Indo-Pak and Pak internal

Indo-Pak and Pak internal

Diplomatically engaging Imran The Excelsior 18 Aug 18

Once the appointment of Imran Khan as the PM of Pak was confirmed, Modi called and congratulated him. As per the statement released by the Indian government, Modi expressed hope that democracy will take deeper roots within Pak. He also reiterated his vision of peace and development in the entire neighbourhood. In contrast the Pak statement added that Imran stated that ‘solution to conflicts should be found through dialogue’.

The Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad, Ajay Bisaria, met Imran Khan over the weekend, congratulated him on his victory and discussed bilateral ties with him. The Indian press release stated, ‘The High Commissioner briefed the PTI leadership on India’s concerns about terrorism and cross-border infiltration.’ He also gifted Imran Khan with a cricket bat, autographed by the Indian cricket team.

The Pak statement on the visit stated that during the meeting Imran had expressed grave concern over ‘Human Rights violations’ in Kashmir. He had also hoped that India would agree to attend the SAARC summit in Islamabad later this year. Imran had raised Kashmir even during his first address to the nation. He had then stated, ‘There have been human rights violations for over 30 years and the people of Kashmir have suffered massively’. He added, ‘Right now it is (the situation) one-sided where India is constantly blaming us’.

Considering protocol, it is essential for the Indian PM to call Imran and offer his congratulations, after all Pak is a neighbour, which cannot be easily ignored, as nations cannot choose neighbours, but must learn to live with them. Simultaneously we cannot go on making the same mistake again and again, seeking to move forward, desiring peace, only to be pushed back.

While it may be early to deride the credibility of Imran and his government, however there are some clear facts which need to be assessed. Firstly, all important dignitaries visiting Pak, have their photo-ops in Islamabad, but main discussions in Rawalpindi. Secondly, the conduct of elections is indicative that the deep state ensured Imran wins, pushing other major political parties into the wilderness. Hence, Imran would have no option but to toe their line.

The emergence of terrorist turned political parties, nurtured by the deep state, into the election process, all of whom promised support to Imran is indicative of the increased power and clout of the army. These groups are unlikely to be touched by the new government as they and the PTI, Imran’s party, are all indebted to the army. Thus, the army now has a nation and it will be ruled from Rawalpindi, with Islamabad only implementing orders.

India as a policy has never engaged with the Pak military, while every other nation, seeking Pak’s cooperation has adopted that route. As recently as Jun this year, the Afghan President called the Pak army chief and not the elected government to convey the message of the elimination of the TTP chief by a drone strike. He has interacted mainly with the Pak army, ignoring the political leadership. As president, he has called on Rawalpindi more often than Islamabad. The same was also put out in a tweet by the Pak DG ISPR.

Every single US diplomat who visits Pak to discuss cooperation in Afghanistan, spends more time in Rawalpindi than Islamabad. The US ambassador too regularly visits Rawalpindi. The decision to deploy troops in Saudi Arabia was not made by the political leadership but by the army chief, post his visit to Riyadh. Evidently, India too is aware, but for its own political reasons is unwilling to engage with it.

By ignoring the military and interacting with the political leadership, despite the desire for peace by known politicians, nothing has ever moved on ground. Every major attack on India soil has been preceded by an attempt to peace. Vajpayee’s Lahore visit was followed by Kargil and Modi’s Lahore visit was followed by Pathankot, only conveying the message that the polity means nothing, if you desire peace engage, with the Pak army.

Nawaz took a stand for improving relations, going against the strong conviction of the Pak army and was shunted out. Now that his party is no longer in power, would not return for at least five years, he may get bail, provided he promises to stay quiet and out of the limelight. The fact that infiltration continues, and India lost four brave hearts, whose last rites were still in progress, when Bisaria met Imran indicates that the Pak army has no desire to even contemplate talks.

The Imran led Pak political leadership would continue harping for peace, seeking to project an international image of conciliation. It would blame India for the stalemate on SAARC. It would raise the Kashmir bogey in every forum, as it is the demand of the deep state and of those ‘terror groups turned political parties’ which supported it. There would be no reduction in infiltration nor any progress on prosecuting those responsible for Mumbai or Pathankot.

India is soon heading into the election mode. It therefore cannot risk even contemplating talks with Pak, the failure of which, could impact the standing of the present government in the forthcoming elections. SAARC would also not see the light of day, at least not till mid 2019 when the next government assumes office. As a policy, India would never engage with the Pak army. With this being the government’s stand, there can be no forward movement. Imran has been greeted, formalities done, now back to square one- battling infiltration and militancy.

How long will Imran Khan’s honeymoon with the army continue ORF 08 Aug 18

The recently concluded Pak elections almost went according to the script as determined by the deep state. The two reigning political parties, which have shared power over decades were pushed into the side lines and an almost obscure playboy politician, with no experience in governance, brought to power. Denying level playing fields to political parties other than Imran’s PTI, curbing the press, pressurizing powerful opposition politicians to either join the PTI or stand as independent candidates dominated the proceedings. International observers from the European Union also stated that there was no level playing field in the weeks preceding the elections.

The return of Nawaz and Maryam from London, to face jail terms, just prior to the final election dates almost put a spoke in the plans of the deep state. They had expected them to remain abroad like the former general, Musharraf. Their return could have led to immense emotional support and severely impacted its well thought through plan. Therefore, it resorted to two simultaneous actions. Firstly, Nawaz was moved straight to jail, preventing him from meeting even his mother and supporters and secondly, rigging was now essential for ensuring the army got the government it desired at the centre.

Handling Nawaz was the easier of the two, as he was given no choice. For formal rigging, the Election Commission had to be manipulated. It was done, and the Pak army granted magisterial powers and directly involved with the complete election process from movement of election stores to its presence, both inside and outside polling booths. Videos presently doing rounds on Pak social media indicate almost open rigging, marking votes cast to other parties being counted on the name of PTI, army personnel in uniform involved in counting votes as also celebrating the victory of Imran.

Equally important was to ensure a favourable government in Punjab, the largest and richest province, covering almost half the country and providing the largest seats to the senate. Imran had almost no hold in the state. Punjab was Nawaz’s stronghold. His vote banks had to be dented and split, while other actions continued unabated. The stumbling block could come in the form of international observers, which could damage the reputation of the state. Their numbers were kept low and hence their movement restricted. Juggling was possible in the counting process.

The participation of a multitude of religious and extremist groups, including those considered as global terrorists, into the poll process, supported and created by the deep state was intentional and part of the deep state’s strategy. The groups included Hafiz Saeed, a known global terrorist, led Milli Muslim League, standing on the platform of the Allah-o-Akbar Tehreek, the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, the political wing of the TTLY, which had launched an agitation at the behest of the army in Islamabad in Nov last year and the Ludhianvi led Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal Jammat, the bon on whom was lifted days before the election. Amongst the religious groups was the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a group of five religious parties.

These groups together fielded a total of 1500 candidates for both, the national assembly and provincial assembly seats, with the MMA alone fielding 460 candidates. Historically, Imran only had a grip on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, with almost no presence in other provinces. Thus, these parties were pushed into the electoral process, mainly in regions where he lacked a political base, for multiple reasons.

Their votes could easily be rigged to support Imran, they could split the votes of other mainstream parties and ultimately, knowing that Imran lacking mass appeal, he may not win a majority on his own in the national assembly, despite the efforts of the deep state, hence may need coalition partners. What better partners than those from terrorist and religious groups backed by the deep state. This could effectively work for both, the national assembly and Punjab. Imran was the only political leader to approach each such group for support and he did receive it.

While these parties did manage to eat into the vote bank, they ultimately drew a blank in the elections, except the MMA which did win a handful of seats. For once, despite all their appeal and backing of the Pak army, the nation rejected them en-masse. This was a major setback to the deep state.

Does this action send a message that Pak as a nation rejects terrorist groups or the population has a growing resentment against the diktats of the deep state? The common Pakistani may have faced enough bloodshed to lose interest in the beliefs of terrorist groups, but the desire to regain Kashmir remains deep within him. Further, the belief that terrorist groups may not solve the problems of the nation led to their complete rejection.

More importantly, the mass rejection projects local anger against the dominant power of the army, which has unilaterally taken away most civil rights of the populace and treated them as second-class citizens in their own country. Therefore, it rejected terrorist groups backed by the army. Imran succeeded because he was seen to be clean and a change from other prominent parties which have dominated the political landscape for decades. Further, the manipulated press conveyed Imran to be the right man for the nation, which did influence votes, alongside known rigging. The army dominated press projected corruption angles of other political parties versus the clean image of Imran.

In the coming days, the army would re-evaluate the reasons for the public’s rejection of its sponsored terrorist groups converted to political parties and possibly bring about changes to ensure that it does not happen in future elections. After all, these are early days and once Imran gets the feel of power, he too may seek to curtail the authority of the army and may need to be elbowed out.

The rejection of ‘terrorist groups turned political parties’ by the local populace has compelled Imran to seek other individuals or parties for support to form the government. He is however assured of the backing of the deep state and its supported terrorist and religious groups and hence for the present he would neither be criticized, nor agitations launched against his government. For the army, while it did push Imran through as the next PM, the rejection of its supported terrorist and religious groups was a major setback and an indicator of national anger.

Challenges facing the next Pak government The Excelsior 01 Aug 18

Elections in Pak have concluded and Imran Khan, the protégé of the deep state, will take office. He had launched an agitation seeking to pressurize Nawaz in Nov 16, on the orders of the army and hence is their blue- eyed boy. Yet, he would remain in chair only till it suits the army. One move threatening the power and control of the army chief or attempting to change the status of controlled democracy in Pak and he could suddenly find himself on the other side, as many of his predecessors have seen. The question being asked across the globe is whether he would be the first PM to complete his full tenure or follow the Pak tradition of ousted PMs.

His government assumes office at a time when Pak is facing multiple issues, internal and external, the resolution of which would be the responsibility of this government. Whether he would have freedom to conduct some of his own policies or would he be guided by Rawalpindi at every stage is the mute question. There are tough economic decisions which must be taken if Pak is to survive as a nation, some of which may hurt the deep state, would he do so, or remain a mute spectator.

He would be aware that all foreign dignitaries meet the elected government as a formality but conduct main discussions in Rawalpindi. Would he too be running to Rawalpindi for decisions or have the courage to take his own? The answer would be out very shortly.

Financially, the nation is in doldrums. Pak is presently on the brink of a balance of payments crises. Its growth rate is likely to drop to under 4% as compared to 5.8 this year. It would be compelled to seek a bailout once again, solely to survive the current adverse payment crises. Pak industry is facing its own demise with mass imports of cheap Chinese goods. It is moving towards becoming a nation of traders and not manufacturers. Prohibitive cost of cross border trading has led to an economic isolation of Pak. It would need to evaluate options and implement a tough financial policy if it seeks to pull itself out.

He had stated in his election rallies that he may revisit the CPEC, however has now announced he would not. Presently, multiple projects linked to the CPEC are in doldrums. Reports from Pak indicate that many contractors have stopped work as cheques issued to them by the government have bounced. It would also have to commence paying back China for the loans which it had taken, which appears difficult. His words of copying the Chinese model are hollow, as corruption in every sphere, including the army, runs deep. Hence, Pak is close to becoming a Chinese colony.

In the health sphere, Pak is way behind. Polio, which has been eradicated almost across the world continues unabated in Pak. Sharia law prevents the vaccine from being administered. Similar is the case with hepatitis B/C. Child pornography is on the rise, mainly due to implementation of Sharia laws and restrictions imposed by them. Women healthcare standards are on the decline. Arresting this deteriorating situation, before it reaches alarming proportions would remain a priority.

Being a pet of the army, Imran cannot follow any independent policy towards India and Afghanistan. He speech was on similar lines as Nawaz claiming Pak is ready for talks, but India must take the first step. Further, he made no mention of closing Pak based terror factories, the prime demand by India. He cannot close them as they supported him in his campaign and continue to back him.

Hence, India can expect no change in policy or approach towards Kashmir. It can neither contemplate talks nor expect Pak to change colours. Tensions along the LoC would continue unabated. In this atmosphere SAARC is all but dead. India would never accept to attend any meet in Pak, hence making it redundant.

Since Imran would be unable to force any change in policies, international pressure would only increase. He would face the flak while the army moves on its own path, mainly in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Haqqani network would remain protected and Afghanistan is unlikely to witness peace. Pak’s international isolation would only increase, so would the frustration of the US.

Internally, as the period of elections showed, violence and terror strikes would continue. The army would dispel its own form of justice, further alienating the masses. Imran would have no role to play in seeking to reduce the levels of violence unleashed by the army. The curtailment of media would continue. Since Imran has come to power with the backing of the army, he can take no action to curtail its power.

The daily activities of the army are already alienating it from its own populace. In Karachi, the army has broken all rules of humanity when it comes to its own housing colonies. It has forced city authorities to release additional water at the cost of other residents and misused other public amenities.

It has supported SSP Rao Anwar, responsible for the murder of 444 Baluchi’s and the cause for the launch of the PTM movement. Unlike Nawaz who languishes in jail, Anwar, a mass murderer, remains in his house and attends hearings without handcuffs. No action would now be taken against disappearances resorted to by the army, nor would the press ever criticize it. HR violations would continue in Baluchistan, enhancing anger against the army.

With complete control over the central government and the judiciary, the Pak army now has a nation, over which it would reign supreme. Democracy would only be in name. Visitors would prefer meetings in Rawalpindi, rather than Islamabad. The few detractors in Pak would now have no voice. China can now ensure that Pak is its de-facto province.

Indo-Pak relations would only deteriorate, Kashmir would face increased turmoil. International isolation of Pak would continue to increase. In summary, Pak would move downhill under the control of the deep state, with Imran as the puppet. Finally, would Imran have a full term is a multi-million-dollar question.

Pak elections: Genuine or doctored The Excelsior 18 July 18

Pakistan goes to the polls on 25th July to elect a new National Assembly, leading to the appointment of a new Prime Minister. The way the election process is moving raises questions on whether the same are likely to be fair and genuine or doctored to form a government suiting the interests of the Pak deep state. Political leaders who have questioned the deep state are being side lined while terrorist groups and religious leaders who have the backing of the army are being propelled forward.

The elections have three major political parties in the fray, apart from a multitude of religious and extremist organizations masquerading as political parties. The parties are the Nawaz led PML (N), the PPP led by Zardari, husband of the late PM Benazir Bhutto and the PTI led by ex- cricketer Imran Khan.

Nawaz had grown too big for his boots and had begun challenging the might of the deep state seeking to bring the army under the control of the polity. He had failed to realize that democracy in Pak is controlled and any attempts to change status quo would be countered by force. No coup would have been acceptable anymore in Pak. The world would react negatively. The best option was to bring in the judiciary and have him removed on corruption grounds as early as possible.

In Pakistan, court cases drag for years as is the case in India, especially where political leaders are concerned. The investigation into corruption by Zardari had dragged for years. However, corruption charges against Sharif moved at a speed unheard of in Pak. His investigation and trial has been done post haste. The supreme court even passed directions that the judgement would be delivered by the accountability court before the elections. His judgement was delivered while he was still abroad. His attempts at seeking sympathy votes have been thwarted by his arrest on landing, preventing him from even addressing any rally.

Zardari was the next. There were rumours floating that Zardari had reached an agreement with the deep state, as all major cases against him were withdrawn at the end of last year. They further stated that the withdrawal of cases was done to prevent him from backing Nawaz during the process of his ouster. Zardari complied and even went against Nawaz, little knowing what the next few weeks would hold for him. With Nawaz side lined, Zardari was back facing the heat.

Investigation into cases involving him had been ongoing for a long time, however nothing could be proved. He even spent years in jail, without being convicted. The sudden decision to place him on the exit control list indicates that he too would be debarred just prior to the voting on 25th July. To further add to the mystery is that the reopening of charges against him have been brought forth in a Suo moto decision of the supreme court. The charges are the same which he had faced earlier. Though investigation against him have been stopped by the supreme court for now, claiming fairness during the election phase, the message is loud and clear. You are no longer the choice for the top post.

This leaves only one contender in the fray, Imran Khan. He was almost wiped out in the last elections, but support from the deep state, whose line he has been towing has revived his fortunes. He has neither questioned the deep state nor supported its detractors. In fact, the deep state employed him to establish a blockade in Islamabad to threaten Nawaz, where he willingly complied. He is now the frontrunner for the post. The fact is that his party would not have the numbers in the national assembly to form a government on its own. It would need to bank on ‘others’.

The ‘others’ that would support him are a multitude of religious and terrorist groups, masquerading as political parties. This year these parties are fielding a record number of 460 candidates for the national assembly in the forthcoming elections. The parties include the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (political wing of the party which led the blockade of Islamabad in Nov last year and was resolved after the intervention by the army. The joint statement thanked the army chief), Hafiz Saeed’s political wing backed Allah-o-Akbar Tehreek and other small parties.

The combination of these parties would erode the vote bank of major political parties ensuring that none can become a powerful force by itself. The MMA, which alone is an alliance of five religious parties would draw in votes on religious grounds as would the other parties. All these so called ‘political parties’ owe their allegiance to the deep state, hence if Imran gets too big for his boots, they would ensure his downfall by just withdrawing support.

To add to the reigning confusion is the dubious role given to the army for the elections including placing serving military personnel inside and outside polling booths and transferring of all election material. Though both the army and the election commission of Pakistan attempted to downplay the role of the army, it is becoming more evident that it would be able to determine the outcome of the elections and possibly has. July 25th would only be a show, with the outcome finalized.

Despite all the power that it holds, the deep state appears to be wary of major political parties, unwilling to risk another Nawaz re-emerging from the elections. It has taken multiple steps to ensure that the next government would be headed by Imran Khan and would have members of multiple religious and terrorist groups, masquerading as political parties, in the coalition. This would ensure that an anti-India chorus would continue in the nation and peace would be far from the horizon, unless Pak’s survival is threatened, which would now be economic as the country’s economy is moving downhill at a rapid pace. However, in Kashmir and along the LoC, it is business as usual.

Indo-Pak views are opposite The Excelsior 11 Jul 18

In an interview to the Dawn newspaper on 05 Jul, Imran Khan, amongst the front runners for the post of PM of Pak stated, ‘Nawaz Sharif tried his best to mend relations with India. Nawaz tried everything, even personal gestures including calling him (Modi) to his house, No one got in his way. But I think it is the policy of the Modi government to try and isolate Pak. They have a very aggressive anti-Pakistan posture.’ His comments convey the general perception of the people of Pak that it was Pak which took the first step.

India’s version has always been that it was PM Modi who undertook the journey on his own initiative, while returning from Afghanistan. The date selected, 25 Dec, also was the birthday of Nawaz and the day of marriage of his grand-daughter. He was severely criticized by the opposition for this move, as Pathankot attack followed soon after.

Similarly, it was Modi who took the initiative of inviting Nawaz for his swearing in. He commenced his governance hoping to break the ice with Pak and recommence talks. Thus, clearly there are opposite perceptions between the two countries.

Similar has been the issue with talks. India has been openly demanding Pak stop supporting anti-terror groups and bring the perpetrators of Mumbai to book prior to even considering commencement of talks. Pak on the other hand has been claiming that India is not desirous to talk on Kashmir, seeks to isolate Pak and is blaming it for its failures to control Kashmir. Pak desires talks while it continues to support terrorist groups operating in Kashmir, while India is clearly against it.

There are two opposite perceptions on supporting terror groups operating in each other’s countries. Pak is of the perception that it is India which is behind the funding and equipping of the TTP and the Baluch movement. It claims its proof is Kulbhushan Jadhav, who has confessed too this act. It is also accusing the peaceful PTM (Pashtun Tahafuz Movement) of receiving backing from India. At the same time, it denies the involvement of the deep state in supporting the insurgency in Kashmir. It has refused to persecute the perpetrators of Mumbai, claiming lack of proof.

India on the other hand has denied any involvement in supporting any terror groups operating in Pak, nor has anything to do with the Baluch militancy or the PTM movement. It claims that it has provided Pak with numerous dossiers containing irrefutable proof of its involvement in the Mumbai attacks. On the other hand, India has accused Pak with supporting militant groups operating in Kashmir. India has been consistently claiming that Kulbhushan Jadhav was kidnapped from Chabahar port where he was conducting legitimate business and he was not an Indian spy.

It was the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which in its monitoring noticed the lack of controls by Pak on curbing terror funding and decided to place Pak into its ‘Grey List’. There is no doubt that India voted against Pak and even promised to back China in its bid to become the Vice Chair of the organization if it drops support to Pak. Pak, on the other hand has been projecting that it was India’s push which forced the US to convince other nations and the organization to proceed to chastise Pak for its failures.

On Kashmir, the perception of the two sides is so different, that convergence is very unlikely. Pakistan considers the present unrest in the valley to be a cry for joining them, despite all cries of locals seeking ‘Azadi’. It has always harped on the implementation of the UN resolution. It has considered terrorists like Burhan Wani to be leaders of the movement and has even praised him in the UN. It has denied funding and infiltrating terrorists. Pak has always requested for international intervention in facilitating talks with India. For them, the integration of Kashmir is the sole reason for their survival.

India has on the other hand always blamed Pakistan for the present condition in the valley. It has considered the Hurriyat to be an anti-national group created and funded by Pak, though has still indicated a desire for talks with it. India would never let the valley accede and has now begun demanding the inclusion of POK and Gilgit Baltistan. In India’s perception, the UN resolution has outlived its time and is no longer valid. India has, since the Shimla agreement stated that the issue remains bilateral and there it will not accept any third-party mediation.

In international relations, for any two nations to move forward in dialogue to resolve pending issues and build consensus for talks, there must be some points of convergence. If between the two nations, there are almost no points of convergence the possibility of any progress in talks is remote. It is this atmosphere of doubt, divergence and distrust between the two nations which would ensure that relations remain cold and distant. Any government which claims that it would seek to mend relations and restore peace between the two countries is only talking out of their hat.

It’s time the US woke up to Pakistan’s games 10 Jul 18

Every time there is a visit to Pak by a senior US representative, the remarks made are the same. Pak must do more for curbing its support to terror groups. It must bring the Taliban onto the negotiating table. It must complete the trial into the Mumbai attacks and prosecute terror group leaders. These remarks have been flowing for years but to no avail. Pak listens, meets, discusses and does nothing. Trump has cut all forms of aid to Pak, passed multiple strictures, but everything remains as it was.

Attacks in Afghanistan continue, so does infiltrating terrorists into Kashmir. UN designated terrorists roam free, collect funds, participate in elections, remain protected by the state, while leaders of the Taliban continue to enjoy state hospitality. The admission by Sartaj Aziz in an open forum in the US that Pak holds influence over the Taliban and Haqqani network has still not resulted in increased US pressures. Pak requests the US to act against the TTP, which it does by Drone strikes, but gets nothing in response.

It continues to enhance its nuclear arsenal, on which the west has always expressed concern, but again the US remains silent. Its links with North Korea in developing nuclear weapons are well established. While North Korea has come under sanctions, Pak remains untouched. It was with immense pressure that Pak was finally placed on the ‘Grey List’ by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

Nothing much may emerge from the Grey List as China would ensure that it is bailed out in a few months. Pak showed its arrogance to the world by lifting the ban on a known terror group, Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, and its leader, Maulana Ahmed Ludhianvi a few hours before FATF was to meet. A few days before the meeting, global terrorist Hafiz Saeed launched his election campaign. Yet this was ignored by the US and FATF.

Is US pressure lacking because of Chinese support to the country or because it still believes and hopes Pak would act in Afghanistan? The truth possibly remains within.

The US is aware that Pak has a dubious record of supporting terror groups. It has ignored all world rulings on acting against them. While it keeps terrorists, who target Afghanistan hidden, prevents them from openly displaying their presence before the international community, it brazenly allows anti-India terror groups to move freely. It has been regularly reported by Afghanistan that terror attacks in the country have been planned in Pak. The presence of serving Pak army personnel alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan is well established.

Pak does so not because it fears the powers of the US but because it has, as a policy, taken advantage of US dependence on Pak soil for its operations in Afghanistan. It is aware that the US would never impose sanctions but would only threaten, neither bite nor hit Pak for its actions. It would do as it has been doing over the years, expect Pak to act, send in its senior civil and military advisers, desiring Pak’s support, but refuse to impose any conditions. The comments to multiple US senate committees by senior members of the government has always been, ‘we expect Pak to do more, we are engaging with it’.

At present due to US’s poor relations with Russia, support from countries surrounding Afghanistan cannot be taken. This has benefitted Pak. US-Iran relations moving downhill has again blocked any other avenue for the US to engage hostile forces in Afghanistan. Iran as an enemy of the US would now join Pak in supporting the Taliban.

Support from China would ensure that Pak is never chastised internationally, protected from sanctions and free to continue supporting terror as a matter of state policy. China blocking the designation of Azar Masood as a global terrorist and blocking Indian entry into the NSG, unless Pak is also included, are clear examples. The US has accused Iran of supporting terror groups in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, but never accused Pak of doing the same in Afghanistan and India. Thus, clearly the US is biased towards Iran for ulterior motives.

There have been multiple reports of the US being concerned about Pak’s nuclear assets falling into hands of terrorist groups. The US is also said to have conducted war games on how to secure these assets before they fall into terrorist group hands. With such groups now fighting elections and the manner in which the internal situation in Pak is unfolding, they would soon become a part of the government. If they do, then surely, the chances of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups is very likely.

It has been almost two decades since the US invaded Afghanistan but has been unable to succeed solely because Pak has refused to act against terror groups operating from its soil. Till Trump came to power, the US provided aid to Pak, which was channelled to support those very groups which targeted Afghanis and US personnel in the country.

Pak’s excuse has always been that it has suffered maximum casualties in battling terror, but those it is fighting are its own nationals whom it has alienated. They are not Afghanis nor Indians. The TTP (Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan) rose post the attack on the Lal Masjid, while the Baluchi nationalists have been compelled to take up arms due to atrocities.

This does not justify it stopping terrorist groups who operate in other neighbouring countries. Unless US pressure increases manifold, Pak comes under sanctions, its military hierarchy comes under US travel ban, Pak would continue as hither to fore. It would promise, listen to US leaders who visit, but do nothing. It would continue taking the US for a ride. It is time the US wakes upto realities and decides to enhance pressure.

Upcoming Pak general elections legitimize terror groups ORF 03 Jul 18

During the week when the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) was meeting to place Pakistan on the ‘Grey or Black List’ and the interim finance minister was presenting his case seeking every means of avoiding it, actions within the country were conveying a different message. Whether the actions were deliberate or accidental means little, since they did convey the message. It may have been ignored by FATF for now, but would be noted for the future, when Pak comes before it again.

Hours before the FATF was to meet, Pak lifted a ban on a Sunni extremist outfit, Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat and unlocked assets of its chief, Maulana Ahmed Ludhianvi. The order was issued by the Pak National Counter Terrorism Authority. This removal came as a surprise, as international pressure mounts on Pak to act against terror groups. Some members of his group would now be contesting the forthcoming elections for both, provincial and national assembly.

Days before the FATF meeting, Hafiz Saeed, the mastermind behind the Mumbai attacks and an internationally designated global terrorist, launched his party’s campaign for the coming elections. Since his own party, Milli Muslim League (MML) was banned from contesting elections, Hafiz launched the same from the platform of a defunct fifteen-year-old party, which remains registered with the election commission, Allah-o-Akbar Tehreek. It would field over 200 candidates, including the son and son-in-law of Hafiz Saeed for both the provincial and national assembly elections.

On the other hand, genuine politicians belonging to Nawaz Sharif’s PML (N) are being disqualified for multiple and miniscule reasons. Nawaz has been banned for life and presently battling multiple cases before the National Accountability Bureau, while Abbasi who replaced him has been disallowed to contest again on flimsy grounds. Abbasi’s appeal has been upheld by the high court, which would be hearing the case shortly. Its final decision is pending.

In addition, there are many other stalwarts of the party banned for multiple reasons. The claims being made by politicians of PML (N) in rallies is that the army is behind this move as it visualizes the party to be a threat to its power. The most vocal critic of the army and the judiciary, which has joined hands with the army, has been Nawaz himself. His criticism created such panic within the system that the Pakistan Chief Justice barred the press from publishing reports on Nawaz’s comments.

The interim government has little to no control. Despite multiple appeals and reports, the Dawn newspaper, which printed anti-army reports, including an interview with Nawaz remains banned across various regions of the country. Journalists and bloggers have either been killed, kidnapped or their laptops stolen, pressurizing them from speaking against the deep state, which has apart from its normal terror groups now included the top judiciary.

Based on directions of the election commission, the army would now be deployed within and around all polling stations. No polling official in his right mind would dare challenge any action being taken by army soldiers deployed within the polling booth. This implies that the army now has the power to determine the next government at the centre and in crucial states.

The Pak DGISPR (Director General Inter Services Public Relations) has been regularly harping on the views of their army chief, aptly termed the Bajwa doctrine. Based on the manner Pak is moving forward with its elections, the Bajwa doctrine should include a special column on national governance. This column should cover the unwritten message being sent to all politicians and political parties for eternity. If you even try and question or interfere with the aims, desires and power of the army, you would be facing multiple cases, genuine or fabricated remains a mute question.

While there may be international observers, but very clearly the message has already been conveyed to all contesting. You tamper with the deep state, you would never get a level playing field. This has been made openly evident. It is evident in the case of the PML (N). On the other hand, all cases against Zardari were dropped in end 2017, opening doors for him becoming a possible next PM. Imran Khan, who also faced an enquiry on similar grounds as Nawaz has been cleared.

Hence, the two leading contenders, Imran Khan and Zardari have suddenly begun toeing the army line, despite the army having been behind the assassination of Benazir. They are both aware of how the army toppled the PML (N) government in Baluchistan and would not desire the same. Imran was used by the army as a stooge to stage lockdowns of Islamabad to increase pressure on Nawaz.

The support being provided to terrorist groups masquerading as political parties and religious political parties to enable them to participate in the elections is a threat to mainstream political parties. Simultaneously, the Awami Nationalist Party, which could pose a threat from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa would be impacted. The support by the deep state to religious and terrorist groups contesting elections would determine the formation of governments at the provinces and centre.

Despite all its controls, the army still does not trust main stream politicians. Once in power, they could change colours and suddenly become a threat, requiring the army to once again adopt ingenious methods to dislodge them. Therefore, it has increased direct support to religious and terrorist groups now participating in elections.

It would aim to ensure that no single political party comes to power on its own majority and must seek the backing of those parties, religious or state sponsored terrorist groups, who owe their survival to the deep state and are propped up by them. This will ensure that even if a political leader even dreams of meandering off course, he could be easily discarded. It gave a small example of that in Baluchistan this year, when it broke the PML (N) majority government, days before elections to the Pak upper house.

Post 2018, the deep state’s control over the country would be complete. The government would remain under the army chief’s thumb and no PM would ever be able to challenge their writ.

Pak elections: too close and yet too far CENJOWS 13 Jun 18

Pak has moved into the election mode, with an interim government in place. Elections are scheduled for 25 Jul. Almost all political parties have stated that they would not allow elections to be delayed or postponed. This was aimed at sending a message to the deep state to prevent it from considering any tricks to continue with the present arrangement. The mystery would remain till they are held. The irony is that every political party is expecting postponement of elections for unknown reasons. It is only in Pakistan that politicians do not trust its own state institutions, whether it be their army or their courts.

From the day the interim government was sworn in, hiccups began. The Lahore High Court based on a PIL directed that nomination forms be amended to include additional details. This sparked a fear that there are attempts to derail the election process. The Pakistan supreme court came to the rescue and cancelled the high court’s orders but added that an affidavit would need to be filed by candidates with details missing in nomination forms. Thus, one hurdle was cleared. The judgement by the high court was announced a day after the interim government came into place.

JuD, a terrorist organization, banned by the US and even Pakistan has announced its decision to field 200 candidates for the forthcoming polls, under the banner of a dormant political party, ‘Allaha-u-Akbar Tehreek, though its leader, Hafiz Saeed, who carries a bounty of USD $10 Million, will not contest. Pak had also issued directions banning the public from donating funds to the JuD. It is only in Pakistan that a banned group is supported by the army to contest national polls, on the banner of a dormant party.

Nawaz has been banned for life by the supreme court from holding any political office including that in his party for not being honest and righteous. He is being pushed to the corner, with the resignation of his lawyer.

At the same time, the same court has allowed Musharraf to contest elections, despite him facing charges of murder and treason. It has even stated, that though he remains a proclaimed offender, he would not be arrested on arrival, if he comes to attend court hearings. His cancelled passport and national ID has been restored. The message going out to all politicians and political parties in Pak is clear. Tamper with the deep state and you can be banned for life or even jailed. Support them or be a retired general and despite all your crimes, you are immune from arrest and would be protected.

In election rallies across the globe criticism of the government, its policies and failures are invariably raised. However, when these rallies criticise policies which impact the deep state, the speeches are termed as ‘hate speeches against state institutions’. The government of South Waziristan has banned all gatherings, rallies and processions to be held in the tribal region for a month. This is the region where the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) is dominant. The aim is to target only one ethnic group, the Pashtuns.

In any normal nation, the armed forces maintain a distance from politics and political parties, especially as elections draw close. Media criticism increases so do political comments. The DG ISPR firstly congratulated the national assembly for completing its term, then went on to add a warning to journalists commenting against the deep state. Few journalists have even been picked up and released, leaving them so traumatized that they refuse to comment on the incident. In addition, the press is warned to stay away from state institutions including the deep state.

The army has a significant role to play in the elections. It has ensured that Nawaz is side lined, his party has been pushed against the wall. The PML (N) is aware that it has almost no chance of coming back to power. Hence, even the ex-PM, Abbasi sits alongside him in courts and press conferences. Within the nation there are already quiet rumblings. Experts across the globe have been pointing out that there are ‘fears of whether the upcoming elections would be free and fair’.

Even within Pak, Senator Dashti stated to a German broadcaster, DW, ‘The army will not leave any stone unturned to keep Sharif out. In short, the military establishment does not accept the supremacy of civilian political parties in Pakistan because they want to call the shots in the country.’ Can the elections be fair?

Probably the army would have already decided whom it desires to be the next Prime Minister. The game was between two, Imran Khan and Zardari. Imran has suddenly gained prominence with the proposed release of a book by his ex-wife, Reham Khan, highlighting weaknesses in his character, excerpts of which have been leaked. Legal notices may have been sent, but the damage has been done. Thus, the army would now be closing in on Zardari, against whom all corruption charges were suddenly dropped at the end of last year, despite them being far greater than that of Nawaz. It is almost a pre-decided election.

