Month: May 2020

Indian Border Algorithm

India and China share an almost 2000 km-long border as per Chinese claims and over 4000 km as contended through the Indian narratives. The actual length of the border is 3488 km, which starts at the junction east of Siachen between Pakistan, China and Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK), moving along the entire length of the Northern Indian territory, going all the way to Myanmar. This border has multiple complex regions, rough geographies, and historically contested peripheries. The 19th Century British annexation of many Chinese regions has always remained a point of concern for China. Unfortunately, the British had a shameful legacy of mapping occupied colonies, drawing arbitrary lines with little or no regard for the local history, culture, society, and economies, not to mention sowing the seeds of conflicts that could last for centuries.

The Indian–Chinese border was no exception. Addition of Ardagh–Johnson Line in 1865, Macartney–Macdonald Line during 1899 and McMahon Line of 1914, are all part of the same reprehensible inheritance.  All these lines now form part of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between China and India. The LAC meanders along Ladakh in the IOK, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh – none of them without contested claims.

The important questions arise, why there is such a large discrepancy between both nations claiming different border lengths, and what are the bilateral and regional consequences?  These questions are more relevant due to the latest Chinese–Indian soldiers’ spat in the Ladakh region and many other places along the LAC. Indian media claims that the incursions have been to the range of 3 to 8 KM at multiple places. As an unprecedented and dangerous development, China has refused all Indian requests for border meetings, necessitating high-level diplomatic engagements (and therefore the trying, and possibly, payback time for the Modi– Doval Doctrine).

On 19 Dec 2010, The Times of India reported that China had excluded almost 1600 kms from the mutually shared border. This claim was repeated by the Indian Envoy to Beijing, Jaishankar, who refuted the Chinese claim. However, during the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s December 2010 visit, China maintained the stance that the length was 2000 km and not 3488 km, as claimed by India. Further analyses of this discrepancy reveal that China had excluded Ladakh and many other portions from LAC and continues to consider them as part of (Indian Occupied) Jammu and Kashmir and not the state of India. This claim has been echoed by multiple scholars in research publications, books referring to India, and China. Ostensibly, there is no doubt in Chinese policy circles that the total length of LAC is 2000 km, and Ladakh is not part of India, therefore, any Indian excesses in that region are taken seriously and with grave concern. To further substantiate this claim, unlike the passport stamped visas issued to the Indian citizens, China has been issuing special “stapled visas” since 2009 to the residents of Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh, whom they do not consider Indian citizens.

During the last few months, India has made unprecedented indulgence in the Occupied Kashmir and Ladakh. First, the abolition of Article 370, and merging of Kashmir into the Indian Union during August 2019, and second, splitting of Ladakh from the Indian Occupied J&K and its merger in the Union as a separate territory. A third (although decades-old) transgression has been the construction of Darbuk–Shyok–Daulat Beg Oldie (DSDBO) Road on the eastern fringes of Ladakh. This 255 km long road was planned post-Indo-Pakistan Kargil War to serve three purposes:
1) to provide an alternate and year-round road infrastructure to the troops deployed at Siachen;
2) threaten Pakistan, one by building an all-weather road to sustain its deployment in Siachen, and two by the proximity of Daulat Beg Oldie – just 9 km away from Karakoram Pass, which is dangerously close and can infringe upon the CPEC and other Pak-China interests; and
3) to dominate the eastern Ladakh region to further the Indian claims of Aksai Chin, which is currently under Chinese control. The construction of DSDBO Road started in 2000 and was completed, (after a lot of funding issues) by the Indian Army in 2019, at a cost of Rs. 3,200 million. The Indian intelligentsia places the DSDBO Road as the cause of the recent standoff, however, they are hesitant to blame BJP’s annexation of J&K in the Union and division of Ladakh from J&K.  

It is important to note here that a major reason for Indian refusal to join China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) was that the project runs through Gilgit – Baltistan region. India claims Northern Pakistan to be part of Kashmir, and Kashmir as part of India, and therefore, the demand that the Chinese should have sought permission from India before embarking on the CPEC passing through this region is considered preposterous (if not outright ridiculous), to say the least, both by China and Pakistan.

Without going into further detail of what India believes to be the extent of its excesses, it is not hard to trace the origin of all the regional border problems back to India. First, well-known and extensively covered by scholarship, is the dispute against Pakistan over Kashmir. Second, only one segment of Sino-Indian spat has been discussed here, but the Chinese claims over Arunachal Pradesh, Doklam on Bhutan border, (not to mention the latest Chinese anger over Indian support for Taiwan), are all noteworthy border-centric disputes. Similarly, among the smaller neighbours, such as Nepal’s objection against the depiction of Kalapani as part of India in the November 2019 map, alongside the annexation of 35 square kms area, and the inauguration of Kailash–Mansarovar, a 50 km long Himalaya Link Road leading to a Hindu pilgrimage site in the Tibetan plateau, has left the Nepalese completely shocked and dismayed. This Indian claim certainly involves and annoys China, as the Himalaya Link Road is an infringement in the tri-state area between Nepal, China and India. The Indian border with yet another smaller state, Bhutan, has been a source of friction as the tri-state area among these three nations (China, Bhutan, and India) is also disputed at Doklam. China has been in constant negotiations with Bhutan on the issue, much to the annoyance of India, as India claims tacit control over Bhutan by supporting it militarily and economically.

Similarly, without going into the details of historical Indian problems against Sri Lanka over security and fisheries, against Bangladesh over ill-defined and porous border pushing and pulling Rohingya Muslims, with Myanmar over fencing the border, it is prudent to claim that India remains the centre of gravity on all border issues. Finally, the exhaustive list of disenfranchised Indian neighbours also includes Mauritius and Maldives, over the Delimitation of the  Maritime boundaries.

Traditionally, Chinese neighbour policies are not impulsive or hasty. A long and empirical history must exist before drawing the Chinese military response. As mentioned above, the BJP-led Indian government’s policies have not only been inimical towards its own (Muslim) population but have been directly infringing upon the neighbours’ challenging regional peace. China has over 200,000 troops deployed in the Tibet region and under current circumstances, India is in no position or state of preparedness to confront China militarily. In a region that is heavily militarized and has multiple nuclear-armed nations, one can only hope that an all-out war can be averted.

The irrational, narcissistic and ignoramus behaviour displayed by Modi and his Hindutva-clad BJP cohorts at the helm of Indian affairs, make peace predictability a tall order. Many individual levels of psychological analysis have been carried out on present-day incoherent politicians such as Trump, Kim Jong-un, and Modi. However, there is something infra-ordinary and banal about Modi, which might add to the explanation about the epitome of irrationality. In a study published during March 2019, by the Indian Journal of Neurology, a human brain atlas was prepared.

