Contesting Mushrif's thesis — "Other side of Modi Muslims should know"

http://www.milligazette.com/news/12328-contesting-mushrif-s-other-side-of-modi-thesis-indian-Muslims

The Milli Gazette Online

Published Online: May 07, 2015

Mr. Mushrif is right (www.milligazette.com/news/12196-the-other-side-of-modi-muslims-should-know), but unfortunately only partially so. We wish that he were entirely right. That would have helped dispel any reservations over Prime Minister, Mr. Modi. However, Mr. Modi has himself made it difficult to go along fully with Mr. Mushrif. Nevertheless, we could give Mr. Mushrif and Mr. Modi the benefit of doubt, but to ‘bail him out and allow him to breathe freely,’ as Mr. Mushrif would have it, would be naive. Only a call to generosity of spirit can help Mr. Modi past the barriers he has himself assiduously, demonstratively and self-interestedly built. After all, his party built a vote bank of the majority by using the minority as a ‘bogey’.

Mr. Mushrif’s well-argued and well-intentioned thesis is that a political reading of Mr. Modi in his decade and a half sway over Gujarat and a year in New Delhi suggests that he has put a distance between himself and the extremists within the Sangh Parivar.

Mr. Mushrif’s thesis brings to fore the pleasant possibility that Mr. Modi being his own man, and not a creation or puppet of the Sangh, would not necessarily follow the dictates of the Sangh’s ideology, Hindutva. There is, therefore, scope for interfacing with, if not influencing, the Modi agenda. The agenda itself is much wider than ethno-religious triumphalism, but encompassing economy-based rise of India as a political, economic and military power at the global stage.

Mr. Mushrif’s view is very persuasive and, as a credible anti-Hindutva figure, his espousing it indicates that it needs to be reckoned with seriously. If, indeed, India is on an upward trajectory under Mr. Modi’s leadership, it would be very foolish indeed for India’s Muslims not to be on the bandwagon and get left out yet again. Giving Mr. Modi a chance is the subtext. There can be no argument with that. If he succeeds, the gainers must include Muslims.

The question is: Should we put our eggs into his basket?

The Mushrif thesis is contrary to the popular view that the Sangh is his support base and he is their champion. He is, therefore, providing the conditions for implementation of the Hindutva agenda. Many actions of his government – not repeated here for the sake of brevity and knowledge that these would be familiar to the readers of this journal – suggest as much. In fact, his government is but a year old and there is much negative ground that it can yet traverse over the next decade it intends to stay in power at a minimum.

In this more critical view of Mr. Modi, he is in a period of consolidation and can afford not to antagonize the minority any further. His government’s periodic reminder to all of the patriotism of India’s Muslims is a case to point. This belated recognition of objective reality can only be considered remarkable in the highly prejudiced view of Hindutvavadis. This means that it is a political ploy to seemingly retract claws so as to lull those observing the moves of the government into a false sense of complacency.

There are strategic reasons for the Muslim policy of the government. It would not like to have a disaffected minority in addition to the problems that can easily be foreseen ahead. The churning thrown up by the land bill, changes in labour laws, the legal regime surrounding conversions and beef eating etc. are indicators that there are emerging constituencies that are less enamoured of Mr. Modi’s economic and social agenda than his electoral victory implied. Even if Mr. Modi is not held hostage by extremist Hindutva forces, but is instead hostage to the agenda of large corporates, India will not have as untroubled an ascent as Mr. Mushrif might imagine. Anticipating this, Mr. Modi is into preemption mode, building bridges with otherwise suspicious constituencies such as Muslims.

There is also another angle from which the Mushrif thesis needs to be approached. There is an incipient cult phenomenon Mr. Modi is building himself up. He has personalized governance by centralizing government power in his office and indeed in his person. So much so that no government mention of India’s relief operation in Nepal is without reference to the leadership provided by Mr. Modi. While this may be political, intended to set him apart from his predecessor, the somnolent Dr. Manmohan Singh, and the opposition leader in absentia, Rahul Gandhi, it is more likely that Mr. Modi is subverting parliamentary democracy by projecting a presidential image. Mr. Modi has snatched the TINA factor from the Congress.

Mr. Mushrif alludes to the extensive travel schedule of the prime minister, his anti-terrorism international stance and regional outreach to underscore his secular credentials. Firstly, the foreign tours amounting to about 50 days in the year also undergird the personality cult thesis since these are at the cost of the institutional strength of the foreign ministry. Secondly, the international anti-terror stance of the government is not new. His recognition of Indian Muslims as out of international terror ambit is only acknowledgement of facts. Also, India in this will continue to be influenced by its partners, US and Israel. Already evident of Israeli pug marks is India raising an original point in a UN debate contesting the credibility of international organisations based on religious affinity, perhaps alluding to the OIC, as UN partners in international peace and security! Thirdly, the regional outreach is a chimera, with Mr. Nawaz Sharif lamenting that his initiatives have not been reciprocated by India.

Mr. Mushrif argues that there is an extremist portion within the RSS with which Mr. Modi is in an internal battle. He also seems to suggest that there is a schism within the IB, with the extremist side anti Modi.

Mr. Mushrif is guilty of using the extremist RSS portion as a bogey to argue that Mr. Modi, being the better of the two, should be given a second chance. His IB related argument has an internal contradiction. Though he suggests that the extremists within IB have been anti Modi and yet their actions, in particular black operations depicting Muslims as terror perpetrators, have provided the conditions that help the political ascent of Mr. Modi.

Mr. Mushrif, while making an otherwise plausible case for engaging with the government, resorts to avoidable contortions that put paid to the ‘absolutely secular agenda’ Mr. Mushrif credits Mr. Modi with.

The good news from Mr. Mushrif is that many of the initiatives of Mr. Modi appear to distance him from the Parivar and are in the interests of Muslims. After all there can be no arguing against madrasa modernization. These must be profited from and Mr. Modi incentivized to persist down this path by positive engagement by Muslims at all levels with the government he heads. By no means does this mean that Mr. Modi be conceded political or ideological ground. His ascent to and from a regional power base to New Delhi shows him as a consummate political actor. His Muslim outreach is, therefore, at best strategic. Consequently, the response to Mr. Modi cannot be dictated by the heart. Sure, allow Mr. Modi ‘development’, but await the lead of India’s ‘have nots’, that include its Muslims, have on this by end decade.

