Category: Analysis

Analysis (1000-1500 words)

Indian Barbarism in Kashmir and the COVID-19

Kashmir, a miserable picture of humanity, always remained a gravitational point of South Asian politics in which the two contestants equipped with nuclear weapons have become arch-rival states. The leading state officials from both sides have adopted inflexible formal standings over the disputed land of Kashmir. The recent phase of South Asian politics under the global health emergency has failed to spare Kashmir from the brutal Indian occupation. The arrival of the novel corona virus in the nuclearized subcontinent has augmented the suffering of Kashmiri people. An unprecedented era of months-long curfew and its intensification under the horrendous period of the global pandemic has shown the draconian face of prime minister Modi and his vicious rule in the occupied areas of the disputed territory. No doubt, the proponents of peace and human rights from around the world are raising their voices for humanity globally while passing through a critical time in human history. However, the role of major human rights organizations has been diminished before the Modi administration. Modi’s persuasion of a political ideology inherited in Hindu nationalism and the adaptation of an anti-Muslim policy has resulted in Muslim bloodshed in Kashmir. The ferocious face of Modi’s foreign policy has increased Kashmiri suffering by adding another hideous chapter in Kashmir’s history under the global pandemic crisis.

Modi government, obsessed with anti-Muslim rule cemented in aggressive Hindutva ideology, has extended the victimization of the Kashmiri population through increasing the role of Indian security forces in Indian-held Kashmir. The imposition of curfew by suspending the movement of people along with the cutting down of communication networks in occupied territories has introduced various human rights violations. An overwhelming wave of human rights abuses increased Kashmiri people’s pain with the outbreak of the global pandemic. An indefinite period of lockdown has not only brought a policy of communication blackouts in the occupied areas, but it has further downgraded the life of a common man living under Indian occupational forces. The months-long military curfew has disturbed the general public’s life by imposing an undefined period of blackout of media and communication channels. In addition to limiting the right of free movement, the disturbance of communication networks through the disruption of mobile and broadband services further prolonged the suffering of Kashmiri people. In this way, the continuation of brutal policies in the New Delhi-occupied areas of Kashmir has further deepened the Kashmiris’ problems. In this way, the combination of corona and curfew has degraded the scope of a peaceful and stable Kashmiri society. The neglect of public health issues during the indefinite period of curfew has resulted in a severe health crisis, and the general public living under vicious Indian policies are compelled to survive in an indeterminate period of corona and curfew.        

In short, the spread of the novel corona virus in South Asia has turned a new page in the history of the nuclearized subcontinent. New Delhi has preferred to continue a policy of violence and bloodshed in the occupied areas of Kashmir instead of taking various corona-controlling measures for the Muslim residents of Kashmir. The efforts to smash the voices of political freedom and social independence have led the Indian government under the leadership of Modi to not change its cruel doctrine for the Kashmiri people while passing through this critical time in human history. Thus, the global health crisis has provided another opportunity for the BJP government to fulfil its strategic objectives in the South Asian region. The persuasion of an expansionist policy against the territorially adjoining nations is the fundamental reason behind Indian Kashmir policy, which encouraged New Delhi to curb the voice of freedom from occupied areas of Kashmir. In other words, New Delhi is determined to carry the fierce role of its forces in Kashmir’s occupied areas while ignoring the fundamental values of human rights.   