The research posited that the size of the Indian (male and female) brain was found to be significantly smaller than their “neighbours” and the Caucasians, in all three dimensions: height, width and length.  An earlier yet related study revealed that the size of the brain is important for intellectual abilities. The intersection of these two studies is (regionally and individually) revealing. The brain size has an impact on the speed of processing information, memory, learning of isolated new skills, integrated reasoning, innovation, and most significant, strategic attention. The proverbial “myopic” view tends to distort not only one’s thinking ability but also inspires one to believe that their truth is the only truth. Modi and his Hindutva policy planners face the same dilemma calculating all the border algorithms! 

Nuclear Spending ‘Offset’

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) recently issued a report titled “Enough is Enough: Global Nuclear Weapons Spending 2019”. The report questions the annual nuclear spending of US $73 billion by the nine nuclear armed states, urging them to give up their nuclear weapons and work towards their complete elimination. ICAN is a consortium of over 500 partner organizations that played a pivotal role in negotiating the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNWs), more commonly known as the Nuclear Ban Treaty (NBT). The case for ‘wasteful’ nuclear spending, therefore, is in support of the TPNWs objective, and does not take into consideration the nuclear offsets for relatively smaller powers with minimal spending.

The contents of the ICAN report are difficult to corroborate due to the sensitivities associated with nuclear weapons spending in almost all the nuclear weapon states. The report, however, brings out some interesting conclusions that further reinforce the importance of maintaining nuclear deterrence by countries, such as Pakistan, which faces disproportionate asymmetry and cannot afford to engage in a conventional arms race with its hostile eastern neighbour.    

According to the report, the annual nuclear spending of $73 billion by all the nuclear weapon states includes the cost of development and maintenance of nuclear weapons but excludes the financial and human cost that could incur if these weapons are ever used. The report also does not include the cost for unpaid or deferred environment and health related expenses; missile defences that some states are acquiring to protect themselves against a nuclear threat; and nuclear threat reduction and incident management related costs – all of which could increase the cost by additional 50 % of the current estimates.

Who is Spending Less with More Dividends?        As per the report, Russia has the largest nuclear inventory of 6,370 weapons but is spending $8.5 billion, as compared to the US that spends almost four times more, i.e. $35.4 billion to maintain relatively lesser inventory of 5,800 weapons. Similarly, China has only 320 weapons but spends more than Russia, i.e. $10.4 billion. The UK has 195 weapons and spends $8.9 billion, almost equal to Russia’s and twice than the French spending of $4.8 billion to maintain their 290 weapons. The most interesting case is of Pakistan, which spends $1 billion on its 160 weapons, as compared to India which spends twice the amount, i.e. $2.3 billion to maintain almost the same number of weapons. Israel also spends the same amount as Pakistan does i.e. $1 billion but is believed to be in possession of half of Pakistan’s inventory.

Source: 2020 SIPRI and ICAN reports

These conclusions do not take into account various factors that could otherwise affect the overall nuclear spending, such as the types of national inventories. This may include delivery systems like the nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs); and nuclear capable aircraft that some countries are in the process of inducting, which could also be used in the conventional roles.

The Controversy Surrounding the Nuclear Numbers in South Asia.      Both India and Pakistan are believed to be in possession of an almost equal number of nuclear weapons, i.e. 150 and 160 respectively – a conclusion drawn mainly from the western reports that always put Pakistan 10 weapons ahead of India and label it as the fastest growing nuclear weapons program. If India and Pakistan are expanding with the same differential for the past several years, as per these reports, then both countries should have the fastest growing nuclear program, and not only Pakistan.

India’s inventory of 150 nuclear weapons does not take into consideration all of its unsafeguarded fissile material stockpiles that could otherwise be used in weapons development. According to a Belfer Centre report, if all of the weapons and the reactor grade Pu and the HEU stocks are taken into account, India could build between 2,261 and 2,686 weapons. It is quite possible that India has a greater number of weapons than what is commonly estimated, and is, therefore, spending twice the amount that Pakistan spends towards its nuclear weapons development and maintenance.

India started its nuclear weapons program much earlier in the late 1950s, and tested its first nuclear device as early as 1974 by diverting the fissile material from the Canadian supplied reactor. The India-US nuclear deal and the subsequent waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in 2008 permits India to use all of its eight military facilities out of the existing twenty-four, purely for military purposes. This significantly increases India’s bomb making potential, and if India decides to convert even half of its fissile material, it will emerge as the third largest inventory holder amongst all the nuclear weapon states.

The ‘Opportunity Cost’ of Maintaining Deterrence.      The ICAN report’s conclusion that nuclear spending is a wasteful expenditure that could be avoided may have some relevance for countries that enjoy significant conventional advantage and are faced with no significant external threat to their security. But, the report may have unwittingly endorsed the rationale of nuclear spending for countries like Pakistan that continues to face existential threat from its eastern neighbour, which has a disproportionate conventional advantage.

Pakistan’s current defense expenditure is $10.25 billion as compared to India’s $71.12 billion. Out of this, it is spending only $1 billion to maintain a credible deterrent to counter India’s conventional as well as nuclear threat. Without this minimal investment, Pakistan may have no other choice but to substantially increase its overall defence budget that it can ill afford due to its limited financial resources.  

The issue of resources is likely to become more acute in the post COVID-19 environment, where non-traditional security challenges will emerge as a major concern with more demands for the reduction of military expenditures. This may force countries like Pakistan to further increase its reliance on nuclear weapons to enhance the ‘opportunity cost’ of nuclear spending, while sparing its limited financial resources to be diverted for socio-economic needs.

Dangerous Indian Designs 1998 – 2020: Does the Leopard Ever Change Its Spots?

When the first shouted word of Pakistan’s nuclear tests were heard in the Indian Parliament on May 28, 1998, a communist leader, Somnath Chatterjee, interrupted a speech condemning India’s tests and turned directly to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the nationalist leader who had approved the Indian tests and said, “You have started a nuclear arms race in this region.”

In subsequent decades, while Pakistan has shown all the necessary restraint and responsibility, the Indian side has been intent on instigating a nuclear as well as conventional arms race in the region with their posturing and acquisitions. Interestingly, Indian acquisitions, as well as their nuclear posturing, far outstrip their needs vis-à-vis their stated objective of countering China, and to some extent Pakistan.

The world powers ignored repeated pleas from Pakistan in those early years about the extent of Indian nuclear program developments and their nefarious designs, so they do now, despite all evidences to the contrary. The then Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, said something in a speech in May 1998, very prophetically, which is relevant even today. He said that, ”The big powers have never taken us seriously and have accepted India’s falsehoods instead.” What he perhaps did not know or anticipate at the time was the active and extensive western contribution in subsequent years in the Indian nuclear and military programs, at the cost of regional stability in South Asia.