Even so it must not be forgotten that once Mr. Modi is beyond the reach of impunity of his office, he and the likes of Mr. Shah and Vanzara, require answering for the events of 2002 and subsequently in Gujarat. His ‘change of heart’ since is not self-evident from the ongoing hounding of the likes of Ms. Setalvad. It would be unfortunate for Indian democracy if Padma Vibhushan Advaniji’s getting away for 1990, 1992 and 2002 end up as an indelible precedent against the rule of law.

MODI'S CHINA VISIT

http://indiatogether.org/army-strategy-on-china-and-modi-visit-op-ed

China policy: Will economics trump the military stance?

Surprisingly, the biannual jamboree of high brass was held as usual in New Delhi this spring. Surprising not because of any reason but that at its October edition last year, Narendra Modi, perhaps taking cue from venues of party conclaves, had suggested in his address that it be held elsewhere in the country. Sensibly, the brass did not bend over backwards to act on the suggestion since the intellectual repository to service the commanders’ conference is only at Headquarters.

As usual, the conference yielded interesting insights, the most significant one this time around being a dilution of the preparedness on the China front. Media reported that the defence minister had expressed scepticism over the steep requirements, both manpower and financial, stemming from the army’s creation of the mountain strike corps.

FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE http://indiatogether.org/army-strategy-on-china-and-modi-visit-op-ed

Strategic shifts

The two mountain divisions that were raised late last decade had enabled a shift from dissuasive defence to defensive deterrence. Defensive defence, implying an ability to fight back defensively, had been India’s posture on the China front since the sixties till the late eighties. India upped this posture to dissuasive defence, in which a robust defence was intended to dissuade an attacker, during the Sundarji period with Exercise Chequer Board.

This posture was yet again hiked around the end of the last decade to active defence with the two mountain divisions sucked into a defensive role in Arunachal Pradesh. Active defence is akin to defensive deterrence in which China is to be deterred with the knowledge of an active fight back by India.

The army in a doctrinal revision exercise over the turn of the decade, that was conveniently leaked to the press, alighted on the formulation of the ‘two front’ war. The ‘two front’ threat dates back to the early sixties when Pakistan and China began to see common strategic cause. However, economic factors did not permit India to do anything more than strengthen its fence with China. The steady economic growth of the century’s first decade enabled the army to think more ambitiously.

The army had already made a shift from defensive to offensive thinking on the Pakistan front. Prompted by the Kargil War and Operation Parakram, it had moved from basing its doctrine on a counter-offensive capability to a more proactive and offensive one, termed in the media as ‘cold start’. With increased defence outlays that have witnessed a near four-fold increase from $11 billion in 2001 to $40 billion today, it was possible for the army to transfer the offensive mindset to the eastern front.

FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE http://indiatogether.org/army-strategy-on-china-and-modi-visit-op-ed

UPA II was reluctant to concede this since it was presiding in a period during which India’s growth rate slowed down from its high of eight percent to about six percent. Over the period, the army fought a guerilla action through the media, hyping up the China threat to thirty divisions rolling down to the Ganga-Brahmaputra plains, along with a Pakistani hyena act along the upper reaches of the Indus.

Modi’s government, in keeping with its self-image as being strong on defence, has expectedly been more forthcoming. Arun Jaitley, when he wore the double hats as finance minister and defence minister, had taken an appraisal of the new corps in one of his first moves. The national security adviser too, in a speech late last year, borrowed the army terminology on two-front. And yet, the current minister Manohar Parrikar is shown in media dragging his feet on the advisability of the corps, blaming the UPA for approving the 90000-strong increase in troops and its budget demand of Rs 64000 crore. This raises the question: Why?

Can India sustain the grand strategy?

There could be three explanations. The first relates to the infirmity in the Indian national security establishment in which the doctrinal sphere is mistakenly assumed to be the military’s domain exclusively. It appears that South Block thought up the ‘two front’ doctrine and its requirements without recourse to a ‘whole-of-government approach’ in which North Block could have its say. While a lame duck Antony let it pass, Parrikar has been checkmated by Jaitley.

The second, following from the first, is that the new government is operating to a grand strategy. The national security adviser spelt it out in the same speech in which he mentioned the ‘two front’ threat. ‘Economic development is the best way to ensure security and a 9 percent growth will make us totally secure,’ he said.

FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE http://indiatogether.org/army-strategy-on-china-and-modi-visit-op-ed

Indeed, in terms of such a grand strategy, the UPA was also similarly engaged, but was not able to pull it off, since it had to constantly look over its shoulders at what the right wing opposition would say. Can results be any different this time around?

The fact that Modi has a new man in the foreign ministry in the form of China hand – S Jaishankar, who has inherited a fine strategic mind – gives this line credence. The problem is if this turns out to be only tactical, a pre-visit bit of signalling. When done, it would be back to the business of India, the new kid in the great power race, catching up with China. That would potentially upset Doval’s grand strategic apple cart, revealing it as product of an enlightened speech writer but out of sync with the hyper-nationalist national security policy of the right wing government.

While time will tell, the potential for tripping up is there. When Xi visited, there was an ongoing intrusion in Depsang.  Before Modi’s visit, Xi has scheduled his own trip to Pakistan, heightening India’s ‘two front’ paranoia with his promise of investing $45 billion in an economic corridor through Indian- claimed territory in Gilgit-Baltistan and the sale of nine submarines. The submarines, in particular, enable a diesel electric submarine-based nuclear second strike capability for Pakistan.

While its strong-on-defence image can enable the Modi government to contradict the commentary that it has blinked first with China, whether it can do so under the prevailing political circumstances – an opposition rejuvenated by its electoral control of Delhi and the escalating situation over the land bill – is the question. While ‘acche din’ theoretically follows the grand strategy, the absence of ‘acche din’ in the interim can lead the government to lean once again on defence. In other words, the prime minister can end up a victim of his own self-image.

