International and domestic observers, who were following the impact, if any, that was generated among the common mass in Pakistan and Kashmir regarding this “event”, have found that this year too, as has been the trend for some time now, KSD did not generate any traction on the ground.

KSD, according to Indian officials, was brought into being by GHQ, Rawalpindi with two intentions—to spread propaganda regarding a “free Kashmir” and use the same to instigate locals to take up arms.

According to official data seen by The Sunday Guardian, the number of public processions, rallies, special prayers or speeches in mosques in Kashmir that were frequent some years ago to mark this day, has gone down to zero. The decrease in the number of such “events” has coincided with the passing away of separatist Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Geelani and the abrogation of Article 370.

Officials said that due to the “massive focus” on carrying out development work in the valley since the last couple of years has also dissuaded local youths from participating in such propaganda events. “The difference in the standard of living and the level of infrastructure between Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) is so stark that it is now being acknowledged by youths on both sides, and that is another reason that this KSD propaganda has lost whatever traction it used to have,” an official said.

On the Pakistan side, a scan of social media and traditional media by observers showed that the ordinary Pakistani too was not upbeat about KSD, which was termed by them as a state sponsored “antic” to deflect the attention of the Pakistani people from more pressing issues.

Officials in the security apparatus in Delhi told The Sunday Guardian that despite involving its embassies across the world, the strategists at GHQ were unable to achieve the result that they had hoped for regarding generating noise in support of KSD at a global level. The embassies were asked to conduct online events and debates, which generated an audience in two digits.

Official sources said that the Intercontinental hotel, Kabul refused to hold a KSD event following which the Pakistan mission in Kabul complained to the Afghan foreign ministry claiming that the hotel acted on the orders given by the Kabul government.

GHQ’s effort in Kabul witnessed another setback as even as the Pakistan embassy was celebrating KSD, a large number of Pashtuns assembled in front of the embassy and started protesting against the detention of Pashtun Tahafuz Movement leader, Manzoor Pashteen by Pakistani officials. As a result of the commotion, the embassy had to cancel the KSD event abruptly. According to watchers, the Pakistani civilian machinery, under the direction of GHQ, prevailed over local representatives of MNCs like Dominos, Hyundai, Toyota, Suzuki and Pizza Hut to put out messages on social media showing their support for KSD.

However, as soon as it came to the knowledge of their parent companies, that are based outside of Pakistan, all such messages were deleted, proving the propagandistic nature of KSD. All the parent companies issued multiple apologies and clarifications which further dismantled GHQ’s effort to portray KSD as a “pan-nation” sentiment. Details accessed by The Sunday Guardian show that the local administration in Pakistan occupied Gilgit-Baltistan (PoGB) were asked to arrange for anti-India banners and gather people around it.

Despite pressure being put by the commander of the 10 Corps of Pakistan Army on the “Prime Minister” of PoK for not being able to organise enough noise against India’s 73rd Republic Day, the local PoK administration, despite its best efforts, was unable to bring a crowd for KSD too. Local policemen in civil clothes and women employee in local offices were asked to participate in the KSD events. But this too was resisted by locals in Bagh, Mong and Hajira, who called it a “Fraud day” while comparing the facilities in Srinagar and that in PoK.

The idea of KSD to portray negative image about India was first proposed by Jamaat-e-Islami leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed in 1990, which also got the support of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at that time and 5 February was declared as a public holiday to “express solidarity” with “Kashmir struggle for freedom”. GHQ Rawalpindi took up the responsibility of managing this event in 2004.

The post Lukewarm response to Pak Kashmir propaganda appeared first on IMR.

On face it may look merely about money, but the narrative building has larger geostrategic implications. Muslim Brotherhood’s entry into Kashmir means it will keep festering the region. It is not a coincidence that Qatar, Turkey and Pakistan are actively behind this. This is a war and it has begun, the report said.

“Having tested waters, and putting key players in place, we should expect a call for BDS against India seeping in with the narrative of genocide. The ’emerging’ conflict industry in Kashmir could play out in cultural, academic and economic boycott,” it added.

As expected, the Pak troll army is ever ready to hype the narrative of genocide and BDS. Hundreds of fake handles are created virtually before each campaign to push fake narratives.

A boycott campaign was launched in September last year by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) nexus against India as well as targeting Saudi Arabia and the UAE apart from France. The campaign was supported by the troll factories of Turkey and Pakistan. It was the first open campaign by MB through the new emerging nexus of Qatar-Turkey-Pakistan, dubbed as QTPi.

While it had all the characteristics of propaganda, including the liberal use of fake pictures and videos, it was not an ordinary propaganda. It appears as a strength test for Muslim Brotherhood, as it put several of the news media from its arsenal to use, including the jewel Al Jazeera, risking their credibility, the report said.

The sheer resource that MB-led QTPi deployed in this fake news-driven propaganda made it abundantly clear that not only Brotherhood has arrived in India, but it also intends to stay.

The intent was soon clear when a hush-hush Tribunal was organised in Sarajevo (Bosnia & Herzegovina) in December 2021 on the Kashmir issue. This was a good enough indicator that the Brotherhood has decided to put their attention to this part, the report said.

Disinfolab said contrary to the usual noise created around such events, the Tribunal was kept rather low-key. They were again testing reactions to an attempt by MB on appropriating Kashmir, less from India and more from the Jamaat stakeholders. Replacing the traditional crowd, all major players at the Tribunal was connected with Muslim Brotherhood. The next step — yet another report on Kashmir within a month by a UK-based legal-cum-investigative-cum activist firm which came as no surprise.

These events are part of a larger design, a build-up to create a conflict space in the conflict industry. Muslim Brotherhood had successfully run a conflict industry in Palestine for more than a decade. Now it is looking to shift the business to a new location. And one of the key tools for making a viable conflict industry is BDSM: Boycott, Divestment, Sanction, Movement.

The narratives that have been built in India in the last few years — from Islamophobia, fascism to now genocide — are building blocks for this business enterprise.

Going by the record, the conflict industry runs into billions of dollars. The Disinfolab report seeks to unmask the various fronts of the Muslim Brotherhood which have already been deployed into this new theatre.

The report also makes an effort to not only expose the MB networks and various individuals, but also provide a blueprint of the playbook that is going to be deployed. Given the quantum of resources invested into this new startup, it is going to be a protracted battle, the report said.

The post Muslim Brotherhood’s entry into Kashmir to fester the region appeared first on IMR.

Notwithstanding statements from mainstream political parties and separatist organisations condemning the violence, many Kashmiri Pandit and Sikh employees abstained from work or took leave temporarily, worried about their security. This is an unfortunate outcome. News reports suggest serious attempts to target businessmen, aimed at sending a message to non-Muslims who have been staying here peacefully for decades. Targeted killings of prominent citizens belonging to the minority communities in the Kashmir valley during October created an atmosphere of panic and fear.