The western tilt towards India became quite apparent when the country was granted a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2008, despite being a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty outlier state like Pakistan. The waiver allowed India all the benefits of a membership without any of the restrictions. The dozens of Indian nuclear deals with numerous countries in subsequent years is evidence enough. All these nuclear fuel deals, shrouded as they are under the peaceful uses argument, have nevertheless effectively freed up the copious Indian domestic reserves for use in their military program. There have been many studies on this aspect of the Indian nuclear program by various scholars, who suggest that the possible number of nuclear weapons which India is now capable of producing, in a very short time, ranges in the thousands. In the South Asian context however, the nuclear aspect is highly intertwined with the conventional side. Thus, one issue cannot be discussed in isolation from the other.

In this context, if one were to take a look at the recent Indian conventional military acquisitions and agreements with a plethora of countries, a clearer picture of the Indian designs begins to emerge. Some of the major countries which India has signed military deals with recently include the US, France, Russia, Israel, Japan and South Korea.

As recently as April 2020, The US Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has cleared the sale of ten AGM 84L Harpoon Block II air-launched missiles and related equipment; sixteen MK 54 All Round Lightweight Torpedoes (LWT) and three MK 54 Exercise Torpedoes, for an estimated cost of $155 million to India.

Earlier this year, in February 2020, the US cleared a sale of an Integrated Air Defence Weapon System (IADWS), which comprised five AN/MPQ-64Fl Sentinel radar systems, 118 AMRAAM AIM-120C-7/C-8 missiles, three AMRAAM Guidance Sections, four AMRAAM Control Sections, and 134 Stinger FIM-92L missiles. Also in February 2020, the US and India agreed on a deal for twenty four MH-60 Romeo multirole helicopters as well as six additional AH-64E Apache attack choppers.

Similar deals have also been signed in recent years with France (Dassault Rafale combat jets), Russia (advanced pyrotechnic ignition systems, ‘Strum Ataka’ anti-tank missile, Talwar class frigates), Israel (shoulder launched Spike anti-tank missile, Smart, Precise Impact, Cost-Effective (SPICE) bombs, Naval MRSAM’s) and other countries.

It is clear that in order to gain the economic benefits of a lucrative Indian market, western powers are willing to overlook the dangerous Indian designs with these weapon systems and their subsequent impact on regional strategic stability.

A third aspect, closely related to the Indian nuclear program and its military acquisitions, is that of the Indian policy, both nuclear and conventional, which has also undergone a complete transformation since 1998. While India tries to maintain that their nuclear and conventional policies are separate and distinct, one only has to take a look at the developments as well as recent changes in their posture to understand that that is not the case.

Looking at the Indian Army Land Warfare Doctrine of 2018, the BJP Manifesto of 2019 and the recent statements by the Indian leadership clearly indicates that the so-called Indian Draft Nuclear Doctrine of 1999 and the one-pager released in 2003 are no longer in effect. The three major tenets of the earlier Indian doctrine, No First Use (NFU), threat of massive retaliation and a policy of Credible Minimum Deterrence (CMD), are no longer relevant to the Indian nuclear or conventional conversations and actions of today.

The attention of the current Indian government has now shifted to punitive first strike options, renewed reliance on false flag operations, hot pursuit operations and higher alert levels with nuclear weapons being stored in mated form. 

Another alarming development is that of a ‘new normal’ which India is trying to introduce in terms of cross border hot pursuit operations to counter what they call state-sponsored terrorism in India. The Indian history of false flag operations, such as Uri, is an example of Indian use of terrorism as a bogey to malign Pakistan; something which has now become a part of their policy.

In addition, India has also launched an inhumane lockdown in Indian-occupied Kashmir since August of last year, following the political revocation of Articles 370 and 35-A. This, combined with the recklessness of the current Indian political leadership, under the extremist mindset of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has further expounded the decades old aggressive Indian designs.

Keeping all of these recent and not so recent developments in mind, what Mr. Somnath Chatterjee said in 1998 about India starting an arms race in South Asia is not wrong. What he did not foresee, perhaps, was that the arms race which Mr. Vajpayee started contains only one player: India. The arms race that India currently seems to be in the grip of has only one contestant, which is they themselves. Their arms build-up and postures remain unwarranted in the South Asian region, keeping in mind the modest conventional and nuclear programs of Pakistan. While the Indians love to use the Chinese threat as a justification, a lot of their military muscle would be ineffective against China keeping in mind their border terrain.

The only explanation which makes sense here is that India is in the grips of an arms race with itself, which has nothing to do with increased security and everything to do with prestige and status.

Nidaa Shahid is an Islamabad based researcher and a former research fellow of Kings College London, UK and James Martin Center for Non-Proliferation Studies Monterey, US.

Nuclearization of South Asia: 22 years

Ever since the nuclearization of South Asia, the dynamics for war and security have changed with a constant threat to regional stability. In 1974, India carried out nuclear tests under the shadow of Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) but declared itself a nuclear state in May 1998, after conducting five tests on 11th and 13th May. In response, Pakistan conducted six nuclear tests on 28th May 1998 despite the continuous pressure from the international community not to follow suit. 

Twenty-two years since nuclearization, the nuclear capabilities and doctrines of India and Pakistan have evolved through considerable alterations. On the Indian side, the country developed ‘Draft Nuclear Doctrine’ in 1999, which centrally emphasized on ‘No First Use’ policy. But a significant amendment in this doctrine came out in January 2003 stating that if India is attacked by biological or chemical weapons, it reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons. Though the amendment in the doctrine was illogical, given that the biological or chemical warfare is usually conducted by nonstate actors, it ambiguously displays that India could back off from its NFU policy. 

Since 2016-2017, the Indian defence and strategic community have been pivoting towards the idea of ‘splendid first strike’, according to which if Pakistan involves nuclear weapons during war, India will originate a pre-emptive ‘splendid first strike’; the perfect first strike scenario would allow India to prevent itself from the tit-for-tat engagement of nuclear escalation and attack Pakistan with full-fledged power to avoid significant retaliation. The next essential doctrine – the so-called ‘Cold Start Doctrine’ – was followed by the test conducted by Pakistan of the nuclear-powered close-range ballistic missile: Nasr. The doctrine allows the Indian military to perform offensive operations as a unified group in case of a possible conventional war with Pakistan. 

Moreover, India has increased its nuclear capabilities on land, air and sea. It contains 130-140 nuclear warheads and is likely to increase to 200 by 2025; it has four types of ballistic missiles on land, two types of nuclear-capable aircraft and three types of sea-based ballistic missiles. Hence, the deployment of nuclear-powered weapon systems negates the very idea of NFU policy and threatens the deterrence policy of Pakistan.