The decision of adhering to the 2003 ceasefire with India was announced by their army, a day after the interim government took office. The selection of the timing was aimed at sending a message to India. Talk to us, not to any political authority, if you desire to seek peace. After all, presently there is no political authority. The interim government is only there in name.

Elections in any democracy are closely watched and commented upon, as friends and foes seek a favourable government. In Pak, doubts exist on even whether they would be held on time, and if held, are the results pre-decided. The world is also aware, that despite any party coming to power, the reins would remain with the deep state. At the end of the day, it would be an exercise which would cost the state exchequer an amount it can ill afford, with no change in the state’s policies and its domination by the army.

India would keenly observe elections in neighbouring countries, seeking a favourable government assumes power. In the case of Pakistan, it would make no difference. Zardari or Imran, irrespective of the new PM, it is the army which would call the shots. It has already sent a message to India, by proposing adherence to the ceasefire. If India desires to talk, then it must engage with the army chief. Will it take the bait?

Pak deep state: Fire from within CENJOWS 31 May 18

The world always knew that the Pak deep state ruled the country from behind, was responsible for implementing employment of terror groups as part of state policy, had hidden Osama Bin Laden next to a major military training centre in Abbottabad and was openly flaunting and supporting international terrorists, Hafiz Saeed and Azar Masood. Everyone was also aware that the Taliban and Haqqani network operate only with the approval of the ISI and their every action is planned and coordinated in Pak. Their army was also behind rampant disappearances and random killings of its own nationals in North West Pak and POK.

No one in his right senses in Pak would ever openly condemn or criticize them. Those who attempted were either eliminated, vanished into wilderness never to be heard off again or disappeared for days and on return began singing a different tune. Ex-Pak ambassador Husain Haqqani, a known critic is in the US, aware that even if he ventures into a region, where Pak has influence, he would vanish. Taha Siddiqui, a journalist who criticized the army was beaten up and narrowly escaped abduction by the goons of the deep state. He now lives in constant fear.

The release of the ‘Dawn Leaks’, which was criticism of the deep state’s policy of employing terrorist organizations to push forward national agenda by their Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, led to serious retribution in Pak. The columnist was placed on the exit control list, the civilian government brought to its knees with a minister resigning and the newspaper itself threatened. Its recent publication of Nawaz’s interview led to it being banned in specific regions.

Suddenly there has been a spurt of critics, who have come out of the closet, either pushed to the wall or have felt that truth needs to be out. Each one has targeted the deep state openly, thereby revealing to the world the dark truth behind the activities of the deep state.

The first has been the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), led by its charismatic leader, Manzoor Pashteen. The movement is aimed, as stated by its leader Manzoor, ‘To expose what the army is doing against us’. As per the New York Times, this movement is doing the unthinkable in Pak, ‘openly accusing the powerful and popular military establishment of being ‘oppressors’ who kill or whisk away Pashtuns by the thousands’. Its criticism has hurt the army’s reputation and opened a pandora’s box of forced disappearances and torture. The army has been unable to challenge the criticism as it has no answers.

Hence, the movement has faced national blackout and editors have reported that any attempt to publish news on the rallies of the PTM or editorials concerning them has been blocked by the army. All attempts to thwart the movement without employing force have failed, including flooding a proposed rally ground with sewage water.

The deep state is hesitant to employ force as the movement has gained international standing due to effective use of social media. Their army chief even stated that the movement is an ‘engineered protest threatening to reverse counter terrorism efforts by the military’. Pak has regularly claimed a foreign hand is behind this movement, implying India, and has set up a counter movement termed Pakistan Zindabad Movement.

The next to jump on the bandwagon of critics is Nawaz Sharif, who in an interview to the Dawn stated that Mumbai attackers were from Pakistan and questioned why the trial of the accused had not been completed to date. He also claimed that Pak had isolated itself and its voice was unheeded amongst the international community. These comments immensely impacted the deep state that it asked for a meeting of their National Security Council. A statement issued post the meeting read ‘The participants unanimously rejected the allegations and condemned the fallacious assertions.’

Everyone, who is someone in the political circles jumped to criticize Nawaz for his comments and gain brownie points from the army. The Prime Minister and Nawaz’s brother and successor Shahbaz claimed he was quoted out of context. He was even threatened to be tried under treason charges. Nawaz dismissed his critics claiming that his comments were correct and factual.

The latest to be accused of going against the deep state is the ex-head of the ISI, Lt Gen Durrani. He alongside former Indian RAW chief, AS Dulat co-authored a book titled, ‘The spy chronicles: RAW, ISI and the illusion of peace.’ In the book, Durrani and Dulat share views and the involvement of the Pak deep state in protecting Osama and establishing the Hurriyat in Kashmir.

The book has again rattled the deep state, such that Durrani has been summoned to the GHQ to explain ‘his position on the views attributed by him’. The army added, ‘his action is a violation of the military code of conduct, applicable on all serving and retired military personnel’. Adding fuel to fire was Nawaz Sharif, who claimed that his comments led to the army asking for a meeting of the NSC, why has it kept silent now. He, as also senators cutting across party lines, openly criticized Durrani for his comments.

This sudden increase in criticism, opening doors on aspects which the Pak army has always kept suppressed even from its own populace, comes at a time when Pak is facing greater international isolation. There can never be better proof than one flowing from within, especially since most of those who have spoken have indepth knowledge on the topics they have raised. The fact that even the PTM is justified and has shaken the deep state is proved by the media blackout being imposed on them.

Pak is presently heading for being placed on the ‘Grey List’ by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). This sudden spurt of internal revelations should now lead to it being placed in the ‘Black List’ alongside North Korea, as also greater international isolation. The US should lead the way for imposing sanctions on the leadership of the Pak army and its business organizations for supporting and abetting terror in the region. India should exploit these comments in multiple international forums, especially when Pak raises Kashmir, to expose their underbelly. Diplomatically, it cannot let this opportunity go.

Pakistan’s LoC ceasefire move: A ploy to avoid FATF blacklisting? The Quint 31 May 18

In a hot-line conversation on Tuesday, the scheduled day for talks each week, Indo-Pak Director General’s of Military Operations, ‘agreed to fully implement the ceasefire understanding of 2003 in letter and spirit forthwith.’ A near identical statement was issued which stated that both sides, ‘agreed to ensure that henceforth the ceasefire will not be violated. In case of any issue restraint will be exercised and the matter will be resolved through utilization of existing mechanisms of hotline contacts and border flag meetings.’

No joint statement was issued as both sides adopt different terminologies for the border. While India terms the Jammu border as the IB, Pak terms it as the ‘working boundary. As per Indian details, in 2017 there were 860 ceasefire violations and this year there have been 908 so far. Pak figures are 1,813 ceasefire violations in 2017 and 1,321 this year. Both sides normally blame the other for the violations. However, for once in Jan this year, the Indian army chief, General Rawat stated ceasefire violations are being initiated by the Indian army along the LoC as part of counter terrorism actions targeting those Pak posts, which abet infiltration.

Two questions rise. Firstly, why did Pak choose this time to request for a ceasefire? Secondly, will it hold or is only a means to gain time?

Why did Pak choose this time? This aspect is all the more surprising as Pak has not succeeded in large scale infiltration into Kashmir, wherein it could sit back and let the infiltrated militants continue to burn the valley, while it watches. It is slowly losing its hold in the valley as the movement is now being run by locals, rather than Pak exported terrorists. The image of the Hurriyat, which is its creation has been dented by the revelations of Durrani, claiming it was established, guided, funded and supported by the ISI.

While Indian retaliation has been stronger than Pak and damages to their side have been immense, including local population, this is not the first time such a situation has occurred. While the initial ceasefire in 2003 held for a few years, its deterioration has been evident since 2016. Hence, the reasons may be different.

31st May is the handing over of the reins of the nation to an interim government for conduct of elections. This sets in motion the process of elections to establish a new government. Elections in Pak are in Jul, the conduct and “MANIPULATION” of which remains the responsibility of the deep state. In all probability, the next PM would already have been decided by the army chief. He can only opt between Zardari and Imran, with Zardari emerging as the dark horse. Elections imply movement of troops from multiple locations to the interiors, hence could lead to a reduction in force levels, which needs a ceasefire.

Jun is the meeting of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to determine whether Pak is placed in the ‘Grey’ or ‘Black’ list for supporting terror groups. Unless it indicates a change in its approach to its neighbours, it is headed for the ‘Black’ list. It would need to display a reduction in support to militant groups. What better way than reduced infiltration due to a ceasefire.

Rains are approaching. Pak posts would have been damaged immensely by strong retaliation. It would need to rebuild them, which it cannot do, unless peace reins. While it may have militants to cross, it can afford to delay the same till it is ready to recommence firing. For India, a peaceful LoC implies easier monitoring for infiltration, while an active LoC divides attention of troops.

China too would have been prodding Pak for improving relations with India. After all its investments in Pak are immense and unless relations are normal, they would always remain under threat. The pressure would have been more applied on the Pak army, rather than the civilian government, as the date announced by Pak seems to indicate.

With no civil government worth the name in Pak in situ from today, the only available element for talks is the Pak army, which would continue to dominate the scene despite whoever they make as the puppet PM. Hence, Pak could be conveying the message General Bajwa, their army chief, is open to dialogue to resolve Indo-Pak issues. India is unlikely to bite the bait for multiple reasons of its own.

Firstly, it is against Indian government policy, to talk to the Pak army, as it is unwilling to give similar importance to its own forces. Its High Commissioner in Islamabad is possibly the only one who has not called on the army chief, while every other nation’s representative has. The mention by Dulat, the former Indian head of Raw and co-author of the book, The Spy Chronicles, that India must invite the Pak army chief, to India has merit.

Secondly, India would also be moving into the 2019 election mode, hence the government would be unwilling to risk dialogue, fearing a failure. India would never consider a meeting between the army chiefs of India and Pak in a neutral venue as it has always kept the Indian army well away from diplomacy. Finally, based on past experiences, the Indian government has never trusted the Pak deep state.

The declared ceasefire has a rider, which needs to be considered. The statement, ‘In case of any issue restraint will be exercised’, has multiple meanings. In an emergency, to push through militants, Pak may suddenly act. India is then supposed to exercise restraint and employ communication lines to open dialogue, which it may not, as opening fire is an indicator of infiltration.

The other issue emerging is whether the ceasefire would hold? Logically, it would hold for the moment, because of the reasons listed above. Probably, it would hold till end Jul, as by then the new government would be in place and the army is back to its normal routine. The FATF decision would also have been implemented either way. Pak would also be hoping that in the meanwhile, India takes the bait and suggests a move forward in talks involving their army chief. China too may now quietly prod Delhi to take advantage and seek a lasting solution.

Will the government of India read the signs and take advantage of the scenario remains a mute question? Fear of failure and talking to a uniformed entity would impact the government’s views. If it ignores the signs, then it may another missed opportunity. However, either decision is fraught with political risk.

Nawaz Sharif battling alone (English Version) Amar Ujala 31 May 18

Nawaz Sharif is possibly the only Prime Minister of Pakistan who views relations with neighbouring countries from a different prism. He had always believed that the only way forward for Pak’s economic development was to enhance ties with its neighbours and stop support to terror groups. For him, economic development and talks was better than a national policy of ‘supporting state terrorism’. He was willing to challenge the counter thought process of the deep state on this subject.

However, for the deep state he crossed their red line and thus had to go. The army knew that days of coups are over. The world would never permit it, sanctions would come hard and fast and even China may not be able to come to its rescue. This is where an added element to the deep state waded in, the Pak supreme court.

Presently, Nawaz fights multitude of cases and in every forum, those nominated to prosecute him are those who are his sworn enemies. Therefore, his political career is at an end, unless the polity in Pak wakes up to the fact that it needs to pull away the powers which the supreme court has grabbed on its own initiative. There are announcements that the court is stepping on the toes of the legislative, but no concrete action is being taken.

The infamous ‘Dawn Leaks’ of Oct 2016, where the deep state was informed of increasing international pressure mounting on the nation demanding for more action against militant groups by Nawaz, stirred a hornet’s nest within senior military ranks and they threatened the government. The words in the Dawn were, ‘The civilian government informed the military leadership of growing international isolation of Pak and sought consensus on several key actions by the state.’

The leaks led to an internal inquiry leading to the resignation of the information minister, Pervaiz Rasheed. In addition, was a series of meetings between the then army chief, Raheel Sharif, and the PM. Delegations of the ruling party met and pacified the army chief that they were not responsible. The future of the government was at stake. The issue finally died down and Nawaz breathed a sigh of relief.

The present army chief, General Bajwa, took no chances and at the first opportunity had the supreme court remove Nawaz Sharif from power, despite Nawaz appointing him. The reasons for his removal and banning him for life were announced even before a judgement has been delivered and he was found guilty. All because he was keen to re-kickstart dialogue with India and pull back the deep state’s support to terror groups.

Musharraf, the army chief during Kargil, the only individual in international history, to convert defeat into victory, losing Kargil and becoming a victorious dictator and subsequently president of the country and now a fugitive on treason charges, joined the bandwagon of critics. He blamed Nawaz for the withdrawal in Kargil, ignoring world knowledge that Pak army chiefs have never listened to their Prime Minister’s. Such is the tradition in Pak that Nawaz’s convoy, taking him for his swearing in ceremony in 2013 as Prime Minister for the third time, was stopped to let the army chief’s convoy pass. Clearly, it is evident, who calls the shots in the country.

His present comments, again in an interview to the Dawn, on Pak based and supported terror groups have once again shaken the deep state. Nawaz admitted that the Mumbai attackers had been launched from Pak and questioned why the deep state was not permitting the trial of the main accused, Hafiz Saeed, to conclude.

His words, which irked the deep state were, ‘Militant organizations are active. Call them non-state actors, should we allow them to cross the border and kill 150 people in Mumbai? Why can’t we complete the trial?’ He accused the deep state directly when he stated that Pak’s security and foreign policies ‘have isolated ourselves’. He added, Afghanistan’s narrative is being accepted, ours is not.

The army responded by asking the Prime Minister to call a meeting of the National Security Committee (NSC) to counter the comments made by Nawaz Sharif. Post the meeting, everyone in Pak jumped to counter Nawaz, most claiming he was incorrect in his comments. Even the Prime Minister stated that he had been misquoted in the media. His own brother and now head of the party stated that Nawaz would issue a denial and misquote.

Nawaz however stuck to his guns, claiming he was disappointed by the NSC comments. The fact that he spoke the truth and was sticking to it caused such panic that the government blocked further publication of the newspaper. It was the same paper which faced the brunt after the ‘Dawn leaks’.

In India and the west, the press had a field day. The quotes from Nawaz were interpreted as an admission of guilt from the former head of state. It proved beyond doubt that Pak is a state sponsor of terror. There were fears within Pak that India could approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the issue. Thus, to divert the issue, Pak blamed India for the Mumbai attacks and for delay in concluding the trial of the same.

In Pak, it is presently Nawaz who fights alone. The control of the deep state on the polity is such that none dare challenge their might. Nawaz had realized that enmity and adopting terrorism as a state policy would damage Pak, its internal fabric and international standing. He was willing to take the first step forward to resolve issues, but the deep state would have none of it.

In this scenario, it is evident that Nawaz would soon be convicted and moved behind bars. The Saudi government would move in, broker peace and whisk him away to safety. The main loser would be the country. His aim was to open eyes of the nation and those who have blindly followed the deep state, that Pak is moving down a dangerous path of self-destruction. If the common Pakistani understands, pressure would mount on the deep state, if he remains cowed down, Pak would move faster down the path of self-destruction. However, no matter how much he is cornered, Nawaz would never go down without a fight and the fight would dent the image of the deep state.

Is Pak army chief’s offer for talks serious? ORF 23 May 18

The Pak army chief had recently stated during the passing out parade at the Pakistan Military Academy, ‘It is our sincere belief that the route to peaceful resolution of Indo-Pak disputes, including the core issues of Kashmir, can be found through comprehensive and meaningful dialogue.’ He added, ‘While such dialogue is no favour to any party, it remains the inevitable precursor to peace across the region. Pakistan remains committed to such a dialogue, but only on the basis of sovereign equality, dignity and honour.’

This is the second time when he has made such a statement. The first was when he addressed the senate in Dec last year. On that occasion he stated, ‘The military is ready to back political leadership’s initiative for normalization of relations with India.’ This is possibly the first time a serving Pak army chief has made multiple comments on talks with India, especially when their army’s power stems from enmity with India and Indian threats. Most military chiefs on assuming dictatorships or becoming presidents seek to initiate talks with India, not in the Chief’s capacity.

Addressing a group of visiting South Asian journalists, the Pak army spokesperson, General Ghafoor, echoed their chief’s words, stating that the army is ready to formally inject itself into any dialogue process with India. He went on to state that there was a trust deficit between the two countries and the time had come to move forward. He stated that SAARC could be the most effective forum, if it could be revived. Pak has been raising the SAARC bogey recently, as the organization remains in cold storage since India, supported by close allies, refused to attend the meet in Islamabad in 2016. His words matching those of his chief, were aimed at conveying the message, hoping India takes the first step.

The Pak army has been blaming India for all their ills, whether it is their homegrown terror group, TTP, uprising in Baluchistan and FATA or the current US approach to them. Even the rising PTM movement, though peaceful, is being accused of India backing. For them Indian presence in Afghanistan is an anathema. They have never shown any change in outlook towards India, whether it be reducing support to international terrorists who head anti-India groups, reducing infiltration, ceasefire violations or controlling funding to the Hurriyat.

General Bajwa’s comment that such a dialogue can only be on the basis of dignity and honour is laid bare by simultaneous anti-India actions. India’s stand has not wavered since Modi undertook the Lahore visit and was rewarded by Pathankot. India has stood by its statement that ‘talks and terror’ cannot go hand in hand. India would remain adamant and it can afford to.

India has the LoC and Kashmir insurgency fairly under control. The appointment of an interlocutor and declaration of a ceasefire during Ramazan indicates the confidence within the government of controlling the situation.

Pak on the other hand is facing an increased threat from the rapidly growing PTM movement and unending TTP attacks. In addition is the poor state of its economy, push by China to resolve its issues with India, growing conventional disparity and increasing Indian footprint in Afghanistan. Indian refusal to join the Belt Road Initiative (BRI) reduces income to the CPEC, adding to Pak’s economic deficits. International pressure continues to mount on Pak to do more against terror groups and resolve issues with India. Therefore, India remains on strong ground.

Over the years, India too has continuously been making errors in its foreign policy approach. Firstly, it has always engaged the Pak civilian leadership, hoping it would reign in the deep state. This has never happened, the result being a terror strike, every time some progress appears on the horizon. Secondly, while every nation engages the Pak army chief, aware that he holds all the cards, India ignores him. The reason for India ignoring is possibly avoiding giving similar importance to its own army chief.

Thirdly, India has always adopted a civilian dominated foreign policy ignoring military diplomacy. Thus, the true seat of power in Pak has never been interacted with nor addressed. Enabling military delegations to meet at a neutral venue enhancing military to military contacts, may break the deadlock between the two countries. However, bureaucrats fearing success in military diplomacy would prefer marring relations with Pak, rather than risking it.

In the present instance, the government has failed to realize that both, General Bajwa and General Rawat had served simultaneously in the same mission in Congo. While General Rawat commanded the North Kivu Brigade, General Bajwa commanded the South Kivu Brigade. Both were under India’s ex-army chief, General Bikram Singh, hence would know one another.

India is being cautious as it has been bitten by Pak on multiple occasions. Further, with elections due in 2019, any attempts to initiate dialogue with Pak, if countered by a terror strike would impact the standing of the present government and be exploited by the opposition. Therefore, it has not commented on the offer of the Pak army chief. The offer did receive support from the PDP and NC leadership. While the two NSAs remain in contact, there has been no further progress.

With India declaring a unilateral ceasefire in Kashmir, if Pak was serious, then it should have announced the same and compelled its surrogate terror groups to reciprocate. Such an action would have conveyed the message that its intentions are genuine, compelling India to take note. On the contrary, the first few days of Ramadan witnessed heightened ceasefire violations leading to civilian casualties on both sides.

Pak must enhance mutual confidence, as India impacted by past experiences, is unwilling to accept mere words, even if they flow from their army chief. Unless there are positive indicators from Pak, nothing would change. India would continue to rise economically, while Pak would flounder. India can afford to enhance military power, Pak can only do so at the risk of further harming its economy. Thus, India would always remain in the driver’s seat.

CPEC as an internal threat to Pak The Excelsior 18 May 18

A senior Pak lawyer has approached their supreme court to stop sale of land on propriety rights to Chinese nationals on grounds of the CPEC. He has claimed in his petition that Chinese citizens have been granted relaxations and have been acquiring land on the pretext of CPEC and its co-related projects. This action violates the sovereignty of Pak as foreign nationals acquire Pak property. He also stated the duplicity followed by the Chinese who were being granted visa without any preconditions to visit Pak, while Pak businessmen faced hurdles when they desired to visit China.

As per the lawyer, locals of Pak had begun comparing the CPEC to the British East India Company, which led to British occupation of India. He even questioned the agreement stating it had many flaws and was one-sided. This petition comes on the heels of the Pak government requesting the Supreme Court not to issue stay orders in respect of CPEC projects, based on a Chinese request.

Pak has presently been sucked too deep into the CPEC to withdraw without being stuck with payments beyond their means. This has been common for all nations which have fallen into the Chinese debt trap. Sri Lanka has even ordered an internal inquiry into why the nation has invested in projects which have been a failure, leaving the nation deep in debt. Pak, which has always supported the CPEC, claiming it to be a miracle for the nation, may in the years ahead, post falling into the debt trap, follow suit and those presently in power, blamed for leading the nation down the hill.

For Pak, the CPEC was doomed to fail. The agreements ensured all construction was to be done by Chinese companies employing Chinese labour. Gwadar is a sole Chinese financed and operated entity. Its power projects are Chinese owned and run. Pak is to pay back by collecting dues which the Chinese fix. In South Asia, large quantum of electricity is stolen and unaccounted for. Pak is no better. Thus, it would be the state which would pay the burden.

Pak would have gained some revenue from Chinese vehicles operating along the CPEC, but that move has been blocked by China. Gwadar earnings would be 90% to China and 10% to Pak. Thus, for Pak to muster annual payments appears to be a dream. Pak has now begun to realize that it is now moving deeper into Chinese control.

The recent decision by Pak to stall signing the second phase of the free trade agreement and the cancelling of the Daimer-Basha dam project is a case in point. The free trade agreement was delayed based on protests by the business community which realized that the industry would be severely impacted, and the dam cancelled due to hyper strict conditions being imposed by China.

With no other nation in the region joining the BRI, there would not be any additional revenue generation for Pak, assisting in its repayment. Thus, Pak would need to generate funds from within to pay back China, which in its present economic state appears difficult. Pak would soon face a new East India company, albeit with a different name.

The Pak public has begun to realize that its leaders, both political and military have led Pak into becoming a Chinese colony, in every sense. This court case is the first, others would follow, and the reality would soon begin to dawn. However, neither the courts nor the public would be able to change the situation in any way. Stopping further sale of land or preventing further investments would only add to Pak’s burden. The nation has low foreign exchange reserves, leading to a bailout being offered by the UAE.

China on the other hand refused to advance any further loans to Pak, pushing it deeper into crises. It is exploiting the current turmoil in Pak. By supporting the army with military hardware and technology to counter their obsession with India, as also backing it in international forums by preventing the UN from designating their strategic assets like Masood Azar being termed international terrorists, it has ensured minimum criticism from within. Since it has army backing, very few can afford to challenge its plans.

The Pak supreme court and army have been working hand in glove, as the permanent ouster of Nawaz Sharif has shown. Hence, if the army backs the CPEC, the court, despite knowing that the nation is being taken for a ride, would have no alternative but to follow the army diktat.

China awaits Pak’s failure to repay, before it begins seeking strategic assets and untapped mineral wealth in Baluchistan in lieu. The day it does so, Baluchistan would explode in flames, as the PTM movement indicates. It has played its cards well, now it would await the fruits of its plans from a nation which it has devoured like the East India Company did to India.

Pak’s Pashtun headache CENJOWS 08 May 18

The Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) rose from the extra judicial killing of a young Pashtun man by a police team led by Rao Anwar in Karachi early this year. From its humble start, it has marched on and threatened the power of the most powerful institution of the country, its army. Its largest rally was in Peshawar where it drew tens of thousands of supporters, despite a complete media ban, employing social media. Its young leader, Manzoor Pashteen, has become a household name in the country. It has subsequently held a rally in Lahore and has proposed the next in Karachi this week.

The movement takes its roots from the FATA regions of Pak, which is one of the world’s most significant regions. It borders Afghanistan and has only seen turmoil since 2011. Operations against selected militants by the Pak army have turned the region into a war zone and displaced millions, alongside extra judicial killings and forced disappearances. The movement has also gained support from the Afghan President and the lawmakers of the Mesharano Jirga, the Afghan upper house of Parliament, also wore the traditional cap of Pashtuns in solidarity.

The major demands of the PTM as enunciated by Manzoor post the arrest of Rao Anwar, include his hanging, establishment of a judicial commission to investigate extrajudicial killings of Pakhtun’s, presenting missing persons in court, release of innocents, lifting of curfew in FATA, stopping torture of locals and clearance of mines. Most of those who form part of the rally carry with them placards with photos of those missing.

The sudden rise of this movement has rattled the army to the extent that their army chief commented that the protests by the PTM are ‘engineered’ and it would not be allowed to undo the so-called gains of military operations. Arrests, threatening its leaders and media blackouts have all failed to deter the protestors. Police actions against its leaders, prior to its rallies went viral on social media impacting the army’s image. The army, as per Pak media, based on a request from the PTM agreed to hold talks to help diffuse the situation, well before the movement gained steam.

Talks brokered by the DG ISPR were held between delegations of the PTM and the General Officer Commanding’s of North and South Waziristan respectively in mid Feb. Initially, it did appear that the talks were making progress, subsequently, they bogged down. As per Pak newspaper reports, the Pak army opines that the ‘PTM is increasing its demands and that there are elements of uncertainty and unpredictability in its approach’. The PTM on the other hand remains distrustful of the army.

Even a Jirga constituted by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Governor has not moved forward. The main sticking points remain two, removal of left over mines and missing persons. In both cases the army is unwilling to relent, either claiming it has not laid mines or seeks lists of missing, to delay action.

With elections now around the corner, political parties have begun jumping into the bandwagon, realizing that a word from PTM leaders can swing votes in their favour. The two major political parties, the ruling PML-N and the main opposition party, PPP have both voiced their support for the movement. Their leaders, Maryam Nawaz and Bilawal Bhutto have stated that protesting against oppression and excesses should be permitted. Imran initially supported them but witnessing the army approach has backed out.

A newly formed counter-PTM movement termed as Pakistan Zindabad Movement (PZM) took out counter rallies against the PTM. It has claimed that the PTM is a force working against the security forces and the state. PZM organizers, towing the line of the Pak army and possibly created by it, claim that leaders of PTM are agents of RAW and the Afghan intelligence agency, NDS.

Where the Pak army faces the pinch is that claims by the PTM, spread across the globe by social media only highlights what the international community has been accusing Pak of all along. The PTM claims that the Pak army forced them to flee when it launched a ‘selective clampdown’ on militants along the Pak-Afghan border. They further claim that it continues to provide safe havens to those groups that target Afghanistan through their region. This further proves that Pak has all along been supporting terror groups involved in India and Afghanistan.

The PTM movement demanding a return of its missing thousands and similar numbers of extra judicial deaths further derides Pak’s claims of excesses in Kashmir, as such momentous claims have neither existed nor have Indian security agencies been so questioned. It displays the open brutality of an armed force on its own population.

Added to it is the planting of landmines within a country, without concern of internal casualties. Across the globe, such internal brutal intensity has not been witnessed for decades and that in a country, which raises the Kashmir bogey in multiple international forums.

Pak is losing on all accounts, its reputation, duplicity and brutality are being highlighted. Every action known to suppress a movement has been attempted including media blackouts, arrests, and even flooding of rally grounds with sewage water, but to no avail. This indicates the desperation of the deep state to quell this movement at any cost.

The world is watching carefully, as social media is the biggest tool of the PTM. One mistake by the Pak army, especially when it displays brutality or breaks a peaceful protest, would open Pak to further international criticism and enhance isolation. PTM leaders have galvanised 15% of Pak’s population, enough to give the deep state sleepless nights and with elections drawing close, those whom the army pushes away from centres of power, would begin supporting this movement. While it is heading to be a lost cause for the Pak army, it is win-win for the PTM.

For India, any comments of support or highlighting the issue in international forums is what would give the Pak deep state the authority to crack down brutally on the movement, using Indian comments as an excuse. Hence, India should remain aloof, refrain from supporting the movement, letting it grow as the biggest threat to the Pak deep state.

Is a Koreas’ like resolution possible in Indo-Pak case? ORF 03 May 18

The conclusion of the summit between North and South Korea was monitored across the globe. With cameras rolling it was excellently choreographed by both leaders. It indicated the setting in of a bonhomie not seen in the peninsula for decades, especially as tensions had risen to a peak in the last one year, when North Korea conducted a series of nuclear and missile tests.

The world had doubts on whether it would succeed, on whether it would bring forth a mention of denuclearization and peace. Most importantly, what would the North demand in return for the same. The results are now out and have been warmly received across the globe.

This was also the day when Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping for talks on re-setting Indo-China relations. It was also the day when Mohamed Faisal, the Pak Foreign Ministry spokesperson urged India to resume bilateral talks, as Indo-Pak tensions have the possibility of leading to a nuclear war. An op-ed in the Dawn, over the weekend, also suggested India and Pak moving towards a similar agreement.

The Korean joint statement comprised of three basic parts, Inter-Korean exchanges, enhancing military contacts and establishing peace. Amongst inter-Korean exchanges was implementing all previous agreements, establishing liaison offices, encourage active cooperation, exchanges and visits, resolve humanitarian issues and project a common Korean team for the next Asian games in 2018.

On the military front, it included ceasing all hostility, transforming the de-militarized zone into one of peace within a week, resolve the maritime dispute and conduct frequent defence ministerial and working level meetings to solve pending military issues.

On the peace front, the agreement stated to strictly adhere to a non-aggression agreement, carry out disarmament in a phased manner with reduction in military tensions and increased confidence building. Finally, it mentioned that the ultimate objective is to achieve a nuclear free Korean peninsula. The process forward involves diplomatic and military diplomacy moving simultaneously hand in glove.

The only rider in the statement was to pursue trilateral or quadrilateral meetings involving the US and China with a view to declaring an end of the war and establishing a ‘permanent and solid’ peace regime. This would put both the US and China as equal partners in the exercise. This has possibly been added as the US and China have been ardent supporters of the two regimes. It would ensure that both Korean nations have the backing of one super power in the future, who would guarantee its safety.

The hostility between the two Korea’s has been ongoing since the end of the Korean war over six and half decades ago. While North Korea has nuclearized, the South is protected by a US nuclear umbrella. The South has become an economic powerhouse, the North remains backward, withdrawn and economically weak. The two Koreans, with a similar culture are thus vastly apart in every way. There have been similar summits earlier, but none has been able to resolve issues.

When looked in our context, the joint statement is almost akin to what ails Indo-Pak relations. The major difference between the two is that the Koreans ultimately seek reunification, whereas we seek a solution to Kashmir. Analysing the joint statement in our case would indicate where there could be similarities and whether this historic meeting could be replicated in our sub-continent.

In the case of Inter-Korean exchanges, issues common to India and Pak are implementing all existing agreements and declarations including the ceasefire agreements, holding dialogue and negotiations, encourage exchanges, visits and contacts and resolve humanitarian issues that resulted from Kashmir’s divide. Every government in J and K has always demanded open borders and greater people to people contacts between the population on both sides of the LoC.

Assessing the military aspects of the agreement, commonalities too would stand out. The first is to cease all acts of hostilities against each other. The second is to convert the border (demilitarized zone) into one of peace by stopping all hostile acts. The third is to resolve the sea border to prevent accidental clashes. In our case, it would involve avoiding arrest of fishermen who inadvertently stray across. Finally, hold frequent defence ministerial and working level meetings to discuss and resolve military issues. In our context this could aim at resolving ceasefire violations while enhancing confidence building measures. Under the peace regime, the only common factor is strictly adhering to a non-aggression agreement that precludes the use of force.

The difference in perception remains on the involvement of other powers. Pak is keen for involving other nations, including the UN in negotiations, whereas India desires only bilateral meetings based on the Shimla agreement.

The two Koreans have also had exchanges of fire and border skirmishes alongside propaganda being projected by both sides. However, there has not been any proxy war being played out brazenly as in the Indian subcontinent. This if ceased could benefit both nations.

The reason why the Korean agreement would succeed and bring about an era of peace is because the two leaders, who met and negotiated the settlement hold complete sway over their nation. While Moon Jae-in, the South Korean president heads a democratic government, Kim Jong-Un is the supreme leader of the North. Their words and decisions would be implemented in letter and spirit. More importantly is their belief and trust that civil and military diplomacy can move forward simultaneously thereby reducing tensions and enforcing peace. Hence, thaw in the Korean peninsula would come at the same pace as tensions which rose to a peak in the last one year.

However, the Indo-Pak scenario has differences. The proxy war in Kashmir, infiltration of militants, terror strikes and building an anti-India hype has alienated the two nations. Every Indian government has taken a step forward to reach out to its Pak counterpart, only to be pushed back by a terror strike. The Pak civilian government desires peace but lacks control over its own army, hence chances of success remain bleak.

Yet, observing the nature of agreement signed between the Koreans, there is a ray of hope that if the right approach is adopted, an era of peace could emerge. If the two governments can interact at a discreet level, seeking to push a common framework of peace while letting working groups, including the Pak and Indian army negotiate military aspects, it could usher in a change.

While the civilian leadership negotiates peace and stability and decides the broad framework, military leaders negotiate ceasefire and terrorism related issues. Ignoring military diplomacy as at present, would result in continued tensions and status quo, as within Pak, it is their army which is involved. There are always limits to which civil and military diplomacy can succeed in isolation, however when combined, much more can be achieved. Akin to the Koreans, we need to consider a combined civil-military diplomacy model for a solution in the Indian sub-continent.

Political disarray in Pak The Statesman 24 Apr 18

Elections in Pak are scheduled in the middle of the year. As per their constitution an interim government must be in place prior to the elections. Thus, it will be sworn in by 31st May and the new government will be formed by end Jul. As elections draw close, open interference by their Supreme Court and deep state in matters which remain the purview of the legislative seem to increase.