Kashmiri Pandits: Undoing injustice

Undoing injustice to Kashmiri Pandits

Kashmir Times, Op-ed, 25 April 2015

http://kashmirtimes.com/newsdet.aspx?q=40277

Kashmiris have long standing and arguably genuine grievances against the Indian state. They have resorted to several ways to voice these, including militancy, as is indeed their right. However, one way in which they appear to be furthering their agenda is in keeping the displaced Kashmiri Pandits from returning to their homes and hearths. Is keeping Pandits out, one more pressure point against the Indian state?

Kashmiris would reflexively protest such an interpretation. They would claim that not only has India suppressed their voicing of their grievances but it is not they who are keeping the Pandits from returning. They believe they have extended a sincere invite to Pandits to return, but one that has not been taken up. Instead, Pandits by not returning are enabling India to have yet another stick to beat Kashmir with. Also, the manner of insertion of Pandits back into Kashmir in self-contained residential enclaves is reminiscent of Israel’s colonising behavior in occupied territory.

To Kashmiri Pandits, the idea that their expulsion is self-exile is preposterous. They have been ousted from their historical homeland now for a quarter century. Their return has been aborted by instances of continuing threat, such as the Wandhama incident. And, one that is set to continue so long as Kashmiris flirt with extremism that lingers increasingly darkly and closer with the advent of the IS that has even put the Al Qaeda into shade. Security concerns necessitate innovative measures for sustainable returns; the idea of clusters being one such.

Where does the truth lie (no pun intended)?

Clearly, there are multiple versions of the truth. There are possibly multiple truths. No version of the truth can be rejected out of hand. There may be shortfalls in the truths held by each community. As part of debate, these can be highlighted and mitigated; but their right to their version of the truth cannot be disputed. These truths are the kernel of the identity of the community and cannot be trifled with. If this bottom-line is accepted then there is scope for next steps.

The past quarter century has made amply clear that both communities have gone through enough. Kashmiris have weathered security operations ad infinitum, while Pandits have become an internally displaced people. Both have recovered somewhat with considerable peace returning to Kashmir and many Panditsfinding a new life. Balance is returning normalcy to Kashmir.

This final touch can only be through a dignified return of Pandits back in Kashmir, preferably to their original homes.The vulnerable group here being the Pandits, the Kashmiris need to take the first step.If, and since, the cluster model does not find favour with Kashmiris, there is only one alternative: enable Pandit return direct to their homes. This would be in keeping with their rhetoric.

Historical experience does not enthuse. Seldom have communities once internally displaced managed to return with dignity. Reconciliation of such an order has little precedence. In India, people displaced in violence in Assam in the nineties continue in relief camps. People who fled villages and localities in Gujarat have settled in ghettos. Some villages continue to remain empty of their minority members after the riots in UP of last year. Within in the region, minority community members facing discrimination and security threats have largely voted to leave India’s neighbouring states, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Globally, the return of many vulnerable groups who fled conflict such as in Georgia, Kosovo and Africa’s numerous conflicts, is awaited. Can it be any different in Kashmir?

This is not a task the two communities can leave to the state. If they do, the process is liable to get politicized and consequently put off. Geopolitics is liable in the state’s eye to trump human security. To it, logistics of the exercise, such as building houses for Pandits may be easier than building the conditions to make these homes. Political actors, that control the state, get to play political football with the essentially humanitarian IDP issue. Reconciliation therefore cannot be left to the state alone; even if the state has a critical role to play eventually.

Instead, center stage must be the communities themselves. They need to stop firing at each other from the shoulder of the state, with the Pandits using the center and the Kashmiris the state government.Silencing negative motivated and opportunist political actors within each respectively will be the first challenge. Politicians can manage, contain and mark time. While itself preferable to losing ground and stepping back, they cannot deliver, transform, enlighten - necessary to bridging, reaching out, striking out.

There being no Mandela, either in Kashmir or New Delhi, and life not being a fairy tale, on the face of it, it does not appear possible. Politically, separatists, while mouthing the right phrases, cannot instill confidence. They have not given up on their Pakistani connections. Currently, these are political. However, that owes in part to the vice grip that India’s military has. Security wise, till the possibility of proxy war resumption using militants as their cat’s paw is not stashed away by Pakistan, to chance a return could prove foolhardy. Logistically, illegal usurpation of property and profiting from distress sales will first have to be undone.

But more importantly, spiritually, the chasms in trust that have only deepened with time’s passage will have to be crossed. Such levels of generosity in human spirit in face of conflict and absence of leadership, both political and spiritual, are seldom reached. Even deep Sufi wellsprings,Kashmiriyatand memories of the older generation may fail to buoy. The younger generation on both sides, more religious but less spiritual, may be less inclined to be forgiving; for sustainable return, it is they who have to be incentivised.

What we are liable to see therefore is a continuing of the dance around the IDP issue. Kashmir would not be able to transit from a conflict to a post conflict society. The liberal lode will dissipate when most needed to preserve Kashmir from ill winds from West Asia transiting the Hindu Kush to draw near. What Kashmiris fear – demographic change – may consequently appear a suitable strategy option to save Kashmir from its home-grown extremists. This may even be possible to engineer in the political circumstance as shall remain operational in Delhi for the remainder of the decade. Worse, in case of conflict revisiting Kashmir, there are aplenty today counter violence methods that were only yesterday unacceptable. The examples of Chechenya, East Timor and the wars in the Middle East bear recall.

To paint such scenarios is to be strategic. To point to Kashmiris that there are roads they must not take. However, painting such dire and plausible futures, such as this, cannot draw out compassion and grace necessary for Kashmir to rise up as a post conflict society with a difference. It is up to Kashmiris to conquer themselves, subdue their baser selves for their own sake. 

India as security provider?

What will it mean to have India as a ‘security provider’?

http://indiatogether.org/indian-ocean-us-pakistan-new-strategic-doctrine-under-modi-op-ed

Prime Minister Modi’s trip this month to the Indian Ocean islands has been touted as part of India’s assumption of some of the burden of being a ‘security provider’ in the Indian Ocean Region. But the littoral of the ocean that bears its name is not the only region in which India entertains such ambitions, albeit covertly. The subcontinent is its own backyard and its self-image as a regional power necessarily entails the role of a ‘security provider’. The question, however, is can India pull off such a role?

