terrorism is the convergence of terrorism and cyberspace. It is an unlawful attack and threat against computers, networks, and the information stored therein. It is a tool that has the capacity to paralyse a certain network. Such attacks are used to threaten or coerce a government or its people for promoting certain political or social objectives. In an age where information has become a currency of power and sensitive sectors like finance are networked via the Internet, cyber security has become an area of great concern. For countries like the US, an information superpower, and India, which has adopted the information revolution, securing cyber space and information networks has become a tightrope walk. Against this backdrop, the Indo-US Cyber Security forum has proved to be a platform for exchanging views on cyber security. These plenary meetings can also be seen as a tool to shape the Indo-US Strategic Partnership.

As stated above, the Indian Prime Minister and the US President have agreed to enhance co-operation between the law enforcement agencies of the two countries to tackle cyber crimes. The two countries are also carrying out discussions on a draft protocol on cyber security. At the 3rd plenary, which concluded on January 17, 2006, several new initiatives were announced. It was decided to set up an India Information Sharing and Analysis Centre (ISAC) for better co-operation in anti-hacking measures as well as an India Anti-Bot Alliance to raise awareness about the emerging threats in cyberspace by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), in consultation with their US counterpart. It was also decided that the ongoing cooperation between India's Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification (STQC) and the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will be expanded to newer areas including harmonization of standards. The R&D Working Group will concentrate on hard problems of cyber security, cyber forensics and anti-spam research. In a way, discussions during the plenary meetings chalked the way for intensifying bilateral cooperation to control cyber crime between India and the US. But the question to be addressed is: is it enough?

Looking at the pace of developments in the field of information technology, these initiatives should pave the way for more institutionalised efforts. There is a need for institutionalising a framework to address the problem of cyber crimes by taking inputs and sharing information from law enforcement agencies of the two countries. The number of Indian websites facing the problem of defacement is alarming. CERT-IN reported that Indian websites were defaced 4824 times in the year 2005 alone. As most Indian financial institutions like banks and stock markets have opted for E-Commerce, the rate of defacement may lead to another worry, viz., phishing crimes. CERT-IN underlines phishing as a widespread targeted financial scam in which social engineering and spyware/malicious code methods are used to steal personal and financial data such as credit card numbers, account usernames, passwords and social security numbers of Internet users. Given the growing electronic interdependencies and the imperative of protecting electronic transactions and critical infrastructure, there is a need for joint research projects in the field of information technology, which would give an opportunity for scientists from both sides to conduct collaborative research. The gravity of cyber crimes increases with the potential of hackers to hack defence-related websites and create chaos. The mere thought of defacement of defence and nuclear energy related websites sends shivers down the spine.

Though India has not yet experienced a full-fledged cyber attack paralysing the system, given its vitality the strategic community should include cyber security in the mainstream discourse. The Indo-US agreement in this context has marked a new beginning. This initiative will hopefully not lose out to other conventional areas.

The All Party Hurriyat Conference's (APHC) refusal, apparently under 'outside' pressure, to participate in the February 25 roundtable can be held to be detrimental to none but itself and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. New Delhi for its part justifiably went ahead as per schedule, driving home the point that the creation of a 'Naya' and 'Khushaal' Kashmir will not be held hostage to the whim and moods of any individual or group. It understands the urgency of restoring peace, order and prosperity in the larger interests of the people who do not have to wait for another 50 years to lead a normal life. The absence of the APHC at the roundtable was disappointing as it failed to live up to the high standards it had set for itself by holding talks with New Delhi on previous occasions and boarding the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus for the sake of peace.

The participants in the roundtable chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh included Water Resources Minister Saifuddin Soz, Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil, J&K Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, Union Minister of State for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal, Minister of State in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan, Rajya Sabha member Karan Singh, National Conference president Omar Abdullah, Speaker of the J&K Assembly Tara Chand and J&K Deputy Chief Minister Muzaffar Beig, CPI(M) leader Yusuf Tarigami, Ladakh leader K Chawang, and Panoon Kashmir leader M K Kaw. The seven-hour long exercise held at the PM's residence discussed a broad range of issues including the peace process with Pakistan, status of detenus, 'self-rule', 'autonomy', terrorism, human rights, trade and development, and empowerment of people in the state. The thrust of the roundtable seemed to trash General Musharraf's idea of 'self-governance' and 'demilitarization' and reiterate that J&K has always been an internal matter, and hence solutions to the problems 'in' Kashmir have to be found through discussion with the internal stakeholders.