The disqualification of Nawaz Sharif for life on charges of unbecoming conduct of a political leader by the Supreme Court, is evidently on instructions of the deep state, which presumed him to be a threat seeking to curb their powers. Subsequent orders to the media to stop broadcasting speeches against the court is aimed at reducing the ability of the Sharif family from gaining public sympathy and enhancing vote banks, as presently he is the only one who is ranting against them.

Further, as claimed by Sharif, his party has not been provided with a level playing field as most of its leaders are either facing cases in accountability courts or contempt charges. Manipulation of elections of the Senate chairman and removing the elected leader in Baluchistan, while replacing him with a non-entity is clear proof. An almost open action by the deep state to prevent the present ruling party from regaining power is becoming evident.

In an article titled, ‘Coercing the media’ in the Dawn on 18 Apr, noted columnist Zahid Hussain stated, ‘over the past few weeks, a TV channel Geo) has reportedly been taken off by cable operators or shuffled out of the main bouquet of news channels as punishment for being too outspoken on certain sensitive issues.’ He adds that, ‘no one dare challenge these unlawful and arbitrary actions’. Geo is reportedly back after an agreement with the army on limiting its criticism.

He also mentions the creeping expansion of the power of the deep state in media gagging, enforced disappearances and political manipulation. Further, the judiciary encroaching on the power of the executive has enabled the deep state to strengthen its stranglehold. In a seminar titled, ‘National seminar on sanctity of ballot’ on 17th Apr in Islamabad, five major Pak political parties expressed concern over the growing interference of the judiciary and military in matters of the legislative. Their speeches were blocked by the media on supreme court directions.

Another aspect which gained prominence in the seminar was an almost unanimous support to the ongoing Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM). It is a social movement for Pashtun human rights launched by a young activist, Mansoor Pashteen, which has grown in a short span of three months. It covers regions of FATA, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan. The movement would impact coming elections, if they remain unrigged. Its largest rally in early Apr drew tens of thousand of supporters in Peshawar despite a complete media blackout, employing only social media.

Intelligent use of social media has enhanced its international visibility and has made an open army crackdown difficult, without international condemnation. Members at the rally carried pictures of those dead or missing and questioned unchecked military authority in the region. The Pak army chief ominously suggested that this was an engineered protest which threatened to reverse counter terrorism efforts by the army. He hinted at a crackdown.

With Nawaz’s PML (N), slowly being nudged out by the deep state, the other frontrunners appear to be Zardari and Imran. Imran, initially considered the favourite of the army is being pushed away as he is considered unreliable and possibly pro-India. Zardari appears to be gaining ground. This was evident when the National Accountability Board dropped all charges against him in Nov 17, paving the way for his re-emergence. Pressure from the US, flowing through multiple sources, would find almost nil participation or elected representatives from any jihadi groups including the MML.

US pressure on Pak to stop support to the Taliban and Haqqani continues to mount. Trump wants action from Pak and has thus begun redeploying air assets in Afghanistan. The US is seeking to bring the Taliban and Haqqani network to the table. Pak tensions with Afghanistan are on the rise. With China refusing to grant a further USD 5 Billion loan, Pak unwilling to turn to the IMF, as it remains under US influence, it is compelled to seek funds from its diaspora by offering bonds.

India continues to exert pressure on the border. Strong statements by the Indian army chief, General Bipin Rawat of his willingness to up the ante as also call the Pak nuclear bluff, a new fear on an Indian doctrine seems to be emerging in Pak’s security circles. This doctrine is being billed as the ‘Bipin doctrine’ and indicates India’s willingness to undertake surgical strikes, despite Pak threats and possible consequences. The rapid elimination of militants in Kashmir is only adding to their woes. The approach of the Modi government to avoid any talks, has them concerned of increasing threats on all fronts.

With a declining economy, growing pressure from the US, increasing power of the PTM, enhanced threats from India, the deep state needs to calibrate its steps carefully. It needs a puppet regime which would follow it without question. Internally, by gagging the media and displaying its power of coercion, it has no entity which can question it.

In this environment of confusion Pak is heading into elections. Whichever party forms the government, it would be with the backing and support of the army. The increased hold of a combined judiciary-military grouping on the executive would ensure that they would not have any leeway and would remain solely to face international pressure and local backlash, while the army rules from behind the throne. Nawaz’s attempt to regain control has placed him at the entrance to a jail, none else would ever attempt the same. Whether the elections be rigged or fair, time would judge, however the next prime minister has already been decided by the army.

Pak’s attitude would only worsen ties The Excelsior 11 Apr 2018

There were a few adverse comments from Pak in the press recently. Firstly, post the encounter last weekend resulting in 13 militants being eliminated, Pak leadership termed it as a ‘brutal crackdown’ in Kashmir. Their PM Abbasi stated, ‘The brutal crackdown including the use of pellet guns on civilians protesting against the killing is deplorable’. The government supported protests criticizing Indian action and even attempted to reignite fires of hatred during its so-called Kashmir solidarity day.

Their foreign minister commented on the same adding that Pak would send envoys to different countries to brief them about the situation on Kashmir. It had done so earlier, sending politicians on a holiday junket using this pretext and, in most nations, they met almost no government representative. Their army chief General Bajwa stated that Indian forces cannot suppress the ‘indigenous’ struggle for freedom, fully aware that it is his organization which has refused to permit peace to reign.

Comments on Kashmir have been regularly raised both within the nation as also in international forums. The same remains accepted as a norm and either ignored or countered. The raising of the issue at various UN forums, non-aligned movement seminars and even at the Organization of Islamic Countries forums has been a regular feature. Where essential India has countered, while otherwise it has ignored. With passage of time, the comments have been expected and are completely ignored by the world body. India has never had to take the Israeli option of ignoring international comments.

The LoC has been active, with both nations blaming the other for ceasefire violations and targeting civilians. Tensions along the LoC have always existed, which have never blocked diplomatic channels. The diplomatic standoff on harassment of diplomats appears to be slowly ebbing. High Commissioners of both nations played a significant role in diffusing the situation. Presently, the High Commissioners are seeking to change the existing environment by interacting with government officials in both nations.

However recent comments by their foreign minister on Salman Khan’s sentencing faced wrath on social media. In an interview on Geo TV, Khawaja Asif stated, ‘Salman Khan has been sentenced because he’s from a minority community. To sentence him in a case that is twenty years old goes on to show that lives of those who are Muslims, ‘untouchables’ or Christians are not valued in India. Maybe if he belonged to the religion of the ruling party of India, he would not have been given such a harsh sentence.’ It is to the maturity of the Indian government which has chosen to avoid reacting or countering such immature statements.

India on the other hand has rarely commented on the manner Pak has been treating its minorities including implementing the infamous Blasphemy law, under which all religious minorities remain under threat. Its sentencing them to death on mere suspicion has been criticized by most western nations, while India has maintained a studied silence. It has never commented adversely nor organized protests when Pak Hindu’s are forcibly converted or kidnapped or sentenced to death for blasphemy. It may have requested the Pak government to care for its minorities, but never has it interfered in Pak’s internal matters.

Pak’s military courts, which are worse than Kangaroo courts, where every convict voluntary confesses and is awarded a death sentence has also not been adversely commented upon by India. India has been mature and let Pak handle its internal issues. India could have begun making things difficult in international forums had it begun charging Pak with mistreating minorities, issuing death sentences without proper trials or falsely implementing its blasphemy laws.

India only commented on the Jadhav issue, because Pak failed to follow diplomatic protocol by permitting consular access and he was a bona fide Indian citizen, engaged in a legitimate profession in Chabahar. Further, his kidnapping from Iran and projecting him as an Indian agent, employing means of torture, was against international norms. India offers consular access to all Pak nationals captured during terror operations in India, which Pak refuses to accept and even fails to acknowledge them as its citizens.

Shocking comments have also flowed from their foreign minister and the army on the meeting between the Pak National Security Advisor and the Indian High Commissioner. Their objections and adverse comments are pushing back all progress being made on both sides. It was reported that the meeting was cordial and positive. The two met to reignite earlier agreements of permitting doctors from both sides to visit jails and review the cases of mentally disturbed prisoners.

While logically, with Pak being in an election year, meeting political leaders or diplomats may not result in a continuation of policies, hence the Indian High commissioner met the Pak NSA, who would remain in his appointment, despite any government coming to power. The meeting, as per press reports was in the PMO, hence their PM would have been in the know. Adverse comments could however, push any progress which would have been made into the back burner.

Such Pak comments from senior government functionaries coming at a time when elections are close are likely to be more biased towards indicating support for Kashmir as also a means of displaying its pro-religious stance, solely to garner internal support. Pak’s strategy since its inception has been to project itself as a leader of the Moslem world, thus carving a space for itself. However, with passage of time, its criticism has remained more towards India than other regions including Palestine.

While India has displayed maturity and maintained a studied silence, regular comments on internal matters, especially in a pronounced secular nation with a clearly free judiciary would soon invite backlash in forums, where Pak’s reputation could be impacted. It would be advisable for their polity to display maturity in its comments failing which India has the capacity to humiliate Pak for its internal failings.

Engaging with Pak is a waste The Excelsior 04 Apr 18

Mehbooba Mufti, while interacting with Kashmiri Pundits again made a call for talks with Pak. Whether she made it for public consumption or seeking a lasting solution to Kashmir, remains mired in doubt. Unless the internal mindset in Pak changes, calls for talks are meaningless, should be well known to her. A few examples below illustrate this aspect.

A tweet to me from a Pak national indicated the extent to which history has been twisted to change facts of earlier conflicts. On the Kargil war, the individual commented, ‘There were only twenty Pak soldiers deployed in a Sangar on the Kargil heights, who alone wiped off a complete battalion of the Indian army’. He even quoted a supposed Indian army colonel who was the CO of the battalion.

As per history taught to the youth of Pak there were no other losses which they suffered, never withdrew under pressure and nor is there any mention of their reluctance to claim bodies. The fact that the only general in world history, who rose to be president after suffering a humiliating defeat was Musharraf, remains hidden from the Pak public, thanks to twisted history taught to their youth.

Similarly, the 1965 war has been twisted to claim victory rather than the true realities. Pak celebrates ‘Defence day’ on 5th Sep, as it claims its armed forces thwarted the plans of the Indian military. There is no mention of the reverses it suffered including losing Haji Pir pass. In 2016, just two days before the ‘Defence day’ celebrations, Pak professor, Dr S Akbar Ziadi, stated while interacting with the students of the faculty of social sciences, Karachi University stated, ‘with the celebration of the 1965 war around the corner, there can be no bigger lie that Pakistan won the war. We lost terribly in the 1965 war.’

On Kashmir, history has again been twisted to project India not willing to implement the UN resolution, rather than stating the facts behind the resolution, which Pak has itself failed to implement. Similarly, India has been projected as the oppressor in Kashmir. This while Pak continues to suppress its own population of POK and FATA.

In the recent encounter over the weekend, where 13 militants were eliminated, while three soldiers and four civilians also died, Pak media projected a different story. It stated that India killed 17 so-called ‘suspected Kashmiri militants’. Reports in their newspapers went on to quote that irrespective of Indian actions, the spirit of the Kashmiri’s seeking merger with Pak would never be broken.

Their foreign office comment stated India’s brutal crackdown in Kashmir is an ‘attempt to subjugate and further repress innocent Kashmiri’s’. Thus, within their country, the common man reading such news would carry a different picture and only develop greater hatred towards India. Most Pak media reports play the religious card seeking to project India as a Hindutva nation, enhancing the religious divide.

Further, India is accused of supporting all anti-Pak militants operating from Afghanistan, the Baluch freedom fighters and every other radical group which challenges the Pak state. Kulbhushan Jadhav, kidnapped from Chabahar, is being touted as an Indian spy, whose comments admitting his role are regularly projected on Pak media. When the US threatens Pak for non-action in Afghanistan, they are blamed for toeing the Indian line. When FATF took the decision to place Pak on the ‘grey list’ on US request, Pak claimed India was behind it.

While India has always desired a peaceful LoC, as it assists in countering infiltration and provides security to those residing close, Pak desires the opposite. For the Pak army, an active LoC implies assistance in infiltration. Further, residents along the LoC are either Dogra’s South of the Pir Panjal or anti-Pak north of it, hence it has no qualms targeting them. Simultaneously, it claims India violates the ceasefire and to even convince its public, summons the Indian High Commission staff to lodge protests. It hides figures of its own soldier casualties, while enhancing civilian casualties to enhance internal hatred towards India.

The recent harassment of high commission staff was being projected as only India being responsible, while Pak was always considerate. It was only after the Indian government released details of all its Note-Verbale on daily occurrences of harassment did Pak reduce its anti-India tirade.

While twisting history to turn defeat into victory may be common to nations which have something to hide, twisting daily news enhances local anger and hatred. With such an atmosphere being built amongst the masses within the country, active support to militancy is expected. It is this twisted logic, which engulfs simple Pak youth to joining militant groups and engaging the Indian security forces. Many surrendered militants have claimed that they were projected twisted facts and recruited.

It is with this nation, which daily projects an anti-India picture resulting in its people detesting India, that political leaders including Farooq Abdullah, Omar, Mehbooba Mufti and Mani Shankar Aiyar desire the government initiate talks. No political party within Pakistan can ever suggest talks in its election manifesto, as such an action would ensure the party’s defeat, considering the anti-India wave being created within.

Apart from Nawaz, who had the courage to challenge the Pak army and initiate dialogue with India, no other leader has been able to do the same. He was ousted for his efforts, creating fear within Pak political leaders, none of which have even suggested talks. Those who claim talks, blame India for not initiating the dialogue process. Thus, for the average Pakistani, it is India which is responsible for all its ills, whether it be terrorism, economic, international pressure or non-response to talks.

The Pak public would reject any party which initiates dialogue with India. India, even contemplating talks in such an atmosphere would be meaningless as there would never be any positive outcome. The government clear of the facts has avoided official talks, while it continues to maintain contact at the NSA level, to be able to tone down any impeding crises. History is witness that every single Indian attempt to initiate talks and broker peace has been impeded by Pak militant actions. Thus, unless the offer comes from Pak and is backed by sincere efforts, talks between the two would be meaningless.

In this atmosphere, J and K political leaders, who seemingly appear to be valley biased and demand India initiate talks, appear to be making announcements only for public consumption. They should on the other hand be professing that even thinking of joining Pak would push the valley decades behind where it is at present. Thus, their calls for talks should be ignored and the strong India posture continued.

The myth of the Bajwa doctrine The Statesman 27 Mar 18

Press reports emanating in Pak and western newspapers mention the Bajwa doctrine (credited to the Pak army chief, General Bajwa) now being adopted by the state. It was initially enunciated by the Pak Director General Inter Services Public Relations in a press conference earlier this year. Subsequently, it was highlighted when General Bajwa spoke to select journalists. However, since the interview was neither recorded nor publicly broadcast, some confusion remains. In an article published by the Royal United Services Institute, a Pak analyst gave a summary of the doctrine as being considered by Pak.

It is established that within Pak, it is the army which calls the shots on almost all matters pertaining to national security and foreign policy. In recent times, the army has also commented on economic and political issues. The chief’s latest comments on the eighteenth amendment is an indicator of the army’s interference in decisions which remain the purview of the national assembly.

The only realistic aspect pertaining to Bajwa’s supposed doctrine is his strong reluctance to accept anyone in power, who opposes his views. This was the reason for Nawaz’s fall from power and pulling his party down in various states and the senate. Since Bajwa could not consider a coup, as international pressure would make it detrimental to the state, he adopted the legal route, roping in the Supreme Court, which like most nations can neither be condemned nor criticized. His unrelenting backing of Supreme Court decisions justifies it. It is unlikely that the ruling PML(N) would return to power in the forthcoming elections.

The rest of the doctrine is a myth, with Bajwa only exploiting US vulnerabilities and not a change in Pak’s approach. The first aspect of the doctrine is his reluctance to bow down to US pressure on closure of support to terrorist outfits operating against Afghanistan and India. The second is of his unwillingness to accept US demands that Pak do more against terror groups. The third is unless the US acts against anti-Pak terror groups operating from Afghan soil, expecting Pak to act, is unacceptable. There is no change against India, other than hardening of his stand.

The US pressure was maximum post 9/11, when it was planning the invasion of Afghanistan. Relentless public pressure compelled the US government to go to any lengths solely because of casualties suffered, no longer. Further, at that time the US was still to enter Afghanistan, had friendly relations with Russia and could base troops along Afghanistan’s northern borders. Presently, the US has little choice. It needs the port of Karachi and Pak airspace if it must operate successfully. Thus, Bajwa is simply exploiting the vulnerabilities of the US and nothing more.

Over the years, Pak had become accustomed to playing the game. It promises but never acts. Even the elimination of Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Mansoor on its soil had no impact. Pak is taking advantage of the fact, which was known all along, that the US will not resort to hot pursuit into Pak, while it may continue employment of drones. The Pak army chief had openly stated in Munich that it would be some time before Pak commences to act against terror groups on its soil, thus admitting it would continue to support them.

Between Musharraf and now there has also been a sea change in the internal security environment within Pak, compelling Bajwa to act with care, more to save his army from further losses, rather than display bravado. The TTP (Pak Taliban) did not exist in 2001, hence Pak was relatively secure. They rose post the siege and attack on the Lal Masjid in Jul 2007. Their attacks on the state and its institutions has sucked in the army and caused losses which Pak claims is its sacrifice in its battle against terrorist groups.

Bajwa is aware that if he acts against the Taliban and Haqqani network, they could also turn inwards and add to Pak’s internal instability. Thus, he only makes promises to act. US pressures would never be a repeat of levels post 9/11, hence he can ignore them.

The other factor, which has changed the dynamics for Pakistan is the growing distance between the US, China and Russia. The US continues to impose sanctions on Russia. Trump’s speaking to Putin, post his re-election, would in no way change the current atmosphere. Chinese belligerence in the South China Sea has placed both nations militarily opposed. Pak is thus banking on their support to prevent the US from resorting to any military adventures. Thus, this so-called doctrine is therefore a myth. It is Pak taking advantage of US vulnerabilities.

His policy on Kashmir remains unchanged or is possibly more hardened than his predecessors. His open support to militant leaders whom India opposes and even applying supreme court pressure to enable them in forming a political party would only enhance distance between the two nations. To add to tensions, the ISI continues to harass Indian diplomats in Islamabad, resulting in a tit for tat in India. This ensures that peace talks with India are ruled out for a protracted period.

His interference in Pak’s internal politics, comments on the economy and taking direct policy decisions including moving troops to Saudi Arabia, without approval of the polity, has indicated his scant regard for political authority. Therefore, a perpetual fear exists within Pak of the army taking control at a time of its choosing or tightening its grip from behind the throne. This adds to the myth of Bajwa.

Simplistically put, there is no ‘Bajwa doctrine’. The supposed doctrine is that Pak has benefitted by a changed international environment, which has placed it in the driver’s seat on Afghanistan. He is only taking advantage of US vulnerabilities, while avoiding enhancing internal strife by taking on the Taliban and Haqqani network.

For India, his policy remains unchanged, possibly even pushing any thoughts of talks into the sunset, despite his announcement in the National Assembly of supporting peace talks. Increase in troop deployment along the LoC reinforces this aspect. Thus, the Indian government needs to continue with its aggressive approach.

Indo-Pak diplomatic squabbles CENJOWS 21 Mar 2018

Till recently Indo-Pak diplomatic squabbles were confined to multiple international forums, including the UN and its agencies. It even involved ministers of both countries on the General Assembly (UNGA) platform. One nation rose to blame the other for their poor record of human rights, the other retaliated accusing the first of even worse performance. There has never been an occasion when one has commented and the other has not claimed the legal right to reply. In the last UNGA meeting, Pak was lambasted by India, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, forcing Pak to claim the right to reply in each case.

The same continues in every international forum. India perpetually raises Pak’s policy of good versus bad terrorism and has its terror groups even listed in joint declarations. Pak on the other hand continuously raises the Kashmir bogey as a cause of all ills. It has attempted to connect Kashmir with peace in Afghanistan, which has had no takers. Kashmir therefore remains a flashpoint.

Diplomatic relations hit a low when India convinced nations in the region to formally boycott the SAARC summit scheduled to be held in Islamabad in 2016, solely due to Pak’s support to terror outfits. This declared SAARC as all but dead weight for the region. The recent joint communique issued post the visit to Nepal by the Pak PM, stating revival of the SARRC and support for holding the cancelled summit in Islamabad is an indicator of Pak’s desperation to regain lost ground.

With a tense LoC with regular breaches of ceasefire and on occasions even the employment of heavy weapons with increasing civilian casualties not being enough, there is now a new diplomatic row, with both nations accusing the other of harassment of its diplomatic staff. Pak even went to the extreme of calling their envoy back for discussions on the subject.

This Pak action does not imply permanent withdrawal of their High Commissioner or downgrading of relations but seeks to raise the stakes of growing tensions. Attempting to add pressure on India it announced that its High Commissioner would not return till harassment stops. To further seeking to blame India, it cancelled the visit of its commerce secretary for the WTO conference this month. India has yet to announce a tit for tat measure, other than criticizing Pak’s actions.

Between the two nations, harassing of respective consulate staff has been the norm. While India entered the game recently, on the Pak side, it has always been an ongoing process. The Indian High Commissioner has been denied permission to attend events, at times even blocked midway to the same, despite him having been invited and the visit confirmed. Indian staff have been picked up by Pak intelligence agencies and harassed on multiple occasions. Construction work in the Indian Consulate has been stopped and workers questioned and harassed. Indian government websites have been banned and blocked preventing the local Pakistani from applying for an Indian visa online.

India had been lax in retaliation. The Indian media has always given the Pak High Commissioner over importance. Their previous High Commissioner, Abdul Basit, had more coverage on Indian media than most Indian cabinet ministers. He was invited to multiple forums and even interviewed on talks shows, where he continued to rant by blaming India for all ills, espousing support for Kashmir in general and the Hurriyat in particular. His comments increased during the period preceding his departure. Never in Pak media has the Indian High Commissioner ever been given even near similar importance.

Tailing and harassing diplomats on both sides has been the norm between the two nations, with some members being suspected to represent spy agencies. Pak diplomats are accused of being involved in Hawala activities to fund Kashmiri separatists, a fact accepted by Hurriyat ring leaders now behind bars. A few have also been arrested while attempting to interact with their local spies.

In 2003, India accused the Pak deputy High Commissioner, Jaleel Abbas Gilani, with the alleged funding of separatists, but he could not be charged due to diplomatic immunity. In a charge sheet filed in Jan this year, the NIA stated that senior Pakistani embassy officials provided money to Kashmiri separatists to foment trouble in the valley. Pak has simultaneously claimed that Indian diplomats have also been similarly involved and on occasions sought their expulsion.

In Dec last year, Pak officials attempted to honey trap three officials of the Indian embassy in Islamabad. The officials became aware and reported the issue. They were later withdrawn from Islamabad. In 2010, an Indian second secretary in Islamabad’s High Commission press division, fell in love with a Pak ISI official and passed on classified information on India’s developmental work in Afghanistan. She was subsequently recalled back to India.

In Oct 2016, Indian security agencies arrested a Pak embassy staffer, Mehmood Akhtar, outside the gates of the Delhi Zoo, for running a spy ring and luring serving armed forces personnel using money and honey traps. He even possessed a fake aadhaar card with a Chandini Chowk address. He was declared ‘persona nongrata’ and asked to leave. The agencies claimed ten other staffers were also involved, but since had not been caught red handed, no action was taken.

In every case Pak retaliated and ordered Indian diplomats to leave, claiming they were also spying. In case Pak took the first step, India retaliated. In 1997, Pak removed two Indians and India retaliated by ordering two Pak staffers to leave. Both nations initially agreed to keep the matter silent, till it was broken on Pak media. India responded similarly.

This is the first time Pak has decided to make the issue public by recalling its High Commissioner for consultations. Its present High Commissioner, Sohail Mahmood, stated prior to his departure that positive actions undertaken by Pak in recent months, including permitting relatives of Kulbhushan Jadhav to meet him have been brought to naught by Indian actions. However, Pak failed to mention similar actions by their agencies on Indian diplomats. The Indian government recently issued an advisory to its staff in Islamabad, to only leave the diplomatic area in emergencies. Even after the recall of the Pak High Commissioner, unsavoury actions on Indian diplomats continue in Islamabad. India in the last three months has issued 12 demarches to Pak on harassment of its staff in Islamabad.

The Pak government has stated that it seeks to support their diplomats in India. This is contrary to actions on their soil, as the ISI, the prime agency responsible for harassing Indian diplomats does not come under the purview of the Pak government, but their deep state. Thus, while their PM may blame Indian security agencies, but would be unable to control his own ISI. Thus, nothing is likely to change in the coming months.

Meanwhile Pak remains under US pressure to recommence dialogue with India by indicating positive steps to satisfy India’s demands for stopping flow of terrorists and funds for terrorism into Kashmir. By making the present diplomatic spat public, Pak seeks to place the blame on India for not creating a conducive environment for progressing talks. It may find few takers for its actions.

The Indian government should ignore Pak’s ranting on the subject. Unless Pak changes its attitude towards Indian diplomats, India should not yield under pressure. It should remember that it is Pak which faces international pressures, not India. Pak is expected to create the right environment for India to take a step forward, not India.

India should not seek to link diplomatic actions with pressure along the LoC. It should rather watch and wait, without retaliating in kind. A hurried counter action by India may prove counter-productive. Ultimately, Pak would need to take a step back and return their High Commissioner despite Indian silence. Keeping him in Islamabad for a prolonged duration is to their disadvantage, as a vital link between the two nations is missing.

Pakistan’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’ terrorists ORF 08 Mar 18

The recent decision to give Pak time till May to provide its action plans prior to placing it under the ‘grey or black list’ by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) was not unexpected, despite China and Saudi Arabia’s initial support to Pak. In fact, the seeds for warning Pak were sowed by their own army chief, General Javed Bajwa, when he recently addressed the Munich Security Conference. It was almost as if he was informing the world body that Pak officially supports terror groups.

General Javed Bajwa, in his supposedly candid speech at the Munich Security conference on Feb 17th stated that as far as his country, army and ISI are concerned there are clearly ‘good and bad’ terrorists. He stated that Pakistan was a victim of ‘bad terrorists’, implying terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. Interestingly, those they support are ‘good’, while those that attack them are ‘bad’.

Without naming India, he added, Islamabad supports ‘good terrorism’ if it is against any country it considers oppressive. In his opinion, India is an oppressive force in Kashmir. Thus, he officially admitted that Pak does support terror groups operating against India and Afghanistan, as it has always considered Afghanistan as its backyard and any other power in that country is akin to an oppressor. While most analysts read his words to imply only India, but continuing Pak shelter to the Taliban and Haqqani network indicates otherwise.

He went on to describe his country’s plan to fight terrorism by invoking the ‘National Action Plan’, which he termed as the ‘key message of Pakistan’, to fight terrorism. Here he stated that a recent fatwa bans suicide bombing and jihad. Thus, he admitted to sending suicide squads to India and Afghanistan, nations he terms ‘tyrannical’. Despite the so-called fatwa, nothing has changed. Suicide squads continue to operate in India and Afghanistan. Thus, the fatwa was only a show for the world that Pak is acting. In his speech he also recognized that the Afghan Jehadi movement was Pak’s own doing.

He even warned world leaders that terrorism would not be eliminated from Pak soil in any near timeframe. He stated, ‘Large number of people are radicalized, armed and empowered politically and ideologically. They cannot be wished away just because we do not like them anymore. Please note that we are harvesting what we sowed forty years back. So, it will be a while before this scourge is eliminated from our territory.’ This was enough for an official admission, just prior to the FATF meeting that Pak will not change, unless heavily pressured.

While the speech did bare some facts and laid open Pak’s official support to terror groups, there were issues which remained unquestioned. Firstly, all nations in the region are only battling Pak nationals who form the core of terror groups. India battles Pak based terror groups, mostly comprising their nationals. Pak itself battles terror groups based in Afghanistan, which target them from across the border. Members of these groups are neither Afghanis nor Indians, but again Pak nationals, whom their own army has alienated.

Similarly, the Baluch Liberation Front members are again their own nationals. Even the Afghan Taliban has leaders selected and approved by the deep state, hence are again Pakistanis. Thus, the entire region is engulfed by terror groups, whose members remain those from one nation alone, Pakistan. Therefore rightly, India has termed Pakistan as ‘Terroristan’.

If Pak is serious on its commitment to control terror groups emanating from its soil, then its foremost action would be to close its terror factories, in terms of Madrassas, which support and breed terrorists, by brainwashing them. Unless it takes this step, there would be no end to producing brainwashed terrorists. Blaming Afghan refugees or any other nation or community has no value.

The next action is to curb or place in cold storage, those who seek to collect funds and recruit discards from society and local thieves as terrorists and employ them as cannon fodder. The present lot operating in Kashmir are just that. Unless it resorts to these actions, there would never be any change in the ground situation.

The Pak deep state has never realized that supporting terror groups can never settle disputes, especially as far as India and Afghanistan are concerned. India would never commence dialogue, Pak would never succeed in bleeding India to the level it desires, nor would there ever be a Kashmir uprising. Similar would be the case with Afghanistan. The US and the Afghan government, though keen for talks would never do so from a position of weakness. On the contrary it would enhance tensions with Pakistan, increased pressure and greater isolation, signs of which are clearly visible presently.

Further, such action results in an arms race, forcing Pak to either invest more than its economy can afford on creating conventional capabilities or resort to expending limited resources to producing and maintaining nuclear weapons. In either case, it puts an already weak economy, whose external loans are on the rise by the day and whose populace lack even basic facilities, into deeper debt.

The only nation which has and would continue to bleed would be Pak itself, as the groups and monsters it created could very well turn inwards in case international pressure increases. Its claims of India and Afghanistan supporting anti-Pak terror groups would never be internationally accepted as the nationals who form part of them are their own. The anger of the international committee was evident when Pak was considered of being placed on the ‘grey list’ by the FATF. Whether it was affected by the Pak army chief’s comments would not be known, but his open acceptance of supporting terror groups as a state policy would have compelled the US and its allies to enforce action by the FATF. Pak now has three months to give its action plans, failing which it could still find itself in the ‘grey list’.

Pak is aware that its promises sound hollow, when those whom the UN designates as global terrorists, roam freely, give speeches and raise funds to support terror activities. It has, despite vague promises by its army chief, been on the receiving end of international anger. China may remain its sole benefactor, but unless it acts, it risks being globally isolated.

This is the difference when a nation’s army controls state policy versus a civilian government doing so. A civilian government would seek development and peace, whereas a military junta would only seek internal suppression and external aggression as ‘generals only know to fight, not develop nations’. The Pak army never cares for its populace as it retains power from behind the throne and compels the civilian government to face backlash from the masses.

The warning by the FATF is the first step, more should follow, if the world desires a changed South Asia. Realistically for Pak, the more it attempts to follow good versus bad terror, the more it would face destabilization while other nations would watch from the side lines. It has nurtured snakes in its backyard and sooner or later, they would only turn inwards. It should heed the FATF warning before it is too late.

FATF decision opens doors for a change in Indian strategy CENJOWS 05 Mar 18

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) meeting in Paris last month concluded with a demand for Pakistan to submit its action plan by May on stopping the flow of funds to terror groups as also curbing their activities. If it does not accept Pak’s proposal, which is very likely, it could be placed in the ‘grey or black’ list, the ‘grey’ being certain, the ‘black’ possible.

While in Pak, the press has lambasted the government on its failures, however none has been strong enough to question the deep state, which has refused to accede to the government’s warning that this could happen, unless it mends its ways. It was Nawaz who warned the army and in return he was shunted out in collaboration with the Supreme Court.

Elections are scheduled in July this year in Pak, hence internally political parties would remain at loggerheads. The next National Assembly is likely to have an amalgamation of political, religious and fundamentalist parties. The recent senate elections did indicate a positive trend for the ruling PML (N), but other parties pulled in a surprise. It is hence unlikely that any single party would emerge victorious as the PML(N) did in the last elections. Nawaz Sharif, who would have been a front runner to regain power has been side-lined.

Pak was already facing an economic crisis. It’s foreign exchange reserves are down, despite its economy growing at over 5 percent. It was compelled to take a second loan of $ 500 million within the year from China. Both these loans have come at a high interest rate of 4.5%. It may soon be seeking another loan in the coming months. Its debt rates remain high. With the FATF ruling, its financial situation is only likely to grow worse. With international funding bound to be impacted under US and Indian pressure, Pak would be compelled to turn to China for loans at higher interest rates.

Internal pressure would only rise as the nation feels the financial crunch. While whoever forms the government post elections, would be unable to question the military or force it to change policies, however financially the military would also be impacted. Pak is already facing international isolation. Therefore, in brief, Pak would be under immense pressure, both internally, economically and diplomatically.

Though the likelihood of Pak changing its anti-India stance and support to terror groups is less however with international pressure including that of the FATF, it would be compelled to keep its terror stooges under wraps. The present scenario of Hafiz Saeed and his ilk, screaming from roof tops, collecting funds and espousing support for Kashmir would reduce. Indian pressure on the LoC with the army going all guns blazing, retaliating with vigour along with destruction of posts would only add to tensions and internal pressures. Pak, akin to India is compelled to evacuate its population residing close to the borders.

In this scenario, with India gaining the upper hand, it is possible for us to seek to change the narrative and open doors for rapprochement with Pak. Such an action if undertaken now would be from a position of strength, rather than that of weakness. India needs to consider some facts before moving forward. There is no polity with whom it can even contemplate opening dialogue, as the nation is moving into an election mode. Hence it can only commence the process through diplomatic channels, conveying that it is willing to bend its rigid stance.

Dialogue would have no purpose unless formally backed by their army. Thus, it would require a formal confirmation in this regard, which could possibly only flow through its NSA, a retired general, appointed by the army to keep a close check on the political leadership. The major reason for this assurance is to warn Pak that repeat of any incident, which can offset talks, as has happened earlier, would be met by equal measure. While India may seek to convey this message, either through NSA level talks or of other officials, there should be no let up on any pressure which has given it the upper hand. It should continue its actions of seeking to isolate Pak, deny it funding from international agencies and maintain an offensive stance along the LoC.

Post conveying the message India should seek to engage though sparingly with representatives of Pak. This action could have already commenced with India inviting the Pak commerce secretary for the WTO ministerial meeting in mid-March and even a possible interaction between the two foreign secretaries in Kabul. It should seek to enhance such interactions as the message could be conveyed through multiple means.

Secondly, it should strongly convey that in case Pak continues its current state of activities, it is willing to challenge Pak’s nuclear threat, a statement made on occasions by the army chief, General Bipin Rawat. The intention is making it clear to Pak that the onus of accepting India’s peace overtures remains with them. Finally, a precondition to talks would be implementation of the ceasefire.