Pakistan, on the other hand, has developed its ‘Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD)’ under the Credible Minimum Deterrence. It centrally states that Pakistan will use its nuclear or conventional capabilities for deterrence stability in all domains and not indulge in offensive escalation. Even in the recent Balakot airstrike, Pakistan’s response was retaliatory. However, it has expressed concerns regarding the ‘first strike’ option if India tries to cross Pakistan’s red lines. In a defensive context, Pakistan has also deployed tactical weapons on land, sea and air under FSD. Pakistan has developed National Command and Control (NCC) for nuclear authority, and it focuses on control more than the command because of its defensive doctrinal posture. 

The security dilemma has compelled Pakistan to enhance its defence build-up. The national security establishment believes that Pakistan could face two scenarios: 1) India’s pre-emptive first strike; and 2) The United States’ attack on India’s behalf. The FSD was employed to deter and retaliate a pre-emptive strike from Pakistan’s adversaries, but since February 2019’s surgical strike by India, the deterrence credibility of FSD is being questioned, albeit it was designed to deter war and not surgical strikes. 

India’s divergence from NFU, increased surgical strikes (Pathankot, Uri and Balakot) and its shift towards a pre-emptive strike doctrinal posture indicates that India is looking for a crisis-like situation to destabilize the region and thus, Pakistan. In a nutshell, India seeks to apply its vast military, and technological modernization and Pakistan seeks to prevent war through FSD and careful deterrence. 

Nuclearization made South Asia a dangerous place, given the doctrinal postures of India and Pakistan that have followed in twenty-two years. It is certain, experts argue, that even a small-scale nuclear escalation could result in an unprecedented catastrophe because of the high urban population of the two countries. On the other hand, the fear of nuclear escalation has restrained both countries from increasing conventional war on several occasions: 1999’s Kargil war, 2001-02’s Twin Peak Crisis and 2008’s Mumbai terrorist attack. But the fear of escalation is always present, given the scenario of conventional war being forced to convert into a nuclear one if the losing side has no other options left.

Although nuclearization was initially lauded by the internal establishment and populace of these countries with the escalating dispute between the two nuclear states, the threat to regional and global stability is becoming evident.

As Henry Kissinger wrote, 

“In Greek mythology, the gods sometimes punished man by fulfilling his wishes too completely. It has remained for the nuclear age to experience the full irony of this penalty. Throughout history, humanity has suffered from a shortage of power and has concentrated immense effort on developing new sources and special applications of it. It would have seemed unbelievable even fifty years ago that there could ever be an excess of power that everything would depend on the ability to use it subtly and with discrimination.” 

The questions arise with the proliferating chances of catastrophic confrontation, what can both countries do to avoid nuclear confrontation and ease tensions in the region? Can India and Pakistan reach a treaty to ease tensions in the region? 

A treaty or agreement requires cooperation from both countries. Hence, four steps can be taken to alleviate tensions. Firstly, India must rethink Pakistan’s proposal of Strategic Restraint Regime which the latter offered in 1998 for substantial peace in South Asia. It emphasizes a comparable reduction in the armed forces, stable deterrence and a peaceful resolution of all disputes between the two countries. The peaceful proposal was introduced to keep South Asia out of the nuclear arms race. Secondly, both countries must reach a Détente (period of easing tensions during the cold war) to develop treaties to control the arms race. Thirdly, they must develop a mutual Crisis Management Mechanism to prevent accidental use of nuclear weapons. Both countries have developed nuclear command and control centres, but a joint management organization could be more effective. Lastly, hold frequent mutual dialogues in good faith. 

Nuclearization does help in enhancing regional hegemony for ambitious states, but the repercussion it brings is disastrous. 

Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: The Guarantors of Peace in the Region

May 28th is a day of pride (Yom-e-Taqbeer) for Pakistan that placed it as a member of an exclusive club of less than ten states. 28 May, 1998 is the day when Pakistan’s nuclear tests readjusted the regional balance of power. The zealous celebrations of this day signify commendable efforts that Pakistan’s scientists placed into making Pakistan more secure. There is no doubt that nuclear deterrence is the most important strategic factor for the preservation of Pakistan’s national security.  

Unlike what many nations think, Pakistan’s weapons are primarily “weapons of deterrence”, not prestige. Pakistan always supported the idea of peaceful uses of nuclear technology that began with its participation in the US Atoms for Peace initiative. There were three main events that made Pakistan’s reluctant entrance into the nuclear club a reality. First, India’s involvement in dismembering Pakistan’s Eastern Wing, India testing its nuclear weapons in 1974 and then the 11th May Indian tests. These events left Pakistan with no other option but to opt for nuclear weapons, keeping in mind the security situation of the region and its conventional arms weakness vis-à-vis India. It cannot be disputed that Pakistan was a reluctant entrant in the nuclear weapons game as no country can overlook its security concerns.

The event presented a unique look into the prevailing dynamics of nuclear deterrence and strategic stability within the contemporary South Asian security environment. It was the Indian tests that affected the balance of power and started an arms race in the region. It was such actions that forced Pakistan to go for nuclear weapons with the sole aim to maintain deterrence stability and a balance of power. It is pertinent to note here that since Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons capability, it has not indulged in any arms race with India. Consequently, Pakistan has always shown a restrained response to Indian aggression. It cannot be disputed that as India’s nuclear programme is for prestige and an attempt to reverse the global order and regional order. Furthermore, Pakistan’s efforts for acquiring such capability were purely security driven to counter Indian belligerence. This also is a right of self-defence as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

After the tests conducted by Pakistan, it faced isolation at the international stage. There were abrupt views that the development of a nation depends on its political stability, foreign policy, economic stability and providing better resources to its civilians rather than opting for nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that these factors are important for the uplift of any nation and its stability. Nevertheless, nuclear strength was a significant milestone to be achieved where you have an arch nuclear rival in the neighbourhood, which is not only conventionally superior, but also hostile enough to launch military adventurism against you in the future. 

The nuclear tests by Pakistan made it an unthinkable option for both countries in South Asia to opt for a full-scale war in the region. These tests led to the start of peace process in 1999. However, the Kargil event halted the process but it resumed again in 2004 by the name of composite dialogue. During this process, both countries agreed that the nuclear capability constituted a factor of stability in the region. Furthermore, Pakistan has offered a Strategic Restraint Regime (SRR) and many confidence building measures to India which have been turned down by the obnoxious neighbour.