The Resistance Front (TRF), which draws its cadre from the Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility for the attacks.

In Kashmir, 25 unarmed and innocent people have been killed in a similar pattern this year including off-duty policemen and security personnel on leave. Of them, ten were in Srinagar and four each in Pulwama and Anantnag, with the rest being spread across the valley. Six of the seven killed in October were from the minority community, adding to concerns and triggering debates on migration.

More civilians than security forces’ personnel have been killed in terrorist-related incidents this year in Jammu and Kashmir, reversing a six-year trend, pointing towards concerted efforts by Pakistan-backed Islamist terror groups and handlers to create a communal situation that could trigger an exodus of Hindus and Sikhs.

Despite the intelligence inputs, it is once again proving difficult for the state in Kashmir to provide protection for minorities.
The purpose of these attacks is to draw a response from the state. There can be two responses. The first is a wider and deper combing for terrorists inside Kashmir. The second is to go after groups supported by Pakistan and inside Pakistan.

Enemy Tactics

Pakistan’s ISI has been compelled to devise a new approach. J&K Police describe these targeted shootings as ‘hybrid warfare’, a new approach adopted by militants who according to the police are employing overground workers to kill ‘soft targets.’

This form of killing is gaining ground as, in comparison, known terrorists are identified, located and eliminated at a fast pace. With few successful infiltration attempts, Pakistan-based terrorists are reduced in numbers. With better human intelligence and electronic monitoring their locations are being detected, resulting in successful encounters. With local support waning, Pakistani terrorists are forced into hiding in jungles and hills. Locals who join militant ranks lack training and motivation; hence they have very short life spans once they pick up the gun.

In this changed strategy the weapons employed would change from long range AKs to pistols and grenades.

Current attacks in cities are based either on shooting from close range or throwing grenades on security force pickets or in crowded areas. An added aim is that such incidents could enhance communal divide, initially in the valley, subsequently spreading across the nation. For such operations, the modules created would be small with limited inter-connectivity. In case one is neutralized, others continue. Finally, India cannot blame Pakistan directly as incidents involve locals, mainly Over Ground Workers (OGWs).

Pakistan is exploiting the current Indian security policy in the valley, where security forces hesitate to act arbitrarily, to prevent youth from going astray and joining militant ranks. While crackdown on OGWs continue, there are many who remain below police radars. These are now being employed as killers.

This change in strategy necessitates a change in approach by security forces. The intention should be to locate and break these modules. The first stage must include increased monitoring including enhancing local intelligence networks. Secondly, random patrolling must be increased. Third should be to exploit informational space to convince the public of Pakistan’s designs and also seek inputs on possible suspects with promises of rewards. This needs care as in some cases individuals would pass information based on personal grievances.

Operations in such scenarios are intelligence driven and led by the police with other forces acting on tip offs. Human intelligence will play a critical role.

Every new approach by terrorists succeeds in initial stages. They possess the advantage as they have chosen the direction as also the date, time and place of killing innocents. With passage of time, these networks will be located and broken down.

Reactions from Administration and Society

Beyond the condemnation from the polity, civil society in such situations must take the initiative to foster communal amity and to mobilise people across communities against hatred. Appeals by some masjids in Srinagar requesting the public to show solidarity with the victims and to prevent the furthering of fear among Kashmiri Pandits is a welcome step indicating an intention to not let the situation deteriorate to what happened in the early 1990s.

The UT administration followed up with a strong crackdown on the insurgency seeking to isolate and quell the militant network that is allegedly responsible for the attacks. While the reactions from the polity and civil society and the administrative actions by the Government are necessary, they are not sufficient to restore normalcy in the Valley.

The suspension of the polity with the absence of an elected Assembly, and the stasis and alienation that had set in since the abrogation of J&K’s special status, its bifurcation and designation as a Union Territory would make the job of administration even more difficult. An immediate renewal of political dialogue to address this along with the restoration of Statehood and the complete resumption of political and press freedoms will help create the environment to isolate and tackle terror in the region.

Comments

The security establishment and the civil administration have a huge task on their hand to instil a sense of security and calm. Amid the gloom, the strong condemnation of the brutal acts of violence, cutting across political, religious and ideological lines, is the balm Kashmir needs badly. Kashmir has seen too much blood and tears to allow any repeat of the horrors of the past.
As there is a reset on strategy to hunt down the terror groups and a review of the threat perception of the vulnerable, there is a paramount need to involve political leaders, community representatives and the civil society to ensure communal harmony, and dispel anxieties. A political dialogue — difficult as it surely is after the scrapping of Article 370 and the events that followed — may still be a work in progress, but active engagement can be quite handy in effective public messaging, given the circumstances.

The post Targeted Killings in the Valley appeared first on IMR.

As the Taliban cemented their total victory in Afghanistan, messages of conciliation came out from their leaders. One of their top leaders, Sher Mohammed Stanikzai, confirmed the Taliban’s commitment of not allowing their territory to be used against any country in the world. Specifically, he said they would not allow India and Pakistan to play out their rivalry in Afghanistan.

Taliban leaders Zabiullah Mujahid, Suhail Shaheen and Stanikzai spoke of their expectations that India would continue to maintain its ‘cultural, economic and trade ties’ with the new Emirate of Afghanistan and retain its invaluable ‘air freight corridor’ with it.

Under the circumstances, India is in no hurry to take a position on Taliban even if the US is looking for an excuse of a negotiated settlement to recognise the radicalised Sunni force. For the Indian government, the parameters of engaging the Taliban are based on its relationship with Pakistan and Pakistan-based Deobandi terrorist groups with India in their cross-hairs.

Strategic Implications

India does not share a border with Afghanistan, except in the Northern Areas under Pakistan’s occupation. A friendly Iran and hostile China and Pakistan share frontiers with Afghanistan. That explains India’s weak Afghan card.

India started talking to the Taliban only three years ago, when it became clear that they would play a part in a future political dispensation in Kabul.

But with America determined to quit, India has found it difficult to gain ground after nearly 20 years.

Deficiencies in India’s economic and diplomatic strategies have resulted in China gaining ground in its vicinity by attracting India’s neighbours — all members of SAARC, of which India is the largest country — to its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

In July 2020, Iran cancelled an Indian rail project, aimed at connecting the Chabahar port to Zahedan on its Afghan border. And last May, Tehran showed India the door in the Farzad gas project. In both cases, Iran accused India of delaying the projects.

America’s retreat leaves a power vacuum which the Taliban and their terrorist friends could exploit.

Indian Investments

India was the first country that Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership with, the only country that undertook perilous but ambitious projects such as a new Parliament building, the Zaranj-Delaram Highway, and the Chabahar port project in Iran, the infrastructure for transit trade. As a consequence, India by far is the one country that polled consistently highest among countries that Afghan people trusted.