India has projected itself as a benign power. To argue this, it not only points to its strategic posture but also to its strategic culture.

FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE: www.indiatogether.org

These arguments are to embellish India’s credentials as a regional security provider. Since it has been a benign power, others need feel no apprehensions if its military exercises presence in their vicinity. India is now an emerging power with extra-territorial military capability. It is no longer an adversarial power, forever at odds with the West due to its non-aligned policy. It is instead a strategic partner of the US, and since it has a policy of multi-alignment, it is not averse to China either.

FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE: www.indiatogether.org

However, a security provider means much more, and that this remains unstated implies that there is a case for wariness.

Firstly, counter narratives on India’s strategic behaviour exist. As can be expected, these are routinely trotted out by Pakistan, more to hide its own chicanery. However, these cannot be dismissed entirely on that count. This record, starting from Junagadh to reactivation of the Line of Control last year, is at variance with the popular narrative of a reticence in using force based on a strategic culture privileging restraint.

Instead, it suggests a realism-inspired strategic doctrine, which means that India is just as most other states are: not averse to using force to further its ends. Even the ‘defensive and reactive’ posture that India presents as proof of its benign strategic culture has a realist rationale. As the status-quoist power and the powerful one in the India-Pakistan dyad, it is a rational posture that has thus far been suited to its ends.  Strategic culture, therefore, can be read not so much as the inspirational bedrock of strategy but an afterthought, obfuscating its realist strategic doctrine.

Therefore, both the strategic culture and strategic doctrine argument underpinning India’s projection of itself as a security provider are rather thin. The role of security provider needs to be measured against a truer representation of India, as evident in its hardnosed strategic behaviour rather than its sugar-coated professions.

FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE: www.indiatogether.org

This has placed India at the crossroads now. While the US may see India as its handmaiden, the latter for its part could well be taking the ride for its own purposes, not different from those of any growing power wanting to shape its neighbourhood. The second possibility is in India being unable to escape the US embrace and both unconsciously and wilfully internalising its role as a subordinate power out to do the US bidding in the division of global strategic labour.

The spin being put out in strategic circles is that India is riding on US coat tails, quite like China did in the seventies to the nineties. This would be a sign of continuity. The recent appreciative word from the former National Security Adviser, Shivshankar Menon, on India’s strategic moves in the Modi era suggests this may be the way to go.

The danger is from the discontinuities making India go down the wrong road. The change to the Modi era appears to be under-appreciated in the strategic community. The belief is that India will do what it has been traditionally doing, but only better and perhaps without hypocrisy.

However, ensuring continuity in India’s foreign policy and defence posture requires appreciating that it will not be easy in the light of the manifest change from a centrist polity to a rightist one. The likely change in the US post Obama towards the right and the continuance of its out-of-the-closet partner Israel under the right wing could place expectations, or even demands, on India that its right wing dispensation will only be too willing to oblige.

The influence of India’s US-based diaspora, the military-technological ballast from the US and Israel, and its Hindutva-rooted internal political compulsions and complexion, suggest that the definition of security provider could expand. The regime believes that India has been imposed upon historically, particularly by Muslim invaders, and that it needs to be more assertive, such as against Pakistan’s continuing provocations; that India has arrived with Modi’s ‘Barack’ moment, and finally that in Narendra Modi, India has the ‘man for the job’.

Currently, India is rightly staying out of this quagmire, with the home minister echoing the prime minister in arguing that its Muslims stand unaffected. This is encouraging in that the security provider logic is useful cover for the $40-billion military budget and force projection capability underway.  The chickens will come home to roost only if this changes. Given an increasing military capacity, a worsening situation that threatens to come right up to the Indus, subtle pressure from strategic partners and an amenable regime, this cannot be ruled out. Therein lies the threat of the ‘security provider’ argument. 

Kashmir Times

Kashmir: Fifty years since 1965 War

Saturday, February 28, 2015

http://kashmirtimes.com/newsdet.aspx?q=38459

Emboldened by the unrest in Kashmir in relation to the Moe-e-Muqaddas episode over the turn of the year 1963-64, Pakistan figured that the time was ripe for wresting Kashmir. Politically, it was worried by the moves afoot to normalize India's relations with Kashmir, evident in the change of nomenclature of Sadar e Riyasat and Wazir e Azam in April and third time internment of Sheikh Abdullah in May. It wanted to act militarily before India recovered from the drubbing of 1962. While the war officially dates to 6th September with India's opening up the Punjab front to release Pakistani pressure in Kashmir, the run up to the war had begun by February 1965.

Pakistan tried to divert Indian attention to the opposite end of the border at the Rann of Kutch. The action began in February fifty years ago in area Kanjarkot. An Indian military formation was tasked to evict a Pakistani intrusion in Operation Kabadi on 21st February. Pakistani counter moves led by Tikka Khan led to a bust up in the sector in April that year. A peace agreement followed on 30th June, but the encounters largely at patrol level set the stage for what was happening up north by May that year.

By May, the firing on Cease Fire Line (CFL) as the Line of Control was then known had increased threefold compared to the preceding year. Quite like in 1999, immediately on the melting of snows Pakistani posts that were much closer to the road to Leh owing to the CFL alignment prior to it being pushed back in the 1971 War, started harassing the arterial route in Kargil sector. India in response to an attack on 16th May on one of its posts, decided to push back and attacked on 17th May. Operations continued into June. At end June, coinciding with the agreement in Kutch, India withdrew from locations it had captured or occupied across the CFL at the behest of the UN. The UN in turn promised to increase its monitoring.

These strategic and operational level diversions in Kutch and Kargil respectively were only the opening gambits. The main course was yet to come. Din Mohammad, a Gujjar grazing his sheep on the Pir Panjal was the first to get wind of it on 5th August. Ten columns of infiltrators were enroute to J&K, with two - Ghaznavi and Babar forces - south of Pir Panjal. 

The expectation of Operation Gibraltar was that the population would rise up against Indian 'occupation' to coincide with a festival and the anniversary of the first incarceration of Abdullah in 1953 on 8-9th August, while the military columns would interdict Indian military reaction. To seal of any response from the rest of India, Operation Grand Slam was ready to slam into India's line of communication in the Akhnoor-Jammu sector.