Simultaneously should be a clear message that in case Pak is unwilling to accept Indian conditions, then India is willing to up the ante along the LoC. With Kashmir fairly under control, the Hurriyat in the process of being side lined, India can now enhance pressures on Pak along the LoC.

Pak would have to act according to the FATF guidelines sooner or later, unless it wishes to join the bandwagon of North Korea and Iran. US pressures are continuing and the missing Chinese and Saudi support, for whatever reason, conveyed ground realities, that for nations, whom Pak considered their own, national interests have greater priority than friendships considered ‘deeper than the sea and higher than the tallest mountain’.

India has begun conveying the right message to Pak slowly but surely, by opening its doors to select delegations. It has also given the army a free hand to act, pushing Pak to the defensive. It needs to commence engaging at the diplomatic level, while maintaining economic, diplomatic and military pressure. Maybe with time, Pak would see sense and come forward. The decisions taken at the FATF may open doors for rapprochement between the two nations. If it does, then the subcontinent may witness some peace.

Are we losing the Pak plot? ORF 26 Feb 18

The LoC is on the boil, India retaliates to Pak firing, despite causing disproportionate casualties, it also loses valuable lives of soldiers. Fedayeen attacks hit army bases resulting in casualties. It was Pathankot, followed by Uri and now Sanjuwan. Over the years Pak has been retaining the initiative and choosing the areas for infiltration, violation of ceasefire and locations for their fedayeen to strike.

India has been hitting back, but attacks from Pak have not reduced. While we launch surgical strikes and cross-border operations employing our soldiers, always concerned about the mission failing and resultant casualties, Pak employs cannon fodder militants, with minimum training, without concern or even worried about their survival. They even refuse to accept their bodies, thus wiping their hands clean. They have no qualms for losses, while India has.

For years, India even avoided talking about any cross-border operations it launched, until the present government decided to spread the word. Pak has never hidden the fact that it supports secessionist movements in Kashmir, backs the Hurriyat and openly enables Hafiz Saeed and other designated terrorists from collecting funds. It may internationally deny supporting terror groups, but even in the face of damning evidence, it continues. Militants infiltrating across the LoC cannot be coming from Mars, they are clearly Pakistani’s and even carry Pak products with them.

Indian politicians including the maverick Mani Shankar Aiyar and those from the valley continuously request the government to open dialogue with Pakistan. Every government in India has attempted the process soon after assuming power, only to be hit by either a wave of terror strikes or an incident like Kargil. The Pak army, which controls the state, decides foreign policy towards India, has no desire for initiating dialogue. While the two NSAs remain in constant touch, nothing changes.

Post the Sanjuwan strike, the defence minister released funds for improvement of security infrastructure in military cantonments close to the IB and LoC. Thus, India has begun protecting its bases from militant strikes, more a defensive approach than offensive. Indian forces have been compelled to change tactics from launching conventional operations to counter insurgency. Thus, our priorities shift from threatening and dominating Pak to ensuring our own security, denying Pak trained militants from crossing into India and eliminating them.

Rarely have we considered viable alternatives to compel Pak to stop. Our retaliation has remained the Pak army. Pak on the other hand targets innocent army families, knowing it would hurt the soldier as also villages along the LoC. The army is aware that the more militants it kills, more would attempt to cross, a never-ending cycle of violence in the valley, now extending south into the Jammu belt.

The nation stands by and supports the army as it goes about its task of ensuring national security and eliminating militancy, seeking to bring succour to the valley. It sheds tears whenever there are casualties and feels the pain of the families of those who sacrificed their lives. On the other hand, families of militants may never be aware of their sons and brothers who have been killed in India and buried in anonymity.

Pak employs cheaply available militants to bleed India, to divert its attention from other spheres of development and concentrate on eliminating their cannon fodder. The army, which should be exerting pressure on Pak is compelled to adopt a defensive stance solely to protect itself from militant attacks. Formations in J and K, who should be deployed for offensive tasks against Pak, are busy eliminating militants.

While we gloated over the surgical strikes, they had no major impact. Pak denied the same, hid their losses and went ahead as before. Hitting their defences and targeting their army have again failed to produce any result. We have been retaliating, causing more casualties, which their nation has never even known, as it remains subdued by their media. In each case, we employ our trained soldiers, while they launch militants, who have been brainwashed to die, which has never impacted them.

The nation desires answers. Words of condolences, criticism of Pak’s actions and promising to make them pay are heard every time there is an incident, from the political leadership. These now sound hollow. The army does its job, but would only small border strikes work, or should the government do more? Does the government have a strategy for dealing with Pak or is it moving in the dark, searching a way out? Is adopting the defensive approach the answer or should we seek to make Pak bleed?

If despite all our diplomatic pressures, Pak has remained on the offensive, then diplomacy has been ineffective. Moving closer to the US has also not paid any dividends, as it remains more concerned about Afghanistan than Kashmir. Increasing distance with China has only emboldened Pak to enhance its operations. Diplomatic isolation including enhancing our proximity with traditional Pak supporters, West Asian nations, have not increased any pressure on them.

While war is always an instrument of last resort, there could be other options. This would depend on how government perceives it could pressurize Pak. If militarily, then it could imply increasing the tempo of firing along the entire front, moving in offensive forces close to the LoC, imposing caution on Pak. The army is ready to escalate as it has the resources. If diplomatically, then it needs to devise ways to enhance pressure, including blocking loans and grants to the nation. If economically, then it needs to push Pak into an arms race, which it can ill afford.

The government think tanks and the National Security Council need to develop strategies and adopt what could finally work. It has been decades and all the nation has heard from the politicians has been criticism and promises. The army has performed all assigned tasks to the best of its abilities. It is time that there is a comprehensive strategy devised to counter Pak’s design or else the nation would continue reacting to their offensive designs.

Internal political situation will worsen Indo-Pak relations Bharat Shakti 20 Feb 18

The Pak army chief had recently stated in the Pak senate that he is willing to support peace talks with India. However, looking at the future, there is no option for talks even to be proposed by either side, solely due to political instability in Pak and forthcoming elections in both, India and Pakistan.

After the removal on flimsy grounds of Nawaz Sharif, instability in Pak has only increased. The government remains under threat from multiple directions. On one hand is the army, seeking to keep the government under its control, while on the other is a collection of fundamentalist and religious organizations challenging the writ of the government in cohort with opposition parties.

The army had brokered a deal with the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan in Nov last year in which the government was forced to accept all their demands, including the resignation of the federal law minister. Presently is the arrival onto the scene of the Pakistan Awami Tehreek, under the leadership of Tahir ul Qadri, with support from all major opposition parties, seeking to remove the present government from power.

This is the cauldron under which Pakistan goes to elections in the mid of this year, if it does not face army rule before it. Religious, fundamentalist, regional and mainstream political parties would be fighting to gain power. The army would have its own choices to add to the confusion. China would be keeping a hawk’s eye as it has investments to protect. A radical government could be a threat.

Relations with India, increased tensions along the LoC and India baiting would be a major plank for Pak elections. Stability of Afghanistan, fake claims of India sponsoring terror groups from Afghan soil, Kashmir and the supposed freedom struggle there would be played up by all parties. Support to the Kashmiri cause will be a common agenda point from all political parties. Thus, the LoC would remain active, infiltration would continue and anti-India tirade by known India baiters, Hafiz Saeed and his ilk including Sayeed Salahudeen, would increase, as they would seek to win the support of the masses for their proxy candidates (provided they are prevented from forming a political party).

Relations with the US, economic benefits of the CPEC and corruption charges of Nawaz Sharif would be pursued by all political, religious and fundamentalist parties to let the ruling PML (N) down. Religious and fundamentalist parties would promise imposing of the Sharia law. Thus, this would be a stormy year in Pak. No party in this atmosphere could ever profess improving relations with India or reducing tensions in the neighbourhood as one of its agenda points.

This period would benefit the Pak army, which has always been anti-peace talks with India, as it does not suit its strategic design. It would be willing to back any party, political or fundamentalist, which would support its views. Thus, any government which is likely to assume power, single party or coalition would have the tacit backing of the army. Post the removal of Nawaz, all future political leaders would be aware of the consequences of challenging the army’s writ. Therefore, from Pak’s perspective, peace talks with India may not see the light of day for a long time.

By the time Pak elections terminate and a government does take office, as also settle in, it would be time for India to begin gearing up for the 2019 elections. The ruling BJP would project its strong approach to cross border terrorism, surgical strikes, handling terrorism in the valley, basically projecting itself as being the only party to give a fitting response to Pak for its misadventures. It would play the Pak card to full public measure. The opposition, fearing losing out in the elections, would tend to counter the BJP, but would never seek to oppose the BJP and project commencing peace talks with Pak.

Indian elections are due in mid-2019, close to which, there would be attempts by Pak to discredit the present government, by launching terror strikes, hoping to create confusion within the electorate seeking a destabilized India. It would also seek to enhance the tempo in Kashmir to add to the confusion. For Pak, the BJP continuing in power is undesirable as it has given the army the freedom to act. Hence, by increasing its actions along the border and internally, it would hope to bring about a change in the government.

Thus, as Indian elections draw close, India would remain wary, with the government willing to up the ante, solely for political gains. If Pak keeps its actions confined to J and K, the government would react as hither to fore, however, if it does seek to cause turmoil, within the nation, it may be compelled to act. This scenario would have the sub-continent on the boil, with the international community worried about the increasing tensions and the possibility of a nuclear fallout.

Into this quagmire would be relations with China. The Modi-Xi Jinping bonhomie is all but over. Doklam and continued Chinese posturing, India’s refusal to join the BRI and Chinese support to Pak, while blocking India’s entry into the NSG has ensured it. China would prefer a weaker government in Delhi, which could be compelled to join the BRI and also rein in the army from its present hard stance of countering Chinese forays into Indian territory. Thus, China and Pak would seek a weak coalition in power in Delhi rather than a strong government as at present.

Therefore, till late into 2019, there would be an anti-India/Pak atmosphere being created within the masses solely for political gains on both sides of the border. Thus, for the army, it would be added tensions, increased ceasefire violations, multiple attempts at infiltration and fuelling internal strife in the valley. The Chinese front would also witness multiple transgressions and standoffs. While the NSAs may continue to maintain contact, there would be no change in ground conditions. Talks are unlikely to be mentioned for at least two years.

India must develop a strategy for countering Pak CENJOWS 15 Feb 18

Introduction

The strike by militants of JeM on the army’s Sanjuwan camp in Jammu over the weekend was the latest in Pak supported strikes on Indian soil. While terror strikes in Kashmir have been routine, launching one in Jammu is a change in trend. A few recent incidents need to be linked together for comprehending the complete picture. The LoC has off late been active, initially it was Kashmir, while presently the focus appears to shift South of the Pir Panjal, with Pak even resorting to the use of anti-tank TOW missiles against Indian defensive positions. In a recent incident an officer and three soldiers were killed and a few injured on subsequent occasions. There are reports that Pak has increased the deployment of its Border Action Team (BAT) Mujahid battalions in the region.

Indian retaliation has remained strong causing greater casualties to Pak. While India reports every casualty, Pak avoids, fearful that its figures would impact the morale of its soldiers and remove the invincible status of its army in the public eye. Its refusal to even share the same with the national leadership is indicative of this fact. In many cases it has refused to acknowledge Indian retaliation, other than lodging protests for targeting civilians. It is in this increased scenario of tensions that the attack on Sanjuwan was launched. Ironically it happened on the heels of the fifth anniversary of the hanging of Afzal Guru, the mastermind of the Parliament attacks, when security forces were on high alert.

Amid the army handling the Sanjuwan attack, there were calls for it to respond with full measure and strike Pak where it hurts. There were also comments that India only reacts to Pak actions, whereas it should have been taking the initiative and striking harder, making Pakistan pay dearly for every attack on Indian soil. While such bravado is desirable and plays to the galleries, there are deeper designs from Pak which need to be comprehended before considering such suggestions.

There is also the issue of the Indian military’s standing in the international environment. India is considered a recognized military power, but actions by Pak have begun denting this image. If India cannot contain Pak’s aggressive designs, then its powerful status is likely to be degraded. This would also impact India’s diplomatic clout as unless backed by a resolute military, a nation’s international voice has less relevance.

Possible Pak intentions

The internal situation within Pak has clearly shifted in favour of the army. The present beleaguered government, facing pressure from religious and fundamentalist groups in the middle of the election year is in no position to put any road blocks in front of the army. Multiple statements from the government stating that it has reached a compromise with the army is proof of this fact. Thus, talks between the two nations is unlikely for a long time. Further, Pak faces increased pressure from the US on its western borders.

Its Deep State’s attempts to bolster militancy in the valley has been receiving setbacks. Its militants are being culled and the Indian army has regained the initiative. Its proxies, the Hurriyat are being slowly marginalized. Hence, the situation in the valley had reached a status quo level, where militancy remains, but is unable to make headway. It had to therefore change its existing strategy.

The first change is the emphasis on shifting its area of interest to South of the Pir Panjal, in the Rajouri-Poonch Sector. Thus, the level of firing in this sector is on the rise. Similar is increased attempts at infiltration. The region has a very delicate balance of population and Pak’s earlier area of interest, Doda has been relatively quiet. It would slowly seek to activate the same. The population residing close to the LoC in this region are Dogra’s, hence easy targets.

The next change has been the impact on its army’s morale by strong Indian reactions. This needs to be reversed. One option available to it is to increase militancy operations in the region, while enhancing the deployment of BAT battalions. The attack on the Jammu’s Sanjuwan camp was to rekindle morale of its army.

The third aspect is to launch such operations which could incite the Indian army to contemplate a cross border strike in a hurry, while it has enhanced its deployment in the region, expecting such an action. It is aware that there would be an increase in internal pressure on the army to counter Pak’s actions. The same has begun to emerge in social media and multiple media channels. The opposition has also commenced challenging the government’s Kashmir and Pak policy. As state elections draw close and Pak’s actions increase, so would political pressure on the government.

For India, a failed cross-border strike could be disastrous. If it is repulsed by Pak or suffers casualties and fails to achieve its objective, then it would boost the morale of the Pak army, while being politically damaging for the government. India would therefore need to assess its options and then consider a suitable response.

Indian options

India has traditionally been a peace-loving nation. It has never acted unless provoked. Hence, it has largely reacted to Pak’s provocations, rarely taking the initiative. Even during Kargil, it fought to regain own territory, without escalation and crossing the border. It is this reactive mode which has given Pak the initiative to choose the time and place to launch militant strikes or violate ceasefires.

India has, out of concern for innocent residents of POK, targeted the Pak army, avoiding collateral damage, unless in retaliation to Pak’s actions. This has proved to be an ineffective strategy.

India’s international outreach and attempts to isolate Pak has had limited impact. Even the US has stopped its linking of the Taliban and the anti-India terror groups, basically due to their own interests in Afghanistan, giving Pak an opportunity to release Hafiz Saeed. The US, despite increasing drone strikes, has been unable to change Pak’s attitude towards terror groups. Chinese support and a desperation to maintain Kashmir as a disputed territory on the international radar has compelled it to increase ceasefire violations and expand militant operations South of the Pir Panjal, after a prolonged period of concentrating in the valley.

India would therefore need to recraft its strategy of dealing with Pak, both for the short and long term, to force on it to stop supporting anti-India terror groups. This would imply making the cost of such an action insurmountable to Pak.

The final option is war, but if resorted to, could push Indian economy back. For Pak, already in doldrums, it could signal almost an end of the nation. However, while threat of nuclear weapons would limit the depth of operations, it should always remain an instrument of last resort, when every other policy has failed. Hence would not be a prudent option at this phase.

Short term options for India

Militarily India would need to take the initiative and be willing to up the ante along the LoC. It should consider employment of artillery and rocket launchers on Pak posts or even on terror camps within medium artillery or rocket range. Strong punishment on their military should be a short-term measure. Unless it is punished by increased physical casualties, destruction of posts, repairs of which are not subsequently permitted, it would never change its spots.

Simultaneous should be non-adherence to considering civilian casualties. If Pak can target innocent families in military camps and villages along the LoC, then India should likewise ignore its concern for locals across the border. Increased civilian casualties may have Pak screaming from the rooftops, which India could ignore. It is only by enhancing civilian casualties would their public become aware that India is retaliating hard. Further, within Pak, protests would increase, compelling the army to act, enhancing internal divide, while conveying Indian determination.

Cross-border operations should be rare and only once there are concrete intelligence inputs. It has had limited impact earlier, as Pak denied the same and its nation remained unaware, hence may again have limited and short-term impact, though would assuage Indian morale. Its risk of failure needs to be considered before being launched.

The Pak army is deployed on both fronts, facing increased pressures. TTP, Baluch Freedom fighters and US drone strikes have enhanced pressures on its western border, while India should enhance pressure along the LoC. India has only officially accepted the Baluch Freedom struggle, with the PM applauding them from the ramparts of the Red Fort. It may possibly be time for India to consider even greater support and be vocal on the same.

Increased military exercises along the IB, with enhanced force levels would compel Pak to reconsider its present army deployment. This, if done close to Pak elections, when it is most vulnerable, would enhance pressure on it. The very mention of the ‘cold start doctrine’ gives it nightmares. It should be compelled to shift deployment away from its western borders, giving anti-Pak groups the space to enhance their operations, adding to internal pressures.

Long term options

In the long term, Pak must be bled economically, with India increasing its conventional military might, forcing Pak to resort to the same. The Pak economy is in dire straits and it can presently ill afford to enhance its military spending. Compelling it to do so, would increase internal unrest as basic amenities would be impacted. It is understood that India if compelled to launch military operations, would call the Pak nuclear bluff, a fact known to them. Nuclear weapons cannot be employed unless their national fabric is threatened, which would not be the Indian aim. Hence it would be forced to enhance its conventional capabilities, at the cost of social welfare programs.

Diplomatic pressure, by enhancing ties with its traditional Middle East allies would compel Pak to only bank on China for support. Its main support base of Saudi Arabia and Turkey should be eroded by diplomacy, thus pushing it deeper into isolation. Increasing our ties with Iran, could impact Pak’s relations and add to their security concerns. With Afghanistan and the US operating there, India has managed to marginalize Pak, it should seek to do so elsewhere too.

Conclusion

Despite contact between the NSAs continuing, Pak has refused to curb its actions. It has begun expanding its area of infiltration to South of the Valley, which India is strongly resisting. Indian counter-operations have had limited impact. It should realize that it needs to regain the initiative and force Pak to act. If India continues to be bleed by Pak, then its standing within the international community would take a beating. The army has the strength and wherewithal to act, hence should strike based on a sound strategy.

Short and long-term goals to isolate and hurt Pak must be identified and the government should work towards it. India must change from reacting to taking the initiative, ignoring collateral damage, making Pak bleed. We are far more powerful in every way but have been held hostage due to our overtures of peace and desire for de-escalation. It is time to shift gears and move onto the offensive.

Options for reducing ceasefire violations (English Version) Amar Ujala 08 Feb 18

The Line of Control (LoC) between India and Pak has always been active. Firing to support infiltration has been the design by Pak over the years. Further, it needs to keep the Kashmir border alive, thus indicating to the world the disputed nature of the region. India always desired a peaceful LoC, as civilian population reside and till their lands close to it. In case both nations maintain a ceasefire along the LoC, it is easier for India to monitor infiltration and engage terrorists as they attempt to cross.

India terms the Jammu border as the International Border (IB) and the area north, as the LoC. Pak, terms the Jammu border as the ‘working boundary’, thus refusing to recognize the region as demarcated. India deploys the BSF along the IB and the army controls the LoC. Pak has a mix of the army and Rangers along the Jammu border and the army along the LoC, since it does not recognize the status of the IB. Thus, firing continues along the entire stretch.

The last two months have witnessed an increase in ceasefire violations. Looking back across the years, 2015 had 387 violations, 2016 had 271, last year had 860 and the month of Jan, upto the third week had already witnessed 134 violations. In 2017, the maximum was in Dec, which witnessed 147. Thus, considering the trend into the next few months, there would only be an increase in the same. The number of deaths this year on our side of both civilians and security personnel, has touched double figures and is likely to rise.

The ceasefire agreement of 2004 can be considered to have been torn to shreds. Claims by both nations, accusing the other of violating the ceasefire are on the rise. Indian claims of causing higher casualties to Pak is true as it retaliates with full measure. Earlier, it was the Pak army and rangers, deployed along the border, who had full freedom to fire, while the Indian government had restricted Indian forces, hoping to deescalate the situation, thus saving civilian casualties and recommencing talks. This has now been lifted hence firing continues unabated.

With increasing political instability within Pak, the control of the country by the army is almost total. Its support to terror groups operating in Kashmir increases. These group leaders easily procure cannon fodder militants, whom they train and equip, with the support of the deep state. The army is responsible for creating conditions for their infiltration into Kashmir. The Indian army was able to cull most militants attempting to cross, frustrating the deep state. Thus, ceasefire violations increased to support their infiltration.

Many commentators have been stating that since actions along the LoC, including surgical strikes and strong responses, causing casualties to Pak and destruction of its posts have had limited impact, India needs to reconsider its military options. These comments are realistic, as the Pak army has never truly accepted its casualties nor does the media or government have the courage to challenge the claims of the army. The refusal of the army to share its casualty figures even to their own parliament, claiming impact on national morale, proves this fact. Therefore, what would happen along the LoC, may place caution on Pak but would never change the dynamics of the region.

Pak cannot also be seen to be stopping pushing in cannon fodder militants, as it would be against their strategic design. Further, political instability in Pak would imply that no political party, in the forthcoming elections could even state seeking talks with India as a major agenda point. They would all be compelled to declare support to the Kashmiri cause, thus opening doors for the army to continue with its present policy. Therefore, status quo would remain in the foreseeable future.

Declaring an open war may not be an easy answer just because the LoC is burning. The world is watching, worried that escalation may lead to a nuclear conflict. India’s strong military deterrence and effective retaliation has ensured that Pak does not attempt another Mumbai or Parliament style attack, but restricts its activities to J and K. It is aware that India would strike back with full measure and even risk Pak’s nuclear threats. The comments by the army chief during his pre-army day press conference on this topic had rattled Pak, compelling many from the government and army to counter it, terming it as inflaming tensions.

If local military actions have only imposed caution, not compelled Pak to stop, then the next measure should be enhancing diplomatic and economic pressure on Pak. Both these measures would only be effective with strong military backing. Economic pressure increases with developing our own military capabilities, compelling Pak to resort to the same. China may be providing arms to Pak (over 63% of Pak military equipment is Chinese manufacture), however it comes at a cost. This forces Pak to expend more than it can afford, fearing widening of conventional gap with India. Such an expenditure would crack its fragile economy, pushing it deeper into chaos. That the country could not even afford to purchase F-16s which the US cancelled, shows its economic state.

Diplomatically, international pressure is on the rise. The US has commenced drone strikes, which Pak desperately seeks to blame on Afghan refugees. It would only increase. The UN monitoring committee may not have interacted with Hafiz Saeed but reading his open comments and the courts actions saving him, indicates Pak openly supporting terror groups. While China may save Pak from open international humiliation, it can do nothing, if countries independently begin ignoring it.

The US should be the first to commence action, despite threats by Pak to block the use of Karachi and its air space. A different approach which the US can adopt is imposing sanctions on known army officials supporting terror groups. It would have desired results and compel Pak to be cautious as children of elite army and political leaders are based in the US.

Indian diplomatic initiative has begun producing results, with Pak being named in multiple international forums as a supporter of terror groups. The groups that it supports, as also its leaders are being declared international terrorists. Its claims to Kashmir at the UN are ignored because of its terror policies. Its attempts at blaming India for supporting anti-Pak terror groups has also no takers.

A rogue nation, openly adopting terrorism as an instrument of state policy, must be brought to heel. It cannot be permitted to destabilize a whole region, solely to support its agenda based on religious affinity. War should always remain a means but adopted when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed. While war rhetoric and developing military capabilities to pressurize Pak must continue as also enhanced response along the LoC, emphasis should be on alternate measures to compel Pak to act. War should remain an instrument of last resort.

Kulbhushan as a tool of diplomacy The Excelsior 05 Jan 18

Twenty-two months after Kulbhushan Jadhav was kidnapped from Chabahar in Iran by the Taliban, sold to Pakistan’s ISI, was his family, comprising his mother and wife, permitted to meet him. Within this period, he was tortured to make statements claiming he was an Indian spy sent to operate in Baluchistan, tried by an army court, without legal advice and sentenced to death based on his forced confessions.

Majority of the over two hundred convictions by army courts in Pakistan are based on confessions, which indicates how easily they are forced from those suspected of being anti-national. Scores of appeals for counsellor access by India were rejected. A frustrated India, knocked on the doors of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has presently placed the death sentence on hold.

Last week, the meeting authorised by Pakistan to the mother and wife of Jadhav, instead of being a reunion and on humanitarian grounds, as claimed by them, turned out an insult to the family, Indian embassy staff accompanying them and the nation. They were forced to remove most of what they were wearing, denied permission to speak in their mother tongue and met a Jadhav, visibly aged, possibly drugged and carrying a collection of torture marks on his body.

The Indian counsel accompanying them was kept away and not permitted to even overhear the conversation, nor speak to Jadhav. Post the meeting, his wife’s footwear was not returned, and the family was heckled by members of the Pakistan press, as they were forced to await their vehicle, which was intentionally delayed. The Pak army, through their Public relations department even thanked the press for their insulting the family. For the family, what was supposed to be an emotional bonding turned out to be a torturous experience, which they would never desire to repeat. It was a nightmare, which would haunt them for years.

It is apparent that the meeting was scripted. Jadhav has been in the custody of the Pak army, not the state. It is possible that he is being regularly moved to ensure that there is no attempt to rescue him. Pak knows that its case is weak in the ICJ, as it has no proof of his involvement in subversive activities, less forced confessions, which have no legal standing.

Further, counsellor access is a right and should have been granted prior to the commencement of the trial, which has been refused to date. The reason for denying counsellor access is fear of truth emerging. The difference between India and Pak is when India asks Pakistan to meet its citizens captured while committing terror acts, Pak refuses to even accept them as its citizens, while India seeks counsellor access, which Pak denies.

Pak, in desperation to prove Jadhav’s medical and mental condition had hired the services of a Dubai hospital to medically assess him. It released the report on the day of the visit. While there were many flaws in the report and it appeared to be fake, torture marks were just not mentioned. Hiring a Dubai hospital showed Pak’s desperation, as it was hoping the world would accept this report. It was fearful that one of its local hospitals, if engaged, would be discredited.

By permitting the family to meet, it hoped to gain some sympathy from the ICJ. However, the insult to the family and the manner of its handling the meeting would be played out in the court, hence the benefit it hoped to gain from the ICJ would be lost.

The pressure on the Pak army to permit this meet would have been pushed by the government. Apart from seeking a softening in the ICJ, it would also have been aimed at projecting to India a stand down in its rigid stance which could be considered as a message for improving relations.

India waited and watched the unfolding of the choreographed meeting and would have no reason to even contemplate changing its approach. The Pak government may have had no choice, with the army making its position clear, despite a half-hearted statement by their army chief supporting government decision to improve relations with India. Another reason, which was evident by the production of a medical report and the meeting, was to project to the world that Jadhav is alive and maybe just so.

It was aware that for the mother and wife, the meeting would have been an emotional bonding and not an occasion to judge the mental and physical state of Jadhav. To prevent any accidental leakage of information, it denied any conversation in Marathi. The counsel accompanying the family, would have minutely observed Jadhav and judged his mental and physical status from a dispassionate angle. This could have become an embarrassment for Pak, hence it kept the counsel away.

While the attack on the Indian soldiers, including an officer took place before the meeting, India delayed its counter strike till the conclusion of the meeting seeking to avoid any impact on the family or the meeting. This was a mature action by India, which also maintained silence on its views until the family was back on Indian soil.

For Pakistan, conducting the meeting in the manner it did and in full public glare, including the humiliation of the family, was a grave error. It only enhanced the distance between the two nations, as India considers Jadhav innocent and desires him back, while the Pak military claims Jadhav is proof of Indian involvement in Baluchistan. If it wished to convey a change in approach, it failed.

Thus, this incident has added to tensions, rather than resolving it. If Pak had planned this visit as a gesture of goodwill, it has backfired. Within the Indian community it enhanced the bonding of the anti-Pak lobby. It also pushed on the backfoot any group seeking reconciliation and talks. Ultimately, what could have led to a thaw in relations, only hardened India’s stand.

2018 – A testing year for Pakistan ORF 04 Jan 18

Dec 2017 ended with confusion for Pakistan. Trump blocked release of funds on Pak’s non-cooperation in reducing support to terror groups operating on its soil. The humanitarian meeting for the family of Kulbhushan Jadhav, which was supposed to be a signal for a stand down in Pak’s approach turned into a choreographed fiasco, substantiating India’s resolve in unaccepting the words of Pak. A day after the meet, India launched a cross border operation, eliminating minimum three Pak soldiers, in response to a Pak strike a few days before, ending the year with enhanced border tensions.

During 2017, India culled over 200 Pak infiltrated terrorists in the valley, eliminating, most of the terror group leaders, thus regaining complete control. A terrorist strike on a CRPF training camp in Pulwama on 31 Dec claimed five lives, indicating Pak sponsored militancy may be down, but not out. It would continue, however as the Indian army successes grow, it would have lesser and lesser impact.

The marginalizing of the Hurriyat and blocking hawala inflow of funds reduced anti-India violence and strife in the valley, enabling the government to appoint an interlocutor, whom many delegations including students, who earlier led the violence, have met. With the dropping of charges against over five thousand first time stone throwers, hope is back in the hearts of the youth. Political control has been re-established in the valley. Calls for bandhs by the pro-Pak Hurriyat are being largely ignored. This has caused concern in Pak, as its Kashmir strategy appears to be failing.

Sharif flew into Saudi Arabia at the end of the year, seeking to resolve impending cases against him and settle the battle between him and the army, using the influence of the House of Saud. To top it all, the Pak army chief stated in his senate briefing and discussion that the army does not oppose improving relations with India and Afghanistan and the very next day, praised Hafiz Saeed, distancing the two countries even more. Palestine withdrew its Pak ambassador on his sharing a platform with Hafiz Saeed, conveying its intention of being closer to India than Pak.

It was a year when the Pak army established complete control over the country. It had the elected Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, removed from power on flimsy grounds, supported fundamentalists in seeking to establish a political party and backed a sit in by religious parties, ultimately brokering a peace deal, leading to the surrender of the state. It orchestrated the release of Hafiz Saeed from house arrest, when it found its Kashmir policy in tatters. Its permitting Hafiz to rant against Pak political parties and India will add to internal and external tensions.

It ended the year only banking on China for economic aid, development as also for diplomatic backup. It has been China alone, which has blocked the listing of Hafiz Saeed as a global terrorist. Though the CPEC is partially operationalized, its true costs, repayment and ultimate benefits to Pakistan remain mired in secrecy. China’s demand for the Pak army to be directly involved in the CPEC only raises the question of the legality and power of its polity. China has readjusted its terms of investments, details of which would only emerge later, most likely enhancing problems of repayment by Pak.

2018 for Pak is an election year, which could possibly push the country deeper into an abyss. The Pak army’s backing to fundamentalist and religious groups, is likely to result in a mixed bag of elected members of senate, providing the army a stronger hold on the state. The army will have complete authority and control with no accountability and responsibility.

Relations between Pakistan and its neighbours, Afghanistan and India, are only likely to grow worse. The lack of trust between India and Pak, despite the meeting of the two NSAs, at the end of the year in Bangkok, would only increase, not decrease, especially as the internal situation in Pak, post the elections is likely to be more anti-peace. Therefore, the LoC would remain tense and become more active as a desperate Pak would seek to increase infiltration to reignite the valley, which would be strongly challenged by India. Tensions would increase with a possible decision favouring India in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the ICJ.

Pak’s continued support to the Taliban and Haqqani network operating in Afghanistan will remain. This implies, there would be increased tensions between the two countries as strikes by Taliban and Haqqani network would claim additional civilian casualties. Strikes in Pak by anti-Pak terror groups, operating from Afghanistan, would increase Pak-Afghan tensions and lead to regular closure of borders between the two countries, ending in accusations and counter accusations.

US pressure on Pak to act against terror groups would increase. With no substantial action being undertaken by Pak, attacks on coalition forces post the launch of the Taliban Spring offensive would compel the US to launch cross border drone strikes, enhancing Pak anger and worsening relations. India’s growing proximity to Afghanistan and increased support to the country would see it playing a larger role in the country, worrying Pak.

Thus, at the end of 2017, Pak appeared to be facing more problems than at the commencement of the year. Its internal instability and rising enmity with its neighbours marks the commencement of the coming year. It has throughout the year not shown any desire to resume dialogue, mend fences with its neighbours and overcome internal chaos. The army has moved the nation away from political stability to instability by openly supporting fundamentalist and religious groups for their own greed and power.

Therefore, in 2018 Pak would move deeper into internal chaos, its relations with its neighbours would only worsen adding to tensions on both its borders. The elections, likely to throw up a mixed bag of politicians, including fundamentalists and religious leaders, would enhance trouble for its religious minorities, while strengthening the hold of the army. Any government formed post the elections, would not have the power to even contemplate raising talks of peace and reconciliation with its neighbours.

International pressure on Pak would continue to grow, while India would increase its assertiveness and aggressiveness along the LoC. Kashmir would remain generally peaceful, adding to Pak’s discomfiture. India’s growing military power, would compel Pak to spend beyond its budgetary capability on defence, placing its economy at risk. In short, 2018 would be a testing year for Pak as its internal and external challenges would increase manifold.

Why the Pak army chief’s calls for talks make no sense ORF 30 Dec 17

The Pak army chief, General Javed Bajwa, recently briefed his senate on matters concerning national security and his recent visits, including the military alliance created by Saudi Arabia. The briefing was conducted in-camera, post which, the Pak Inter Services Public Relations issued a statement containing some details. After the briefing by his staff, General Bajwa answered queries raised by some members of the senate.

It was during this interaction that he stated that the army would support the government when it went ahead seeking to improve relations with both India and Afghanistan. Such a statement, especially as it concerns India, may be the first by a Pak army chief (as they have mostly maintained silence on calls for talks by the government), needs to be accepted with a pinch of salt. However, actions on supporting talks are more important than mere words.

Within Pak, it is the army which controls foreign policy towards India, Afghanistan and the US. The polity has no role. Every time the polity has attempted to take a step forward, the deep state employs terrorists to strike within India, pushing talks away. It is also abundantly clear that the Pak High Commissioner in Delhi reports to the army, rather than the foreign minister, hence would always remain a stumbling block, rather than being a facilitator.