The introduction of Cold Start Doctrine (CSD), also known as Pro Active Strategy, to conduct limited conventional operations under nuclear overhang has completely changed the scenario in the region. Therefore, in order to ensure the credibility of nuclear deterrence, Pakistan opted to induct Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs) as a part of its Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD) posture. The FSD is not a quantitative shift but a qualitative response to address new the challenge posed by India’s CSD. SRBMs are the final strand in completion of deterrence and an effective defence mechanism. These Short-Range Low Yield weapon systems are meant to plug the perceived gaps that Indian planners seek to exploit, thereby, pouring cold water on Cold Start. Thus, Islamabad’s full spectrum deterrence has frustrated and upset Indian designs. Former Director General of Strategic Plans Division General Khalid Kidwai also stated that the development of FSD is to bring “every Indian target into Pakistan’s striking range” and acquire “appropriate weapons yield coverage and the numbers to deter the adversary’s pronounced policy of massive retaliation.”

Over the past two decades, whatever Pakistan achieved in nuclear field helped Pakistan in ensuring balance of power in the region. For instance, Pakistan introduced Babur III Submarine Launched Cruise Missile (Hatf VII) to counter Indian Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) System, which, otherwise, can give India a false sense of security which can pave way to Indian military adventurism against Pakistan. Due to these Indian developments, India can also opt for a first strike or a decapitating nuclear strike against Pakistan. Pakistan also introduced Ababeel MIRV missile which is critical vis-à-vis India’s rapidly developing missile defence shield. Furthermore, Indian completion of the nuclear triad is also a case in point, because, if only one adversary acquires an assured second-strike capability, it destabilizes deterrence.

Once the international community turned a blind eye towards Indian nuclear test that eroded stability in South Asia, Pakistan had to act to ensure deterrence stability in the region. Likewise, Indian nuclear and military modernization including acquisition of BMD systems, MIRVing, cannisterization of missiles and nuclearization of Indian Ocean Region is ignored by the international community. This situates the onus of ensuring peace and stability on Pakistan once again. Pakistan will obviously stop at a point where it feels it has enough to deter India but whether the same applies to India is uncertain. Without nuclear weapons, Pakistan’s national security interests will always be in jeopardy and this is a lofty risk which Pakistan cannot take.

Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: A Product of Strategic Necessity

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program over the years has been subject to criticism, including safety and security concerns, the myth of the fastest-growing program, or the diversion of resources towards them; it faced all. However, looking at the harsh geopolitical and strategic reality, the efforts to build and maintain them are worthwhile and vindicated. They have fulfilled the objective of their development by adding to the security of Pakistan against its arch-rival, India.


Pakistan became the seventh nuclear weapon country when it detonated six nuclear devices on 28th and 30th May 1998. The testing of nuclear weapons became a compulsive necessity after India had conducted its tests earlier on 11th and 13th May 1998. Indian nuclear tests had embarked on a new era of deterrence and disturbed the strategic balance in the South Asian region. Pakistan’s tests restored it. 


Unlike India, which mainly had the prestige aspect, the primary factor behind the development of nuclear weapons for Pakistan was the security guarantee against existential threat from its nuclear neighbour. There is a disparity between Pakistan and India when it comes to conventional weaponry and resources. Moreover, historically it has faced Indian aggression in three major wars in 1948, 1965, and 1971. After the Fall of Dhaka in 1971, Pakistan’s political leadership started to think about the idea of acquisition of nuclear capability as the ultimate weapon for its security. On the other hand, India had already developed critical nuclear infrastructure and its nuclear ambitions were no secret either. However, after the so-called Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE) by India in 1974, Indian nuclear aspirations became self-evident. It left no option and there was no turning back for Pakistan after those tests. 


Over the next decades, Pakistan’s journey to master nuclear technology and build a bomb was a journey of dedication and devotion from the start till the successful tests in 1998. It was also a success to the defiance, to all the impediments and technological denial by the West. The decision to test nuclear weapons was also made after resisting extreme pressure from West not to conduct tests. However, it was a compulsive strategic decision for Pakistan under emerging security dynamics and threat perception from its neighbour, which had changed after the India’s 1998 tests. The sudden change in South Asian strategic environment only demanded a show of capability and resolve from Pakistan. It was the ‘now or never’ moment for Pakistan to balance the strategic equilibrium and deter India’s belligerent policies and aggressive behaviour towards Pakistan.


In parallel, the ruling Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had started flaunting their capability and making threats to Pakistan. For instance, Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani bluntly threatened that since India possessed the bomb, Pakistan should watch its steps in Kashmir. Subsequently, Pakistan could not have ignored those threats and provocations from India; therefore, it went ahead with the strategic decision to test nuclear weapons. 


Since 1998, the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides of the border has ruled out the option of a conventional war between India and Pakistan, hence restoring nuclear deterrence. This has been evident from all the major military crisis between them after the tests. Starting from the Kargil crisis in 1999, the Twin Peak crisis in 2001-2002, Mumbai attacks in 2008, to the recent Pulwama crisis; all these crises have diffused and ceased without any major military adventure between both countries. The primary reason is that nuclear weapons were at play. 


Not only did the leadership in both the countries anticipate the role of third parties to mitigate the crisis, but also the third parties, mainly the US and China, were also eager to diffuse the tensions between the two nuclear powers.


Not being able to initiate a war with Pakistan in the changed reality, India developed plans of limited conventional war with Pakistan under the Cold Start Doctrine since 2004 to punish Pakistan for the alleged support to the freedom struggle of Kashmiris. However, under the BJP government, ideas such as CSD are entering the mainstream and maturing due to its irrational and nationalist mindset, which will be consequential not only for the South Asian region but also for the world. Additionally, Pakistan had always based its nuclear deterrence policy on minimalism yet countering the full spectrum of threats from India. Therefore, it has developed smaller range nuclear weapons, Nasr, and also strengthened conventional capabilities to counter the Indian Cold Start Doctrine. 


It is important to note that the same BJP was in power when India conducted nuclear tests in 1998 and the same BJP is in power now which is trying to test regional strategic stability. The current BJP leadership has increased violence in Kashmir, abrogated its special status, and brought the idea of surgical strikes in Azad Kashmir or mainland Pakistan.


During the Pulwama crisis last year, India dropped munitions within Pakistani territory using its air force. Pakistan responded and reciprocated through military action and buried the notion of compelled major military combat between two nuclear powers.


These past unpleasant events show that nuclear weapons have deterred limited or full-scale war between India and Pakistan and one can hope that they continue to do so. Therefore, nuclear weapons have served the purpose of deterrence stability between India and Pakistan. However, maintaining stability is not a one-time action but a continuous effort and ongoing process. New challenges can emerge along with new solutions, subsequently maintaining the status quo.