In the event, India's response was swift and sure. By end August, it captured the launch pad and support bases for the infiltrating forces at Haji Pir and in Kishenganga valley. It proceeded to wrap up the columns of infiltrators within. The resulting pressure on Pakistan forced it to escalate on 1 September with its coup de main, Operation Grand Slam. The expectation behind this was that India would be cut-off and yet not respond in the IB sector further south. Yahya Khan, taking over the command of the operation midway, provided India the breather it needed to open up the Punjab front and the rest as they say is history. 

What does this history speak to today? It seemed apparent then that this was the last land grab Pakistan would attempt. However, India's spectacular victory in 1971 gave Pakistan a reason to want to get back at India. It already had a bone to pick with India over Kashmir. It wanted to ensure that next time India would not be able to hit back. It therefore embarked on the 'Bomb' as cover. By early eighties it was reckoned that plans existed for a lightening strike into Kashmir and then resorting to threat of the 'Bomb' to stall India's counter. There were even suggestions that this might also be with a nuclear strike on Banihal and then proceeding at leisure to wrap up Kashmir. These fanciful ideas gained traction with the proxy war launched in earnest against India in Punjab and Kashmir, with lessons from the Mujahedeen war in Afghanistan. India through its Exercise Brasstacks, designed for the new nuclear conditions, made clear to Pakistan that it could mount a conventional counter. 

The uprising in Kashmir provided Pakistan a fresh opportunity. However, any ideas for conventionally exploiting it were put paid by India in its acquiring a third strike corps, based on HQs of the peacekeeping force it withdrew from Sri Lanka in early 1990. Now it only remained for India to leverage its manpower advantage to tackle the insurgency in Kashmir. This it proceeded to do by establishing a vice like counter insurgency grid in Kashmir and a counter infiltration posture along the Line of Control.

Using another India sent opportunity, Pakistan followed close on India's heels in going nuclear in 1998. This set the stage for another round of escalation in the Valley with the Kargil War. It opened up India's guard enough for Pakistan to thrust in another generation of proxy war fighters. This led to fierce contest in the Valley and strategic pressure on the Indian government. The Agra summit followed. Its failure in turn led to the parliament attack and Operation Parakram, the standoff of ten months under a nuclear overhang. Both sides stepped back because Vajpayee had the strategic vision to do so and an interlocutor in Musharraf who appeared then to be in control in Pakistan. 

India exploited the calm returned to the LoC by extending the fence it had along the IB to the LoC. It progressively wrapped up the remaining jihadis, who Pakistan could only replenish with fresh blood by innovative means and routes across the fence. India deepened democracy with successive elections attracting increasingly larger voter turnout. It embarked on back channel talks and five rounds of the composite dialogue. Any potential results from the former were truncated by Musharraf going under in internal instability in Pakistan. Mumbai 26/11 ended the latter. Spirited action on the streets in Kashmir by stone throwing youth over three successive years could not get India to budge. 

India could comfortably sit on its oars in the UPA II period, waiting to see how the region shapes up with the Obama promised draw down and exit from the region, as Pakistan got increasingly bogged down in tackling its Frankenstein, the jihadis on its western border. If Musharraf is to be believed, the mild Manmohan Singh presided over Indian intelligence agencies conditioning the ISI by reminding it of its underbelly through a proxy war in Afghanistan. This was the favourable strategic circumstance that the new government took office in. In its opening moves of inviting Nawaz Sharif to Delhi and cutting off talks soon thereafter, it sent two signals across: India will prove responsive in case Pakistan behaves. If not it can wait out Pakistan indefinitely. 

India has since proceeded to outpace Pakistan on all fronts. Diplomatically, it has the US in its bag and Modi is off to China this May for the rest. Politically, the ruling party has created an unprecedented space for itself in the politics of J&K by ending the perception of the center of gravity of politics in J&K lying in Srinagar. Strategically, it has reportedly upped the intelligence game in Afghanistan and militarily it has upped the ante in terms of spending a manner that simply cannot escape Pakistan this time.

Clearly, for Pakistan the writing is on the wall. Fifty years since its last try for Kashmir, it has perhaps finally run out of steam. This is not exactly 'bad news' for Kashmiri militants. They have had to rely on Pakistan since any insurgency requires a sanctuary and moral, material and political support. However, it would be delusive to believe that Pakistan would have wagered Pakistan for Kashmiri independence. It has merely added fuel to the fire in order to keep India tied down for its own strategic purposes and for revenge. That normal Kashmiris got in way of Indian reaction was merely collateral damage.

It is this that Kashmiris need recognizing. Recently released army data indicates that at least 70 young Kashmiris joined the insurgency last year, of which two had doctorates and eight were post graduates. 14 of them have already been killed. The corps commander in Srinagar is reported as ruing the trend thus: "Youth joining the militancy is disturbing. If educated youth are joining, it is more disturbing."

General Saha is not only a kind man. He is also right that this is a "cause of concern". Pakistan does not have the intrinsic resources to support any new round of militancy. What it can however do is to divert the religious extremism consuming it into new channels. There are also ill winds from West Asia blowing outwards, including towards the subcontinent. There is no reason why Kashmiris should want any of this. 

They are at a critical juncture in which they can afford to drive a bargain. There is a government in Delhi that does not need to look over its shoulder. It is set for the next few years at least and can deliver on any promises, particularly of development, it may make. However, the more significant one is that of political autonomy. This government can consider the more innovative formulas for this in exchange peace, since it needs stability to deliver on its promises in the rest of India and get itself the developmental decade Mr. Modi asked for in his Independence Day address. Kashmir must cash in now. Its martyrs will only then rest in peace. 

Deconstructing Mr. Modi’s speech

, The Milli Gazette Online

Published Online: Feb 19, 2015

http://www.milligazette.com/news/11792-deconstructing-narendra-modis-speech-india

In his early-bird take on Mr. Modi’s speech at the National Celebration of the Elevation to sainthood of Kuriakose Elias Chavara and Mother Euphrasia in New Delhi, the editor-in-chief of the news and opinions portal First Post got it right. He writes that 'while Modi actually meant, ‘Tolerance has to cut both ways’, 'it is not quite the way his speech will be interpreted in newspapers tomorrow.'