A day after the army chief spoke for reconciliation with India, he praised Hafiz Saeed, who India blames for most terror strikes, while the US has placed a bounty on him. It is only the army which is pushing for the formation of a political party, Milli Muslim League, led by him, which the government continues to object. Instead of reducing tensions along the border, it launched an operation which claimed the lives of four Indian soldiers. Thus, clearly a case of doublespeak, hence India has rightfully ignored his comments.

Pak presently is facing international pressure. Mike Pence, the US Vice President, stated in Afghanistan a few days ago, that Pak is on notice to curb terror groups. The US National Security Strategy also highlights Pak’s role in supporting the Taliban and Haqqani network. It also seeks to apply pressure on Pak to improve its relations with India, placing the onus on Pak to take the first step.

Pak’s attempts at accusing India for supporting the Baluchistan freedom movement and anti-Pak terror groups from Afghan soil and in conjunction with Afghan intelligence agencies has no buyers, either at the UN or on any other forum where it has chosen to raise the subject. Even its demands for UN intervention in Kashmir or for implementing the defunct UN resolution on the same has been ignored. Its calls to enhance the role and mandate of the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan’s (UNMOGIP) has also been brushed aside. Kashmir no longer exists on the UN agenda and has not even been discussed for decades.

On the other hand, India’s actions of naming Pak based terror groups backed by the deep state has received support in multiple international documents, including the BRICS summit. It has also been commented upon by many international leaders. At the UN, India, Afghanistan and Bangladesh openly blamed Pak for supporting terror groups. Trump and his aides have repeatedly accused Pak of employing terror groups as an instrument of state policy. The US and the UN have named Pak based terror groups and its leaders as global terrorists. It is only China, which has saved Hafiz Saeed from being nominated as an international terrorist at the UN, by employing its veto.

Thus no one believes Pak or its army chief, when they make such comments. While mentioning support for talks on one hand and backing terror groups operating on Indian soil on the other, the very concept of talks has no value. Similarly supporting Hafiz Saeed whom India considers a mastermind of terror strikes in India in forming a political party, sends a wrong signal. Talks can never be held until terror groups operate from Pak soil and ceasefire violations continue unabated. For any meaningful talks there must be a conducive environment, which does not exist.

Lack of a conducive environment implies lack of trust. Lack of trust means that talks can always be derailed when the Pak army so desires. Hence, India feels that talks would have no value, unless Pak is pressured to stop support to terror groups and dismantle terror camps on its soil. Therefore, India continues to develop capabilities to counter Pak, which compels it to spend critical funds and enhance defence spending, which it can ill afford. Pak hence feels threatened and cries hoarse on India leading an arms race and increasing tensions in the sub-continent. It feels that only by developing nuclear weapons and supporting terror groups, to tie down the Indian army in Kashmir, can it reduce Indian threat.

In the present environment, India is slowly impacting on Pak, what the US did to the erstwhile Soviet Union. As the US and NATO military strength continued to grow, it compelled the USSR to enhance defence expenditure, impacting its economy. Pak’s defence budget has been increasing by the year, compelling the government to cut down on other developmental plans, banking only on Chinese investments. It therefore would remain beholden to China.

India, on the other hand, would continue its present march of enhancing capabilities, aggressively countering cross border violations and eliminating terrorists operating in Kashmir. As a growing military and economic power, sought the world over, Pak would only remain a small pinprick on its side as it embraces development and growth. It is in no hurry to resume dialogue, unless Pak creates trust and indicates a willingness to dismantle terror groups.

Talks would benefit Pak more, as it could consider reducing defence expenditure and concentrate on developing its economy, which presently remains in shambles. Pak should learn from China, which has also realised that the way ahead with India is dialogue. Continuing its offensive path, will only harm Pak more than India. India has nothing to lose, hence awaits Pak’s affirmative indicators of a desire for talks. For the present, it has rightly chosen to ignore General Bajwa.

Pak- China collusion on CPEC could endanger the subcontinent Rakshak News portal 13 Dec 17 (English Version)

It is an established fact that Pakistan has placed all its eggs in one basket, which implies China and the China Pak Economic Corridor (CPEC). It’s deep state’s policy of supporting terror groups, enhancing internal fissures and increasing insecurity is such that the world has ignored Pak in its development, leaving it as a country deep in debt. Comments from all walks of Pak society are only on the benefits which may accrue from the CPEC.

While internal support to the CPEC is immense, its true costs, terms of engagement and method of repayment are yet kept under wraps. From limited official inputs flowing from Pak, the Gwadar port has almost been handed over to China, with 91% of income going to China for the next forty years. Thus, clearly Pak is moving beyond the way of Sri Lanka, who only had to hand over the Hambantota port on lease for ninety-nine years due to its inability to repay loans. Pak has already handed over Gwadar for forty years, with the rest of CPEC costs yet to be announced. The impact on Pak’s economy is likely to be such that much more would be at stake for the nation.

This implies that as a nation it would remain under debt to China not only for the present but possibly for generations. Work on the CPEC had almost come to a standstill as China re-evaluated its terms of funding, based on changing internal insecurities. It is internationally known that Chinese rates of interest are much higher than most other nations including international funding agencies, hence smaller nations who borrow from China end up as their satellites, Zimbabwe being a clear example. India had advised nations in its immediate neighbourhood to avoid getting into this state, which most have adhered to.

In Pakistan’s case, Chinese funding is much higher than most other countries where China has invested. It has already pledged approximately forty-six billion dollars, with more in the pipeline. Such a large investment is being done in a country, where instability increases by the day. The recent Islamabad sit-in by religious groups, propelling of Hafiz Saeed to form his own political party, side lining of main stream political parties, ongoing terror strikes by the TTP and freedom struggle by the Baluch freedom movement only indicates that the future is likely to be more unstable. If these groups are permitted to contest the next elections, it would add to problems. For China the investment is an amount which it can ill afford to lose.

To add to uncertainties is the CPEC passing through disputed territory, compelling India to reject join the OBOR project. Non-participation by India, a growing economic and military power, with immense influence in the sub-continent is likely to impact its financial viability. China has attempted numerous tricks to attract India to join, which India has shunned. Thus, any future Indo-Pak conflict may impact the entire project, which China can ill afford. China would have anticipated part of the uncertainty, not the whole. It re-evaluated the impact of its investment and announced its willingness to continue funding, provided the Pak army takes over the project, thus supporting the army over the polity. It had no choice, but to go ahead, alongside a stronger presence of the PLA for ensuring security, as it has already pumped in enough funds. PLA forces have already been noticed in Sindh, POK and along the CPEC, an aspect meriting security concerns for India.

Further, to propel the Pak armed forces, the only force capable of securing the corridor, it would apart from funding and strengthening it, also seek to operate alongside it for security purposes. It must ensure that the Pak army is strong enough to deter India from launching any pre-emptive strike to threaten the security of the corridor. Further, in case there is any threat of an Indo-Pak conflict, it would have limited options to secure its investments.

The limitations imply just two options, supporting Pak by either launching an offensive or broker peace. India has presently shown immense restraint, despite provocations by Pak. Therefore, India would only contemplate an offensive option, if all other avenues of controlling Pak fail. Despite naming and shaming Pak in every international forum, India has continuously called on the international community to reign in Pak, to no avail.

Hence, in case of a major terror strike within the country, in case Pak fails in Kashmir, India may be left with no option but to launch a limited conventional strike, risking escalation. Assured Chinese support may preclude Pak from escalating to a nuclear level.

China to protect its investments, loss of which could threaten the stability of the Xi Jinping, may have no option but to posture forces to support Pak. This would be aimed at preventing India from switching forces and resources from one front to the other. In case India does call the Chinese bluff, then it may even launch a limited offensive on Indian soil.

Pak’s deep state has continued on its path of self-destruction. It has destabilized its internal political situation by placing mainstream political parties on the backfoot, while openly supporting religious and fundamentalist groups, to gain a stronger hold on the country. These groups, if in control of the nation and free from restrictions, would enhance their terror operations in India, compelling India to react.

China, which has invested vast sums on the project, would not sit idle and let its investments sink. It would be compelled to act. India, therefore faces a possible risk of a two-front war, solely due to the Pak deep state’s manipulations. Hence, whenever the service chiefs claim that India needs to be prepared for a ‘two-front war’ they are right.

A Pak-China collusion, solely to ensure Chinese investments, is very much on the cards in the near future. The government of India needs to realize that it cannot ignore defence preparedness hence must ensure that capabilities to counter a two-front offensive are created at the earliest.

Increasing dangers from Pakistan for India and the region ORF 08 Dec 17

The recently concluded protest by members of the Tehreek Labaik Ya Rasool Allah (TLYRA) led by Khadim Hussain Rizvi in Islamabad ended with the army brokering a peace deal, almost three weeks after it commenced and held the city to ransom. Post the orders of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), the government was compelled to employ force to dislodge protestors. It deployed about eight thousand police and rangers for this action, which failed, leaving six dead and scores wounded. The operation was ill planned and uncoordinated from the start.

The Director General of Pakistan’s Inter Services Public Relations, tweeted, even before the police action was launched, that the army hoped ‘both sides should show restraint’, implying direct interference in matters beyond its scope. It also equated the state with the protestors. Post the blotched police action, the government officially called in the army to handle the situation.

The army accepted government orders, but issued an official statement claiming, ‘while it is ready to act, a few points need deliberation’. This implied that there were doubts in the minds of the army leadership on supporting the civilian government in its moment of crises. It never deployed, but directly went in to broker peace. Khadim Rizvi subsequently commented that the army had assured them that all their demands would be met.

It was evident that the army had openly supported protestors, against the government, compelling the state to surrender. The final agreement had every demand of the protestors agreed to, including the resignation of a central minister, action against those who acted against them and dropping of all charges against those arrested. In fact, the final sentence in the agreement thanked the army chief for ‘saving the nation from a big catastrophe’.

The agreement was also signed by a serving major general, a senior member of the ISI, on behalf of the army. Post the end of the protests, photographs emerged of the head of the Karachi Rangers, a major general, distributing thousand-rupee notes to protestors, claiming it to be bus fare home, but in actuality paying them for protesting.

The recent protest was almost a playback of the Lal Masjid episode of 2007. In the Lal Masjid episode, the state failed to act when the protests had initially commenced, almost eighteen months before the launch of military operations. When it finally did, it resulted in over a hundred deaths and the emergence of the TTP, the anti-Pak Taliban. Similarly, in the present protest, in the initial phases there were only a few hundred protestors. Had the state acted, it could have easily controlled the situation.

Opposition political parties, like in any other democracy, began taking advantage of the protest, seeking to corner the government, impacting its decision making. They pledged support to the protestors, giving the agitation more power than it deserved. They failed to realize that they were playing into the hands of the army, which is seeking to change the political landscape for the future.

Support to terror groups operating in Kashmir and Afghanistan by the deep state has been well established. Its desperation to place a pro-Pakistan government in Kabul and continue engaging the Indian army in Kashmir has led it to being treated shabbily by the US and ignored by India. Hence, all demands for talks are not even responded to, by India. Nawaz Sharif attempted to change this narrative and is facing possible time behind bars.

In a turn of events, the Pak army has also commenced openly supporting internal religious and fundamentalist groups, turning screws on main political parties and threatening the future of the country. If these parties rise to power, Pak’s internal dynamics could rapidly change. It would no longer be a nation dependable or trustworthy, but dangerous and isolated, even for the international community.

Its open support to TLYRA in this protest and to Hafiz Saeed in forming his political party, Milli Muslim League, bears testimony. The announcement over the weekend by Hafiz Saeed on contesting the next elections, is with the blessings of the army. The government denied permission for the registration of Hafiz’s party prior to the last by-election, but would be unable to do so in the future, due to open army backing.

TLYRA, which led the protests, is an Islamist political party, formed in 2015, seeking to convert Pak into an Islamic state. Their sudden rise to power is bringing into Pak, a dangerous mix of religion and politics. The filthy language used by their leader in his fiery speeches, invokes emotional appeal amongst the poorly educated masses, inciting them to violence. This was also adversely commented upon by their supreme court, but would have no impact. Its emergence as a national political force, supported by the army, will divide the nation along sectarian lines and enhance internal instability.

The leaders of Pakistan’s religious and fundamentalist organizations, have been spitting venom against present leading political parties, thus enraging local public against them and reducing their support base. It was being done by Rizvi throughout his agitation and by Hafiz Saeed immediately after his release. These parties seek imposition of Sharia and strong blasphemy laws, which has local backing from the lesser educated masses. Of the main political parties, the PML is already losing ground, post the removal of Nawaz and the PPP has yet to regain its earlier standing.

With army backing, they would soon begin to overshadow main stream political parties and dominate politics in Pakistan. Doors which were closed to them, would now open, popularity would increase and being fiery speakers, masses would rally in support.

A fundamentalist or Islamist government, backed by an army which detests the polity, heading a volatile nuclear power, increases internal stability and insecurity, while adding to international tensions. The country could head the way of Iran or North Korea, both dangerous for the region. Simultaneously, the army would have a free run to pursue its external anti-neighbourhood policies and internal ethnic cleansing in troubled regions of Baluchistan and POK. It would also impact Indo-Pak relations adversely and enhance Indian threat perceptions in multiple ways.

Internally, within Pak, there would be greater resistance in the regions along its western borders. Hence anti-Pak terror groups could become more active along the Pak-Afghan borders, while the Baluchistan freedom struggle would gather momentum. There is likely to be an increase in sectarian violence and elimination of minorities, which could lead to a greater internal divide. Economically Pak would be on a downslide.

Internationally, with Islamists and fundamentalists dominating government, concerns on the assured security of Pak’s nuclear assets, would increase. The US could find little support from Pak in curbing terror groups operating in Afghanistan. China, which has invested immensely in Pak for the construction of the CPEC and in various other industrial parks may find the going tough. Internal instability, increased violence and a volatile environment may result in uncertainty, threatening the stability of the CPEC and deny China from obtaining suitable returns from its investments.

With strong anti-India elements, adopting a hard-line approach being power brokers in the country, there would only be increased threats to India, both in Kashmir and across the country. The Pak army would only become more radicalized and hence more unpredictable, thus increased ceasefire violations should be expected. There would be no demands for talks or peace, while giving the deep state the leeway it would desire for operating in Kashmir. Increased infiltration in Kashmir could be attempted alongside seeking to woo Kashmiri’s by promises of a pure Muslim state, which could increase internal violence. India, should therefore be prepared for greater tensions and violence in the period ahead, if the deep state succeeds in its aims. The subcontinent would also become very unstable, impacting the region as a whole.

Islamabad protests will change the internal dynamics of Pakistan CENJOWS 05 Dec 17

Background

Post talks resolving the recent sit-in at Islamabad, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) lashed out at the Pak army on its role as a mediator in the crises. The army had been requisitioned by the centre to disperse approximately three thousand protestors belonging to the Tehreek Labaik Ya Rasool Allah (TLY) led by Khadim Hussain Rizvi. They had been blocking approaches to Islamabad for the past three weeks. The IHC had directed the state to clear the protestors. Initial action by the state involved over eight thousand policemen, which led to six dead and scores wounded, but failed to evict the protestors. In desperation, the centre called in the army.

The army, while agreeing on its tasking, placed questions before the government. The army statement to the government included words, ‘while it was fully ready’ to act, a ‘few points need deliberation’. It never deployed, disobeying the government. Even before the blotched police action, the DG ISPR had stated in a tweet, that ‘both sides’ should show restraint, implying equating the state with the protestors.

Ultimately the army acted as a mediator, more supporting protestors, than the state, compelling the government to accept all demands of the TLY including sacking of a minister, release of all protestors, dropping of charges against them as also investigating the role of police forces which acted against them. It even gave a future role to the TLY in many future committees including in a panel to decide text book changes.

Surprisingly, the government even agreed that a board of clerics would decide on action against a state law minister on his comments and he would be compelled to abide by it. Khadim Rizvi had openly stated that the army had assured them that all their demands would be met.

It was in reality, a sell-out to the TLY, opening doors for more such actions. Thus, while the protestors got away scot free, post everything they did, those who acted against them would face penalties. What infuriated the IHC was the final sentence in the agreement signed between the government and the protestors, which read, ‘We are thankful to him (General Bajwa) for saving the nation from a big catastrophe’. It was also signed by an army Major General. The judge’s final remarks were that ‘this was proof of the army’s involvement’.

Outsourcing of proxy wars by the Pak army

The Pak army has been outsourcing all its proxy wars to religious and fanatical agencies. Proxy wars in nations surrounding it has been done by employing jihadist organizations. Even within, it has taken support of religious groups to threaten and weaken the political leadership, at times placing it in embarrassing positions, as the recent incident indicated.

It has formed, nurtured and financed multiple terror groups to operate in Kashmir, employing as cannon fodder radicalized youth, who are cheap and easy to lure. It even attempted to engage the JuD in forming a political party, Milli Muslim League, to contest the last bye-elections, which it did, however failed to register itself as one. The army ensured that Hafiz Saeed was released from prison, as soon as the US delinked the LeT from the Haqqani network. He has possibly better security than most Pak ministers. The other group leaders have been given similar importance.

Post the Mumbai blasts, which it engineered through Dawood, it has been protecting him and his family in Karachi. He is secure and has possibly even become a money launderer and drug exporter for the Pak army foundation. He remains well protected and secure. Similarly, it was the Pak army, which provided Osama bin Laden a safe house in Abbottabad, where he was ultimately annihilated.

In Afghanistan, it has formed, supported, armed and funded the Taliban and the Haqqani network, seeking to place in the country, a government favourable to it. These groups have caused maximum casualties within the civilian population. It has taken steps to ensure that there would no peace in the country, compelling the US to change its stance against Pak. Despite US pressure, it has failed to act against them.

Lal Masjid scare

Internally, the one mistake made by Musharraf of storming the Lal Masjid in Dec 2007, leading to the creation of the TTP, the anti-Pak Taliban, was a lesson for the army. The TTP, though loosely linked to the Taliban, and its breakaway groups have been causing mayhem and blasts within Pak, compelling the army to launch multiple operations to dislodge them. It has taken the Pak army over a decade to overcome the damage to its reputation, since the incident.

It has since then changed its approach and begun supporting religious groups to its advantage, threatening political parties. It was very clear, in their approach to the recent sit-in that it would never side the government, but seek to gain the support of the TLY. Photographs showed the head of Karachi Rangers, a major general, personally distributing thousand Rupee notes to freed protestors, supposedly as bus fare back home. It was the army’s way of thanking those who came forward to protest on their directions to embarrass the government.

Unbecoming of a disciplined force

This approach by their army, challenging the writ of the government is unbecoming of any disciplined force, tasked to ensure the sovereignty of the state. However, in Pakistan, the military is head of the government and not vice-versa. This attitude was so markedly clear and brazenly open, that the Islamabad High Court Judge remarked, ‘Where is their Radd-ul Fasaad now? Did they not see any Fasaad (anarchy) in this protest?’ He was referring to the much-hyped anti-terror operation launched by the army in Feb this year. The judge added that this action of the army was proof of their involvement.

Pak’s internal dynamics changed forever

The Pak army in this one brazen display of disobedience has changed politics forever in Pak. It has given religious parties dominance over government. Rather than helping curb fundamentalist tendencies which would harm the nation in the future, it has taken steps to ensure that the government is helpless and can be overthrown by fundamentalists. Religious and terror group leaders like Hafiz Saeed, would under army patronage, be officially permitted to form political parties, prior to the next elections and threaten other political parties. Pak’s internal dynamics would only change for the worse in the years ahead.

Impact on the international environment

If religious parties begin to gain the upper hand in the elections next year, under army tutelage, Pak itself may follow Iran into greater isolation. It would only increase fears within the international community about the security of Pak’s nuclear assets. The Pak army is leading the nation downhill, not on a path of stability.

China who have heavily invested on the CPEC, may see roadblocks in stability, threatening their investments. With religious groups dominating politics in Pak, export of jihadists to Xinjiang would soon commence. It may never recover its investments, ultimately dumping Pak.

India would have to deal with a greater unstable Pak, as also a more fundamentalist country, with unpredictable leadership dominated by fanatics. To counter Pak, India would need to strengthen its armed forces as a strong counterbalance. Its desire to stoke fires in Kashmir would only increase. The two nations would only move further apart.

Why Pak released Hafiz Saeed? The Excelsior 30 Nov 17

The release of Hafiz Saeed, from house arrest, just days before the 26/11 anniversary, had India up in arms, with the Indian foreign office adversely commenting on it. Though such an action by Pak was expected and hence the Indian government was not surprised, however it was the irony of the timing which impacted India. Pak resorted to release him in desperation, knowing it would impact future Indo-Pak relations, though they presently only seem to be heading downhill.

Hafiz Saeed was placed under house arrest days after Donald Trump was sworn in as the President of the US. His anti-Pak comments on support to terror groups was the trigger for Pak to act. It had to prove sincerity and the easiest way to do so was to place an international terrorist, with a bounty of USD 10 Million, behind bars. He was released days after the US delinked the LeT from the Haqqani network, as a pre-condition for Pak to receive US aid. The US action of de-linking LeT was aimed at securing its troops in Afghanistan, as the US knew Pak cannot act against the LeT and it also has no role in Afghanistan, however it gave Pak the excuse it was seeking.

It was evident that the Pak govt had arrested Hafiz Saeed only to gain a few brownie points from the US. All through his ten months under house arrest, there was never any shred of evidence produced in court, despite India having handed fifteen dossiers to Pak, highlighting the misdeeds of Hafiz Saeed and linking him to the Parliament attack and 26/11. Further, at the last hearing in the same court, the Punjab government had stated that Saeed was a security threat and should not be released, however, once the de-linking was announced, he was no longer a security threat. This further proved that the house arrest was neither genuine nor was Pak keen to prosecute him.

It also appears that the Pak army had a significant role to play in pushing for his release. Presently in Pak, the army and the courts are working in tandem. The sacking of Nawaz Sharif was on the excuse of the Panama papers, while the reality was that he was questioning the deep state on its policies against its neighbours. No other individual has either been investigated nor charged on the Panama papers in Pakistan to date.

The deep state even went to the extent of encouraging Saeed to form a political party, Milli Muslim League, to challenge main stream parties, which was forcibly disallowed by the present government. It may not be able to disallow it for long, if the deep state insists. It is well known that he is protected by the army and has a strong security element. For the Pak army, he is a strategic asset, which it cannot afford to lose.

The deep state has been facing immense reverses in Kashmir and with winters fast approaching, it needed to regain lost ground prior to the closure of passes. The LeT leadership in the valley has been almost wiped out and with security forces gaining the upper hand, infiltrations are almost nil. Peace has nearly returned, evident with the appointment of an interlocutor by the government.

Hence, drastic action would need to be taken before Indian security forces eradicate militancy from the valley. Their final hope is Hafiz Saeed, who could incite youth to join in larger numbers and be motivated enough to recreate the earlier tempo. Therefore, he needed to become a public figure, addressing masses, seeking supporters and rekindling confidence within the ranks of a battered LeT. For this he needed freedom to move and thus become visible.

For India, his release, ironic because of its proximity to 26/11, is a message that Pak would never act against its supporters. Further, it proves that the decision of the Indian government to refuse any offer for talks from Pak is correct and justified. If it has never brought even a shred of evidence against the individual throughout ten months and declares him as no security threat the moment the US delinked the LeT, then talks would imply nothing.

Another interesting lesson which emerges is that it was pressure from the US which compelled Pak to place him under house arrest, while reducing pressure brought forth his release. The US has begun re-insisting on his arrest and prosecution. However, such insistence would imply nothing, unless LeT is relinked with the Haqqani network. Hence, India must impress upon the US that re-linking the LeT to the Haqqani network is a precondition for enhancing support in Afghanistan. Another factor is possible waning of US influence over Pak.

While the deep state may seek to again rekindle its LeT operations in the valley, the chances of that happening appears remote. Immense water has flowed under the Jhelum in the past ten months. Money to support violence has vanished, the Hurriyat is under intense pressure due to NIA and ED raids and many of its members are behind bars. Inputs on presence of militants are flowing in from all quarters, indicating a changing mindset amongst the local population, enabling security forces to regain the initiative. The interlocutor has been meeting multiple groups across the valley, who would have never ventured forward earlier. Thus, banking on Hafiz Saeed may not give them the tempo they so desperately seek.

The odds are against Pak and its proxy terror groups to succeed. They may attempt to strike a major army base in or around the valley or attack soft targets, solely to gain some mileage. Hafiz Saeed would also need to prove his gratitude to the deep state for his release, hence would launch his cannon fodder militants on such suicidal missions. Ultimately the lesson for India is the duplicity of Pak, seeking talks on one hand and releasing an international criminal on the other.

Why the violence in Islamabad has a resonance in India’s Panchkula Daily O 26 Nov 17

There were two recent incidents, one in India in Panchkula, where the supporters of Ram Rahim, the self-styled Godman had entered the city and camped for a couple of days before his sentencing and the other across the border, in Islamabad where protestors seeking reversal of amendments to the election act had been on a sit in since the beginning of Nov. In both the cases there was an expectation of violence when action to evict them would be undertaken. In Panchkula, even if Ram Rahim was sentenced, which he ultimately was, violence was likely. Yet in both cases the governments oscillated and delayed action.

Putting aside the fact that the reasons behind the two protests were different, so was the number of protestors, however there were some similarities and limited variations in the manner in which they were tackled. In both cases protestors had begun gathering in the city, well before the anointed event and the governments, in one case the state and in Pak’s case the centre, chose to turn a blind eye.

The governments were primarily concerned with their own survival. The Haryana leadership had tapped Ram Rahim to endorse them for votes, hence was unwilling to turn against his supporters, fearing a political backlash, while the Pak government was worried about the forthcoming elections as also the courts, which was threatening to place Nawaz behind bars. It was finally the courts which compelled the governments to act, once it realized that the protests could turn ugly.

In both cases, as a precautionary measure, the governments had requisitioned immense police and central armed police forces (CAPFs). In Panchkula, CAPFs began arriving on the morning of the sentencing, whereas in Islamabad they were in the city, but away from the scene of protests. The initial assault on the protesters were launched by police and CAPFs, which failed. Analysing the causes would again bring in similarities.

The major cause of the failure was that the initial assault was ill conceived and uncoordinated, hence was expected to fail. Had it been done at night or early morning, in both cases, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. As videos and news reports indicated, the police ran from the scene, adding to a growing feeling of confidence amongst the protestors. This happened because the governments had underestimated the strength and determination of those protesting, who were passionate on their cause.

Another similarity was that both governments hesitated, solely to avoid a political fallout, hence permitted protestors to hold the city to ransom, while they contemplated action. While the Pak protests would end up as a national level crisis, the Haryana protests challenged the state, leading to a verbal blame game between the chief Ministers of Punjab and Haryana, which is bound to be exploited by other political parties in the future.

The difference between both nations controlling the situation was the reaction of the army, which was ultimately inducted, however the time frame of induction was different. In Haryana it moved in near simultaneous to the failure of the CAPF and police actions, whereas in Pakistan, it was a day later. In Pak, the army chief was aware of the gravity of the situation, even before eviction actions were launched, however seeking to place the government in an embarrassing situation, initially refused to involve the army in controlling the situation.

The Director General, Pakistan’s Inter Services Public Relations (DG ISPR), tweeted on Saturday, the day of the initial attempt to break the protests, that their army chief had telephonically informed the Prime Minister, to handle the dharna peacefully avoiding violence from ‘both sides’. He even mentioned that this was in national interest. Interestingly, he placed state security personnel and protestors on the same platform as far as violence was concerned. His tweet implied that the army would not get involved, unless initial attempts failed, and the government embarrassed.

In Haryana on the other hand, the army was on standby and employed almost simultaneous to eviction actions by the police and CAPFs had failed. There were no comments by the army on not employing its troops, after all India is a true democracy and the army is dutybound to respond when called. Thus, peace was restored early, with little loss to state and property. Casualties in Pak’s case would be much higher, as the army delayed induction.

There were needless casualties in both cases. These were mainly due to police firing, which could have been avoided had timely action been taken to evict unlawful protestors. The blame for the failure in both cases were given to the politicians who contemplated, while the protestors gathered strength and amassed weapons. Neither government admitted that they were aware that the protestors had come planned to agitate and cause violence, in case the decision was not in their favour.

However, as per reports in the Panchkula case and would shortly flow in the Islamabad case, the tactical action of removing protestors from the site, by the state police, was flawed because of lack of information on their determination and the uncoordinated and piecemeal employment of security forces. The similarity in failure is compounded that there was enough time to coordinate and plan a cohesive and forceful action. Interestingly, in Pakistan’s case, the police, until they fired teargas, never realized the direction of wind was against the very use of gas, something which should have been known since they had time.

Ultimately, securing vote banks and avoiding political turmoil delay decision making, especially when handling situations which have a possibility of escalating. Inducting police and CAPFs without a cohesive plan and in an uncoordinated manner is bound to lead to embarrassing situations, seeking the deployment of the army. It would also enhance needless casualties. When everything fails, it is the army. In Panchkula, timely induction restored the situation in a short time, in Pak, delay in induction would prolong the crises, adding to the discomfiture of the government.

Will isolation or international pressure make Pak act Amar Ujala 17 Oct 17

An interesting question presently doing the rounds is on whether Pak can be isolated globally for its policy of supporting terror groups or its strategic importance would preclude such an action or would only international pressure make it behave, despite Trump’s rhetoric of threatening it and India’s strong diplomatic initiatives. Post the outburst of Trump, pushing Pak into depression, it seems to have rediscovered its voice, especially after its Prime Minister met the US Vice President and their foreign minister met their secretary of state. Their major worry, post the remarks by Trump, was never international isolation, which it felt may never happen, but increased operating space within Afghanistan for India, which as perceived by Pak, could become a major threat to its security.

The announcement to give Pak one more opportunity by Jim Mattis, the US defence secretary, to show its desire for peace in the region, has raised doubts on US intentions and possible shift in strategic thought. The recent visit by a delegation led by the deputy assistant to the President and national security council senior director for South Asia, likely to be followed by top US diplomats to Pak this month is a sign of them reconsidering their approach.

Pak, acting on US inputs, freed a US citizen and his family from the clutches of the Haqqani network, sending a signal that it may be willing to act as per US demands. A question which remains unanswered is that the incident occurred on Pak soil, implying it continues to provide support to terror groups and that this was an enacted encounter, done to relay a message to the US, that it may be willing to change, provided some terms and conditions are met. Permitting the captors to escape, only further proves this theory. Since the information came from the US, had Pak not acted, it may have resulted in another Osama Laden type of operation, embarrassing the nation.

Donald Trump’s words of praise have been misconstrued in the press in both India and Pak as a change in US perception, but is not the case. It is merely a means of showing mild softening in outlook, which could reharden if another terror strike occurs in Afghanistan, mainly on NATO forces. US strategists are aware that Pak cannot be ignored but would need to be either threatened with diplomatic action or pressurized into changing its approach to terror groups based on US plans and desires.

The geostrategic location of Pak, as gifted to it by history, makes it an important player in the region. Its importance stems from it being the doorway to Central Asia, presently dominated by Russia, whose rich oil, gas, market and mineral reserves have yet to be fully tapped, a neighbour to Afghanistan, a part of the region where anti-west terror groups are gaining a strong foothold and neighbouring Iran, whom the US is seeking to contain.

Presently, oil and gas of the Central Asian Republics flow through Russia, which has the power to switch on and off the tap to Europe, thus precluding Europe from openly supporting US sanctions against it. With Iran and the US at loggerheads, the importance of Pak only increases.

The US is aware that its forces operating in Afghanistan can never be maintained by an airhead alone, either in Afghanistan or in any neighbouring country. They need a port and the nearest port is Karachi, as Iran would never be willing. Hence, Pak would always be an essential part of US strategy, despite any rhetoric. In addition is Pak’s position within the Islamic community, proximity to Saudi Arabia and China, as also its possession of nuclear weapons. Hence, Pak can be pressured to act, but not internationally isolated.

The only way to compel Pak to act would be to announce an enlarged role for India in Afghanistan. With India already training the Afghan army and police, as also providing developmental assistance and military equipment, Pak security establishment antennas are already raised. In their perception, an enhanced role would open doors for India to expand its footprint and could enable it to provide support to the TTP and the Baluch Liberation Army. Thus, India may become a bargaining lever for the US in the long term to threaten Pak. This implies that if the US promises to contain India’s role, Pak would ensure that the Taliban appear on the negotiating table and the Haqqani network contained.

Indian diplomatic offensive against Pak, in recent times, has been aimed at pushing it into a corner. Within the region, Pak has been ignored, when nations of SAARC refused to attend any summit there, unless it curbs terror groups. This action may impact its polity alone, not the deep state, as they have no respect for regional groupings, nor does it imply isolation. In the international arena India has successfully named and shamed Pak for its support to terror groups. The inclusion of Pak based groups in international documents, like the BRICS summit or the Indo-Japan joint declaration, may again affect its polity, but never change the strategic approach of its military.

Contrary to Indian success, Pak’s attempts of accusing India for supporting anti-Pak terror groups and Human Rights abuses in Kashmir or even ceasefire violations, has been a dismal failure. India’s success across the globe has ensured that there is not even a murmur against India. Kashmir has never been discussed in the UN for decades, no nation has accused India of supporting terror groups, other than China, seeking to support its traditional ally Pak. While Indian claims to POK have been accepted globally, Pak’s request for international mediation in Kashmir has found no takers. Thus, Pak’s voice causes no international impact, while India’s does. Hence, Pak has begun losing international support, facing pressures, but not isolation.

Internally Pak would never be at peace. Its unresolved borders with India and Afghanistan would ensure that unless it seriously desires to resolve its leftover historical baggage, it would never emerge as an economically secure nation. Its western provinces have historically been autonomous and seeking to subdue them, albeit by military force has led to widespread alienation. Its internal terrorism would continue. With the military ruling the nation from the backseat, the international community is aware whom it needs to pressurize.

Its nuclear weapons, which has seemingly provided Pak with security from a much more superior India, is also an international concern. The possibility of nonstate actors obtaining a nuclear device is a reality and a matter of concern for the international community. Its recent actions of shifting its nuclear weapons to multiple locations is a sign of internal fear that the international community may act, in case there is a danger of the weapons moving into the hands of non-state actors.

Pak would never face international isolation. However, India and the US have reduced Pak’s voice in the international arena, support for its claims ignored, thus pushing it into the background. Pressure would compel Pak to act, only if it feels increased security threat. The US would seek to convince Pak to act by playing the Indian card in Afghanistan, threaten to launch cross border operations employing drones or special forces and willingness to launch operations, in conjunction with Afghan forces against anti-Pak terror groups on Afghan soil.

