Topic 1 : Anatomy of a flare-up
Introduction: Iran and Pakistan had historically good relations. Iran had supported Pakistan in all its adversities. The recent escalation between both countries came as a surprise. It showed the complicated geopolitics of the Middle East.
History of Iran-Pakistan relations
- Relations between Iran and Pakistan have been complex.
- Iran was the first country to recognise Pakistan in 1947.
- Iran gave a state funeral to Iskander Mirza, Pakistan’s President after General Yahya Khan, refused to have his body brought back to Pakistan from London.
- In the 1965 Indo-Pak war, Iran provided safe bases to the Pakistan Air Force.
- During the 1973-77 Baloch insurgency, the Shah’s government provided Pakistan with 30 helicopters and pilots to strafe the Baloch.
The Baloch insurgencies complicated the Iran-Pakistan relations
- Despite this, insurgencies of their ethnic Baloch populations have complicated relations.
- While there has been intermittent cooperation, both have also accused the other of sheltering insurgents.
- Away from the media glare, the Iran-Pakistan border has been a troubled one with skirmishes but these have been kept below the threshold of open hostilities.
- Over the years, mechanisms and channels of communication have been established to deal with these situations.
Recent escalation between Iran and Pakistan
- Iranian missile and drone attack on January 16 came as a surprise.
- The attacks targeted the village of Sabz Koh, about 60 km inside Pakistan, in Balochistan’s Panjgur district, killing two children and injuring three other civilians.
- According to Iran, they had targeted a Pakistan-based Iranian Sunni terrorist group Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice, formed in 2012) that has carried out several attacks in Iran.
- Jaish al-Adl or Jaysh al-Dhulm as it is called in Iran, is a successor of the Iranian Baloch extremist group, Jundallah (Soldiers of God).
- Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Shia Iran’s severe treatment of the Baloch has fuelled Sunni radicalism in Sistan-Balochistan province of Iran.
- Interestingly, the Iranian strikes in Pakistan came a day after a series of attacks it carried out in Syria and Iraq.
- Iran blamed Israel’s Mossad for the January 3 terrorist strikes in the Iranian city of Kerman when two bombs killed 84 Iranians gathered on the fourth anniversary of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the Revolutionary Guard general.
Pakistan’s reaction of Iranian Missile attack on its soil
- Pakistan saw the Iranian attack as a serious violation of its sovereignty.
- Its initial response was diplomatic — withdrawal of the ambassador and calling off all bilateral visits.
- This was followed by strikes in Sarwan in Sistan-Balochistan on January 18, in which nine persons, including women and children, were killed.
- According to Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the Pakistan military’s mouthpiece, hideouts used by the Balochistan Liberation Army and Baloch Liberation Front were successfully struck in the operation code-named Marg Bar Sarmachar.
- Interestingly, however, trade between the two continued as usual with all border-crossing points kept open despite the mutual attacks.
The geostrategic logic behind Iran’s missile attack on Pakistan
- There are several views on this.
- Given the multiple crises in Pakistan — economic, political, security — Iran possibly assessed that it would not be in a position to retaliate and even if it were, it would avoid militarily confronting Iran.
- Moreover, Iran needed to signal domestically that faced with several attacks in Sistan-Balochistan, it had the capacity and will to target Jaish al-Adl terrorists in Pakistan.
- However, the most consequential reason could well be the need to signal to its adversaries in the Middle East and the US that any attempt to harm it either directly or through proxies would be countered strongly.
- Clearly, Iran miscalculated Pakistan’s reaction.
- The one thing Pakistan cannot afford is an impression that despite being the Islamic world’s only nuclear power, it is actually too weak to defend its sovereignty.
Pakistan’s domestic compulsion to response to Iran’s missile attack
- Like Iran, the Pakistan army also has strong domestic compulsions.
- Its reputation had taken a beating during the past year due to the antics of Imran Khan.
- The general impression that it was rigging the forthcoming elections to ensure that he did not return to power has further dented its image.