The Other Side of the Nuclear Coin

The advent of fission in 1938 – a process in which an atom, bombarded with neutron is split into two or more parts with the release of a large amount of energy – gave the world the nuclear energy. This energy was initially used to build nuclear weapons, whose destructive power was practically observed when the US dropped these weapons on the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Subsequently, more states entered the nuclear club and the Nuclear arms race that ensued with the development of first nuclear weapon in 1945 and the fear of nuclear war has given nuclear technology a connotation of an enemy of the mankind. However, there is another side of the nuclear coin that remains overshadowed – the peaceful applications of nuclear power.

The nuclear technology is currently being used for peaceful purposes world over in different sectors, such as medicine, health, agriculture, industry, pollution control, water resources management and safe and sustainable electricity production. Radiation and radioisotopes are used in medicine for diagnosis and therapy of various medical conditions and to sterilize medical products. In the agriculture sector, radioisotopes and radiations are used to improve food production, sustainability, increase food shelf-life and insect control. In industries, radioactive materials are used as tracers to monitor fluid flow and filtration, detect leaks, corrosion of equipment and to inspect metal parts integrity. Nuclear techniques are also being used for detecting and analyzing pollutants in the atmosphere and for accurate tracing and measurement of underground water resources. Last but not the least nuclear energy is also being used to produce electricity. Currently, there are 440 Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) operating in 30 countries worldwide providing 10 per cent of the world electricity. About 50 more reactors are under construction, which will increase the share of nuclear energy in worldwide electricity production to 15 per cent.

Pakistan, a reluctant entrant into the nuclear weapons club has also been using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes even long before it conducted nuclear weapon tests on 28 May 1998. The nuclear energy sector in Pakistan spans over several areas, which include, power generation, minerals exploration, developing high-yield stress-tolerant crops, cancer treatment, design and fabrication of industrial plants and equipment and human resource development.

Pakistan established its first NPP in Karachi, known as Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP) in 1972 with the total capacity of 137 MW of electricity. Currently, Pakistan is operating five NPPs, one in Karachi and four at Chashma with combine operating capacity of approximately 1472 MW of electricity, while two are under construction at Karachi that are likely to be completed in 2021, each having capacity of 1100 MW of electricity. Considering the increasing electricity demands in the country, Pakistan plans to generate 40,000 MW of electricity from nuclear energy by 2050.

Pakistan established its first nuclear medicine centre at Karachi in 1960 and now 46 hospitals in the country are using nuclear technology for diagnostic of diseases and treatment of cancer. Out of these 46 hospitals, 18 hospitals are being operated by Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), which offer state-of-the-art diagnostic and cancer treatment to around 0.8 million patients annually, either free of charge or at subsidized rates. These hospitals cater for 80% of the total cancer patient of Pakistan. In the agriculture sector, Pakistan has established four agriculture centres that are using nuclear technology to improve agriculture sector productivity by introducing new crop varieties, pest control technologies, plant nutrition and water management, animal health and productivity and food decontamination and preservation. Using nuclear techniques, PAEC has contributed 111 high yielding, disease-resistant and stress-tolerant varieties of cultivation under various environmental conditions and water availability regimes.

Pakistan is also engaging with international organizations to propagate the peaceful uses of nuclear technology worldwide. It was the founding member on International Atomic Energy Agency, which assist it members states using nuclear science and technology for various peaceful purposes and is also an Associate Member of European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). Pakistan has a remarkable experience in the safe and secure operation of nuclear power plants and invested extensively in developing indigenous capabilities and human resource. Therefore, Pakistan has the expertise and the ability to supply items, goods and services for a full range of nuclear applications for peaceful uses. For this purpose, Pakistan wants to become a member of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) – a group of 48 states that ensure that nuclear trade for peaceful purposes does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons but is facing opposition from some member states because of political purposes. Pakistan believes that its expertise in manufacturing nuclear and dual-use items, long history of supporting non-proliferation ideals, and other credentials makes it suitable to be a proactive member of the NSG and it will be a win-win situation for both sides.

As a responsible nuclear state, Pakistan favours non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, which should be achieved in a universal, verifiable and nondiscriminatory manner but also believes in using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Therefore, nuclear technology for peaceful purposes should be shared worldwide without any discrimination for the socio-economic development of the countries. This will also help in reducing the stigma associated with nuclear energy since 1945.

Global Terrorism and COVID-19

Global Terrorism and COVID-19

Since the spread of COVID-19 in early 2020, public attention has been diverted from many contemporary global issues and this pattern is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. This pandemic crisis, while gaining attention from the globe, has created a space for terrorist organizations and groups to respond to it in an opportunistic way to strike back more forcefully on targets and countries weakened and distracted by the challenges posed by COVID-19.

The frequency of terror attacks during COVID-19 is not very different however a slight change in the trends of these attacks can be observed during the recent wave of violence. In this regard, one may argue that the attacks by terrorist organizations during the pandemic are more specific and target oriented. The recent attack on the Doctors Without Borders medical clinic on May 12, 2020 in the Afghan capital, which killed around 14 people including two infants, shows that terrorist organizations, while rearranging their corridors of violence, still want to be relevant on the international front. The challenges of non-traditional warfare are not over during this pandemic.

Social media channels circulated a long message from Al-Qaeda’s senior leadership titled, “The Way Forward: A Word of Advice on the Coronavirus Pandemic”. The letter quotes, “We invite you to reflect on the phenomenon that is COVID-19 and carefully consider its deeper causes. The truth remains, whether we like it or not, that this pandemic is a punishment from the Lord of the Worlds for the injustice and oppression committed against Muslims specifically and mankind generally by the governments you elect.”

Similarly, in a series of articles in ISIS’s weekly, Arabic Al-Naba newsletter, the former caliphate has called on its followers to plan new attacks, now that security services are distracted. ISIS wants its men to use this opportunity to conduct operations such as those carried out in Europe in the past. 

How can it be determined that the terrorist organizations are out to maximize their success patterns during this wave of pandemic? Conceptualizing the matter, one may need to understand the phenomenon framing this wave of pandemic. Terrorist organizations are creating references that are effective in reinforcing the central ideological message delivered by such organizations. Also, these organizations are contextualizing the pandemic with their cause, which is to promote fear and chaos in society. Further narrowing down their agenda, terrorist organizations are appropriating the situation to create a sense of ownership over the narrative that this pandemic is a punishment from God for infidels.

The very next step in the process will be rationalizing their narrative. They may turn the grievances and oppression of their followers into actions and narratives by polluting their minds that this wave of pandemic is for those who will not follow the so-called right path defined by these organizations. Once achieved, these terrorists may re-visit their strategy to redefine their purposes by branding the effects of pandemic on the social and economic lives of the masses. The main aim can be to attain maximum attention on the individual level by increasing motivation, support, recruitment, and receptiveness to the cause.