India committed significant sums of money as part of the project of building modern Afghanistan. India was able to make a niche among Afghans with its humanitarian aid and $3 billion investments since 2001 for rebuilding a devastated country.

At the Afghanistan Conference in Geneva in 2020, India announced several fresh development commitments including the construction of the Shahtoot Dam in Kabul, as well as several restoration and community development projects.

Indian companies have invested on socio-economic overhead capital worth $3 billion. In 2015, the Prime Minister inaugurated the new Afghan Parliament house built at a cost of $90 million. A slew of ongoing projects including the Aga Khan heritage project to restore Bala Hissar Fort south of Kabul are raising concerns. India’s health infrastructure including Indira Gandhi Institute for Child Health and various clinics in several Afghan provinces are hanging in balance.

Thousands of Afghans are in India for work, training, re-skilling, education and medical treatment. Over 2,200 students of Afghan-origin studying in India on scholarship stare at an uncertain future.

Indians in Afghanistan have been an employment and revenue model for India. The Indian embassy in Kabul estimates that 1,710 Indians were employed in banks, hospitals, NGOs, telecom, IT, and universities. On the other hand, import restrictions may force India to seek alternative partners which may not be viable in the near future.

India’s business and trade also comprises the education sector, in which scores of Afghan students throng Indian universities and colleges. The Indian Survey of Higher Education (AISHE) claims that 4,504 student admissions from Afghanistan took place in 2019-20, the second highest flow of students from any country into India. With the current crisis, Afghan students have requested India to continue their course from within the campus and expedite the paperwork on a war footing.

Bilateral Trade

India may not be able to fund projects in Afghanistan, but it could, and should, promote trade which currently stands at around $1.5 billion. This will be a more sustainable way of helping the country. Though Chabahar is there, more could be gained if Islamabad removed its blockade of overland Indian exports to the country.

The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan will bear an adverse impact on India’s bilateral trade with it. Trade between the two nations amounted to $1.4 billion in 2020-21 and $1.52 billion in 2019-20. It has hit Afghan traders also. Their exports for now are thawed and restoration depends on how situations normalize. Afghans sell dry fruits like dried raisin, walnut, fig, pine nut, almond dried apricot, pistachios and medicinal herbs.

Prices of some commodities may also go up in the Indian markets due to uncertainty over bilateral trade and relations with Afghanistan. Exports from India stood at $826 million whereas imports amounted to $510 million in 2020-21. The not-so-large volume of trade may not look monetarily important but strategically, they help both the countries.

Connectivity

India’s significant contribution in its rebuilding and investments in Afghanistan too would be missed there. India had an ambitious plan with the initiative of International North-South Corridor spanning Iran, central Asia and Eurasia. It is supposed to emerge as a major connector with Modi’s concept linking the corridor to Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan-Iran rail link, now operational. It is also supposed to be linked to Chabahar and dedicated freight corridor having special economic zones on its fland being built by India. The Chabahar-Sistan-Baluchistan-Central Asia/Afghanistan route till recently was considered less risky than the high-risk provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan. With the changing political scenario this too is likely to become a challenge.

It seems inconceivable and incomprehensible that the Government can choose to simply walk away from such capital invested and nurtured, regardless of the developments in Afghanistan, the domestic political considerations in India and geopolitical sensitivities of some neighbours. Therefore, it would be abdication of responsibility. The Government must instead consider all its options in remaining engaged with Afghanistan for its future and of the ordinary people of Afghanistan who boldly placed their faith in Indian leadership.

Extension of Terrorist Activities

There is a serious incoming internal security threat to India as the victorious Taliban will be the galvanizing force for the Ummah, leading to increased global radicalisation as witnessed when the so-called Islamic State captured Mosul in 2014. Today, the Taliban have become the beacon of political Islam and will attract followers from all over the world.

While the Taliban have traditionally maintained that they have no interest in Kashmir issue and has always rejected the Durand Line, India is waiting on whether the Sunni Islamist force, which draws inspiration from Wahhabism as Deoband does, cuts a deal with TTP in favour of Pakistan Army. TTP leader Mufti Noor Wali Mehsud has already made it clear that it will continue to fight Pakistan Army while thanking Haibatullah Akundzada for releasing their deputy leader Maulvi Faqir Mohammed from Bagram highest security prison. No less than 7,000 hardcore and most brutal terrorists were let go by the Taliban from Bagram prison and the US will have to answer for future terror attacks. It will become clear to India on Pakistan’s leverage on the Afghan Taliban if they try to get their Pakistan namesake on the peace table for Rawalpindi GHQ.

The other issue being watched by Indian counter-terrorism experts is the relationship between the Taliban and Bhawalpur based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) group, which has vowed to target India on Kashmir. One must remember that Jaish Emir Maulana Masood Azhar was taken directly to Emir-ul-Momeen Mullah Omar after he was freed by India in the 1999 IC-814 hijacking at Kandahar. The Taliban have no love lost for Ahle-Hadith Lashkar-e-Tayebba group and are now low on priority of the Pakistani ISI.

If Taliban have no overt interest in Kashmir, then they will not supply top of the line US made weapons, drones and military vehicles or provide terror training camps to Azhar gang in Afghanistan for targeting India. If India is targeted under the umbrella of Taliban despite their public and private assurances, then the next Balakot will be in Afghanistan.

Anas Haqqani, youngest son of the founder of the anti-India Haqqani network, Jalaludin Haqqani, told a news channel that Kashmir was beyond its jurisdiction. But Taliban spokesperson Suhail Shaheen said they had the right to raise their voice for Muslims in Kashmir. Most major attacks against the Indian assets in Afghanistan have been executed by the Haqqanis, who were described by former US Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, as a veritable arm of the ISI. Some Taliban statements are in sync with Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s (also called Taliban Khan) who has described the Taliban victory as breaking the shackles of slavery. He has used a similar language to incite revolt in Kashmir. Neelam Irshad Sheikh, a leader from Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf party, has even said she hoped the Taliban will help us in Kashmir.

From the Indian perspective, rise of Taliban will not only pose an internal security challenge to the Modi government with large scale radicalisation as a first step, it will also embolden Pakistan based terrorist groups to attack India. Jaish has operated with the Taliban in Afghanistan but it was the ISI that forced Haqqani Network to help LeT cadre to attack Indian embassy and consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar in the past. Lashkar on its own has limited influence in Kunar province of Afghanistan

India Taliban Qatar Meet

Indian Ambassador to Qatar, Deepak Mittal met Taliban leader Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, the Head of Taliban’s Political Office in Doha, on 31 August, at the request of the Taliban in Doha to discuss the “safety, security and early return of Indian nationals stranded in Afghanistan” among other things. This appears to be a shift from India’s ‘wait and watch’ policy, and rightly so. The policy has got its own set of limitations.