Pak heading for military rule The Excelsior 12 Oct 17

The recent statement, post the meeting between the Pak foreign minister, Khawaja Asif and the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, included a comment indicating concerns about the future of Pakistan’s government. This announcement was made after inputs began flowing of a growing rift between the polity and the army, which holds sway over the country. The statement aimed to support the civil establishment and was possibly signalling a warning to the army to stay away.

While the US remains worried about the future of democracy in the state, it continues to apply pressure on curbing terror groups. There are reports of possible visits by senior US diplomats to Islamabad to enhance pressure on the army not to resort to adventurism, while acting against terror groups on its soil, despite its claims to the contrary.

The rift between the polity and army is not new and has been simmering for some time. Nawaz Sharif was keen to improve ties with India and Afghanistan, which went against the deep state’s strategy. The army has its power and budget solely because it continues to project India as a major threat along its eastern flank and terrorism emanating from Afghanistan along its western. While India has no reason to resort to cross border violations, Pak has and conveniently blames India. Kashmir is another excuse for the Pak army to reiterate Indian threat.

The Dawn leaks episode, was the result of an internal tussle, wherein the polity warned the army against supporting terror groups, as it was visualizing growing international anger and it was right. The backlash from the army was such that it led to the resignation of the information minister, as also a series of reconciliatory meetings between the army chief and the prime minister. Finally, the polity had to surrender.

With the retirement of Raheel Sharif and appointment of Bajwa, it was presumed that tensions had reduced. However, the bonhomie was short lived. It was Bajwa who was behind the downfall of Sharif and increased current tensions. The army has tasted power and has complete control over the state, which it would never let go.

In recent times, differences have risen to new heights. The Pak foreign minister’s comment in the US that Hafiz Saeed, LeT and the Haqqani network are liabilities and Pak needs time to tackle them added to the army’s growing anger. It contradicted the army’s regular statements that no terror groups operate from Pakistan’s soil and their anti-terror operations have been a success. The interior ministry blocked the army supported Milli Muslim League (MML), a political party, floated by Hafiz Saeed led JuD, from obtaining an election symbol, hence barred for the future.

There was also the ranger episode, where the rangers took control of the national accountability courts and even prevented their own Interior Minister from entering. Though the rangers are meant to operate under the Interior Ministry but officered by the army, they refused to even heed to calls from the interior minister. In a similar manner, they withdrew security of the parliament complex, which was their responsibility, without any information or orders, clearly proving that they have no respect for the polity. Both the incidents have echoed in their senate with politicians demanding answers, while the army maintains silence and the government remains speechless. These incidents are indicating troubled times ahead.

A seven-hour marathon corps commanders conference, without any statement was most likely the forum where the growing rift was discussed. The DG Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), held a press conference, where he stated that silence and no statement post the corps commanders conference was also aimed at conveying a message. The press conference disputed the remarks of the foreign and interior ministers.

The DG ISPR admitted that Pak had fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan and refused to accept the presence of any terror group or its leader within the country. He also supported the MML, stating that everyone has a right to contest elections, irrespective of ideology, contrary to the views of the interior ministry. His support for the rangers’ recent actions, openly challenged the state.

While the polity faces international flak over issues pertaining to support of terror groups, the army refuses to even reconsider. While the government awaits the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Kulbhushan issue, the DG ISPR states that the army chief would give his decision soon. The army would never be willing to change its spots and loosen control over those it considers as its strategic assets.

The nation is presently at the cross roads with everyone asking, who controls the country. The government at the centre is weak, as with the removal of Nawaz Sharif, the army has shown, that irrespective of the wishes of the electorate, they possess the power to remove anyone who does not toe their line. They had multiple options and the court was the one they chose in Nawaz’s case. The present government has been put on a stand by notice even before it has been able to stabilize, that it either toe their line or be prepared to perish.

The army has in the ranger episode shown that it controls all forces within the nation, paramilitary or regular. If the polity even attempts to question it, it may act. The US warned the army indirectly that the world would not accept another period of military rule, as it may be detrimental to their plans in Afghanistan.

A message would have also gone that if the army does the unthinkable, the country may soon witness stricter action including isolation and sanctions. China too would be concerned as instability would impact their investments. For India, army rule in Pak would result in enhanced cross border tensions and support to terror organizations in Kashmir. For Pakistan, every dictator has pushed the nation further downhill, this one would be no better.

Pak cannot dismantle terror groups operating from its soil CENJOWS 09 Oct 17

Background

The foreign minister of Pak, Khawaja Asif, acknowledged in the US that Hafiz Saeed, Haqqani network and the LeT are liabilities for Pak. He went on to add, ‘Give us time to get rid of them as we don’t have assets to match these liabilities.’ This is not the first time Pak has admitted that it supports terror groups. Sartaj Aziz, their earlier foreign affairs advisor had stated about the Taliban at the Washington’s Council of Foreign Affairs think tank on 01 Mar 16, “We have some influence over them because their leadership is in Pakistan and they get some medical facilities. Their families are here”. This was in the context of bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table.

General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff committee even stated in a recent US senate hearing that the ‘ISI has connections with terror groups’. As a counter, the Pak DG ISPR, Major General Ghafoor, in a news conference stated, ‘having links is different from supporting. Name any intelligence agency which does not have links’.

Denials always

The Pak top leadership, including their Prime Minister had reversely stated that there are no safe havens in Pakistan of any terror groups, from the podium of the UN General Assembly. Their army chief had stated on similar lines on numerous occasions. Other government spokespersons claimed that the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network were based and operating from Afghanistan, where they control close to forty percent of the territory.

The Pak opposition criticized their foreign minister claiming his facts were incorrect and the sacrifices of the army in battling terrorists targeting Pak were forgotten. Hafiz Saeed even issued the foreign minister a legal notice, claiming he was being maligned in his comments. These are some of the many contradicting statements emanating from the same government, within a very short time, raising more doubts than answers.

No mention of anti-India terror groups

They have never been able to similarly comment on the anti-India terror groups. Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahudeen amongst other known terror group leaders move and operate freely in Pakistan. The daily culling of Pak sponsored terrorists, as they attempt to enter India is ample proof of their existence. Indian arrests of Pak militants, including Ajmal Kasab, have blocked any such Pak actions. Hence, while they attempted to cover the Taliban and Haqqani network, despite the known presence of Bin Laden and Mullah Mansoor, they ignored anti-India groups.

The world is aware of Pak lies

However, the facts are clear. The deep state controls, supports and employs terror groups operating in India and Afghanistan as strategic assets. The polity cannot pass directions to the deep state on the issue. The infamous ‘Dawn newspaper leaks’ where an article on the polity challenging the deep state on maintaining terror groups as state policy emerged, led to an angry response by the army.

It created such panic within the government, that the information minister was made a scapegoat and compelled to resign. The Prime Minister held a series of meetings with the army chief to resolve the issue. It was this difference in opinion of handling terror groups which could possibly be one of the reasons for Nawaz Sharif’s downfall.

The world is aware of Pakistan’s policy of state sponsored terrorism. It was with this backdrop that Trump gave Pak a direct warning on stopping its terror supporting activities. The US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis’s statement in Afghanistan that the US would be observing Pak carefully, amply elucidates the point. It is in international crosshairs for all the wrong reasons.

Fears within their establishment

The Pak army has a major predicament, which was possibly what their foreign minister attempted to state, when he made his comments in the US. The predicament stems from an earlier incident in Pakistan, the storming of the Lal Masjid. The Pak army was compelled to storm the Lal Masjid in Islamabad in Jul 2007, resulting in over a hundred dead, after an announcement of Islamic rule from its pulpit. Over seventy percent of Lal Masjid’s students are from the tribal belt of Pak. This was the same masjid from where the ISI had in the past, recruited and mobilized volunteers for Kashmir and Afghanistan.

Six months post the storming of the Lal Masjid, forty militant leaders from the tribal belt, possessing between them large numbers of trained and battle hardy militants, met in South Waziristan and agreed to form a united front against Pakistan, because they strongly opposed the attack on Lal Masjid. Thus, was born the Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP), also termed the Pakistan Taliban, the organization which the Pak army struggles to control.

The worry within the Pak establishment stems from the fact that any action it takes against the HuM, LeT, Haqqani network, Afghan Taliban, Hafiz Saeed or any other group or leader, could result in the group turning inwards or its loyalists aligning with the TTP. This could result in increased internal turmoil, spread across the length and breadth of the country.

Pak army fears becoming overstretched

The Pak army is stretched to its limits battling the growing freedom struggle in Baluchistan, rising militancy in the tribal areas, regular attacks by the TTP, strong retaliation by India along the LoC and a hostile border with Afghanistan. In addition is the requirement to continue to provide support and protection to the CPEC and the Chinese working on it. The rise of another terror group may spell doom and be beyond the army’s control. Thus, the army attempted to bring in legitimacy to the JuD by endorsing its forming a political party. However, international pressure forced their interior ministry to step in and prevent it.

Polity vs the deep state

The polity seeks peace with both its neighbours as it desires Pak grows economically, basically under directions from China, its main benefactor, but the army has a different view. It does not desire any role for India in Afghanistan and seeks to reclaim Kashmir by a violent struggle while tying down a large part of the Indian army in the valley, thus seeking to reduce chances of an all-out war.

Hence, its reliance on terror groups. Supporting the Taliban would strengthen its grip on Afghanistan and whenever it becomes part of the Afghan government, a major condition would be to keep India away. Employing cannon fodder militants against India would keep Kashmir alive in the international environment and by providing funding for encouraging violence, it would keep the region on the boil. In the opinion of the deep state, talks would impact its actions hence every time suggestions for talks are made, it launches a strike.

Fears Indian strategy

Their polity is aware that India, pursuing its policy of isolating Pak, would be seeking to convince the US into naming it as a terror state, akin to North Korea, which would mar its international standing. The BRICS statement and subsequent comments by Russia have reduced margins for support. Even during the recent visit of the Pak foreign minister to China brought forth no major achievements.

While China stated no change in relations with Pak, it ignored any reference to the BRICS statement, a shift from the normal as also a gentle warning to change tack. It may support Pak by again placing a hold on the designation of Hafiz Saeed as a global terrorist in the UN at the end of this month, but it would possibly come with an ultimatum to Pak.

The deep state also knows that it would be compelled to dismantle terror groups as international pressure would mount once the US surge is completed in Afghanistan, however is unsure of the impact. One Lal Masjid was bad enough. The future could be even more bleaker. Hence, it would find it extremely difficult to even consider the dismantling of terror groups. It may bear international pressure, accept lack of funds, greater isolations, worsening relations but would not risk the rise of more anti-Pak terror groups due to its own follies.

Past role of US and China

Previous US governments continued nudging India to maintain contact with Pak, solely seeking Pak support in Afghanistan. It expected that hopes of a solution to Kashmir would change Pak’s approach to supporting terror groups. In recent times, India and the US have become closer and with India becoming a major strategic partner with the aim of counter balancing Chinese hegemony in the region and its active participation in the development of Afghanistan, this nudge has ended. Further, with Indian attempts to isolate Pak gaining ground, Pak’s counter claims requesting everyone to intervene in Kashmir are ignored.

China, while supporting Pak is keeping its hands off the Kashmir issue. Post Abbasi’s speech in the UN, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson stated that Kashmir is a bilateral issue. China has continuously advised Pak to concentrate on trade and development. Its agreement to name Pak based terror groups in the BRICS summit was a silent warning.

Trust deficit

The ‘Dawn newspaper leaks’ proved that the government desires to recommence dialogue, requests for talks, but the deep state desists. Trust deficit only enhances, solely because India knows, Pak fears dismantling terror groups. Unless the offer for talks emanates with support from the deep state, it would be valueless. The deep state knows that the freedom granted to Hafiz Saeed and his ilk has resulted in them possessing their own identity and support base, as recent byelections have proved, when the JuD sponsored party, Milli Muslim League (MML), secured the third place.

Nuclear weapons guarantee national security

The Pak leadership is aware that its nuclear power status will ensure that the nation state continues to survive, despite external threats. The statement by Abbasi in the UN reiterated this aspect. The spreading of its nuclear arsenal in nine sites across the country is aimed at deterring any international power from attempting to launch a pre-emptive strike. It is worried about India taking advantage of US pressures from Afghanistan, hence reiterates its tactical nuclear weapons.

Impact for India

The surgical strike conveyed that a major terror strike on Indian soil would not go unpunished. However, within the valley the game would continue. The isolation of the Hurriyat by the NIA and the ED has drastically reduced Pakistan’s Kashmir support base, compelling them to enhance pressure on militants to increase attacks on security forces. A stronger anti-infiltration grid with culling of terrorists at the LoC is making even this difficult.

A major option open for India is to continue enhancing pressure on Pak in every international forum, compelling it to attempt the unthinkable, withdrawing support to terror groups. This would tie down their deep state. It is only by reducing the power of the deep state, can the subcontinent witness peace.

Pakistan can’t blame India or US for its failures in Afghanistan Daily O 08 Oct 17

The increasing trust deficit between Kabul and Islamabad (read Rawalpindi) has been evident in recent times. The address to the UN General Assembly by the Afghan President, Ashraf Ghani, was clearly directed towards Pakistan, compelling Pak to take recourse to the ‘right to respond’. Similar were his comments during his recent visit to India.

India and Afghanistan signed, amongst a slew of agreement, one for training the Afghan police in India. India is already involved in training of the Afghan army, providing military equipment and economic aid. There is no member of the Afghan government, who has ever had a kind word towards Pakistan. In their view, Pak is a terror supporting nation.

The Afghan leadership has been buoyed by the direct warning given to Pakistan by Donald Trump on curbing terror groups. Its reinforcement by Jim Mattis, the US Defence Secretary, when he stated that the US would be closely watching Pak choices in the new Afghan policy, only added to their woes. Jim Mattis’s visit to Delhi, wherein India agreed to participate in the development and training of Afghan security personnel, caused greater worry in Pak. Jim Mattis’s statement to the senate committee that India turned down boots on the ground, solely due to considerations of Pak security cut no ice.

As a counter, the Pak Prime Minister, Shahid Abbasi, stated that Pak would never accept any role for India in Afghanistan. His words, “We don’t foresee any political or military role for India in Afghanistan. I think it will just complicate the situation and it will not resolve anything”, clearly imply the thoughts of the deep state. His other comments included the perception that Afghanistan and Kashmir are linked, as a resolution on Kashmir would bring peace to the region. There was a similar echo when the Pak foreign minister met the US secretary of state recently.

In this melee and worry, the Pak army chief rushed to Kabul last week with offers of training for Afghan army and police, aiming to counter growing Indian influence. He was also seeking to identify common measures to enhance security cooperation including joint operations against terror groups. Both nations have accused the other of supporting terror groups inimical to the other. Pak accuses Afghanistan of permitting, along with India, the existence of the IS, TTP, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar and Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA). Kabul claims Pak supports Taliban and Haqqani network.

Since the warning by Trump and the confirmatory comments Mattis, Pak feels that it is being singled out for US failure in Afghanistan. Their foreign minister stated that it alone cannot take responsibility for Afghanistan’s peace and security, nor would it permit the Afghan battle to be fought on its soil. At the same time, he also admitted that the Haqqani network was a liability, but lacked assets to tackle it.

The BLA and the TTP, both based in the mountains of Afghanistan, continuously cross the Durand Line, which remains unrecognised by Afghanistan, to target minorities and security personnel in the western provinces. Pak claims that these are supported by India and the Afghan intelligence agency. With Indian presence and involvement, less boots on the ground, only likely to increase in Afghanistan, the worry in Pak is only rising.

It has never reconsidered its flawed Afghan policy, nor even attempted to rectify it, instead has been blaming Afghanistan, India and the US for its ills and sufferings. Pak’s approach towards its western neighbour should have been more friendly and cooperative, especially since the US walked in post 9/11. Had it cooperated, India would have been kept at arms-length, the Durand Line issue nearing resolution and anti-Pak terror groups possibly struggling to survive.

With Musharraf in the driver’s seat, it felt that it could control the future of Afghanistan and make the state subservient to Pak, hence continued to support terror groups operating in Afghanistan, without any long-term analysis. It provided sanctuary to Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders, only seeking to continue to exercise control over them. With passage of time and regular change in the Taliban leadership, the group began creating its own identity and source of funding through production and distribution of opium, hence ignored Pak’s material support. Thus, they became liabilities, which Pak now fears to handle.

Had Pak handled Afghanistan with positivity, the return of Afghan refugees back to their nation would have been easier. It took the difficult path, left the nation in turmoil, hence prevented their return. It remains burdened with them and would in time have to accept them as Pak nationals as even the second generation has grown and settled there.

Its flawed approach to a fledging state, after NATO intervention, only opened doors for India to wade in, following the diktat, ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. Once India got a foothold, it went ahead seeking to further expand the same. Its developmental projects have earned it goodwill amongst the masses and provided it a free run within the country. Attacks on Indian consulates have only enhanced hatred towards Pak and sympathy to India.

Training their army and police personnel exposes them to Indian soft power, its freedom and ethics, making them strong supporters of India. This would further alienate them from Pak. In fledgling democracies, where the elected government has instability and terrorism is a daily battle, the army has a strong foothold, as it possesses the power to hold the nation together. The same holds good for Afghanistan also. An alienated Afghan army would never accept any goodwill from Pakistan.

No inputs flowed from either side on the outcome of the visit of their army chief. Thus, probably there was no significant breakthrough. The only result was a panicky seven-hour conference of the army chief with his corps commanders.

Pak is on slippery ground, solely because of its own flawed policies. It needs to change tack, but cannot as those it needs to control, are beyond its capabilities. It may beg for time or seek to deflect the blame, but would never be able to give satisfactory results. Hence, it would only face international ire and deeper isolation in the days ahead.

Pakistan can lie, but truth would always emerge Defence News India 07 Oct 17

I had written an article in ‘The Wire’ on 07Jan 17, entitled, “India, Pakistan and a tale of two army chiefs”, (https://thewire.in/97846/bipin-rawat-qamar-javed-bajwa-india-pakistan/) in which I had stated that the Indian army chief controls only the Assam Rifles, while the Pak army chief controls all para military forces within the country. Thus, the Indian army chief controls forces deployed to ensure national security, while the Pak army chief controls forces, to enable a military coup at a time of his own choosing.

A Pakistani organization, most likely an official deep state website called TACSTRAT (Tactical knowledge for strategic development), devoted a whole column to attempt to prove every statement of mine wrong. In the case of control of para military forces, it went on to state, “Not correct. The para military forces in Pakistan are under the ministry of interior. The Pakistan army acts in support of civil power when asked and authorized to do so” (http://tacstrat.com/index.php/2017/01/09/setting-record-straight/ ).

The incident in the Accountability court of Pakistan a day ago, when Nawaz Sharif was summoned, proved how wrong Pak comments were. The minister of the interior, who is officially meant to control the rangers, who had suddenly appeared outside the court, without even being summoned, refused him permission to enter. The Rangers removed the local police and took control over the complex, refusing to listen to any authority other than their own and those supervising the deployment refused to respond to summons, denying entry even to the interior minister. This sparked a debate as to who controls security in Pakistan, the elected government or the army (https://www.dawn.com/news/1361230/whose-orders-is-rangers-following-ahsan-iqbal-lashes-out-at-force-for-blocking-entry-to-court). Thus, the lie which Pak desired to project claiming it functions like any other democracy with central forces under the elected government was proved wrong. It is a military state.

The same misleading statements and subsequent truth has been the bane of the nation. Every Pakistani leader including the de facto head of state, the army chief, had stated in every international forum that there are no terror groups located in Pakistan. Their Prime Minister even made this comment from the pulpit of the UN General Assembly.

The cat had already been let loose, when Sartaj Aziz, the foreign affairs advisor to their erstwhile Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, stated at the Washington’s Council of Foreign Affairs think tank on 01 Mar 16 that, “We have some influence over them because their leadership is in Pakistan and they get some medical facilities. Their families are here” (https://www.dawn.com/news/1243093). Similarly, their present foreign minister, Khawaja Asif, stated once again in the US at an event organized by the Asia Society in New York, “It is very easy to say Pakistan is floating the Haqqanis and Hafiz Saeed and the Lashkar-e-Taiba. I accept that they are liabilities” (http://thepashtuntimes.com/pakistans-fm-admits-haqqanis-and-other-terrorists-are-liabilities/).

The same was the case when Pak claimed across the world that the violence in Kashmir was an indigenous freedom struggle. It kept blaming India for suppressing the desires of the people, whereas the reality was that Pak was funding violence through the separatists. Post the crackdown by the NIA and ED, Shabir Shah and other separatists have admitted to receiving funds from Pakistan based terror outfits for fermenting violence in the valley (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-separatist-shabir-shah-admits-to-receiving-funds-from-pak-terror-outfits-centre-says-islamabad-exposed-2547859).

Pak has accused India of human rights violations. Its permanent representative in the UN even showed a picture of a Gaza victim as that of Kashmir. A visit to you tube would on the other hand reveal the level of atrocities committed by the Pak army in Baluchistan, a report by the Pakistan times is a small example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfAORZlj0Lk). There were protests at every venue of the UN ranging from Geneva to New York against Pak atrocities, during the recent summits in New York and Geneva, while miniscule protests against India.

All minorities in Pak including Hindu’s, Christians, Ahmadis and even Shia Muslims feel that the state fails to protect them and even tolerates violence against them. Sherry Rehman, a former minister and ambassador of Pakistan stated, “Pakistan is increasingly failing to protect its minorities for two broad reasons: principally, rising religious intolerance and the space ceded to violent ideologies (https://www.dawn.com/news/1104548).

Pakistan is losing face across the globe, as every statement of it, is proved wrong with passage of time. World pressure is mounting on it to change its policies and approach to terrorism. Unless its lies are exposed, atrocities on its minorities projected publicly and the deep state brought to book, nothing will change. The world needs to take note of a nation, whose political leadership functions under the mercy of the gun and is perpetually under threat.

Pressure grows on Pakistan The Statesman 03 Oct 17

The recent diplomatic battle at the UN general assembly between India and Pakistan, followed up by their respective ‘right to respond’ and press comments clearly indicate that animosity between the two nations is only increasing. Numerous counter comments by both, display of pictures, including a wrong one by the Pak permanent representative solely to make a point, only moved the relationship further deep into an endless pit. The UN has always been a diplomatic battle ground between the two, however this year it took a turn for the worse.

India took advantage of the fact that Pak had faced the brunt from the US and within the subcontinent, Afghanistan and Bangladesh would join it in condemning Pak for its terror support. In every case, Pak had to resort to taking the ‘right to respond’ to clarify its own position and seek to present a different picture, the only country in the world to do so multiple times. India was also buoyed by the success of the BRICS summit statement, hence could let the anger flow, hitting Pak where it hurt the maximum, poor development, lack of facilities and domination of terror groups within the country.

The animosity had been building post India calling off talks, after the Pathankot strike. Pak has always felt that terror and talks should continue, while India clearly desires to delink the same and only consider talks, once terror stops flowing, which is nigh impossible, hence unlikely to resume in the near future. With a clear directive on the issue, highlighted by the surgical strike and violent response to Pak’s border misadventures, India has pushed Pak into a position of no choice.

The Pak civil government hopes that by commencing talks and moving forward the agenda on Kashmir and other disputed areas, including Sir Creek and Siachen, it could gain leverage to compel the deep state to reign in terror groups. The deep state on the other hand is unwilling to relent as any attempt to reign in terror groups could lead to an internal backlash, adding to woes of the security forces, as the groups have gained power and created an identity of their own, with the masses.

For India, considering talks, opening dialogue and a strike reoccurring, could spell political disaster for the present government, which has during its tenure adopted a hard policy. Hence, unless it is assured of cessation of terror activities, it would be wary of moving forward. This wide perception gap is neither easy to bridge, nor is there any midway point which could suit both countries.

Pak thus harps in every international forum, including the UN General Assembly, that the UN resolution must be implemented under the aegis of the UN Security Council. The Indian stand is amply clear, which it has continuously reiterated, that as per the Shimla agreement and Lahore declaration the issues were to be discussed bilaterally, hence the UN declaration is redundant. Thus, differences only widen and animosity builds.

Pak had over the years used the separatists to ensure that the valley remains in turmoil and under developed, despite massive government investments. Its funding the agitation and pushing in cannon fodder terrorists, created environment of violence, compelling the Indian army to enhance deployment. Its support to terror groups and funding violence, has enhanced animosity from the Indian end. Violent border clashes with civilian casualties have pushed the countries further apart.

Presently, with the NIA and ED moving after the separatists and isolating them, while the army buoyed by enhanced intelligence and surveillance means achieving spectacular success, the scenario is well within control and can be considered near normal. Thus the deep state’s well-oiled plans appear to be falling apart. It has attempted to increase infiltration attempts, most being nipped in the bud, enhancing frustration within the deep state.

Modi’s announcement of political support to the Baluch people in their freedom struggle has been misconstrued by Pak to indicate military support. Further, with an increase in operations by the TTP, spread across the country, Pak appears to be facing greater threat, adding to their woes. Their blaming India and Afghanistan appears to be misplaced, but must be done, as is the only way to shift blame from the failure of their military. In a simple analysis, India faces limited turmoil in the valley, Pak faces it almost across the length and breadth.

India’s intention of isolating Pak has been noticed by them, adding to their anger and moving the relationship further downhill. Support from all neighbouring states, which refused to attend any SAARC summit in Pak, has pushed the only regional grouping of which Pak is a member, into a state of near collapse. The region, less Pak stands as one, alongside India, as recent events indicated. The US providing India backup, seeking an enhanced role for the country in Afghanistan has riled Pak to levels which have hurt its inner most core compelling their Prime Minister to make an international statement that it would never accept any role for India in Afghanistan.

Pak had banked on support from China and Russia for continuance of its existing policies, irrespective of international views. Hence immediately after the BRICS summit, its foreign minister rushed to China. The joint statement while stating continued support made no contrary comments on the BRICS statement. This indicated a shift, small but significant. Russia, also commented, that the BRICS declaration on terrorism would reduce terror support in the region.

Recent comments by their foreign minister, Khwaja Asif, that Pak is aware of its liabilities, implying terror groups and terror masterminds, however lacks assets to deal with them, hence needs time, is another signal of the pinch beginning to hurt. It has finally begun visualizing its internal scenario from the Indian viewpoint. It was compelled to ban the formation of a political party led by Hafiz Saeed. The US defence secretary, Jim Mattis’s comment that we would be watching Pak, is only enhancing pressure.

Differences are immense, animosity high and no sign of any thaw in relations. Mounting international pressure by the west, regional isolation, increased firing along the LoC with India, encounters with militants in the restive tribal belts and along the Durand Line are only adding to the woes of their army. It knows it must act against terror groups, but hesitates, fearing a backlash, akin to the Lal Masjid incident, this time from deep within, including POK. Increased international isolation fuelled by India would enhance animosity and increase pressure in the near to mid future. It would be worthwhile to watch Pak attempt to preserve its survival as a nation state, while being compelled to dismantle terror groups.

Surgical strikes proved India’s dominance over Pak, but attacks won’t stop Daily O 29 Sep 17

Today, India recollects the surgical strikes launched on 29th Sep last year, across the Line of Control (LoC) into Pakistan. The event coincided, this year, with an ambush on the NSCN (K) group which has evaded talks and has been regularly attacking Indian forces and local civilians. The period leading to the anniversary also included comments by Lt General DS Hooda, who as the Northern Army Commander had overseen the strike. His successor, Lt General Devraj Anbu, also warned Pak that India could again cross the LoC, if Pak does not control terror activities.

While India recollected the event and the success of the operation, Pak continued in its denial mode, rejecting Indian claims. This was expected, and as General Hooda had stated, the main worry was a Pak counter strike, but the rejection of the strike by the Pak army, ensured that it would not occur. Pak had limited choices, as to admit was to accept a failure and demoralize even the cannon fodder Jihadi’s, while lowering the prestige and standing of the army. Denial was logical as the army controls the nation and hence any setback would be damaging in reputation. No media house could dare to go against the deep state. Further, Indian opposition politicians, who questioned the strike gave support to the Pak establishment to deny it.

A surgical strike is a difficult operation, entailing indepth planning, catering for multiple contingencies, alternate options including planning for a rescue strike in case of a part of the force gets stuck. Secrecy, need to know sharing of information and employing multiple launch and re-entry points have to be catered for. A failure in any form could spell disaster for the nation, hence is always a tension packed moment for those who had issued the go ahead, till complete. Its success indicates that all these were catered for, soldiers motivated, trained and well led.

While India decorated its heroes, who participated in the strike and released a book on Indian army heroes, with a chapter specifically covering the operation, mother’s in Pakistan, whose sons were in those terrorist camps and eliminated, would never know what happened to them. They were removed and buried under the directions of the army, hence would remain in unmarked graves for eternity and forgotten. They were in any case expendables and cannon fodder for the Pak deep state.

While the Indian army morale got a boost and the confidence of its troops increased manifold, Pak troops aware of the strike, would always remain affected, expecting a repeat anytime. Its military hierarchy and political leadership are aware of the realities and hence wary of Indian retaliation. With relations plummeting and talks nowhere on the horizon, escalation on the LoC would continue unabated.

Possibly after Pathankot, India had conveyed a quiet message to Pak, that let there be no more attacks, failing which India would be compelled to act. Pak ignored the warning, Uri occurred. The government realized that if it did not act, indicate a change in strategy to offensive actions, Pak’s behaviour would remain unchanged. The strike was launched and for a long time there were no more major attacks. The message had been understood and India’s offensive policy displayed. There are many options other than a physical strike, which India could adopt, in case it needs to hit across once again. Any action by India cannot be logically termed as an illegal operation as India claims complete J and K, with Pak continuing as forced occupiers of POK.

While a strategic shift in India’s military policy was conveyed, but has anything changed on ground after the surgical strike or have things moved further downhill. Initially the Pak army behaved, however with passage of time, the LoC has readopted to its earlier active status. The high morale of the Indian army and its recent successes as it eliminates all terrorists who seek to enter or remain within, is changing the realities in Kashmir, while conveying to Pak a clear message that we reserve the right to strike where we want to and when.

A fear of a similar or near similar strike always exists within the Pak military establishment, compelling them to move terror launch pads deeper into their territory and closer to army camps. It has also resulted in increased level of alertness of their troops.

The LoC is and would always remain active, irrespective of agreements and local level talks. Any side can escalate or commence firing, while blaming the other. There is no control mechanism. While India has no desire for activating the LoC, Pak needs to, in order to support infiltration attempts, and it does. The only time, when the LoC witnesses’ peace is when Indian retaliation makes it costly for Pak, in terms of casualties and damage to posts.

With diplomatic relations between the two nations moving downhill, US pressure building and as the recent UN General Assembly debate indicated, animosity of the subcontinent against Pak, it may be compelled to act. While the polity seeks to obliterate terror groups, the deep state has other plans. The rise of the TTP, the Pakistan Taliban, was a fallout of the attack on the Lal Masjid in 2007, resulting in over a hundred dead. A similar act against the anti-India terror groups could compel them to turn inwards, adding to Pak woes. Thus, the comments by their foreign minister, Khwaja Asif, that they are aware of the fact that terror groups are a liability, but do not possess the assets to remove them.

While Pak may have denied the strike, those in power are aware, compelling them to remain wary of Indian military intentions, it has limited options. It cannot openly reign in the terror groups, without placing their own people in jeopardy, nor can it shut their terror factories, as it is possibly a major source of employment for those radicalized since childhood. Hence, while we would continue to threaten Pak against major strikes, we cannot stop terrorists from attempting to enter the valley and ferment violence. Since both nations seek to establish moral ascendency along the LoC, it would continue remaining active, unless India makes the cost of escalation heavy to Pakistan.

Why Pak was left isolated at the UNGA Daily O 24 Sep 17

This week witnessed a series of addresses at the UN by heads of state or their representatives. The world followed as leaders from US, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Bangladesh shared their concerns. In many cases, the country against whom comments were made, exercised the right to respond and sought to discredit the statement of the previous leader. Trump while openly threatening North Korea and Iran, also gave a direct hint to Pakistan when he mentioned that terror financing and supporting must stop, though Pakistan preferred to ignore his statement.

The Pak prime minister, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, spoke on expected lines, blaming India for his troubles, claiming Afghanistan supported anti-Pak terror groups and sought UN intervention on Kashmir, including resolution of the UN mandate. He also claimed to have handed a dossier on Indian human rights violations in Kashmir to the UN secretary general. His comment that Pak would not be anyone’s scapegoat, referring to Trump’s criticism of it on supporting terror groups, was a sign of mounting international pressure. India in its right to reply, called Pakistan ‘terroristan’, accused Pak of supporting terror groups and openly permitting UN designated terror group leaders, the freedom to operate and launch political parties.

To add further insult to injury was Trump refusing to meet Abbasi on a one-to-one meeting in New York, while he did meet the Afghan president. Abbasi had to be content with meeting the US vice-president Mike Pence. A meeting for a few minutes with Trump during the formal event hosted by him for all delegates may not mean much, but was the only life saving grace for an otherwise beleaguered Pak prime minister. The US has made no mention of this aside meeting.

The Bangladesh prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, criticised Pakistan for the 1971 genocide in the country, which resulted in the deaths of over three million people. She also stated that terrorism and violent extremism had become a major threat to peace, stability and development, in a direct hint to Pakistan. Pak in its right to reply, rejected her statement, claiming it had no takers. She spoke of factual history, while Pak desperately tried to dispel her words, clearly at a loss, as history bears testimony to her true words.

The Afghan President, Ashraf Ghani, stated that Trump’s strategy for Afghanistan would be successful, solely because it seeks to employ a harder line against Pakistan. He went on to add that, “The message to Pakistan to engage and become a responsible stakeholder in the region and in the fight against terrorism has never been clearer. If Pakistan does not take this opportunity, they would pay a high price.” Pakistan did not officially respond the Ghani, but kept insisting that they have themselves been victims of terrorism, a poor justification, which nobody would believe, as world pressure mounts on it.

Sushma Swaraj, Indian foreign minister, in her lucid address spoke of national and international issues, which would be of concern to the UN. She also took on Pak, accusing it of being a global supporter of terror, spending its budget on terror groups, while permitting its people to suffer due to pack of facilities. She reminded Pak about the Shimla accord and the Lahore declaration, which made the UN mandate on Kashmir redundant. Her comment that it was only Pak, which was compelled to respond to every speaker from the subcontinent, proved that its terror support policies were harming the region. Her statement was well received by the UN.