It is pertinent to note here that because of the global lockdown, internet users across the globe have increased significantly. This rise in the presence of community over internet makes it vulnerable to terrorist recruitment. In addition to this, terrorist organizations may call supporters to conduct lone wolf attacks in order to broaden their following in the societies already damaged by the pandemic. Similarly, terrorist organizations may use COVID-19 infected followers to launch them as a weapon in societies that are resisting against the spread of this disease so that the maximum damage can be done. Far-right extremists are encouraging each other to seize the moment online, using platforms like Telegram to discuss how to purposely infect members of minority groups.

The risks and threats posed by terrorist organizations during the wave of pandemic can be reduced in multiple ways and by taking measure on ground like digital literacy programs for youth, deradicalization campaigns and launching counter disinformation initiatives. But the most important step in this regard will be to equip society with the importance of understanding their needs, narrative and networks. The need is the short-term survival goals of that particular society during the pandemic and to achieve that, they will have to build social resilience through cohesive networks present in the society.

Neither War nor Peace: Grey Zone Conflicts and Outer Space

Psychological warfare, treason of political systems, covert information operations are not new to International Relations where conflict and competition prevails all the time. However, rapid technological advancement has changed the nature of tactics and strategies. Technology these days is driving strategy, resulting in a sudden surge of grey zone conflicts and subsequent development of grey zone conflict weapons. Recent developments in outer space seem to be something out of a techno-thriller novel, but it’s not fiction anymore. The ongoing activities in space cannot be separated from the geopolitical crossroads on the Earth.

States are using their space programs in order to reach their desired goals during grey zone conflicts. A Russian intelligence data collection satellite trailed a top secret USKH-11 reconnaissance satellite and demonstrated its capability during grey zone conflict. Likewise, lately Russia also demonstrated its capability of destroying satellites in low Earth orbit. Subsequently, it was reported in media that the newly established US Space Force is building weapons to block Russia and China. These new weapons systems will be capable of jamming communication satellites during conflict. The strategic chain reaction will keep on moving and will trigger a never ending and expensive arms race in outer space.

The simplest definition of grey zone conflict is that it is more than a normal competition but less than a war. The US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) defines grey zone challenges as “competitive interactions among and within state and non-state actors that fall between the traditional war and peace duality.”

Space is becoming congested very rapidly, bringing new opportunities as well as challenges for almost all states due to their dependence on outer space somehow. Many are of the view that outer space is ideal for grey zone conflicts, particularly because of dual use application and congestion. The dichotomy of stated policies and contrasting actions makes it more obvious that states are pursuing military space programs both overtly and covertly.

Outer space operations are not the same as those in the Cold War space age or the unipolar US space age; the world has now entered into a new space age commonly referred as “Grey Zone Entangled Space Age”. Space was once called the “global common” and was free from politics, however, now governments are pursuing offensive space capabilities and commercial companies are also rapidly becoming part of it, thus increasing the diversity as well as disruption. The emergence of new actors such as private firms and individuals are making the whole scenario more problematic. However, in the absence of space governance, some states are making use of it and pursuing their military objectives covertly.  Mostly, countries like India claim that their space programs are for socio-economic development, however, recent trends make it obvious that states are overtly militarizing outer space. Back in 2012, India claimed that they have Anti-Satellite (ASAT) technology and in 2019, they demonstrated it regardless of their rhetoric of having a civilian space program for socio-economic development. The ASAT test indicated the obvious shift in India’s declared space policy.

The militaries of many countries are using space for military communication, intelligence, imaging, targeting, and so on. One of the biggest challenges faced by mankind is that it is very hard to differentiate between offensive and defensive counter space weapons because of their dual application. With every passing day electronic warfare including, satellite jamming, spoofing devices, use of laser and radio frequency are becoming common and no one is talking about any precautionary measures to avoid this proliferation. These grey zone conflict weapons can cause confusion and disable satellites without leaving any mark of detection. Anti-satellite missiles designed to destroy satellites without placing the weapon system or any of its components into orbit is also worrisome. Some actors can use offensive cyberspace capabilities to engage a range of effects against space systems and ground infrastructure. Likewise, Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) including lasers, microwaves and other frequencies are also part of grey zone conflict weaponry.

Lack of outer space governance further makes it easier for aggressive states to opt for offensive military buildup in space. Creation of Space Force by the US, ASAT tests by India and Russia, diverse outer space strategies and declaration of space as an operational domain are obvious inklings of where the world is headed to in search for gaining competitive advantage.

India conducted an ASAT test in March 2019 without receiving any backlash from the international community. This will motivate others to develop similar capabilities without considering repercussions. Similarly, France and UK are also developing their space programs accordingly in view of the changing geo-political and geo-strategic landscape. The French Defence Minister has also shown an interest in developing ASAT laser technology. 

Furthermore, after the US government signed the National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) 2020, President Trump claimed that the Space Force is the largest ever investment in the US military.

It is impossible that the US, Russia and China will hold a bilateral or a trilateral strategic dialogue on space. It seems that they have so much to achieve. Likewise, the prolonged deadlock on Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) and Prevention on Placement of Weapons in Outer Space (PPWT) in Conference on Disarmament (CD) makes great powers’ ambitions more apparent.

The international community should consider these developments and pursue effective counter measures to stop this proliferation before it’s too late. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS) has developed five core space law treaties including: Outer Space Treaty (OST), Rescue Agreement, Liability Convention, Registration Convention, and Moon Agreement. These treaties have not been amended or updated as per the changing environment. The innovation of new technologies and changing military doctrines is not in line with the stated code and conduct in these treaties. There are many loopholes which need to be addressed immediately.

Outer space is a global common and should not be weaponized in any case. An arms race in outer space is no more a utopian idea; it is there and irresponsible states like India will make sure that they make the most out of the gaps in the legal system when it comes to space. India will also push other states through its actions and policies to follow suit. Once the arms race gets out of control, it will be very difficult to stop others from joining it. It is in the interest of all states to use outer space for peaceful purposes only and should not indulge in militarization leading to weaponization. In order to ensure space security, there is an urgent need to have universal and effective arms control arrangements for outer space.

Dual Debacle: Evaluating India’s Pseudo Democracy and Declining Economy

India’s revisionist regime under Narendra Modi is capitalizing upon every available opportunity to take a strike against the Muslim community, discrediting the fact that they constitute the largest minority in India. The religious fanatics are employing one tactic after another to appease the Hindu majority by taking aim at Muslims, who are perceived as being instrumental in diverting attention from the larger issues. The coronavirus outbreak has destabilized international affairs and wrought a substantive change. Yet even the lethal pandemic has not restrained the Modi regime from executing its notorious anti-Muslim activities.