The meeting between Mittal and Stanekzai, the first time any contact has been made public, took place after prime minister Narendra Modi, noting the evolving situation in Afghanistan, directed that a high-level group comprising external affairs minister S Jaishankar, NSA Ajit Doval and senior officials focus on India’s immediate priorities.

The meeting in Doha followed Stanekzai’s statements over the previous three days. He said India is “very important for this subcontinent” and his group wants to continue Afghanistan’s “cultural”, “economic”, “political” and “trade ties” with India “like in the past.

India’s dilemma was understandable as it has historically abstained from providing legitimacy to the Taliban and had an appreciable degree of rapport with Ashraf Ghani government.

India’s Options

For India, a victim for decades of cross-border terrorism from Pakistan, 9/11 was a marker. With the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and in many the global war on terror no longer being the central focus of American attention, India will have to fight many of its battles alone — as it did before 9/11. Hopefully, the lessons of the need for making independent decisions and fighting “your own battles” will not be lost to decision-makers who had hoped that the US would not abandon the cause so soon.

Ironically, though, the emergence of the Islamic State and a reinvigorated Muslim Brotherhood has had the collateral effect of drawing the Gulf states such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, concerned about the danger posed to their polities by these ideologies, closer to India. America’s draconian sanctions on Iran, including for its alleged terrorist activities, have adversely affected our strategic as well as energy interests in Iran.

As against all these negative realities, India-US counter-terrorism cooperation has productively expanded in important areas. The US recognition of the LeT, JeM, HuM as terrorist groups, and its references to “cross-border terrorism” have been diplomatically helpful, but this has not balanced the far larger unpunished space given to Pakistan despite its terrorist affiliations.

India supported “an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned” peace and reconciliation process. But while other countries did not let this prevent their contacts with the Taliban in Doha and elsewhere, India followed it in letter and spirit. With the US out and Ashraf Ghani gone, there was no option except to withdraw all diplomatic presence, closing the embassy for all practical purposes.

India continues to “wait and watch” Afghan developments. While it does so, many new terms are being added to the Indian diplomatic lexicon by supporters of such an approach. These include “strategic patience” and not granting “legitimacy”. While some members of the Indian foreign policy and strategic community now seem willing to accept the need for open contact with the Taliban by the government, others are not willing to go so far.

The Taliban should first guarantee that they will not allow themselves to be used by Pakistan in any jihadi activity in our country. This would be a huge win for India, but it is also to be noted that the Taliban has no interest in Kashmir. In return for this guarantee, India must recognize the Taliban and establish full diplomatic relations with them.

It is in India’s interest to help the emergence of a stable Taliban regime. They have never sought to export their medieval version of Islam; their fault was in allowing others to use their territory to train terrorists. If they are committed to prevent this, the world would be ready to do business with them.

The post India’s Stakes in Talib-Afghanistan appeared first on IMR.

Senator Mushahid Hussain is Chairman of Pakistan’s Parliamentary Committee on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and founding Chairman of the think tank Pakistan-China Institute. This is an abridged extract of an article which was first published in the Pakistan Army Green Boo 2020. The views expressed do not represent the views of IMR

After the annexation of Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IOJK), it is clear that Modi has bitten off more than he can chew by spawning a crisis that is hitting at the heart of the Indian State, transforming its very character in a manner that it’s narrow-minded, bigoted Establishment could never have anticipated.

Consider the consequences and far-reaching implications of this decision:

•             Modi has divided India on political and communal lines that can have grave implications for Indian national unity and domestic stability.

•             Kashmir has been internationalized in a manner that was never done to this extent not since the 1965 India-Pakistan War, with wholesale condemnation of the Indian action from Beijing to Brussels.

•             The Kashmir dispute has been discussed for the first time in the UN Security Council since the 1998 nuclear tests, when the UN Security Council, on June 6, 1998, passed the last unanimous Resolution # 1172, mentioning Kashmir by name: ”Urges India and Pakistan to resume dialogue between them on all outstanding issues… and encourages them to find mutually acceptable solutions that address the root causes of those tensions, including Kashmir”.

•             Modi’s move has galvanized separatists within India ranging from the Nagas who are now setting new pre-conditions in their talks with New Delhi, for example, seeking their”separate flag and constitution” as part of broader autonomy, while the Sikhs are actively campaigning for a Khalistan Referendum in 2020.

•             China has been alienated since China, now like Pakistan and the Kashmiri people, is directly a party to the dispute because of Modi’s action to partition IOJK and declaring Laddakh a Union Territory. It was, therefore, not surprising that high-powered Chinese Military Delegation that visited Pakistan on August 26, included the People’s Liberation Army Commander for ‘Southern Tibet’, the area on the Chinese side bordering India.

•             The worst possible consequences have been within IOJK where resistance to repression has been rising, with an unprecedented curfew and complete lockdown, complete cutoff of all communication, a situation that did not even prevail during the height of the siege of Stalingrad or Leningrad during World War II. 6000 Kashmir is have been arrested without any charges and sent outside IOJK to jails in India ranging from the octogenarian former Chief Minister Dr. Farooq Abdullah to young teenage girls whose only crime has been to talk of ‘Azadi’ (freedom).

•             While there is a lot of bluff and bluster in Indian posturing, even nuclear sabre-rattling with the August 16 statement of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh questioning the utility of India’s professed “No First Use” policy on nuclear weapons. The fact is that, deep down, the Indian Establishment, particularly the RSS gang led by Modi, combines a curious mixture of hatred and fear of Pakistan. They have what can be termed as a “Mehmood of Ghazni Complex”, in other words, a fear of the Muslim inclination to ‘go against the tide’ to challenge injustice and wrong irrespective of an unequal size or strength! Sultan Mehmood of Ghazni has always been a very fascinating figure for the Hindutva ideologues, who, for them, symbolises what they view as “Muslim hordes from the North” with the Pakistan State seen as his contemporary potential ‘successor’.

Modi, who is from Gujrat, also knows that the famous Somnath Temple, located in his State, was a favourite target of Sultan Mehmood of Ghazni. A deep-seated loathing of Sultan Mehmood is embedded in the Hindutva mindset. In 1978, when the then BJP Chief and Foreign Minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee, went on an official visit to Afghanistan, the only special request he made was to visit Ghazni. His Afghan hosts were surprised, they said ”Ghazni is just a small town, it’s not a tourist spot, it has no 5-star hotels, why would you wish to go to such a place?” Vajpayee said ‘Ghazni is like a thorn that continues to hurt us as Sultan Mehmood, the marauder who looted India several times, came from there!” Conversely, Allama Iqbal, who was invited by King Nadir Shah to visit Afghanistan in 1933, also requested for a special visit to Ghazni to pay homage to the memory of Sultan Mehmood, in whose honour he penned a few famous couplets. It is thus no accident that Modi declared his intention to “free India from1200 years of slavery” in his speech to the Indian Parliament on June 12, 2014. Clearly, Modi’s reference is to the period of Muslim domination in India as the British rule lasted for only 200 years.