India and Pakistan have repeatedly endeavoured to find a solution to the J&K issue through mutual cooperation and consultation but with little success. What has hampered bilateral efforts so far is that for Pakistan it is the 'problem of Kashmir', i.e., Kashmir is a 'disputed territory' and an 'unfinished agenda' of partition; while for India, it is the 'problem in Kashmir', suggesting that the accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union is final and complete, and the challenge rests in addressing cross-border terrorism as well as the economic and political grievances of the people of J&K.

New Delhi's 'problem in Kashmir' approach is prudent and farsighted. Over the years it has spent energy on domestic issues in J&K such as restoration of Kashmiriyat, underdevelopment, unemployment, ineffective governance, human rights' violations, rehabilitation of exiled pundits and most notably debating the feasibility of 'autonomy' or 'self-rule' for the state. With regard to Pakistan, New Delhi has adopted a twin approach. One, discussing cross-border terrorism and two, promoting confidence-building measures to reduce mutual hostilities and improve the atmospherics for bilateral talks. On the former, talks have achieved little since Islamabad prefers to hold on to the 'jihad' card in case the peace process derails in the near future. On the latter, J&K specific CBMs such as the start of bus service between Srinagar-Muzaffarabad, agreement to start truck trade on this route, opening of five meeting points on the LoC, among others, have certainly reduced the intensity of hostilities. The question that Pakistan now poses is what next? Pakistan argues that CBMs and J&K are two different compartments, whereas India insists that CBMs are part of the solution.

Therefore, being well aware that Pakistan would not compromise in the near term on its traditional stand on J&K, namely, 'deciding the future of J&K according to the will of the people' or 'holding plebiscite', India has pursed the domestic path to address the problems 'in' Kashmir. In recent years New Delhi has held discussions with a broad spectrum of people and groups in J&K state including the APHC for building consensus on the matter, which is a rather wise policy to adopt. This has repeatedly perturbed Islamabad, which cannot swallow the idea of being left out in the cold. The February 25 roundtable on J&K too upset Pakistan's long-term strategy, and after some recent soft-pedalling with the APHC moderates, it pressurized them to hold back this time.

Until its split in September 2003, the APHC maintained overt hostility towards New Delhi through its aversion to everything - talks with New Delhi, peace process, CBMs, economic development, elections and dialogue within J&K. Being under the heavy influence of its mentors in Rawalpindi, it had virtually nothing constructive or substantial to offer towards J&K. But after the split in September 2003, the moderate faction of the APHC distanced itself from the hardliners and joined the peace bandwagon, which found favour not only in India but surprisingly in Pakistan as well.

The visit of the moderates to Muzaffarabad and Islamabad in April 2005 brought to light the bold and pragmatic side of the APHC. Unperturbed by the hardliners' boycott, the delegation impressed all with its bold proclamations and utterances. It not only castigated the leadership in Muzaffarabad for glorifying militancy in J&K, but also firmly opposed General Pervez Musharraf's idea of forging reunification of the APHC. The moderates also urged the United Jihad Council (UJC) led by Syed Salahuddin to join the peace process. With regard to the hardliners holding back in Srinagar and calling the moderates 'traitors', Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, leader of the APHC, strongly responded saying,

For fear of being labelled treacherous should we sit at home and repeat the song of UN resolutions. One lakh people have already lost their lives. Should we wait for the sacrifice of another lakh people before we begin to look at the other possible ways to resolve the issue... There are people (pointing towards S A S Geelani) in Kashmir who considered talking to New Delhi as treachery. Now we are being told that even visiting Pakistan amounted to treachery. It is high time the word treachery is redefined... when we return to Kashmir, we need to redefine certain things... certain words and phrases.