- A military response was a given, the only question being the scale of it — a tit-for-tat or a disproportionate response. Ultimately, Pakistan decided on the former.
The diplomatic de-escalation shown by both the countries after attacks
- Immediately after the attacks, both countries dialled down their hostilities, expressing a desire to work together in a spirit of mutual trust and cooperation.
- The ambassadors have returned.
- However, despite the diplomatic language, it is obvious that the relations have been damaged by the events, more severely than in the past.
- While both countries have indulged in signalling, the fact remains that it is the poor, hapless Baloch on both sides that have been killed and there is no one to protest their killings.
Conclusion: Iran miscalculated Pakistan's reaction. The one thing Pakistan cannot afford is an impression that despite being the Islamic world’s only nuclear power, it is actually too weak to defend its sovereignty.
Topic 2 : Mind and Matter
Introduction: Elon Musk announced on X (formerly Twitter) on January 30 that “The first human received an implant from @Neuralink yesterday and is recovering well. Initial results show promising neuron spike detection.”
What is Neuralink?
- Neuralink is a technology company building a device that is designed to connect human brains directly to computers.
- Neuralink’s technology is capable of recording and decoding neural signals and then transmitting information back to the brain using electrical stimulation.
- The implant itself is called “the Link.”
- This coin-sized brain chip is surgically embedded under the skull, where it receives information from neural threads that fan out into different sections of a subject’s brain in control of motor skills.
- Each wire contains sensors capable of recording and emitting electrical currents that are “so fine and flexible that they can’t be inserted by the human hand,” according to Neuralink’s website.
- That’s why Neuralink has built a neurosurgical robot that’s designed to become fully automated.
- The company is also developing an app that would allow a person to manipulate a keyboard and mouse using only their mind.
Significance of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI)
- Neuralink is building on work done by laboratories and companies that came before it — the first Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) dates back to the 1970s.
- The wireless device implanted by Neuralink contains a chip and arrays of electrodes, which are meant to register thoughts related to movement.
- Eventually, if successful, the device should enable people with disabilities to move a cursor or type just by thinking about it.
- The initial users are likely to be people who have lost their limbs.
- But as with SpaceX and Tesla, the claims made by Musk around Neuralink’s BCI make it seem like the science fiction future is now.
- Musk envisions a future where Neuralink’s brain implants seamlessly merge with cognitive functions, offering a direct interface between the human mind and computers.
- Whether or not this comes to pass, it is important to approach the technological frontier with a discerning eye.
The recent success of Neuralink
- Musk announced on X (formerly Twitter) on January 30 that “The first human received an implant from @Neuralink yesterday and is recovering well. Initial results show promising neuron spike detection.”
- Given that Neuralink had received approval from the US Food & Drug Administration in September last year, the announcement was somewhat expected.
- Last year, there was controversy over the company’s disclosures, which led to investigations into dead study animals and the transportation of hazardous materials.
- The surgery, however, marks an important milestone — the beginning of human-computer interfaces that can possibly address physical and cognitive limitations and disabilities.
- Moving forward, who controls the technology and how it is distributed will be important in determining its impact.
Concerns related to Brain-Computer Interface (BCI)
- The first concern is about privacy.
- Who will control the data extracted from brains, and how can it be ensured that it is not exploited for nefarious purposes?
- As with AI, regulation must go hand-in-hand with the development of BCIs.
- Second, the development of significant medical technologies must not end up being a monopoly — publicly-funded research can help minimize the cost to the end user, who need not be only a customer who can afford the prohibitive cost of cutting-edge interventions.
- The Oxford Astra-Zeneca Covid vaccine, for example, was developed with public funds from multiple countries, and arguably reached far more people than its private-sector counterparts.
- Finally, if and when the technology gets closer to mass use, a dialogue involving experts, ethicists, and the public is essential to guard against its misuse, or even enthusiastic over-use.
Conclusion: BCIs represent a potential paradigm shift in the relationship between people and technology. Its pitfalls, though, must be avoided.