For Pakistan, it should be clear that an existential threat is posed by Modi’s India as the annexation of IOJK is the most important development for South Asia since 1971, given that the geography of the region has been changed. Modi and his RSS gang are also fervent believers in the notion of “Akhand Bharat” (Greater India). So a fascist India will likely become more aggressive with Pakistan through low-intensity conflict, proxy wars, covert operations, threat of war and nuclear blackmail.

This situation should also be viewed in the context of the new global scenario where the balance of economic and political power is shifting from the West to the East. The 21st Century is an “Asian Century”, particularly China’s transition from a regional to a global power. Then there are makings of a New Cold War with the US National Security Strategy of 2018 terming China and Russia as a “more serious threat than Al Qaeda or ISIS”.

Therefore, Pakistan needs to understand the nature of the challenge posed by Modi’s move:

•             The challenge is multi-dimensional: military, diplomatic, media, legal, all of which require sustaining a long-term strategy over a protracted period for the rest of Modi’s term, at least 3-5 years.

•             70% of the battle is in the domain of public diplomacy and propaganda, the battle of narratives, the ‘battle of ideas’, through media, think tanks, NGOs/civil society, human rights groups, parliamentary diplomacy, keeping up the Kashmiri morale while promoting a cohesive and credible Pakistani narrative, which we can sell at home and abroad.

•             Clarity about the kind of enemy we are facing: this is the die-hard ideological Hindutva crowd who hate Muslims and Pakistan, who presided over the ethnic cleansing of over 2000 Muslims in India’s Gujrat State in 2002, who actually believe in ‘Akhand Bharat’, and who are proud successors of the killers of Mahatma Gandhi. They will give no quarter and we should have no illusions about them either, as they will goto any extent to damage Pakistan.

Given this context, Pakistan needs to pursue a multi-pronged strategy with a kind of clarity and commitment that Pakistani policy makers demonstrated while building the Nuclear Bomb. Once the decision was taken in 1974, the Bomb project was pursued to its logical conclusion in a relentless, single minded manner, irrespective of any pressures and it achieved success when Pakistan detonated its own homemade nuclear device on May 28, 1998, undoubtedly, Pakistan’s finest hour. Such a strategy should target Modi and his RSS gang, and separate them from the broader Indian society and polity that opposes Modi, along with a united front of all Kashmiris and the linkup of the Kashmiri resistance with other insurgencies inside India. Close coordination with China and the rest of the international community through a strategy sustained by national stamina are the need of the hour.

A good example of an unconventional approach is the legal initiative taken by the Kashmir-Khalistan Referendum Front in an American court of law. The 73-page law suit accuses Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah as well as IOJK Commander, Lt Gen Kanwaljeet Singh Dhillon, of carrying out “extra judicial killings, wrongful deaths, crimes against humanity” against Kashmiris. The law suit against the Indian Prime Minister was filed under a Federal American statute, Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which allows civil suits on US soil against foreign officials who have violated Human Rights. Similar law suits in European courts, which also have a universal jurisdiction on Human Rights, can embarrass and damage the Indian leadership and expose the crimes that are being committed by them in the IOJK.

For starters, the focus should be on a Pakistani narrative. Indian writer Arundhati Roy’s classic article in The New York Times of August 15, 2019,”Silence is the Loudest Sound” provides some useful pointers, since it says it all:

•             Modi’s annexation of IOJK has a “distinct whiff of colonialism in the air”.

•             ‘RSS is the State’ in Modi’s India.

•             ‘An Architecture of Indian fascism is quickly being put in place’ by Modi and the RSS gang.

•             “There has not been a single year since 1947 when the Indian Army has not been deployed within India’s borders against its ‘own people’. The list is long: IOJK, Mizoram, Nagaland, Manipur, Hyderabad, Assam,…”

To meet this existential threat, Pakistan needs single-minded determination with clarity and commitment. Luckily, Pakistan has got strategic space to pursue the Kashmir cause for the next couple of years due to changes in the regional scenario:

•             Pakistan’s timely ‘course correction’ on the flawed Afghan policy of the past, reinforced by a clampdown on domestic extremism and militancy, Pakistan will no longer be caught in a ‘nutcracker’ like situation of being tied down both on the Western and Eastern borders.

•             President Trump has linked his re-election in2020 with the Afghan peace process in which Pakistan’s role is pivotal, hence, he feels that the road to the White House lies through Pakistan. Sooner than later, the Afghan peace talk will have to be revived.

•             Thanks to China, which is providing strategic “air cover” to Pakistan through CPEC, the Pakistan-China alliance will be further strengthened for the common cause of a joint strategy to counter India.

•             With the Gulf in turmoil and tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the last thing the International Community will want is a conflict between the two South Asian nuclear neighbours.               

After India’s annexation of Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, the future course of events will depend on three factors. First, while the Indian attempt is to seek a semblance of ‘normalcy’ through the diktat of their bayonets and bullets, with almost a million men under arms trying to enforce the annexation as a fait accompli. The Kashmiri determination to seek “Azadi” which is undeterred by any kind of force, will certainly supercede India’s ‘might is right’ approach as historically ‘right is might’.

Second, Pakistan, as the principal defender of the Kashmiri people and leading exponent of the Kashmir cause, must maintain the resolve and stamina to sustain a long term strategy of supporting the Kashmiri people and resisting Indian hegemony so that the status quo, which is untenable and unacceptable to the Kashmiri people, is changed. Third, the China factor would be key in any strategy as China, being Pakistan’s strategic partner provides Pakistan an entry into the international system, especially the UN Security Council, the G-20 and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

China’s leadership role in world affairs is a plus for Pakistan after having made the successful transition from a regional power to a global power. As Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi stated on March 18, 2019 during his meeting with his Pakistani counterpart: “no matter how things change in the world and the region, China will firmly support Pakistan in upholding its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and dignity”.

The China factor is also pivotal for two reasons in the context of Kashmir. China’s voice matters in the councils of power globally and when China speaks for Kashmir, that voice is heard loud and clear. An assertive China now has a global voice that resonates in key world capitals. As President Xi Jinping told the Communist Party Congress in Beijing on October 18, 2017 that “China has now become a great power in the world and it is time for us take centre stage in the world and to make a greater contribution to humankind.”

The other factor is China’s growing military might which was on display during the massive October 1, 2019, Chinese National Day military parade in Beijing, which shows that China now has the military prowess as well as the political will and the economic clout to pursue its interests in the region and the world. A key component of those interests is China’s strategic partnership with Pakistan which, as the China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said on September 24, 2019, is “unbreakable”.