Indeed, the media has taken a positive view of Mr. Modi’s speech and the chief ministerial candidate in J&K, hoping to justify his faustian pact with the BJP there has gone on to advertise his appreciation. That the speech that is otherwise loaded with double meaning can get such a reception indicates less clairvoyance on the editor-in-chief’s part and credulity on part of others, but a Stockholm syndrome in which captives learn to love their captors, in this case a nation held hostage to Hindutvavadi antics over the past year ends up seeing light seemingly at the end of the tunnel while it has only just entered it.

Jagannathan’s article with unconcealed glee brings out two hidden points Mr. Modi makes. One that Modi finds conversion “without coercion or inducement” acceptable. This may have had greater relevance for his audience comprising Christians, worried over the spate of attacks on churches in Delhi in the run up to the election there. Whereas they are worried of their right to practice and propagate their religion under the circumstance, Mr. Modi is highlighting alongside “inducement” that is alleged to accompany such propagation.

However, for the audience of this publication, the second one is consequential, which in Jagannathan’s words is that, “Tolerance has to cut both ways.” The message, therefore, for the Muslim audience from Mr. Modi is in his parting words: “We cannot accept violence against any religion on any pretext and I strongly condemn such violence. My government will act strongly in this regard.” This, as Jagannathan wholly in agreement, points out, can only be intended for Muslims. 

This is easy to surmise, given that Mr. Modi takes pains to bring out that tolerance is intrinsic to India since ancient times, when presumably there were no Muslims in either India or the world. Tolerant India accepted all religions that have come from without. Further, it is this tolerance in India’s “ancient cultural traditions” (read Hindutva, since it is a “way of life”, cultural tradition, according to the Supreme Court) that has been embedded in the Indian Constitution. Therefore, India is tolerant because the majority, owing to its religion and culture, is tolerant.

In other words, intolerance can only be of religions that have come from without.This he takes pains to highlight, referring to the turmoil in the Middle East using the phraseology: “The world is at cross-roads which, if not crossed properly, can throw us back to the dark days of bigotry, fanaticism and bloodshed.”Since tolerance “must be” in Indians’ DNA, it is so presumably also in the case of Muslim Indians because they are taken as converts for most part and therefore having tolerant Hindu forebears. Nevertheless, they need reminding that his government “will act strongly”.

It cannot be that Mr. Modi has suddenly realised the need for strong action against religion-inspired violence. He spent three terms in Gujarat without appropriate action (to put it generously) against those who spilt blood (to put it mildly) on his watch in the Gujarat carnage. Therefore, his message - “My government will not allow any religious group, belonging to the majority or the minority, to incite hatred against others, overtly or covertly. Mine will be a government that gives equal respect to all religions.” - is surely not directed at his support base in Hindutvawadis.

Also, note he and his political party have spent a quarter century highlighting that the Congress treated the Muslim minority differently (“appeasement” is the term used). So when he and his party mention “equality” it implies taking Muslims down a peg or two for “equality”. Lastly, he “will not” allow incitement of hatred. He does well to use the future tense since that absolves him of inaction in the case of his worthy minister’s colourful description for the minority.

Sure, he has called the Delhi DGP and emphasized that Christians need due protection. This concern may well be Obama induced in that the US President has on two occasions – in his town hall speech when in Delhi and at his prayer breakfast meeting when back in Washington – voiced concern on rising Hindutvawadi impertinence. Being responsive to “Barack” can be expected, especially in light of the defence and nuclear-related goodies India expects in return.

While the tolerance-related part of Mr. Modi’s speech has drawn attention – much of it misguided – what has been missing in the ensuing commentary is his concluding portion: “I havea vision of a Modern India. I have embarked on a huge mission to convert that vision into reality. My mantra is Development for all – sabka saath, sabka vikaas…. I sincerely request all Indians, and all of you present here to support me in this huge task.” Italics capture the megalomania dripping in the extract.

Clearly, with the budget up soon, the decks are being cleared. Social unrest can put paid to development. Development is needed to justify the Modi era, set to last a decade as per the moratorium on casteist and social unrest Modi had sought in his speech on 15 August last year. Therefore, Mr. Modi’s “Behave or else” speech, is also a “Behave and I will be the saviour”  speech. 

Finally, is Mr. Modi’s “appeal to all religious groups to act with restraint, mutual respect, and tolerance in the true spirit of this ancient nation which is manifest in our Constitution and is in line with the Hague Declaration.” The reference to the Hague Declaration is to guide the Christians in his audience. The reference to the Constitution presumably is to inspire Muslims, for whom their religion’s intrinsic resources are presumably not enough. The “true spirit of ancient nation” as guide is perhaps intended for the majority. Whereas Hinduism is notably tolerant, its political avatar, Hindutva, as with political usage of any religion, is certainly not so.

It would not do to attribute this speech to Mr. Modi’s speech-writer alone. It cannot readily be said that while Mr. Modi has turned a new leaf, his speech-writer is still stuck in the Vivekananda International Foundation groove. These are very well Mr. Modi’s own sentiments. He cannot be blamed for inconsistency. Since future events may make of this a landmark speech, it is as important that it is neither misconstrued nor misunderstood.

That said, there is no reason for Muslim Indians to give scope to the government to come down “strongly” on them. Nor need they practice tolerance because Mr. Modi is a late convert to it, but must continue to do so because it is both strategic and a religious duty. Clearly, there is no place for violence. Such recourse will leave Mr. Modi only one option: to put his money where his mouth is and instead come down “strongly” on his support base. Mr. Modi may like to tune into his one-man-army cheerleader, Mr. Bhagat’s latest piece of advice: “Shut up regressive Hindutva fanatics.”