The Saffronisation of India by means of an anti-Muslim campaign brought Narendra Modi into power in the 2014 Indian general elections. The ploy of targeting the Muslim minority was widely hailed in the country. Cashing in on the success of this gambit, the tenure of the BJP witnessed repeated targeting of the Muslim community by the Hindu-hardliners; both verbally and on ground. Consequently, Modi won a decisive victory in the 2019 Indian general elections, securing the tenure of another 5 years.

In May 2020, the European Parliamentary Research Service published a report entitled ‘Challenges Facing India’s Democracy and Economy’by Enrico D’ Ambrogio. It evaluates the evolving nature of democracy in India following the BJP victory of 2019. The plight of the Indian economy, which seems to be staggering, is also highlighted in the report.

The report asserts that India has an extensive history of cultivating a culture of multi-diversity and secularism, yet the ingress of Hindutva regime in Indian politics has altered the scenario by contesting the principles of secularism and inter-faith harmony. The report enlists a number of events which the Indian government had executed to appease the Hindu nationalists.

Firstly, the unilateral revocation of Article 370 in the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir stripped the autonomy of India’s only Muslim-majority province. The deployment of armed forces and the termination of all communication networks in the valley isolated it from the rest of the world.

Secondly, discrimination along religious lines, shrouded in the Citizen Amendment Bill (CAB), has also been exercised. On 9th December 2019, the Indian Parliament passed the CAB, which allows the persecuted minorities of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan to attain Indian citizenship while exempting Muslims from this provision. Furthermore, the bill, coupled with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), puts the citizenship of a large number of Indian Muslims under threat. That said, the Muslims of India have to fear losing their citizenship in addition to proving their loyalty and suffering from the growing animosity towards them.

Likewise, a new domicile criterion has been introduced in the union territories, according to which anyone who has resided in the IOK for 15 years or studied there for a specific period is eligible to call it his or her place of domicile. Likewise, a person will also be deemed domiciled if he or she is registered as a migrant by the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission in the union territory.

Thirdly, the Indian government has been meddling in religious issues such as criminalizing the instant Triple Talaq practice. Furthermore Muslim students protesting in the wake of CAB and NRC have been treated with violence, with 53 people losing their lives. Hate speeches against the Muslims continue to spew hatred against the Muslims as well.

The report has also highlighted the likelihood that these tactics might be diversionary in nature, aimed at drawing away attention from the promises made in the election campaign regarding more jobs and a better economy. In 2018, the statistics were showing India as a fast growing economy with a surging Gross National Product (GNP), though there was a discrepancy in the figures and the on ground indicators. However, the upward trend has suffered a blow with a growth rate of only 5% as reported by Central Statistics Office, the slowest rate since 2009. Adding to this, the COVID-19 pandemic has further lowered the estimates by the State Bank of India to 4.1% and 1.1% for the years 2020 and 2021, respectively.

The unemployment rate has hiked with a large number of people losing their jobs. At the same time, exports rated are expected to take a steep decline whereas the internal consumer demand will also remain low. In addition, the Indian Rupee also has lost its value against the US dollar.

The report evaluates the ongoing scenario in India in a very objective manner. It lists a number of events which have been exploited by the Indian government against the Muslims for the sake of vested interests, along with the economic crisis which India has to deal with. After reading the report, it can be inferred that the failure to deliver on the economy will lead the Indian government to undermine democratic norms and regimes.

However, the report has skipped the demolition of the Babri Mosque through the Ayodha judgement. This constituted yet another major event where Muslims were forced to accept a decision which had no historical roots, and were deprived of the land which they lost to Hindu-hardliners over unsubstantiated claims of the existence of a Ram temple beneath the mosque. Likewise, in the recent wave of Islamophobia sweeping across India, the Tableeg-i-Jammat was accused of deliberately trying to spread the coronavirus, an issue which has no grounding in fact. But following the incident, Muslims around India were touted as major carriers of infection and blamed for conspiring to spread it. This was followed by heated debates on the Indian media, dwelling on conspiracy theories; questions such as ‘During this lockdown, why does every crowd gather only near mosques?’ became the prime focus of political shows. Social media played an equal part in this campaign, with the trending of hashtags against Muslims such as #CoronaJihad, alongside the propagation of fake videos on different platforms showing Muslims flouting social distancing guidelines. Hindu preachers such as Maa Aadi Shakti and Baldev Singh had also defied the lockdown; 20 villages which Baldey Singh visited had to be quarantined. But this news did not receive due media attention.

Furthermore, the little-thought strategy of India imposing an absolute lockdown on 24th March appeared as a source of embarrassment for the Indian government. The workforce, immigrant workers, painters, cooks, construction workers etc. were left stranded on the streets, forced to make their way home on foot. The intensification of the recent Islamophobia also has its roots in this mis-management of the government which drew criticism from within India.

It would be pertinent to mention here that the Indian government has decided to wage a war with itself at a time when the unemployment rate has broken a record of 45 years, consumer spending is declining for the first time in four years and the economy is highly strained; it is doing so by employing discriminatory acts. However, the economic plight cannot be wished away with these diversionary tactics in the long run.

Lastly, the pandemic has had a destabilizing impact on economies around the world and India is no exception rather; it is more vulnerable taking into account its imminent decline before the onset of the pandemic. Hence, in the coming times it can potentially worsen, something which might act as a push for India to execute more “heroic” steps to save itself from drawing humiliation and criticism.

While any voice raised against this act is met with attempts to justify the issue as a domestic affair, concerns have been raised. The U.S. Congressional body on religious freedom, the USCRIF, has rebuked India for discrimination against Muslims; the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) expressed concerns about “anti-Muslim sentiments and Islamophobia within political and media circles and on mainstream and social media platforms” in India. Added to the recent report by the European Parliamentary Research Service, they suggest that the there is a limit to which Indian crimes can go without generating a response.

It is said that epidemics fuel mistrust between people, with communities seeking ways to blame their plight on outsiders or the minority. In the Bubonic Plague, Jews were accused of spreading the contagion by poisoning the wells. Similar patterns can be observed in India with regards to Muslims. In future such scenarios, this polarization of the society can further aggravate the problems faced by India.

The recent developments in India are illustrative of the fact that democratic norms in the country are subjected to variable interpretation and will be moulded whenever deemed necessary. The Hindutva regime has not been able to deliver its election manifesto vis-a-vis economic progress. Henceforth, different avenues will be explored to divert attention through ultra-nationalist approaches which precipitate convincing results. Today, every element of the Indian governance is struggling, yet the hatred for Muslims is as prevalent as it was before.