The biggest challenge for Pakistani policymakers is going to be on the military front as India’s international image has suffered badly because of Modi’s August 5 blunder and for the first time in30 years, the situation in IOJK is not being blamed on Pakistan, rather the onus is on Indian actions alone. The Indian Establishment, including their military high command and the RSS gang might wish to divert attention away from their own follies and crimes in IOJK and shift the onus on Pakistan either via a “false flag” operation or even a tactical military move on the Line of Control. Such threats have been openly hurled by the Indian military brass. For example, General Bipin Rawat, the Indian Army Chief told the Indian media on September 30 that “if we have to go across (the LOC), we will through the air or the ground route or both. The red line has been very clearly drawn as to what will be the future course of action” and in the same interview, he repeated the canard about “Pakistani terror training camps in Balakot”.

History teaches us that military might cannot crush a people’s will to be free. Vietnam, Afghanistan, racist South Africa and America’s own experience of ‘shock and awe’ in the post 9/11 period are instructive examples of failures of brute force to subjugate a people determined to resist. On August 5, Modi used a tried, tested and failed formula, deploying 900,000 armed men to browbeat 8 million defenceless but resilient and defiant Kashmiris. He assumed, like the Americans did in Iraq in 2003, that it would be a ‘cakewalk’.

Like others of his ilk, that decision has boomeranged and Modi’s India is bound to get stuck and sink in the Kashmir quagmire. This action is a precursor of new challenges and opportunities for Pakistan to seize and to pursue a clear doable strategy that best preserves, protects and promotes the interests of Pakistan and the Kashmir cause that we as a Nation are committed to espouse. Above all, it is a test of our leadership and the mettle of our people. As the Quaid-e-Azam said: ”Let it not be said that we did not prove ourselves equal to the task”.

The post Pak View on India’s “Annexation” of Kashmir appeared first on IMR.

Farzana Shah is a Peshawar based journalist. This is an abridged extract of an article which was first published in the Pakistan Army Green Book 2020. The views expressed do not reflect the views of IMR

On August 5th, 2019 India unilaterally revoked Article 370 of its Constitution which promised autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, i.e., Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IOJK). This unlawful decision with its dire pending consequences has triggered an outrage, not only in the region but also at the global level. The entire state has been put under siege with total communication blackout, enforced by deploying thousands of fresh troops. Over 3000 political figures including former chief ministers of the state were arrested under so-called Public Safety Act (PSA).

India also divided the state into two; an act through which she changed the geography of the disputed land, hence practically ending the 1971 Simla Agreement. This agreement has remained a critical milestone for both Pakistan and India, as it was this agreement based upon which both countries established what the world later on recognized as Line of Control (LoC). Not only that, August 5th action also undermined the very foundation of Indian constitution, as Article 370 was obliterated without the essentially required consent of state government and that’s why this action was not a constitutional reform, but a blatant coup in total disregard to the pending UNSC resolutions /UN Charter.

Modi government with full backing from hardliner Hindu groups, abolished IOJK’s autonomous status under a fabricated security threat perception to conceal the real intent. Pak-US peace overtures in Afghanistan had made Delhi very nervous because of the simple fact that any settlement between the US and Taliban would have enabled Pakistan to move almost 200,000 of its troops or at least a large number of these to its eastern borders in Kashmir and elsewhere. Indian desperation to counter Pakistan and limit her growing role in Afghan peace process led to such an abrupt abrogation of special status of IOJK and this timing was no coincidence.

Media reports suggest the Indian intelligence agencies were desperately waiting for this opportunity to strike. Delhi had sensed that a possible deal managed by Pakistan for US troops’ withdrawal from Afghanistan could eventually renew US military assistance for Pakistan.

Reportedly, to scuttle Afghan peace deal and legitimize Indian stance over Kashmir, Indian spy agency RAW’s new chief Samant Goel called on Narendra Modi on July 5th, 2019 and apprised him of the plan to abolish the Article 370 for IOJK. Preparations for the move were already in place in Delhi as a number of high profile military and intelligence visits were made to IOJK including those by RAW’s chief Goel, Indian NSA Ajit Doval and Indian Army Chief General Bipin Rawat in the months preceding August 2019. On July 24, Doval also held a meeting with Indian military chiefs and heads of all three intelligence agencies including National Technical Research Organization (NTRO), in the same context.

Media also reported that India had flown Israeli Heron drones across the Pir Panjal range to rehearse controlling mob in case of protesteruption3; military aircrafts made a number of sorties flying relief supplies including food, water and medicines into the Valley for the Indian troops.

After Indian decision of obliteration of Article 370, LoC has become potential conflict with Pakistan under the nuclear overhang because of the simple fact that Delhi has changed the goalpost for future talks on Kashmir. According to Indian leadership, now talks will be on Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

Post August 5th environment suggests that India with obliteration of Article 370 actually risked a high intensity insurgency in an already volatile state of IOJK; something India could not have done alone without external backing.

Pakistan’s Current National Security

Predicaments Developments in IOJK are neither random nor isolated as far as their impact on Pakistan’s national security is concerned. It is a dilemma imposed by our geography that Pakistan cannot stay isolated from regional developments. Even in some cases, extra regional developments also impact Pakistan’s security milieu; fast evolving situation in Middle East and ongoing trade war between US and China, are cases in point.

United Nations on April 21, 1948 adopted Kashmir resolution after India took the issue to the UN under article 35 of Chapter VI. Kashmir was declared disputed territory and call for a plebiscite was made as the said chapter outlines the means for a peaceful settlement of disputes. The shadowy annexation of IOJK by India and insistence upon

its fabricated history has resulted in 3 out of4 Indo-Pak wars. With current clampdown on basic human rights in IOJK, there is a clear and present danger of yet another round of conflict. LoC is already red hot; both countries are already exchanging artillery fire. Earlier, in February 2019,both sides deployed air power. India lost 2 fighter jets on 27/2 with one pilot becoming POW; who was immediately returned by Pakistan as a goodwill gesture.

India is desperate to get a role in the region, belittling what Pakistan has been doing for regional stability. This is critical for India to present Pakistan as a perpetrator of global terror, while fact is Pakistan has been the biggest victim of non-state actors’ actions within and without.

Two most important strategic goals of India are:

•             Bigger role, both in the region and world.

•             Solving Kashmir through UNSC resolutions, but after changing its demography to ensure a win. Solving Kashmir will pave the way for permanent UNSC seat; vital prerequisite for India to embark on Akhand Bahart agenda of RSS.

Indian threat has been intensified even more after August 5, 2019. Kashmir has dominated the security debate as it’s going to impact both internal and external security dynamics. How things will unfold in coming weeks and months, depends on how Pakistan formulates and executes its strategy on Kashmir.

Apart from the traditional foe in the east, the country has been fighting an endless war on the west, which despite clear gains, remains a perpetually bleeding front albeit with reduced fatalities.