Milligazette: Indian Muslim strategy

http://www.milligazette.com/print/issue/16-28-february-2015

Strategy for the Modi era

The BJP government is set to release the census figures of 2011. The earlier government’s hand had been stayed when these became available in the run up to national elections. Their fear back then was perhaps that the BJP would take advantage of the figures on increase in Muslim numbers to project Congress appeasement as its electoral plank. In the event, depriving the BJP of a vote catching issue did not help the Congress any. The BJP is currently set to take the advantage of these numbers timely: in the run up now to elections in Delhi and in the buildup already underway in Bihar. The Muzaffarnagar route to national elections of last year is being reenacted: in Trilokpuri earlier and now in Muzaffarpur respectively. The census figures release, initially as ‘leaks’, are to drive up communal frenzy: ‘Muslims are coming; BJP to the rescue!’

Mr. Modi is in a win-win position. In case he keeps his distance from communal mobilisation, a trick mastered by his ace strategist, Amit Shah, he can profit politically from the gains Hindutva makes electorally. Alongside, he gains in stature as the only one who can rein in the communal forces, since, by maintaining a distance, he appears as a neutral umpire. This will increase his appeal for the middle class, not so much impressed by the Hindutva plank as much as by his developmental plank. Even the minorities – Muslims and Christians – imposed on will look to him to restrain those who act in his name. Therefore, if he chooses not to act to rein in the Hindutva brigade, as he has currently done, he gains electorally, and if he does choose to act to rein them in at an opportune, he gains some brownie points with the middle class and breaks the ice with distrustful minorities.

As long as the goose delivers the golden egg – electoral dividend - Mr. Modi can afford inaction. His overt project currently is in the budget keeping his corporate backers and middle class supporters placated. Alongside, the covert agenda of saffronising India is unfolding without any hitch since the sections that could critique this are in any case waiting with bated breath for the budget. Mr. Modi intends to usher in the long awaited second phase of economic reforms, something Manmohan was restrained from by a Congress high command mindful of social costs. Mr. Modi can afford to neglect this since he has the Hindutva potion to administer the masses.

In any case any backlash to these ‘reforms’ will only mount when the have not’s recognize themselves at the receiving end and get their act together, perhaps a decade on. Minorities, hoping to be in on the economic action, will also wait to see if they are included. He in any case has the suppressive machinery of the Indian state to employ to stamp on any reactions from perceptions of deprivation. Therefore, Mr. Modi has the initiative and a window of opportunity of almost a decade.

Therefore, Mr. Modi does not need to act to rein in the right wing. He can continue as their champion and they his symbiotic support base. The political animal in Mr. Modi knows, ‘You don’t cut the branch you sit on’. He would not risk alienating them even if he builds on the middle class constituency by coming up with smart cities, bullet trains and $500 billion bonhomie package with the US. The middle class needs him more than he does them. Modi’s economic moves are set to take India, buoyed by international economic upturn brought about by the Obama led US turn round and the down slide in oil prices, past China’s growth figures by next year. Therefore, Mr. Modi does not need to fear the middle class or its being embarrassed by his Hindutva inspired reset of India. Mr. Modi can rely on the Hindutva brigade to deliver up Bihar this year and the twin cards, Hindutva and the economy, to wrest UP by 2017. Mr. Modi will then be set to capture Rajya Sabha and, thereby, take out a long term lease on the political high ground.

Where does this leave India’s largest minority that census numbers record as being 14.2 per cent or 172 million strong? This analysis of Mr. Modi’s longevity shows that the minority requires settling in for the long haul under Mr. Modi. Mr. Modi can be expected to keep the lid on things, even if he does not rein in Hindutva zealots, since he needs stability for the economy to deliver. In any case, it is impossible to envisage an energetic counter by the minority to spread of Hindutva, since the minority lacks the unity that can lend it a strategic base. It myriad, multiple and vulnerable communities, spread across India, should not be allowed to be exposed to unwanted security attention. On the positive side, it can instead try and gain the economic traction it was unable to access under the Congress system of sops for votes. By no means is this to fall for the slogan ‘Sabke Saath, Sabka Vikas’, but to be forewarned that strategizing for the long durée requires a cool head.

What are the contours of a strategy for the Modi era?

A viable strategy must begin with the parameters. Terms of reference set out in the analysis here is that the minority pockets being vulnerable should not be exposed unnecessarily to security pressure and that the minority must not lose out another chance at economic rise. It bears recall that the elite can vote for India with their feet if the going gets tough, as indeed a past generation did by migrating. The masses cannot be let down twice over in one century.

Easily is ruled out an adversarial approach. There is no national leadership, leave alone a centralized one, for the Muslim community. Its various communities must per force rely on respective regional and neighbouring communities, including and principally the majority community. This is important to highlight since even if there is no leadership there is never a shortage of pretenders. There is a bid for national standing emerging from Hyderabad for instance. This is all for the good in case it pulls it off, but the fact remains that the strategy of the MIM, of confrontation and lowering down to the level of Hindutva invective and provocation, is counter-productive.

A three-step strategic possibility consequently emerges in case the parameters are to be met. The first is at the local level. Muslims need expanding and intermeshing with their local neighbours across the country, especially those deprived as themselves. A common front for the have not’s will ensure that any economic trickle down does not bypass them. The government’s health budget cut suggests that communities would require fending for themselves and not relying on the government. Regional Muslim leaders can only gain superficially in case they rely on the communal card for support. Grand standing will get them short term benefit of representing a ‘threatened minority’, but over time the confrontation can only redound to the disadvantage of the community they represent. For instance in the illustration from Hyderabad above, with Andhra money being invested in its new capital, Hyderabad would be at a loss if alongside the Owaisi brothers take the Hindutva bait of identity politics. Muslims should be wooed with a taste of the development plank instead and presenting themselves as the dynamo for Telangana can help situate them well in the politics of the two new states.

Second is at the national level. The political opposition is in hibernation. It is awaiting policy missteps by the government to bounce back. Given India’s economic prospects, this is unlikely in the middle term. Therefore, Muslims can at best be reactive to developments. Once the Modi mantra wears off over the majority, Muslims can lend an electoral shoulder to displace him. The national level showing of Muslim leaders must in the interim be to forge bonds between themselves so as to ensure that the relative physical isolation of Muslim communities is mitigated.  Else India can end up with ghettos such as Jehanabad India wide. Another significant line of action is to ensure moderation so that the government cannot cite adverse security conditions in Muslim inhabited areas to justify exclusionary politics. Muslims are a handy other for vertical integration for Hindus. There is no call to assist Modi in this by making it easier for him. Muslims must permit Modi the luxury of behaving the statesman in order that he is not permitted the opportunity of being himself at their cost.  