The APHC also conceded that they cannot become part of a tripartite talk (India, Pakistan and the APHC) and can only talk separately with India and Pakistan. And after internal brainstorming, the APHC concluded that to legitimise their representation of the people of J&K (a popular contention) there was need to participate in the political process in J&K. Besides, the phrase 'United States of J&K' coined by Mirwaiz Farooq suggested the APHC's inclusive vision incorporating not only Ladakh and Jammu in the equation but Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (including Northern Areas) as well. In December 2005, former APHC Chairman, Prof Abdul Gani Bhat told Kashmir Times, "We do not support Mr. Geelani's idea that for settling the Kashmir issue there were only two options, either to remain with India or to get incorporated with Pakistan." It was also praiseworthy to find the APHC initiate and materialise the return of pundits to the valley.

It needs to be emphasised that since 2003 the moderate faction has shown flexibility in coming to terms with New Delhi, which makes the APHC's decision to skip the February 25, 2006 roundtable intriguing. This was not the first time that the APHC was being invited for talks with the Indian government. On January 22 and again on March 27, 2004 the APHC had held talks with L K Advani and even managed to secure the release of 40 detenus from prison. Later on September 5, 2005, led by Abdul Ghani Bhatt, they held talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. They were also granted permission by New Delhi to visit Pakistan in June and December 2005. These developments were suggestive of a spirit of accommodation from all sides and therefore in this context the APHC's refusal to participate in the roundtable appears baffling. Pakistan and India are continuing their bilateral talks on J&K (third round, foreign secretary level, January 17-18 2006, New Delhi) and therefore the APHC has no moral or political grounds for boycotting it.

How can the APHC correlate its decision to the changing mood of the people in J&K? Peoples' overwhelming participation in general elections and local bodies elections in January 2005 show their eagerness to support the policies of both the central and state governments. Their enthusiasm has come to vindicate New Delhi's vision of finding solutions through democratic means and development. On both counts, the APHC's contribution has been lacking. The absence of any concrete suggestions from them over the years for alleviating poverty, unemployment, backwardness, and illiteracy in J&K does not reflect well on the conglomeration. Besides, till date it has not only refused to participate in the elections but also called for boycott by the people. Yet, in the 2004-05 local elections, average voter turnout in the state was around 43 percent and, more importantly, over 18 percent people turned out to vote in the Valley, the bastion of the APHC and jehadi activities. The development and reconstruction plans unleashed by New Delhi through the previous Mufti Muhammad Sayeed and the current Ghulam Nabi Azad governments have received support among the people. The common Kashmiri today acknowledges that money is reaching the grassroots and development is being seen on the ground, something unheard of ten years ago.

In this context, while New Delhi is pushing its policies in J&K with utmost sincerity and purpose, would people approve of the APHC's boycott as prudent and constructive? Perhaps not. The APHC must realise that for the first time since its inception in 1993, it has managed to earn praise from India, Pakistan as well as the people of J&K simultaneously and it should not again slide into isolation. It is in the APHC's long-term interest to keep itself relevant in the rapidly changing international and national dynamics. Its participation in such events would not only give a positive signal to the people but also help them create an identity different from those espoused by hardliners and jehadi groups. Its gesture of welcoming the pundits back to the Valley has not gone unnoticed and it stands to gain a lot more by continuing on this path.

The APHC should notice that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was not critical of their decision, leaving space for future interaction in May in Srinagar. The Prime Minister underlined several key issues, such as people-to-people contacts between the two Kashmirs, human rights, trade, terrorism, status of detenus, 'self-rule' and 'autonomy'. All these issues are relevant for the APHC too, especially the feasibility of 'self-rule' and 'autonomy' for J&K, and it stands to maximise its interests provided it participates in such discussions. The APHC can achieve its objectives in J&K only through negotiations rather than by boycotting them under pressure from Pakistan.

The APHC should not miss the opportunity in May when the next round is held in Srinagar. It is yet to concretise its identity and is plagued with internal contradictions pertaining to its representative status, stand on democratic processes, division of J&K on religious lines, role of UJC in peace process, and vulnerability to Rawalpindi's diktats. It sends confusing signals when, despite its dissociation from the hardliners, it continues to follow the non-cooperative and non-constructive approach of the latter. With these shortcomings the APHC could easily become history in J&K if it fails to read the mood of the people who have realised that in the 21st century development is freedom.