Notwithstanding these obvious kinetic threats, Pakistan’s security landscape is inevitably affected by certain other factors as well, like peaceful rise of China and her ensuing trade war with the US, culmination of US’ longest war in history in Afghanistan and growing strategic competition around various parts of Asia including South China Sea, Indian Ocean, North Korea, and stand-off between US allies in Strait of Hurmuz against Iran. All these geopolitical development swill directly or indirectly impact Pakistan. Hence, it is likely to continue to be in the eye of global security storm due to its geography and may continue to suffer if not steered wisely.

Pakistan’s Significance to China

Chinese trillion-dollar Belt & Road Initiative(BRI) is pivotal for turning China into a world commercial empire. The region of Azad Jammu and Kashmir gains unprecedented importance in the wake of US-China emerging geopolitical competition worldwide. US wants to hit CPEC just like India for almost similar reasons; CPEC has in fact comprehensively demolished the US envisaged strategic encirclement of China in South China Sea, notwithstanding US quadrilateral alliance with Japan, Australia, and India. Idea was that CPEC brings global connectivity to China, so that Beijing can invest hundreds of billions of US dollars in its reserves to reignite the growth engine, which has slowed down during last 5-7 years (from10% annual to 6.5%). Beijing has plans to expand BRI to 70 countries and CPEC remains a critical part of this Chinese enterprise. Road to China’s strive for challenging American dominance passes through CPEC.

Apart from this economic dimension, the north eastern region of IOJK is attractive due to its close proximity to Russia, China and Pakistan. The Indian action in IOJK gives the US deep state an opportunity for furthering its own scheme of geopolitical maneuvering in Afghanistan, which is instrumental in containing Russia-China-Pakistanat the same time.

While US has remained stranded in Afghan quagmire, China’s BRI has been helping Beijing in positioning China to rise peacefully as a peace broker to the conflict zones like Afghanistan and Iraq in near future through trade compulsions. These very aspects substantiate the growing geostrategic prominence of Pakistan /Kashmir.

The changing geopolitics has forced Pakistan to adopt a more robust offensive maritime policy, apart from safeguarding its interests attached to land component of CPEC. Pakistan Navy has embarked on an ambitious project of acquiring eight submarines along with multiple advanced naval ships. All these may help restore some balance of power in South Asia /IOR.

China – India – Pakistan Paradigm

Recent, Sino-India skirmishes in Doklam went full circle in locking both the nuclear powers into a possible warlike situation. India has recently expressed her envisioned two front war strategy, which basically relies on the premise of preventing Chinese ingress across the LAC amid a high intensity short lived Indo-Pak conflict adopting Cold Start Doctrine (CSD). After initial denial, the top Indian military brass has not only publically acknowledged its presence, but has also hinted at considering unleashing CSD against Pakistan.

Indian aggressive attempts to outmaneuver Pakistan’s nuclear threshold forced it to adopt a full spectrum deterrence posture, while retaining/displaying the resolve to adopt policy of first use. Though it carries a great promise of strategic stability, but still there is a sizeable Indian defense intelligentsia that conceives this as a weakness in conventional balance of power, hence sees an opportunity of a limited, high-intensity conflict aimed at shallow gains across LoC/IB. This community of India is of the view that such gains will serve a devastating blow to Pakistan’s national morale. Indian strategy is to choke Pakistan economically, while raising cost of its deterrence by triggering an arms race.

Adding current volatile situation in IOJK into above discussed strategic contest between conventional Indo-Pak militaries and growing US-China wrestling for dominance, it would be safe to assume that the probability of an armed conflict in this region was never this high in last 72 years, as it is now.

Critical Appraisal of Pakistan’s Response Strategy

Let us begin with the most critical question, i.e., if all these preparations as highlighted in earlier part of this discourse were underway in India, why Pakistan remained oblivious to these developments about IOJK or was it caught totally unaware /surprised like rest of the World? A critical and candid appraisal is needed.

It would be safe to assume that Pakistan missed the opportunity to preempt and did very little or nothing before August 5th on diplomatic and media fronts to expose and pressurize India. Whatever and wherever it reacted, it did once unilateral annexation of IOJK by Modi had already occurred.

In the wake of Indian move over IOJK, Pakistan repeatedly reiterated its intention to undertake preventive measures to counter threats hurled by India. Such a move had always been seen by the US and her allies as jeopardizing War on Terror, a metrics which puts Pakistan at a crucial position with regard to peace in the region. The equation exhibits importance of Kashmir conflict and consequences of Indian attempt of redrawing map of erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir for the world peace and stability.

On international fora, India always presented Kashmir as a bilateral issue, supposed to be solved under Simla Agreement at bilateral level without any third party intervention. While on the bilateral level, Indian policy on Kashmir is immoveable as it always maintains that Kashmir is an integral part of Union, hence no bilateral dialogue is possible. On the contrary, India showed willingness to discuss Azad Jammu Kashmir and Northern Areas(parts of heretofore Kashmir state) of Pakistan for which nation gave blood in 1947-48 to liberate from the clutches of Dogra Raj; putting added pressure on our diplomacy.

Despite the fact that since 9/11 Pakistan’s security challenges have grown manifold, it has made abundantly clear that Pakistan cannot and will not remain oblivious from what goes on inside the Kashmir valley; any undertakings however, demand a comprehensive understanding of the total security paradigm. Pakistan will have to work pro actively and diplomatically support the indigenous KFM, else the state will be dragged into yet another regional conflict with India, giving her the advantage to choose time and place of her liking.

Notwithstanding initial surprise, post August 5th Pakistan’s political leadership has repeatedly and quite forcefully warned the World at large about the potential threat to global peace emerging from regional conflict in Kashmir in near future; it’s a nuclear flashpoint that has the latent potential to engulf the entire world.

Geo-Strategic Implications

Strategically speaking, the clash of interests among big powers alone makes Kashmir a bone of contention; contested directly by three nuclear powers (intrinsically linked are the strategic interests of two extra regional nuclear powers i.e. US, Russia).

Gilgit-Baltistan region has for centuries been the most vital part of Jammu and Kashmir. It is now a key part of CPEC, the cornerstone of China-Pakistan axis and the flagship project of China’s BRI for global trade domination; it aims at connecting South Asia with Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East /Africa; the shortest route from Arabian Sea ports of Karachi and Gwadar.

The growing competition in different fields(fanning economies and military insecurities) is forcing China and India to gain access to energy rich CARs. International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) was envisioned by India as alternative to CPEC. This corridor connects CAR to Iran and to India through Arabian Sea. Obviously, the route is not only much costlier due to its length, but also tremendously insecure as it goes through Iran and Persian Gulf, regions far from stable for long term investments and economic activities. The only alternative short and direct route for India passes through Azad Kashmir and Pakistan’s northern areas. Sooner or later, India will make a move to extend its jurisdiction over this area; current overture in IOJK may have this latent desire imbedded in it.