Third is the international level. There are portents of a draw down in the Muslim world brought on by raging conflicts at its’ hitherto center, exacerbated by the likely leadership uncertainty on the demise of the Saudi king. This will have obvious economic fallout from remittance and employment point of view for Muslim Indians. Second, the thrust for foreign policy activism on India’s part to gain strategically, particularly from any discomfiture of its neighbor, Pakistan, would need watching. The latter has had an artificial link drawn with India’s Muslims, one drawn by strategists who are also closet rightists.

Third, and more significantly, South Asian Muslims now number half a billion, clearly more than Indonesia and in the Arab world. The dividend from this in the form of a shift in the center of gravity of the Muslim world away from the unstable Middle East to South Asia is not in evidence as yet. Towards this end Muslim Indians may need first to reforge South Asian bonds by thinking of South Asia as a single civilizational entity that it has been through millennia. This will be to India’s and regional advantage, besides keeping ill winds from Middle Eastern wars out of India. It will counter India’s strategic tutoring by the US and Israel through strategic partnerships with both states, overt and covert respectively.

  

the brass in a political minefield

Challenges of the brass in a political minefield

http://indiatogether.org/army-brass-caught-in-political-minefield-under-bjp-government-op-ed

The army chief at his ‘At Home’ on the occasion of Army Day on 15 January announced the donation of a day’s pay by all ranks of the army to the prime minister’s relief fund for the floods in J&K. On the face of it this is a noble gesture and has precedent in the army having similarly risen to the occasion in the aftermath of the tsunami disaster. Given that a major proportion of the army is perpetually deployed in J&K and played its usual sterling role even during the recent floods, this generous act aiming to build bridges with the Kashmiris is yet another feather in the army’s cap.

However, soon thereafter, the media reported on the intention of at least three colonel-rank officers to take the army to court over the deduction of a day’s pay without due consultation. The army for its part clarified that the idea had been mooted in last year’s army commanders’ conference and had been suitably acted on procedurally. But the sting in the media report was the contention of the unidentified colonels, one of whom reportedly stated: ‘The donations in Jammu and Kashmir have political ramifications and the Army should refrain from sending any such signals.’ 

The politics surrounding the donation escalated with a former colonel, Karan Kharb, writing in the RSS mouthpiece, the Organiser. Kharb writes that these ‘few superseded disgruntled officers and subordinates with perceived grievances’ foretell the ‘creepy rise of Fifth Columnist elements within the Armed Forces’. The author justifies the army’s decision, citing the relevant orders permitting its leadership to take such decisions on behalf of the rank and file.

While the aggrieved colonels had apparently given vent to their feelings incognito on social media, that the right wing flagship publication, Organiser, has been chosen as the forum to launch the counter attack is interesting in itself.

FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE - http://indiatogether.org/army-brass-caught-in-political-minefield-under-bjp-government-op-ed

The article in Organiser can be credited with clarifying the issue somewhat. With the publication jumping in to justify the contribution, the latter interpretation of the serving colonels’ grievance gains credence, thus implying that the ruling dispensation possibly had a hand in it. The initial discussion on the contribution took place in October when the BJP was attempting to do the impossible, its ‘Mission 44+’ plus in Kashmir. Now, it is yet again poised to do the unprecedented, govern from Srinagar.

Author Karan Kharb’s VIF-mediated links to the NSA indicate that the idea may have sprung from outside the army. Else, there is little reason for the Organiser to involve itself in the defence of the act, even though on Twitter, the author  takes pains to distance his article from the RSS, which is strange given that it appears in an RSS publication.

If this reading is true, then it implies that the apprehensions on which the aggrieved colonels acted were well-founded, even if their action itself is lacking in legitimacy. The retired colonel, likening their action to ‘insidiously planned subversion’, has given enough grounds to suspect as much.

for full article see http://indiatogether.org/army-brass-caught-in-political-minefield-under-bjp-government-op-ed

Let’s take another example from Kashmir. The army commander there had courageously taken the blame for the killings of two youth at Chattergam. He came under fire in social media apparently from serving officers and from telegenic veterans for his unprecedented apology. Consequently, he had to explain himself in a follow up demi-official letter to his commanders in wake of the terrorist attack in early December in Uri.

Explaining his act as prompted by the nuances of the changed situation in Kashmir, he reminded all not to fall ‘prey’ to the media. The army commander was evidently not acting at political behest but under the conviction, in his words, that, ‘Our Army's ethic and values, backed up by a strong military justice system, are the best in the world. These will serve to guide us and also protect us.’

Nevertheless, his action was used to wrest political advantage, as the then defence minister Arun Jaitley, on a trip to Srinagar, cited a call from the prime minister as the trigger for him to get the army to act. The prime minister on the campaign trail appropriated the credit too, stating it was ‘proof of his good intentions’.

Under the circumstances, there is ample reason to fear for institutional good health. The former foreign secretary on being shown the door has alerted all to the fact saying, ‘‘It’s not about individuals … it’s about my Ministry as an institution.’ The country’s defence research head has been put to pasture. Earlier, a string of governors owing allegiance to the previous regime were eased out. The latest is the home secretary being axed.

Arbitrary behaviour has not spared even the BJP itself, with its Delhi unit having a chief ministerial candidate parachute down on it. Clearly, if other institutions are in the firing line, being forced to fall in line, then the army cannot be too far behind in the queue.

for full article see http://indiatogether.org/army-brass-caught-in-political-minefield-under-bjp-government-op-ed

Whereas political heads can be expected to take advantage of the government’s showing on defence, the brass needs to remain ever alert to the political impeccability of their actions. That political missteps are being pointed out from within the ranks is a new phenomenon brought to fore by the ready availability of social media. It is no wonder that the brass is rightly frowning down upon its use. In the absence of such checks, the onus is on the brass to keep up the institution’s hard-earned and arguably well-deserved reputation for political impeccability.