Pak responded in its characteristic style, taking off from where their Prime Minister left, accusing India of being the terror exporter of the region. Their spokesperson, Maleeha Lodhi, even showed a picture of a Palestine girl, claiming it to be Kashmir. Its justification included attacking the RSS and the BJP, however left none in doubt that it was done, because it was mandatory, as there were no comments on developmental issues. Sushma was right when she stated that Pak has to respond to every country of the subcontinent.

Pak’s belief that China would provide it with unstinted support in every action it takes was misplaced. The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, when questioned on the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) comments on requesting the UN to implement the Kashmir resolution stated that the Chinese position is clear cut. Kashmir is a left-over issue from history and can only be resolved through mutual dialogue and enhanced communication between the two countries, again supporting Indian stand of bilateral discussions.

Nations of the subcontinent have all reviled Pak for its policies, support to terror groups and making the subcontinent insecure. A further setback was when the foreign ministers of SAARC met, they refused to accept Pak hosting the SAARC summit under its chairmanship in the near future, solely because it supports terror. SAARC as an entity has almost outlived its utility. India’s support to BIMSTEC, which comprises of almost complete SAARC less Pak, and one to one agreements with most nations involving financial support and assistance in development, has isolated Pak from the subcontinent.

If even now, strategic leaders from both its military and polity, have failed to grasp the international isolation which Pak is slowly moving into, it may be late before they are able to redirect their path. Their banking on unstinted support from Russia and China may be asking for too much as China’s comments on Kashmir and the BRICS official statement proved. Chinese pressure would begin to mount as it fears undue military action by the US could place its investments in the CPEC in jeopardy.

To further add to its misery were protests, both in Geneva and New York by Baluch separatists seeking freedom from Pak repression. It brought into international glare, what Pak had been keeping under wraps all these years, brutal suppression of the Baluch people. Pak as expected protested to the Swiss authorities, however the damage has been done. Its brutality has been exposed.

Any nation, facing such hostility from its own neighbours, members of its closest regional grouping and major powers, would be an indicator of its international and regional standing. An open refusal to accept any SAARC meeting was a slap on the face, which Pak still aims to downplay. Its own deep state is pulling the nation down, into a morass, from which it may not emerge easily, while the polity looks on helplessly. A puppet regime, under the deep state can only watch helplessly as the nation faces international isolation.

For the deep state which continues in its belief of using terror groups as an instrument of state policy, the doors are slowly closing. Pressure is mounting from all directions, India, China, Russia and the US. It is time Pak introspects, plans a change in its policies and seeks to become a respected member of the international community. If it delays this decision, it could soon be heading to be deemed a terrorist state. For a nation steeped in terror activities, future decisions are difficult, but it has created this morass itself and it has no one else to blame, but its own deep state.

Pak army is pushing the country into isolation Amar Ujala 21 Sep 17

Pakistan’s ex-President, General Parvez Musharraf recently stated in an interview that in Pakistan, the army has always come to power to pull the nation from the pits into which elected governments left it. He, like most of his army colleagues in Pakistan, are allergic to any democratically elected government, solely because of the power which they hold over the nation. However, in every instance, like all dictatorships, whenever the military has usurped power, it has broken the national fabric.

Dictatorships have set the nation behind by time, compelling democratic leaders to struggle to it back on track, Pak being no exception. Even in countries where the army rules from behind the scenes, the nation faces international isolation and criticism. Elected political representatives remain at their wits end on how to restore the nation’s standing in the international comity.

Pakistan has had a collection of despotic rulers, who have ensured near isolation of the nation. Yahya Khan as a military dictator was responsible for splitting of the country and the creation of Bangladesh. Zia introduced Islamic law, thus opening doors to sectarianism and religious fundamentalism, which will dog Pakistan throughout its future. Musharraf’s brashness resulted in enhanced separatist actions in different parts of the country, brought the economy to the brink of collapse and he himself had to run into exile to avoid being prosecuted on a variety of charges, including murder.

Their control over the nation is such that if any elected representative attempts to alter their set ideology or limit their control, his days are numbered. Nawaz Sharif has faced that on multiple occasions. Their support to terror groups, despite world condemnation, has continued unabated. The confidence possessed by the deep state is such that it has ignored the concept of ‘clandestine support’ as many other nations follow. They have been open and brash about supporting terror groups, confident that no internal power possesses the strength to correct or advise them.

The infamous ‘Dawn Leaks’ is clearly the one attempt which the polity made, knowing world anger is slowly turning towards Pak. It angered the army to such an extent, that a series of tweets by the head of the army public relations (DG ISPR) compelled the Prime Minister to call a cabinet meeting, resulting in the resignation of the information minister. It took multiple interactions between the army and the elected representatives to resolve the issue.

The nation is again being pushed to the brink of international criticism, when the BRICS summit in Xiamen, with China in the chair, supported by Russia, quoted terror groups located in Pakistan. Its only ally’s China and Russia, also joined the world is naming Pak based terror groups.

In this military controlled state while the military openly supports terror groups, it is left to the polity to make statements, that no such groups exist. The embarrassment caused to the nation and the government is clear, when every nation, including those it seeks support from, condemns the very groups it supports. Statements have also been made by their ex-foreign affairs advisor, Sartaj Aziz, that Pak has influence over terror groups as it continues to provide them support. Their present foreign minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif hinted towards the deep state that tougher action should be taken against anti-India terror groups.

This is not the only occasion in recent times, when their army has let the nation down. The Jadhav case, clearly one of kidnapping, fake trial and sentencing, denying access to even its own polity, has pushed the nation to the backfoot. The embarrassment which Pak suffered at the hands of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), had to be borne by the government, while the army refused to change its stance and permit access to the individual.

India-Pak relations would have been more cordial, critical issues resolved and both nations moving towards prosperity had it not been for the deep distrust of the polity by the Pak army. Whenever the elected government has contemplated talks or even suggested resolution of pending issues, the deep state has waded in with a terror strike, pushing relations back.

The same has been the case with Afghanistan. Pak’s support to terror groups, which are causing mayhem in Afghanistan, has prompted the US to adopt a hard stance against the nation. It is evident that the coming days would witness an increase in drone strikes in Pakistan, impacting the standing and reputation of the army. The last time it happened, frustrated members of the senate questioned the army’s ability to defend their borders.

It is only when it is hit hard, does the Pak army understand. India has proved this on multiple occasions, destroying their defences, militant training camps and striking military convoys. This forces them to reduce ceasefire violations. It also results in POK locals rising in protests, impacting their image. This message has also been understood by the US, who with induction of additional forces would commence the same on Pak’s western borders. While the civilian government would bear the brunt of criticism, internally the army’s reputation would be affected.

Economically Pak has been the loser. Other than China, no other nation is willing to invest in the military dominated state. Its only saving grace is its nuclear weapons, which would ensure the nation survives. Like all dictatorships or military dominated governments in history, Pak too is heading for internal disaster in the days ahead.

Pakistan now in US crosshairs The Statesman 05 Sep 17

Trump’s latest tirade against Pak, solely blaming it for the failure in Afghanistan, has rattled the country. The past fortnight has witnessed statements emanating from the Pak army chief, their national security council and even the senate, criticizing the US. Pak has been in a state of denial, using every forum and media, but to no avail.

A new irritant were comments made by General Nicholson, the commander of the Resolute Support Force (RSF) of NATO in Afghanistan, where he stated in a press interview, that the US was aware of the Taliban and Haqqani leadership being safely ensconced in Peshawar and Quetta. Pak jumped again into denial mode, but half-heartedly. To add insult to injury was the US requesting India to play a greater role in Afghanistan.

The Pak senate can only scream, as it has no control on foreign policy towards India, Afghanistan and the US, which are solely the army’s prerogative. This was evident when the US ambassador to Pakistan, met the army chief and not the foreign minister or foreign secretary in the government, post Trump’s announcement. Members of the senate criticized this meeting, but could do nothing.

The elected government also has no control over the support being provided to terror groups operating against Afghanistan and India, as they remain the sole prerogative of the deep state. The supposed Dawn leak, leading to the resignation of the Information Minister, was over the deep state’s support to terror groups.

Anger against the US may be displayed, local temperatures built up by protests, meetings and visits postponed, conciliatory statements issued and criticism of the policy openly declared, yet nothing will change, as the world is aware of Pak’s direct involvement. It can only approach China and Russia for support, as due to geopolitical compulsions, they remain Pak’s only support base, however, when push comes to shove, Pak may find itself alone in this diplomatic battle. If the US imposes sanctions, China may be forced to support them, mainly because its trade ties with the US may be affected.

The maximum hurt to Pak was caused when the US announced an enhanced role for India in the region. There is immense fear within their security establishment that their soft underbelly of Baluchistan, presently being brutally crushed, would be accessible to Indian influence, post it establishing a foothold in the country. This issue has gained prominence, after Modi’s Independence Day speech of last year, where he considered diplomatic support to the freedom struggle in the region. Hence, while it is willing to challenge the US on its comment, it has yet to evolve any strategy to counter US plans for India.

Pak’s basic problem is that it views everything from an Indian prism. Its policy in Afghanistan is based on keeping India away from the country. While it professes support for peace in Afghanistan, its visualization of peace stems from the Taliban and the Haqqani network being a part of the government. The Pak army viewpoint remains that this is the only way India can be kept away from Afghanistan. Comments by the US, that it only views Indian role to remain of economic development has cut no ice with the Pak leadership.

The other major worry for Pakistan is the growing power of the Taliban. Its dependence on Pak for support is receding, as it draws most funds to purchase weapons and fighters from its opium produce and is also in contact with Russia and China, solely because it opposes the ISIS. Iran is also known to be providing sanctuary to the Taliban. Hence, offensive action, if resorted to by Pak, could compel the Taliban to turn inwards, making security management even more cumbersome for their army.

Pak’s attempts to display its anger against the US has had no impact. The US has announced that any further release of coalition funds would be contingent on Pak’s anti-terror actions. Pak has attempted to adopt measures which internally may appear logical but internationally would be meaningless, solely considering its past record. The comments by their leaders on casualties suffered by Pak is considered irrelevant, as US statements are clear on Pak resorting to selective anti-terror actions.

Osama Bin Laden was eliminated in Abbottabad, barely a hundred Kms from the capital, Islamabad, close to the Pak military academy, by a US navy Seals operation. Similarly, Mullah Mansour, the erstwhile head of the Taliban was killed by a US drone strike in Pakistan. Anti-India terror groups and their leaders, nominated as international terrorists by the US, with bounties of ten million dollars, roam freely in Pakistan, openly address the public and gather funds. A nation which resorts to selective targeting of terrorists can never be trusted to implement an anti-terror strategy, in consonance with the rest of the world.

Over the years, Pak has lost the trust of the west, solely because it has viewed Afghanistan as its strategic depth and attempted to keep India away. Its Afghan policy, seeking to dominate the country, employing terror groups has resulted in Afghanistan considering Pak an enemy rather than a reliable neighbour. It is only to counter Pak’s support to the Taliban and Haqqani network, that the Afghan military would have reduced its scale of operations against the TTP, the anti-Pak terror group.

The US has clearly changed its policy from carrot and stick to just a stick. While enhanced force levels have yet to be announced and implemented, it is evident that the US would seriously plan to target Taliban and Haqqani network operatives and training camps within Pakistan. This would result in collateral damage and embarrass the Pak army, as it would be unable to counter. This may be the final nail on their coffin of denial.

If Pak seeks to be accepted as a nation with no terror links then it would need to reconsider the way it operates against terror groups. Unless it acts against all terror groups, it would never win the trust of the comity of nations and may soon be declared a terrorist supporting state.

Pakistan has landed itself in deep trouble Daily O 07 Aug 17

Pakistan is now facing pressure from all directions. Internally it continues in turmoil, as Nawaz Sharif, though out of power, remains a force to be reckoned with. His rallies would draw immense supporters as the nation has realized that the judgement passed by the supreme court has been biased and delivered at the bidding of the army. Internal policies prevent the public from criticizing these two pillars of power, even on social media, however, public support in Nawaz’s rallies would indicate the national mood.

India continues to counter all Pak attempts to ferment trouble in the valley. Its ceasefire violations are being countered back aggressively, terrorists being infiltrated are being culled and the Indian army’s operation ‘All Out’ is paying rich dividends. Its staunch supporters, the Hurriyat is being isolated as the NIA closes in and the public is losing faith in them as news of their amassed wealth at the cost of innocent blood gains ground. Their calls for bandhs are now being ignored and they are being incarcerated in Delhi, away from the area which they influence. India has accused Pak of following a policy of selective terrorism, the words now being resounded from the White House.

Afghanistan has begun openly accusing Pak for the terror strikes which have been increasing in intensity in the country. The two nations, which could have been allies are now on opposite sides of the fence, enabling India to manoeuvre into the space. The Afghan National Security Advisor, Hanif Atmar, is known to have stated that the Taliban cannot be defeated unless we defeat the sanctuaries and support structures outside Afghanistan, in Pakistan. The echoes of his words are now being heard from Washington.

President Trump had in a statement issued over the weekend stated that the US would need to see a change in the behaviour of those in the region, which includes those who are providing safe havens and support bases to the Taliban, Haqqani network and the others. Their National Security Advisor, McMaster, was quoted as saying, “This is Pakistan that we want to really see a change in and a reduction of their support for these groups”. The US appears to be moving forward with its strategy of winning the war in Afghanistan and it is clear that Pakistan would need to play a major role.

Pakistan’s desire for making Afghanistan as a client state, subdued to it, has compelled it to support anti-Afghanistan groups. However, such policies can never pay dividends in the long term. Its claims of fighting terror groups on its soil has been accepted, but with riders. McMaster clarified the Pak policy when he stated, “Pakistan is taking great losses. They have fought very hard against these groups but they have done so really only selectively”, clearly words India wanted to hear.

Amongst options against Pak being openly discussed in the US include, expanding drone strikes deep within Pak, redirecting aid to Pakistan and ultimately downgrading its status as a major non-NATO ally. The writing is now on the wall, Pak has to act, or would face pressure and humiliation, when its territorial integrity is violated at will by US drones.

Pak has very limited options. If it launches operations against the ‘Quetta Shoora’, the name for the Taliban and Haqqani network based in Quetta, they could turn against them, only adding to their woes. If it doesn’t, the US would launch operations across the border, denting the image of the Pak army. A shaky government at the helm, subdued by the deep state only adds to the woes of the nation.

Pak knows that at the present, the US has more enemies than friends in the region. Iran, against whom the US recently placed sanctions and whom Trump has been threatening, has borders with Herat and Farah provinces of Afghanistan. Though the Taliban is Sunni and Iran is Shia, yet it has openly supported the Taliban in these two provinces. Recent strikes in the region have Iranian support to the Taliban written across them. It is seeking US withdrawal with failure on their face. Russia, which has now moved away from the US, is in touch with the Taliban, through Iran and Pakistan and is believed to be providing them with weapons. The drone strike which eliminated Mullah Mansour, was launched on his return from Iran. China is also known to be in contact with the Taliban.

Despite the involvement of other nations, it is Pak which faces the brunt, solely because it had openly admitted to providing safe sanctuaries to the Taliban. Its erstwhile foreign affairs advisor, Sartaj Aziz, admitted in the US that since Pakistan provides some sort of sanctuary and support to the Taliban, it does possess some leverage over it. Hence, Pak would be forced to act, if it does not do so, its territorial integrity would be violated at will, by drone strikes, against whom it can only object, but not retaliate.

It had hoped that the new US policy could be one of withdrawal, which could provide it with a leeway in handling Afghanistan, but that has now misfired. It has limited options. It could sit quiet, cry hoarse over its own situation and hope the US finally withdraws, leaving Afghanistan to its fate. Secondly, it could act partially against terror groups, just enough to pacify the US, while maintaining a façade. Thirdly, it could apply enough pressure on the Taliban and Haqqani network to reduce their strikes, thus preventing any attack on its soil. Finally, it could compel the groups to leave its shores and seek sanctuary either in the mountainous belt of Afghanistan or Iran, which could anger them and make them turn in direction.

It is only US determination which could compel Pak to respond and save the Afghan population from unwarranted bloodshed. If it does not act or gives up its determination, Afghanistan could become the next Syria and involve all major powers in resolving the crises and containing its spread. Pak would have to bear the consequences, it has no choice, after all it is responsible for the present turmoil. As the US determination on compelling Pak to act increases, India should insist on Pak acting against anti-India groups too. A tough call, but can work.

End of Sharif era: Is Pak facing another military dictatorship? Daily O 19 Jul 17

The Joint Investigation Team’s (JIT) report is now with the Supreme Court and the case to decide his future has commenced. The JIT found the Pak PM, Nawaz Sharif, to have disproportionate wealth, as also his family members. It recommended reopening cases which were either closed or ignored for a prolonged period. As calls for his resignation rise, opposition smiles widen, while the ruling party moves into deep huddles, awaiting the Supreme Court verdict. Comments from the court convey confusion and have left the public wondering on what decision is likely.

Bookies are busy as bets are placed on whether he would resign, be overthrown or remain in power. The only one whose authority has enhanced manifold is the army chief. His power is on the upswing, his control over the nation complete. The only action left is to shift the capital from Islamabad to Rawalpindi.

During this turmoil, a genuine comment made by a little-known politician, Javed Hashmi, made sense, but fear of the deep state, compelled the media to ignore it. His comment was, ‘while politicians are being held accountable, army chiefs and the judiciary are not’. The comment though true and agreed by many Pakistanis, may soon mean the end of Hashmi’s days.

The judiciary has changed its policies with change of rulers. It never questioned army takeovers, agreed to the implementation of illegal military courts, knowing they were distributing death sentences as if it were Christmas gifts. It has never been able to even question army chiefs over their misdeeds and its own corruption can never be challenged nor questioned. However, it has made damning comments on politicians, solely because it has army backing.

Their army lost every war with India, but there were no resignations or condemnations. The man behind the defeat in Kargil, Parvez Musharraf, went on to become the President of the country. Which other nation would permit an individual responsible for the death of thousands of NLI soldiers, whose bodies he even refused to collect, to assume the topmost mantle of the state. It is because of the army’s control over foreign policies and internal security that Pak is surrounded by enemies, less China, while moving deeper into an economic mess. However, the army’s power prohibits anyone from questioning it, let alone publicly but even on social media.

Nawaz is holding on, possibly maybe just. The first reaction of his supporters was to criticize the judiciary and the army for the decision of the JIT. It realized that though these two were working in tandem, it would be suicidal to condemn them hence shifted focus onto the JIT, which though influenced by the deep state is still a safer bet. The army claims it has played no role, a comment which itself implies its influence over the entire episode.

However, until the case is finally disposed of, Sharif would remain under pressure, unsure of his future, unable to take decisions and most importantly incapable and scared to even question the army. It is evident that any decision to bar Nawaz from politics would end the Sharif dynasty rule in Pak and criminal actions could follow, as even his heir apparent, his daughter, Maryam Nawaz, has been indicted.

There are limited choices available to the family for his replacement, his brother being possibly being the only one. If indicted, Sharif could follow Musharraf into obscurity to London or the Middle East. Nawaz has always had misfortune with army chiefs. Those he has appointed have overthrown him. Would history repeat itself, time would tell.

To further add to the confusion, Imran Khan, a possible contender for the Prime Minister’s throne has been declared a proclaimed offender by the court and his property ordered to be seized. Though the army’s pet now, he is also an unlikely candidate. Thus, doors are now open for the army chief to take the reins, either directly or indirectly.

General Bajwa now holds all the cards and is playing them close. The final decision from the court would depend on how he visualizes the future for himself, his army and the nation, after all they are all intrinsically linked. For the region, instability would only increase, as the deep state would be unwilling to even discuss peace with any neighbour, seeking to meet its objectives by continuing support to terror groups with absolutely no political interference.

Though the deep state has witnessed continuous failures, yet it would perforce reinforce failures, as it has no other option. Its actions in Kashmir appear to be meeting strong resistance. Indian counter actions are on the rise enhancing Pak army casualties, inducted militants are being culled at the border and those within are running for their lives. Such is the level of casualties within the army, that it is unwilling to even share its figures.

Its support base of the Hurriyat is being rendered inoperable and its modules busted at frequent intervals. Hence, it is slowly losing the war in J and K, as the Indian army regains control. Tensions are on the rise along its borders with Iran and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now a sworn enemy and Iran would follow suit shortly. The new amendment passed by the US senate would restrict funds and support, thus ensuring it has only Chinese backing.

Political turmoil in any nation impacts its economy and Pakistan is no exception. Its markets are tumbling and the government would be able to do little to prevent a bloodbath on its stock exchange, in case Sharif is convicted. Internationally, Pak would head deeper into trouble, as without a strong political leadership, the army would become uncontrollable and enhance enmity. Its only saviour would be China, which would get sucked deeper into a confused Pakistan, solely because of its immense investments.

South Asia would be the loser, as a beleaguered elected government is prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. For its neighbours little would change, except enhanced enmity. Its own populace would witness further internal turmoil as the battle for political supremacy commences. The streets would be filled with supporters and protestors enhancing law and order problems. The power of the army would prevent any criticism of its internal actions, even if it fails at every step. The days ahead are bleak for the nation as the battle between survival and conviction gains strength.

Pakistan’s myopic world view The Excelsior 14 Jul 17

Every policy adopted by the government of Pakistan has an Indian bias, whether it be economic, foreign, defence or even home. It sees the Indian ghost in every nook and corner of the country. Every bomb blast, terrorist strike or even a border clash with Afghanistan is considered as Indian instigated. Indian RAW has assumed the proportion of the legendary ‘Gabbar’ of Sholay, responsible for every ill in the country. The way it is being blamed has made it almost legendary. Pak’s former interior minister went to the extent when he stated that the book written by Raymond Davis, the ex-CIA agent imprisoned in Pak, was sponsored by RAW.

His abduction from Iran, subsequent imprisonment and fake trial, Kulbhushan Jadhav has provided the Pak army an opportunity to seemingly convince its population of Indian involvement in every terror strike in the country. Regular release of forced confessions under torture, enables it to continue building an anti-India hype by blaming it for all activities, which it itself failed to control. It knows that by permitting counsellor access, its lies would be exposed and fake confession videos would become redundant, thus continuous denials.

This Indian phobia within the nation, more so with the deep state than with the government, has damaged the country immensely. Its foreign policy towards the region has an Indian bias, thus creating more enemies than friends. Its major neighbours, Afghanistan and Iran, in addition to India, are no longer allies. Its relations with its traditional support base is also on a roller coaster ride. Most distrust Pak.

Its policy of bleeding India with a thousand cuts seems to be running into continuous roadblocks as India checkmates its every move. Its proxies in India have failed to live upto their expectations as they are being slowly isolated and may possibly even be incarcerated, as the government cracks down on its Hawala funding. The militancy and protests are limited in nature and remain within just four districts, being more media hypes than reality.

Its sole aim in Afghanistan is to reduce Indian influence, compelling it to continue its unstinted support to the Taliban and Haqqani network. Its fake attempts at seeking to broker peace, by hoping to bring the Taliban into the government has only backfired at every stage. This has even impacted its relations with the US as the terror groups it supports, targets US military and is compelling them to enhance deployment. Afghanistan is today a sworn enemy of Pak. The nation which it considered its backyard is anything but that, solely because Pak has viewed it with an Indian prism.

Pak also considered Iran as its friend and felt it could bank on it, however Indian proximity to the nation has unnerved the deep state. Indian involvement in building the Chabahar port and developing an axis to bypass Pak in trading with central Asia has added to its insecurities. In Pak eyes, Iran with an operational Chabahar port could become a hub for anti-Pak activities coordinated by Indian RAW, after all, Pak turns a corner and sees RAW. Its inability to control Sunni dominated anti-Iran groups has enhanced tensions along the border.

It is also threatened by growing Indian ties with the Middle east nations, whom it once considered as its closest allies. It is uncertain of their support in any future crises viz-a-viz in earlier times. Its foreign policy, dominated by the Indian prism has placed in a difficult spot in the middle east. It cannot reduce Indian influence and with the current crises over Qatar, it has limited choices. India can still walk the tight rope.

Its Afghanistan policy solely seeking to reduce Indian influence has made the US, once its largest provider of military hardware, turn away. Its nationals who headed anti-India terror groups and whom it considered as strategic assets are now being designated as global terrorists, its military repeatedly questioned for not curbing the Taliban and Haqqani network, its requests for pressurizing India for talks ignored and bills to designate it as a terror state being introduced in the US senate. Pak’s regular cries that it faces far worse terror strikes than most other nations are completely ignored.

The US has already begun to downgrade its relations with Pak and has commenced a series of internal reviews to cut down its source of funding to the country. Ironically, while Pak seeks to downgrade Indian involvement in Afghanistan, the US seeks to enhance it. It states that only India is a trusted ally of Afghanistan. Pak’s India centric foreign policy has begun to bounce back.

Financially, due to its military imbalance with India, its share of defence spending increases, an action it can ill afford. A military controlled state, seeking near capability with India, Pak’s financial mess is solely because the army demands a larger share than a developing state can afford. It is convincing its people that siding with China is now the only alternative for economic survival. Thus, the CPEC is being billed as the saviour to the state, without the true facts on the impact of long term Chinese loans being projected.

Internally, its ISI, which gained prominence as the agency controlling anti-India groups has become the most powerful element in the country. It has provided sanctuary to terror group leaders, hence harming Pak’s international reputation. The very terror groups it supported, due to multiple factors turned against the state and now target them. The sectarian divide being forged by these groups will soon split the country. Anti-Pak terror groups and freedom struggle movements, mostly self-sustaining, are being blamed on India RAW. This blame compels their army to act brutally against them, only enhancing their desire for independence.

China is its sole supporter, provider and benefactor. In many ways, it is akin to North Korea, nuclear armed, a destabilizing nation in the region, surviving only on Chinese largesse. With time, it would become a Chinese province, unable to resist, subjugated in policy, solely due to ever increasing debt. It is aware that India and China have differences which would take decades prior to reconciliation. Till then competition and latent enmity would continue. Hence, it is a suitable ally. A clear example of an India prism foreign policy.

The Pak army needs an enemy to justify its survival, size and budget, hence it can never consider peace with India. It cannot reduce its force levels, as it needs to grab power and dominate national policies. This domineering attitude of the deep state has been the bane of the nation. It has created a hype over the years from which it cannot back down. It is in this situation today, solely because all its policies are seen through an Indian prism.

India has grown well beyond Pak. It is a nation sought the world over. It is an economic giant and a military power. If Pak desires to grow, it must shed its India bias and look ahead, failing which it could soon become an international pariah.

Did India’s surgical strikes escalate ceasefire violations with Pakistan Daily O 06 Jul 17

A report in the Indian Express on Monday stated that firing across the LoC has escalated since the launch of surgical strikes. The report went on to state that the present policy of ‘massive retaliation’ for cross border firing, set in place in 2014, with the coming in of the present government, is failing to deter the Pak army. It bases its deduction on figures released by the J and K government, which state that 79 incidents of cross LoC firing were reported in 2012, 236 in 2013, 226 in 2014, 279 in 2015, 227 in 2016 and 127 upto 21 Jun this year. It also states that upto the surgical strikes in 2016, there were only five incidents South of the Pir Panjal, the rest post the strike.

A further analysis in the report mentions ‘localized but lethal skirmishes now form the core of a grim war of attrition on the border in Jammu, a region with near zero jihadist infiltration’. The article also highlights that this action is because soldiers seek to avenge past attacks or to establish tactical advantage over the other. The region south of the Pir Panjal ridge always had lesser firing, as compared to the north, however, the surgical strikes, beheadings and resultant counter-actions were in this region.

Basically, it is incorrect and hasty to draw deductions solely on statistical data, especially where heavy or small arms firing have the same count. Firing may on occasions be light with just small arms, seeking to deter villagers from attending to their fields or impose caution, or heavy including use of mortars to support movement of militants or to counter an earlier fire assault.

Pak is seeking to shift attention from the valley to the Jammu sector, mainly the Rajouri, Poonch and Noushera areas. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, with multiple anti-infiltration measures adopted in Kashmir, most infiltration attempts have failed or infiltrated militants eliminated near the borders. Infiltration routes are well known and troops are prepared. Thus, by opening this area there are multiple options for infiltrated militants to either proceed north or south or into the interiors including Doda.

Secondly, Pak remained satisfied for a prolonged time as militancy in the valley was active but at a muted pace. It aimed at keeping militancy continuing at a level below Indian threshold of tolerance. It even orchestrated militant strikes on army camps beyond the valley. Strikes outside the valley were curtailed post the surgical strike, however support to militancy continued.

Post the encounter killing of Burhan Wani and a violent summer, hopes arose of it achieving its goal of annexing the valley, provided it increased the tempo. It was this that increased ceasefire violations of recent times as infiltration attempts were on the rise. With an increase in local militants in the valley, post the violent summer, Pak changed its strategy and aimed at reviving militancy South of the Pir Panjal, an action violently contested by India. This has altered the generally quiet status quo of the region and enhanced the tempo of violations.

Fourthly, the above is linked to the existing demography in the hill sector south of the Pir Panjal. It is delicately balanced and major militant actions could result in a change, which would be unacceptable to India. Presently, militancy in the area is controlled and the army would never permit it to revert to its earlier status of the nineties, where it required major actions to eliminate it. Hence any attempts at infiltration in this region is responded back in full vigour, with India targeting multiple posts, conveying a strong message.

In an open border, where both sides have dominating posts in areas, for every response, there is a counter response, solely because each side seeks to maintain tactical advantage. Firing once it commences, becomes a norm for both. India has adopted a strategy of violating the ceasefire whenever there are infiltration attempts, because it seeks to apply pressure to dissuade it. It has on occasions resorted to destruction of posts responsible for attempted infiltration. As per government reports, successful infiltration attempts have been only nineteen percent this year, as compared to previous years, when it was much higher.

No policy including ‘avoiding violating ceasefire’ or its opposite of ‘massive retaliation’ can guarantee peace along the LoC. The LoC is such that any nation can violate ceasefire at will and blame the other for the same. While India desists from targeting civilian population, unless Pak does it first, they remain vulnerable on both sides. The type of weapon employed and nature of ammunition depends on who commences the firing. Calling of counsellor staff and handing over protests notes is a diplomatic norm, which has never reduced exchange of fire.

The foreseeable future is unlikely to witness any change, however as the Indian army regains control, which it has begun and eliminates militants in the valley, desperation would begin to seep into the Pak deep state. With the Hurriyat likely to incarcerated by the NIA for its hawala transactions, violence would reduce as money to support it, dries up, further infuriating the deep state. It is likely that in desperation, Pak would attempt to enhance infiltration or resort to striking at military targets beyond the valley. Any such action would enhance ceasefire violations and cross border strikes.

Hence, drawing conclusions from statistical figures may be incorrect. It would be more prudent to draw conclusions based on the changing environment and Pak’s varying perceptions based on violence in the valley, rather than counting numbers of ceasefire violations. Levels and quantum of ceasefire violations would vary based on Pak intent and Indian counter actions, as India always seeks peace along its borders.

Kashmir’s video warfare The Excelsior 27th Apr 17

Politicians and visual media houses have always been self-serving. Comments on Kashmir clearly follow party lines or media biases, while national interests, national security and national unity come last. After all, TRPs and votes count, national unity has little value. This has resulted in clear stands being adopted, anti or pro the government and since the army and other security forces are part of the government, they face a similar bias.

Kashmir has become a new battleground, with local youth being exploited by Pakistan, anti-national separatists and religious leaders, as also local politicians seeking power, in case elections do come about. Valley media houses and political leaders, who should have been saner elements, seeking to engage the youth, counter false Pak propaganda and challenge comments of separatists and hard-line Imams are shying away, leading to further discontent. The youth are being indoctrinated, incited and made to believe that victory is in sight, clearly a battle for the minds. Nothing could be more disastrous for the future of the region, if youth continue being weaned in anti-national sentiments. In this battle, there emerges a new player, video warfare, deeply impacting mindset of the youth.

In this battle, a variety of videos originate from the valley and spread across the nation. Pak cyber warfare cells and their local supporters circulate videos of security forces containing agitations, while some security personnel upload videos of stone pelting and violence. Mass attendance at funerals of those killed in agitations are spread, garnering more supporters and enhancing local anger. The fact that Pak has established multiple cyber warfare cells solely for Kashmir is known to the government. These cells produce and circulate fake videos to enhance indoctrination. Indoctrination is reaching such levels that any anti-national video, including doctored and fake, spreads rapidly across the valley, without anyone even questioning its authenticity, further distancing youth from the mainstream. News channels jump to display such videos in their prime-time shows, without even confirming their authenticity.

In recent times, the most rapidly spreading video was that of a local, tied to the front of a jeep, which was moving in to rescue trapped security personnel from a polling booth. Articles and prime-time debates never once focussed on pressures facing the young officer as he was moving in with a small team to rescue security personnel surrounded by over five hundred screaming and stone throwing youth. It was the video which made all the difference, including inviting negative comments by senior army veterans, after all, a picture is worth a thousand words and a video many times more.

Locally, maximum damage is created by Pak doctored videos, filled with fiery songs, religious sermons and martyrdom appeals to incite the youth. These are uploaded on social media sites of specific individuals who spread them at the appropriate moment, often repeating them to enhance impact. Surprisingly, some of these videos are crude and even show fake Indian army soldiers with open beards as also abusing in Punjabi accented Kashmiri. Sikhs have their beards properly fixed, others are not permitted beards, while almost all army personnel do not speak Kashmiri, clearly proving that such videos are fake. Simultaneously, the display of these videos in Pakistan encourages their nationals to volunteer as militants and enter the valley.

Locals are being asked to rush to encounter sites in mass numbers employing mobile communication networks, WhatsApp, signal or telegram. Intelligence reports indicate that over three hundred WhatsApp groups each with over two hundred and fifty members are in existence solely for this task. The impact is that even before a cordon is established and actions to flush out militants has commenced, youth have begun assembling, armed with stones, giving an impression that they always possess stocks of stones at home. This adds to problems of security forces, resulting in collateral casualties and affecting success of operations. Locals turned militants roam almost freely in their localities, openly displaying weapons, creating videos, circulating them on social media, tempting others to join, daring security forces to launch operations, knowing they possess local support.

This scenario has opened a new challenge for the government. The issue is how prepared are they to handle video and mass communication challenges. The easiest action which the government has adopted, is blocking 3G and 4G telecom services or downgrading it to 2G and regularly cutting off mobile networks in the region. This cannot be a permanent measure. In case the issue is raised in courts, they may rule against any permanent order, further weakening the government’s stance.