Apart from economic and strategic dimensions, Kashmir issue has become a cultural and social question as well.

Modi is planning to change the religious demography of IOJK, through ethnic cleansing and Hindu settlements in disputed territory on the lines of Jewish settlements by Israel. This drive itself is being fueled by right-wing Hindutva gangs, who have taken over India and have completely distorted her secular face. Hindutva ideology, much like Hitler’s Nazism, believes in supremacy of their own faith and considers all minorities in India as impure and hence, must be culled from Indian soil.

Modi appealed to the Indian society to”embrace Kashmiris” on Independence Day. It was sensible from both the domestic and international perspectives. But the news coming out of IOJK and even from mainland India, indicates that Hindutva’s control over Indian society has put Indian minorities in grave danger. Lynching of Muslims and Kashmiri students even within Indian cities has become new normal. This explains why Modi was compelled to ensure a complete media clampdown in the IOJK. Apart from that, Modi is now faced with severe internal pressure to act against Pakistan on AJK.

Apropos, it is beyond any doubt that the current fascist regime in India has nefarious designs against Pakistan /Muslims. Ruling RSS/ VHP/BJP has built anti-Muslim/anti-Pakistan sentiment so hard in Indian mainstream media and public discourse that BJP will have to continue undertaking some sort of anti-Pak overtures every now and then, to stay in power; hence current misadventure should not be taken as last.

Possible Emerging Scenarios and their Impact on Pakistan’s National Security

It is evident from the analysis so far that an Indo-US-Israel nexus is at play against Pakistan at multiple levels to close the Kashmir chapter once and for all. Hence, it is now prudent to examine the possible outcomes of Indian political discourse vis-à-vis Pakistan (Table Opposite).

A critical appraisal of the above scenarios suggests that Pakistan will have to walk a very thin line to fight for the Kashmir cause. Biggest challenge is that Pakistan will have to take the initiative and yet not to be seen as an aggressor as per international law. Having tested Pakistan’s response in February 2019, India may not escalate the situation along LoC any further than routine ceasefire violations, without consolidating control over IOJK. India’s best bet in current scenario is to maintain status-quo with a complete information and media control on developments inside IOJK particularly in the valley. This is where Pakistan will have to respond along with aggressive, non-apologetic and bold diplomacy. Proactive Foreign Office (FO) will produce results. If Pakistan keeps waiting for Indian action to react; Islamabad will be playing a losing game from the very onset.

Policy Recommendations

So far, Pakistan has given a standard response to Indian action of August 5th. Prevailing security crisis however, demands a robust and out of box solution, and that too in quick time. International community at best, will not go beyond condemning India over human rights violations in IOJK. In order to do that Pakistan will have to take the war into non-kinetic domains:

•   Information / Cyber Warfare

•   Electronic Warfare (EW) Spectrum

Relevant establishments must provide support to diplomatic efforts being done by government through operations in these two domains with focused goal of extracting authentic information from stakeholders in IOJK most importantly from general public facing the brutalities of Indian oppressive forces. Once information gathered, FO must disseminate it with proper narrative of the state of Pakistan.

A single video clip or picture can change the perception of India, which it has built so painstakingly over the years. Pakistan needs to keep world attention on IOJK and in order to do that communication links inside the valley must be established. Indian decision of communication blackout in IOJK was not random, but part of the planning. Pakistan’s response in these two domains will be purely non-kinetic, denying any involvement of arms. If executed properly anda local uprising occurs inside IOJK, it will make it extremely difficult for India to keep selling the terrorism card on IOJK. Burhan Wani was a local hero, India could not blame his action on Pakistan. Only a native uprising will be just and politically defendable for Pakistan on international forums. Even such an uprising will need support in the information domain.

EW Spectrum would be critical as it will enable Pakistan to keep Indian preparation in check. There is a possibility that India creates a deception in IOJK and opens war across IB on a spot like Pakistan’s soft-belly (Rahim Yar Khan – Kashmore) to sever Karachi from rest of Pakistan. There are rumors suggesting similar planning going on in Indian military headquarters; Pakistan must take requisite safeguards.

Pakistan must also keep refining standard diplomatic response along with taking into consideration above mentioned suggestions. Few areas where improvement can be made are mentioned below:

•             Pakistan, according to UN charter, can openly help Kashmiris in their fight. Indian intervention in East Pakistan and recent Syrian conflict between Russia and the US are clear examples.

•             India may try to capture areas 5 to 7 km inside AJK to make claim on the area. Pakistan army must have own similar plans and be executed preemptively.

•             Question of Kashmir must be debated among legislators on regular basis so that policy can be kept proactive rather than calling session of parliament on special occasions. Kashmir’s importance as vital strategic national interest must be seen by whole nation. Kashmir demands and deserves more pragmatism than emotional outburst.

•             Pakistan’s foreign policy needs more consistency, more inclusiveness of security institutions and constant review of emerging developments around the world particularly in South Asia.

•             Kinetic intervention from Pakistan has proven counter-productive as far as larger goals of Kashmir’s freedom is concerned. It created problems locally as well. State must adopt transparent policy in this regard. Proscribed organizations must remain ineffective and immobile.

•             Pakistan must establish a dedicated and permanent desk at FO focused on human rights violation in India against minorities. These efforts must be driven not by shallow patriotism, but true humanitarian grounds. In this regard, contacts must be established with oppressed groups within Indian society. This desk must be tasked to constantly arranging seminars and programs for this single purpose. Kashmir Committee must work along with this desk.

•             Especial efforts must be put on proactive diplomacy on Kashmir in P-5 nations. Pakistan embassies must conduct seminars, conferences and round tables with local intellectuals about Indian oppression in the valley.

Conclusion

Indian government has gravely endangered the global peace by unilaterally changing the status of disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir. Due to RSS/BJP actions in IOJK, future of 8 million Kashmiri Muslims is at stake with a probability of their systematic genocide or forced exodus from their native land. The subsequent strategic situation demanded an appraisal to assess the way forward for the state. This paper is an attempt in the same direction. It argued and examined various vertices of Kashmir’s geography, its linkage with national security and impacts of various policy options. Pakistan will have to act proactively. Standard diplomatic response will not be enough and a delay in decisive line of action will be suicidal.

Pakistan must ensure regional peace by adopting an aggressive and just policy on Kashmir, while also ensuring that state must not be seen as aggressor till the time an armed conflict with India becomes inevitable. Information and EW Spectrum domains must be explored for non-kinetic operations against Indian political and military leadership so that Pakistan can expose Indian atrocities and can achieve higher moral ground before any open conflict.

The post Pak View of Emerging Geopolitical Scenario Post Article 370 Abrogation appeared first on IMR.