The need of the hour is to set up an organization, under the Unified Command, to counter Pak cyber warfare cells. It would have a mammoth task of highlighting errors in fake Pak videos, slowly changing the mindset. Being a government organization, it could tap multiple communication sources to spread its message. There is also a requirement of circulating videos of support provided by security forces, including benefits under the ‘Sadbhavana’ projects of the army and positive government actions. Sadbhavana and other forms of assistance remain localized, forgotten by the masses, simply because of ‘zero’ publicity. Security forces must first win the information warfare battle, before attacking hearts and minds, aiming to change mindsets.

In the rest of the country, despite negative comments by opposition politicians and biased visual media houses, nationalism is on the rise and demands for firmer action garnering support. This is mainly due to rapid spread of videos on social media networks, of agitators targeting hapless police personnel. While increased nationalism may appear a positive trend in the short term, however would be harmful in the long. It could enhance the divide between Kashmiri’s on one hand and the nation on the other. This could then adopt a complete religious fervour, which is presently being ignored.

The government may contemplate any approach to resolve Kashmir, but changing the mindset and battling Pak and separatist propaganda will remain the top priority. It needs to get involved in the information battle without any delay. Blocking mobile networks should only remain a part of its localized strategy, wherein, prior to any operation being launched, mobile connectivity is cut for short durations, preventing circulation of messages and delaying arrival of flash mobs till operations are under control. Proactive actions must commence and are essential if the battle for the minds is finally to be won.

Countering terrorism in India and Pak: a study in contrast Bharat Shakti 27 Apr 17

India and Pakistan are both battling terror groups. There are however major differences at every stage. For India, Kashmir is the flash point, where groups operating are openly supported by the ISI and the Pak army (deep state). The rest of the country is fairly secure. Pakistan faces it across its length and breadth. Suicide and terror attacks have spared no province or city. The terror groups launching suicide and terror strikes are breakaway factions of those which the state itself created for operating in neighbouring Afghanistan and India. To hide its folly, it conveniently places the responsibility of support to terror groups on Afghanistan and India.

In India, terror groups operate with the intention of creating an environment of secession of the valley, whereas in Pakistan they not only seek to overthrow the state and impose their own will, but also target minorities, enhancing the divide within. The battle against militancy in India, though spearheaded by the army, is under close monitoring by the political leadership, both at the state and national level. At the state level, it is the Unified HQs and at the centre, the defence and home ministries as also the PMO. In Pakistan, the decision to employ force including its nature and level is solely that of the army. The political leadership remains a bystander. The two major operations launched by their army in recent times, Operation Zarb-e-Azb, post the Jun 14 attack on the Karachi airport and Radd-ul-Fasaad in Feb this year, were both announced by the head of the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) in a press release and not the civilian government in Islamabad.

In India, freedom of speech provides every political party and anti-government media the liberty to criticize government action on Kashmir, including accidental deaths or injuries due to counter force actions. Such is the liberty that opposition politicians and separatists have openly supported stone throwers (calling them freedom fighters) and even demanded US mediation in resolving the Kashmir issue (Farooq Abdullah). The same is unheard of in Pakistan. Only those in exile have demanded freedom of their region or been critical of military action. Within the country, no political party or media house can even contemplate to be critical. The deep state has such power, that all cringe before it.

In India, every casualty, wounded or killed of civilians is blown out of proportion and security forces criticized for employing excessive force, their own casualties notwithstanding. In Pakistan on the other hand, there are no details of any such casualties, nor reports in the press, except cries by Baluch and Pakhtun leaders located in exile, claiming discovery of mass graves and rapes by security forces. Hundreds are detained and no one opposes as human right activists are the most threatened community in the country. Recently, activists went missing for days, only to resurface frightened and terrified, many of whom have already left the shores of Pakistan. The ISPR simply releases statements of the killing and arrests of militants at regular intervals.

In the Indian democracy, there is absolute faith in the judiciary and its functioning, hence all cases of arrested militants are dealt by them. In a semi-military state like Pakistan, there is no faith in their own institutions compelling the government to establish military courts to deal with arrested terrorists. Surprisingly, in these courts, all arrested waive their rights to lawyers and openly confess. None has ever been freed. Activists, fearing the deep state stay silent and death penalties are unquestioned.

Indians, who have been monitoring encounters in Kashmir would notice that every encounter takes time and only a few militants are eliminated with security forces occasionally suffering casualties. This happens despite series of security cordons established. In every case, local authorities release the identity of the militant, including details, if he is a local. Pak ISPR on the other hand releases a statement mentioning large numbers of militants killed and even greater numbers arrested. With such immense casualties to militants and almost no loss to security forces, the authenticity of the news is always in doubt. In a case recently, Pak press released a statement, that ten terrorists, involved in the Lahore suicide attack, were killed in a cross fire during an encounter between their supporters and security forces, with no casualties to security forces or their supporters. Is this action any different from an ISIS type massacre regularly reported from Syria or Iraq? The ISPR statements if totalled for militant losses, would indicate that all terror groups have been wiped out, however the reality is vastly different.

Indian security forces have always considered the local Kashmiri as their own, despite them attempting to disrupt operations, enabling militants to flee. Hence, they battle with hands tied and under severe restrictions. This enhances casualties to security forces. The army assisted by other central forces has only been employing small arms in the valley. Pakistan, on the other hand, has openly declared use of air power and artillery in its battle against militants. These are area weapons, hence would cause collateral damage and enhance innocent casualties. However, remoteness of the area and strict control over the press, prevents any inputs of collateral civilian casualties from being announced.

The Indian army, alongside anti-militancy operations also aims to win hearts and minds of the local population by providing facilities and assistance to the population. The recent flood relief operations and existing ‘Sadbhavna’ projects are a case in point. The Pakistan government is responsible for implementing the National Action Plan (NAP) and the National Counter-Terrorism Authority (as a part of the anti-militancy drive). An editorial in the dawn of 10 Apr 17, claims that these are the most visible failures of the state.

In response to a militant strike on Uri, India launched a surgical strike across the border targeting specific terrorist camps, while carefully avoiding civilian population. Pakistan, in response to terror strikes from across the border, employed artillery and air strikes into Afghanistan, resulting in civilian casualties and compelling locals to flee. While Afghanistan officially objected to cross border strikes, Pakistan kept silent on the Indian strike.

In India, only a miniscule percentage of the local population joins militancy, the balance being Pak nationals whereas in Pakistan they are all locals, with only a miniscule percentage being Afghans or Uzbeks. Details of every encounter in India is available to the press, in Pakistan, information only flows through vague press releases by the ISPR, which cannot be questioned. India only faces a secession demand from a small part of the valley (just six percent of the population), whereas in Pakistan, almost every province seeks independence from the state, hence threatens the very survival of the nation.

Critics of government and security forces exist within India and continue to thrive on largesse of the state, while inciting unemployed youth in the valley. The Hurriyat being a prime example. In Pakistan, only those on self-imposed exile possess the ability to criticize, while those living within, live in fear of the deep state.

Considering the vast difference in the way the two nations have handled a similar threat, the results are also vastly apart. In India, militancy remains confined to just a part of the Kashmir valley, while in Pakistan, it threatens the fabric of the nation. In time, India would be able to control the situation, while Pak would struggle to maintain itself as a nation-state. Unless it reassesses its policy and strategy, it is in dire straits in the days ahead.

Panama papers and Nawaz Sharif’s waterloo: How Pakistan Supreme Court made the PM a pawn DailyO 22 Apr 17

The recent split judgement of the Pakistan Supreme Court giving Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif breathing space by appointing a Joint Investigation Team (JIT), to investigate the Panama papers claims of financial irregularities by him and his family, has changed the strategic scenario in the country. The JIT comprises of members of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), Military Intelligence (MI) and the ISI. It has been granted two months to complete its probe and submit its findings. Whether it does so or seeks an extension, time would tell. However, it has set a precedent which would only harm the nation and the political leadership in the days ahead. It would alter the strategic balance in the country and severely affect civil-military interface and Indo-Pak relations.

It is known in Pakistan, that the deep state, comprising the ISI and the army are the main power base, the political leadership being mere pawns in their hands. Nawaz Sharif had hoped that by appointing General Bajwa as the new Chief, superseding others, he would be in the driver’s seat, as it appeared that General Bajwa was a strong believer of democratic governance. This now seems to change. Nawaz Sharif and his government are already being side lined by the deep state as events in recent times seem to indicate.

The announcement of the launch of the latest anti-terror operation, Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad, spread across the country including Punjab, was done by the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), Major General Asif Ghafoor, and not the government, which was only logical. In a similar manner, the conduct of the military trial of Kulbhushan Jadhav, the supposed Indian spy, and the announcement of the death sentence was done by the ISPR. In both cases the government was left red faced and struggled to handle the aftermath. Calls for counsellor access have been denied because the army is unwilling.

The Supreme Court order has only added fuel to fire. The JIT has representatives of the ISI and MI as members. Officially the head of the ISI is appointed by the Prime Minister on the recommendations of the army chief and is supposed to report directly to him. The reality is far from this. The Dawn newspaper of Pakistan officially commented that other than these two agencies (ISI and MI), all others report to the Prime Minister, hence possibly affecting the probe. The fact that two agencies report to the army chief, implies that the final leverage would remain in his hands.

Nominating of a spy agency (ISI) which controls terror groups operating against India and Afghanistan, as also a military intelligence agency being part of a JIT investigating financial irregularities and purchase of properties abroad, beats all logic. The probe is not on selling military secrets nor terror funding nor anti-national activities nor spying, hence does not warrant involvement of military agencies. The only possible reason is the hold of the deep state in the country, as also its ability to influence the courts. It should be remembered that setting up of military courts undermines belief and faith in their own judicial system and yet the Supreme Court maintained silence, without even challenging its formation.

This decision by the Supreme Court is a game changer. Earlier all other civilian agencies had refused to conduct the probe, stating that the investigation does not fall within their charter, except the ISI and MI, which were then not even remotely involved. However, with this decision the army is clearly in the driver’s seat. It can directly influence the probe, move it in the manner in which it wishes to, embarrass the Prime Minister if it so desires, as also threaten the very survival of the government and the party. It can delay the final submission stating it needs more time, hence hold all cards till the time is right. The Prime Minister and his government are now pawns in the hands of the army chief, who now controls all the cards and is the de facto head of state.

Thus civil-military relations in Pak are now tilting clearly in favour of the army. This would thus impact Indo-Pak relations. While presently relations between the two are at their lowest ebb, there was a hope that the two Prime Ministers could meet on the side lines of the SCO summit about two months away in Russia. There were thoughts that it could herald a small shift in relations. Nawaz came to power promising improvement in ties with India. Every step that he wanted to take was shot in the back by the deep state. With limited time left for fresh elections, this could possibly be his last chance. However, with this judgement nothing can be expected. He would be compelled to sing the army tune, independence of thought having vanished into thin air.

Pakistan Supreme Court, in one short and swift judgement has altered the balance of power in the country as also adversely affected international relations. In the ultimate count, it would be most humiliating for a Prime Minister to present himself before junior staff members whenever summoned. The opposition may keep calling for his resignation, which he can very well turn down, but the humiliation would remain. The only one left smiling at the end of the day is the army chief, who holds all aces up his sleeve, threatening to release them whenever he desires. For Nawaz Sharif, it is once again an irony of fate. The man you appointed now controls you and your government. This has always been Nawaz’s waterloo. For India, there is no option but to continue challenging Pakistan in every sphere, as any small hopes of any de-escalation seem to fade.

Temporary gains likely from new war on terror The Statesman 07 Mar 17

Post terror strikes which killed over a hundred innocents in a week, spread across the country, Pak army announced, with much fanfare, the launch of Operation ‘Rad-ul-Fasaad’, its latest in a series of crackdowns against terror groups across the country. The aim of the operation, as announced by their Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), is ‘indiscriminately eliminating residual and latent threat of terrorism, consolidating gains of operations made thus far and further ensuring security of the borders’. The press release went on to state that it would involve the participation of the military, civilian armed forces and intelligence agencies. Interestingly, it was announced by their army, not the government, as would be the norm in a true democracy.

In Punjab, the operations would be under the control of the Rangers, an organization officered by the army, but for the international community, under the aegis of the ministry of interior (akin to our Assam Rifles). The fear in the country was so palpable that the finals of the Pakistan Cricket League in Lahore, was conducted under a five-tier security with almost curfew like conditions across the city. The markets were forcibly closed, spectators went through a three-tier security check and the army and rangers were deployed across the city.

As a precursor, in Jun 14, post the Taliban attack on Karachi airport, Pak army launched Operation Zarb-e-azb, seeking to eliminate terrorist groups active in North Waziristan. By Sept 16, it claimed to have eliminated over 3500 militants and arrested untold numbers as part of the operation, figures which cannot be independently confirmed. However, the continuing series of terror strikes post the so-claimed successful operations, proved that it only provided temporary relief to the country, as anti-Pak terror outfits re-grouped and launched strikes with greater vigour. This too may turn out to be on similar lines.

The present operation is concentrated in FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), Baluchistan and Punjab. As part of the operations, Pakistan launched air and artillery strikes in remote areas of FATA and Baluchistan as also across the border into Afghanistan, seeking to destroy militant hideouts and simultaneously deported thousands of Afghan refugees, living in the country for decades, on suspicion of being terror supporters. Further, in Punjab the searches targeted mainly those colonies occupied by Pakhtuns or Afghans. Thus, the operation commenced by profiling specific communities as being supporters of terror groups.

The launching of air and artillery strikes and closing border crossings with Afghanistan, has only deteriorated the relationship between the countries. Pak believes that Afghan intelligence agencies, in collusion with Indian RAW are responsible for terror strikes. The Pak army gave a list of over seventy known militants located in Afghanistan to be arrested and handed over. In reply, Afghanistan gave its list of eight-five terrorists on Pak soil. It was just tit for tat. The fact remains that Afghan forces have limited control over remote border areas and are already stretched handling Taliban assaults across the country to respond to Pak’s air and artillery barrages. These strikes only forced Afghan residents living close to the border to flee from their homes, in fear.

The operations supported by firepower would result in collateral casualties to innocents, besides destroying their homes and shelters, further alienating the population. Most operations being conducted in remote areas, claims of success are announced through press releases by ISPR and hence would be one sided. In the first day of operations, ISPR claimed killed over a hundred, which is unlikely. Most of those arrested in the roundups are either Pakhtuns or Afghans.

The profiling of the population and high handedness of the approach would benefit terror groups and increase problems for Pakistan. In Baluchistan, to subdue the independence uprising, Pak employed brutal force, resulting in it losing control of the region. A similar situation may emerge this time. In a report published in an online magazine, Afghan refugees pushed back into Afghanistan have claimed, that since they lack funds for basic survival, they have no option but to join the ISIS for earning revenue. These refugees have lived for decades in Pakistan and are well versed with the topography and security infrastructure. Their joining terror groups would only heighten security problems.

Internal pressure on the country is such that it is compelled to revive military courts to deal with terror suspects. Terror groups which Pakistan once considered as strategic assets, have now splintered and returned to haunt the nation. Both the ISIS and Pakistan Taliban operate along the almost open and inaccessible Pak-Afghan border, where tribal loyalties dominate state control. As pressure increases, they shift deeper into Afghanistan, regroup and await an opportunity to return. Force alone can never eliminate terror groups, as has been proved in every counter terror operation, across the globe. It requires deft political handling alongside application of force. The Pak government’s National Action Plan (NAP) had involved a combination of both. Critics within the country have repeatedly questioned the lack of implementation of the NAP in the conduct of operations, leaving it solely to the army to handle, hence unlikely to succeed.

After decades, India has barely been able to control the militancy in Kashmir, despite following a multipronged approach including trying to win hearts and minds. The Indian army has fought militants at great cost, with hands tied behind their backs, suffering casualties while avoiding damage to civilian property. Expecting the Pak army, adopting a brute force strategy, to succeed is asking for the impossible. The strategy adopted and profiling of the population would only increase support to terror groups and enhance problems for the state. It is repeating mistakes of its earlier operation, Zarb-e-azb, which only brought temporary relief. Probably this operation may soothe population fears, only for some time, before terror groups return with renewed vigour. After all, the army can only sustain force levels deployed in operation Rad-ul-Fasaad for limited durations.

India, Pakistan and a tale of two army chiefs The Wire 06 Jan 17

General Bajwa assumed the mantle of army chief of Pakistan in end November, while General Bipin Rawat took command of the Indian army last weekend. General Rawat was commissioned in 1978, while General Bajwa in 80. Both had served almost simultaneously in the same mission in Congo, the difference being that General Rawat commanded the North Kivu Brigade and General Bajwa the South Kivu Brigade. The force commander was an ex- Indian army chief, General Bikram Singh. Both are from the infantry. While General Bajwa superseded four generals to assume his chair, General Rawat superseded two. This is possibly where the similarity ends. Both have very different roles and challenges ahead.

The Indian army is the world’s largest volunteer army and in strength, the third largest, while Pakistan’s is the sixth. In Pakistan, the army chief is the most powerful individual in the nation. Though appointed by the prime minister, he soon assumes more power than the prime minister himself and has at times overthrown the same individual who appointed him. He was chosen basically because of his views on supporting civilian governments. His professionalism and capability came secondary. General Rawat was chosen solely for his professionalism, capability and experience of having served in every sector, rather than his approach to democracy. He would remain away from politics and have no role in national decision making.

The Indian army controls the Assam Rifles, the sole para-military force in the nation. All other central forces are directly under the home ministry, some of whom, may be under the army for operational control only, when deployed along the borders. Other than the Assam Rifles (officered by the army), each has its own cadre. The Pak army on the other hand controls every para-military force in the country. Therefore, it wields complete power, as every armed force is under its command. Hence, directly or indirectly it is responsible for restoring order during civil unrest. This control gives the Pak army chief his power and the capability to launch coups.

The Pak army chief is the sole authority to decide the nation’s foreign policy towards India and Afghanistan, as also national security. It is his ISI which controls terror groups, who would up or lower the ante, against India and Afghanistan, based on his directions. He would take the final call on the ongoing policy of ‘bleeding India by a thousand cuts.’ His counterpart in India has no such authority. He has no link with national intelligence agencies including the RAW, as they report directly to the NSA. He can only strategically plan for defeating Pak’s designs in J and K and ensuring the LoC remains secure and inviolable.

In case of any war like scenario, the power to control the nuclear button in India is with the prime minister and the cabinet. The Strategic Forces Command (SFC), which controls all nuclear assets, functions directly under the PMO. General Rawat has no role to play in this regard. In Pakistan, it is General Bajwa, who would take a call on whether the nuclear card is to be employed and at what level. The civil government has no role or responsibility.

General Rawat inherits a secular army where religion and caste has no place. The basic document of the soldier has no mention of caste and all members of a unit celebrate every religious event together. The Indian army does not preach hatred towards Pakistan and a soldier is only drilled into doing his duty for the mother-land. Bajwa on the other hand inherits an army, whose sole purpose for survival is re-obtaining Kashmir. The army is taught to hate India. Further religious minorities have no place in their army. It is an army based on religious fundamentalism, which is difficult to change. This impacts any civil government decision to commence peace talks.

In India, any decision taken by the government involving the army is termed as politicizing the army, as has happened in the case of appointing Bipin Rawat as the new chief or seeking credit for surgical strikes. In Pak, it is the army, which at times, is called to broker peace between warring political parties. The army can alter politics in Pakistan, whereas the government can politicize the army in India.

While the Indian army backed by a sound economy has after a considerable time commenced modernization, its demand for a reasonable share of the budget for upgradation has never been met. The Pakistan army on the other hand can demand and get. However, a poor economy places severe restrictions on its modernization, compelling it to back on largesse from China and the US.

The Indian army is presently battling insurgency in J and K and the North East. It has two active borders to defend, both neighbours being hostile. Pak on the other hand, is responsible for activating the Indian border and the J and K insurgency, while employing a major part of its force to battle freedom struggles in different parts of the country. Further, with a militarily weak nation like Afghanistan on one border, it has only one active border to protect.

The Indian army has suffered in status, pay and allowances at the hands of the polity and bureaucracy. It has yet to gain the benefits of the pay commission. Even its allowances and status has been lowered to the level of central police forces, way below the bureaucracy and IPS. The Pak army demands and gets its increments. Every other government service is below the army in standing and stature. It reigns supreme in Pakistan. In retaliation to the killing of an army major, the Pak army demolished a business centre in Wana, South Waziristan.

General Rawat would continue to follow his predecessor in handling problems faced by veterans including OROP and their rehabilitation. The Pak army welfare foundations, on the other hand, control thousands of business ventures in the country, ranging from petrol pumps to industrial plants with a turnover of over twenty billion dollars. It re-employs its soldiers and officers into plum posts in its internal ventures. Their army chief heads their army welfare foundation.

In summary, both chiefs face entirely opposite scenarios. While one controls the polity, the other is controlled by it, while one has complete freedom to function, the other is hemmed in by politicians and bureaucracy and while one is the most powerful individual in the country and essential for approving foreign policy and security issues, the other is kept away from decision making. This is the difference between a near military state Pakistan, as compared to a democratic one, India.

A necessary shift in India’s stance The Statesman 24 Aug 16

In his Independence Day speech, from the ramparts of the Red Fort, the Prime Minister publicly criticized Pakistan for human rights violations in Baluchistan, POK and Gilgit- Baltistan. He had raised this issue in the all party meeting on Kashmir, a week ago. Rarely has any international leader publicly declared such a radical shift in his nation’s foreign policy, adopting an offensive stance, as compared to an earlier defensive one. Under normal conditions, nations pursue aggressive foreign policies covertly, while officially advocating a defensive approach. The timing of the broadcast was aimed at conveying a strong message to India’s two close adversaries, Pakistan and China.

Modi on assuming his premiership, commenced his foreign policy with a risky outreach, inviting leaders of all SAARC nations to his swearing in, an event attended by the Pakistan Prime Minister. Subsequent attempts to re-establish relations and commence talks with Pakistan, included their meetings in Ufa and Lahore. Pathankot, almost immediately after Lahore, came as a rude shock and pushed talks into the background. It eventually became clear, that the Pakistan political leadership has no say in talks or Indo-Pak policies. Talks if any, can only be fruitful if held with the military, an action, the Indian democratic government can never resort to.

The lowest ebb in Indo-Pak relations was the result of open support by Pakistan and its terror groups to the ongoing agitation in Kashmir. The defensive foreign policy approach taken by the government so far, had pushed it against the wall and a clear message was required to be conveyed. The message came directly from the Prime Minister, in his Independence Day speech, which is followed across the globe, as it indicates the governments stand. Though the wordings remained guarded, with no mention of any aspect beyond the unacceptable level of atrocities by them, it clearly meant, that level of support could increase and go beyond what was stated, if the situation so warrants. It was a rude and clear warning to the rulers in Pakistan, the military and the civil, that their internal scenario can be made difficult, if they do not stop meddling in Kashmir. It was a re-run of Ajit Doval’s comment, ‘If you do one more Mumbai, you may lose Baluchistan.

Gilgit- Baltistan has a deeper meaning. Though originally a part of J and K, with majority Shia residents, hence persecuted in Sunni majority Pakistan, it became independent due to a revolt led by British officers commanding the Gilgit Scouts, who then acceded to Pakistan. The instrument of accession of J and K was signed on 26 Oct 47, while the revolt commenced on 01 Nov 47. Hence legally, it remains a part of disputed J and K. Pakistan knowing this fact, gave it limited autonomy by a presidential decree in 2009. Officially it was never made an integral part of Pakistan, though completely controlled by it, as it could come under the gambit of the UN mandate on Kashmir. The Prime Ministers speech indicated India’s decision to re-raise the inclusion of the area into the illegal occupation of Kashmir by Pakistan, adding to their woes.

The speech was also a clear message to China. Here again, due to his regular visits to China, as the Chief Minister of Gujrat (since the US had banned his entry), he possessed a soft corner for the country. His personal relations with the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, did initially indicate a thawing of relations between the two nations, however, China clearly stated its priorities. It was Pakistan which came first and also that India cannot be permitted to sit on the same table in international bodies where China presently is. China refused to open doors for India’s entry into the NSG as also blocked India’s attempt at the UN, to ban the JeM chief Masood Azhar. This compelled the government to change its foreign policy stance. India is now powerful enough to flex its muscles. It has done so by openly opposing the China Pakistan Economic corridor (CPEC), passing through disputed areas.

The CPEC transits through Gilgit-Baltistan and POK and terminates at the Baluchistan port of Gwadar. By raising the issue, India now firmly objects to any construction through disputed territory. There are agitations in the states against the corridor, as the benefits would only flow to Punjab and Sind, while exploiting their region. Chinese workers are being targeted and the progress of work is tardy. The fear of militant strikes is such, that Pakistan is compelled to raise a separate infantry division to provide security to the corridor and Chinese workers employed. India has indicated that it can support the freedom struggle in both the states, by more than just moral means.

Domestic criticism on the change in policy would always flow from traditionally weak minded political parties. These political parties should realize, that unless gloves are off, India would continue to react to Pakistan’s misadventures’ supported by China. India has been bearing them for too long. If a nuclear threat dilutes military options, then a covert option supported by a strong military is the best alternative. In simple terms, it is ‘we pay you back in the same coin, but with heavier notes’. For Pakistan, only the threat of increased insurgency on their soil, threatening the fabric of the country, would compel them to alter their Kashmir strategy. They may never openly announce a change, but when cornered and threatened, a perceptible change would be clearly visible.

Comments from Pakistan on the Prime Minister’s speech have been on standard lines, continuing support to Kashmir, re-raising the UN plebiscite bogey and India interfering and supporting the Baluchistan freedom struggle, something we are used to hearing. For India, which for decades pursued a defensive policy, such a shift is a welcome step. In the world today, only strong and firm nations are respected. The importance of the announcement is in continuing its pursuit, rather than mere rhetoric from the ramparts of Red Fort.

Jealousy: thy name is Pakistan The Excelsior 08 Jun 16

Post the successful test of the Ashwin interceptor missile in mid- May, there were violent cries from Pakistan about India changing the balance of power in the region. This has not been the first time Pakistan has cried hoarse. It has always been the case whenever India either purchases or produces an equipment with better technology. In fact, the blame for the turn down of the F-16 aircraft as a part of military aid by the US, was placed on India. Similarly, the rising Baluch and Sindh insurgencies and the increased attacks by the Pakistan Taliban are also placed squarely on India. These are just some examples of jealousy flowing from across the border.

Logically, Pakistan has many more reasons to be jealous of India’s success. Firstly, India is growing at over 7.5% per annum. It is amongst the most sought after destinations for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). As per their own government reports, Pakistan grew at a modest 4.7% in the last year. They are almost dependent on Chinese generosity and the future of the CPEC. US aid, both military and economic, which used to flow, is now on the back burner.

Secondly, is India’s growing proximity to nations which were once close to Pakistan as also its growing stature in the international arena. India and the US have moved closer and inked agreements which have made India a partner at par with NATO nations. Similarly, India is now closer to Saudi Arabia, another Pakistan supporter. Internationally India is a major economic and military power and the world looks upon India as being a net security provider in the region. The world (barring a few) are willing to back India’s entry to the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG). Nations which once supported Pakistan have begun to move away. No nation, other than China is willing to back them for the NSG.

Thirdly, the insurgency which Pakistan supports in J and K is well under the control of security forces. In fact, casualties due to insurgency are lesser than the deaths in any of the metro cities of Delhi, Mumbai or Kolkata. They remain in the news as they are the result of an insurgency. The recent past has witnessed more deaths of militants than civilian or security forces. In Pakistan on the other hand, the insurgency is only expanding. Punjab, which till recently was peaceful and uninvolved is the latest hotbed, where security forces have also been employed. Presently their entire nation is in the grip of insurgency and the army is heading anti- terrorist operations.

Fourthly, is the provision of basic amenities. Pakistan due its weak economy is unable to provide even the basic amenities to its population. An improved economic environment has witnessed a wider spread of basic amenities across India. Fifthly, is the issue of security. An individual moving out of his residence in India is assured of returning home safe. In Pakistan, where terror strikes and blasts are a daily occurrence across the country, an individual leaving home, even to visit the local market, is never sure of what could happen next. He is as prone to be picked up by security forces on trumped up charges as he is to blasts or terrorist strikes. The nation has become a virtual military state, with democracy only in name.

Sixthly, when Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) are considered, the freedom enjoyed in India is a dream for residents across the border. They are supressed, controlled by the military and have almost no freedom. The Pakistani Kashmiri has never accepted himself to be a part of Pakistan. The few videos which emanate from this almost military state indicate their true condition. The Indian Kashmiri may have his reservations and being misled by a limited number of hardliners as also by lack of development and job opportunities begins to feel that the other side of the fence is greener. His protests are still accepted and he still possess his freedom, to speak and travel without any pre-conditions, something which his counterparts across cannot have.

Seventhly, is the rising fear of India’s growing conventional military power. An economically resurgent India can procure latest equipment from across the globe while Pakistan has to depend on China or the US for the same. Thus there would always be a conventional edge. To counter this edge, Pakistan is compelled to resort to widespread deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, hoping to deter India from any adventurism.

Eighthly, while India has always had irrefutable proof of Pakistan’s involvement in supporting and sponsoring militant activities in India, with the arrest or death of its nationals, Pakistan’s claims have always been documentary, none of which have ever been accepted by the international community. Even the so-called arrest of Kulbushan Jadhav has been considered stage managed by the international community. Thus for the Pakistan government, crying hoarse over India’s support to various terrorist groups and freedom movements has only fanned anti-India feeling amongst its population, but internationally they have been the loser.

Ninthly, in the sports arena, India overshadowed them in every event in the South Asian games. For cricket lovers, India successfully conducted the ICC world cup and its own IPL. The Pakistan team felt more secure playing in India, than it does in its own country. Pakistan is also forced to conduct its own version of the IPL in Sharjah and Dubai due to its volatile internal state. No international team has visited Pakistan since the attack on the Sri Lankan team in 2009. Its public can only watch events on TV.

Pakistan therefore, can never fathom any success story about India. The anti-India stance taken by the military and forced down by the civilian government and its controlled one sided media is only to shift the attention of its population from their own inabilities. Indians therefore, should accept anything flowing from Pakistan as a rambling of their inadequacies. In simple terms, for Indians, ‘jealousy- thy name is Pakistan’.

As you sow, so shall you reap 04 Feb 16

The title of this article is taken from the Bible, Galations VI (King James Version). It basically implies that good things happen to those who do good and bad things happen to those who indulge in doing bad. This is the fate of Pakistan. It has sponsored terrorism, which has adversely affected the region. It has brought untold misery to Afghanistan, affected peaceful development of India, supported militant groups in an otherwise peaceful Kashmir, as also severely impacted the lives of minorities in their own nation. The series of blasts and attacks in Pakistan in recent times, including the latest one in Bacha Khan University, clearly proves the bad coming to those who believe in harming others. However, Pakistan has still to admit its flawed policy.

Last week, after completing investigations into the attack of the Bacha Khan University, Gen Asim Bajwa, the Pakistan military spokesperson stated, “We have come to the conclusion that terrorism cannot be fought, when there are accomplices and facilitators.” He made these comments, while addressing the media, directing accusations to Afghanistan and India. He went on to add, that the militants were trained in Afghanistan and their handlers were from the Pakistan Taliban. Surprisingly, that statement should have come from one of those countries most affected by Pakistan sponsored terrorism and not from the sponsors themselves. It was a hollow statement and aptly proved the title of the article.

Pakistan continues to blame Afghanistan for not doing enough to reign in the TTP or the Pakistan Taliban. Pakistan launched strikes to destroy the TTP, which then shifted base to Afghanistan. Pakistan also feels that it is India which is behind the funding and sponsoring of the activities of the group. Hence, as per Pakistan’s perceptions, all troubles within their country are caused by the collusion of India and Afghanistan and not by their own actions.

On the other hand, the world is aware, that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism and openly supports the Taliban and anti- India groups, the JuD and LET. The Afghan Taliban, based in Pakistan, are funded and supported by them. It was Pakistan which harboured Osama Bin Laden, as also were the only one’s aware of the demise of Mullah Omar. It is the same country, which still offers sanctuary to Dawood Ibrahim and his closest henchmen.

The Afghan government on the other hand has accused Pakistan of not doing enough to degrade the Taliban. The Pakistan leadership has openly stated that there is confusion in the Afghan desires. On one hand it wants Pakistan to destroy the Taliban, while on the other hand it wants them on the negotiating table. Thus they claim that Pakistan can do only one of the two desires, clearly hinting, that it can still act or control the group.

For India, which has faced a number of terrorist strikes, all launched from across the border, with Pakistan backing, the words of their military spokesperson are certainly hollow. Further for decades Pakistan has sponsored and built anti-national sentiments in the valley. It has only been the maturity of the Indian government, which has prevented the situation from crossing the limits of an all- out war, in spite of extreme provocation. The time has come, when there would be a retaliation, albeit limited, but enough to convey the message, that India is ready for the consequences.

The groups that Pakistan has created have with passage of time become their own enemy. There is a fear within their own military hierarchy, that any excessive pressure or force on these groups could be counter- productive. Hence they fear the combination of the two Taliban’s and the threat they could pose to the state. Similarly is that by shutting down the LET and the JuD, as desired by India, the trained militants would easily join the ISIS, which has begun raising its head in the country. Their leaders, who presently openly preach an anti-India tirade, would switch to an anti- Pakistan tirade, which would add to their headaches. It is a catch 22 situation for them.

The words spoken by Gen Asim Bajwa reflect the current internal situation. The state on the western borders of Pakistan is deplorable and the government has hardly any control. The strong arm tactics by the Pakistan army have resulted in complete alienation of the local population. Hence militancy and anti- Pakistan groups grow and flourish. Weapons have been readily available since the Afghan war and the tribes follow their own system of governance, with limited interaction with the state. These borders have been described as amongst the most dangerous places on the globe. The threat to the very existence of the state is real and terrorist strikes are a daily occurrence. Internally sectarian violence and religious extremism is on the rise.

If Pakistan is to develop, create an environment of peace within and provide succour to its population then it needs to develop a strategy to commence dismantling every terrorist group, irrespective of why and for which purpose it was created. As stated by our Prime Minister, ‘the world should stop differentiating between good and bad terrorism’. Terror groups always possess the tendency to shift their targets to their creator. The al-Qaeda was created to engage the soviets in Afghanistan and subsequently switched operations against their creators, the US, leading to 9/11. Therefore, before they are threatened for survival, Pakistan needs to calculate the risks on continuing with their present policy or shift towards elimination of terror groups. This does possess risks, however has lesser chances of back firing than the tumultuous path of self- destruction, on which they are presently heading.