The coronavirus issue is demanding a united stance from both nuclear powers based on a bilaterally structured cooperative mechanism without carrying aggressive traditional approaches. A bilateral alliance structured in a joint response mechanism against the novel coronavirus can secure the whole region’s future. Instead of continuing its traditional position on the Kashmir issue, the Indian government needs to realize the sensitivity of the time and ensure respect for human rights in its occupied areas of Kashmir. When the world is fighting with Covid-19 under a broader framework of the corona-prevention campaign, the Indian government needs to normalize the situation by lifting the curfew from Kashmir’s occupied areas. Guaranteeing and safeguarding fundamental human rights is the only viable solution that can let the Kashmiri people access essential health services independently. In the absence of communication networks and internet services, Kashmiri people cannot address their health issues under the pandemic environment. Parallel to adopting various steps in the health sector, New Delhi under the Modi administration needs to increase medical facilities in the occupied areas of Kashmir instead of multiplying the presence of its forces. The adoption of a humanistic approach, cemented in respecting the fundamental human rights values, can allow the Modi government to take care of Kashmiris on humanitarian grounds. Furthermore, the Modi administration is required to invite the international community in its Kashmiri-administrated areas because an active involvement of global health officials in Kashmir will facilitate the local people. In this way, with the help of the international community and peaceful approach of New Delhi, the worldwide corona-combating and corona-preventing efforts will be able to overcome the health issues of Kashmiri people suffering under Covid-19.   

The Pandemic Highlights the Dismal Reality of Pakistan’s Healthcare System

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the grave shortcomings within Pakistan’s Healthcare system that were apparent for a long time but were not attended to due to the generally frivolous attitude towards them. It is approximately six months since the coronavirus infections began being detected in Pakistan and by now the country ranks the second highest in Asia after India, in terms of the number of active COVID cases. Throughout this period there have been reported, a series of conflicting assertions from within Pakistan about the handling of the pandemic situation inside the country.

On one hand, the government has been lauding it’s response and preparedness to the pandemic, plus the observed decline in the rate of COVID infections in July has been given as an example of successful handling of the pandemic. The healthcare experts in Pakistan however, have made contradictory observations of the situation. Prime Minister Imran Khan dubbed this ‘decline’ in infections, a development as a result of the “successful” anti-COVID-19 strategy. Federal Minister for Planning Asad Umar, who also leads the anti-coronavirus campaign in Pakistan, claimed in a tweet that was a 28% decrease in the number of patients who require ventilators and oxygen cylinders and that this was a result of the government’s smart lockdown policy, plus the enforcement of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). The healthcare experts appear to be sceptical of the government’s claims of decrease in infection rate and there is a notion among many that this observed decrease in the rate of infection is because of a very small number of tests conducted. Qaisar Sajjad, head of Pakistan Medical Association, said to the Anadolu Agency, “There has been a downhill trend vis-a-vis new coronavirus cases over the past few weeks but it’s mainly because of reduction in the number of daily tests. This is certainly not a positive development”

There are several examples of such conflicting claims and narratives, through the examination of which, a very grim picture of Pakistan’s health sector has come to light. At the very fundamental level, it has been observed that there is an immensely poor density of 1.4 healthcare professionals (physicians including specialists, nurses, lady health visitors and midwives) per 1,000 population which is far lower than the indicatory threshold of 4.4 per 1,000 population, according to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), necessary to achieve universal health coverage. Besides, some healthcare professionals are also reported as being disgruntled over the issues like contractual nature of their jobs, ad-hoc appointments and the struggle for daily wages. In the Punjab province, over the course of a few months leading up to July, as many as 88 doctors from various teaching hospital were reported to have resigned from their positions due to such issues.

Amidst the pandemic, these health workers who are already so low in number, are working under dire conditions due to the shortage of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and other health facilities which has put them into the risk of contracting the disease themselves. This has resulted in several thousands of healthcare workers being affected by COVID and more than 50 of them have died so far. Also, due to the insufficient number of health workers, the existing ones have to work for longer hours. So, working for longer durations with inadequate resources in the face of risk to their own lives has led these health workers to acquire mental ailments. An instance of this can be found in a study that was conducted by a group of health experts on 112 Healthcare Professionals from the Karachi province where they found a high number of cases of various psychological ailments such as anxiety, stress, and depression.

Another fundamental flaw is the deficient health infrastructure. For the population of 220 million people, the hospitals are able to provide only 6 beds per 10,000 people which is highly insufficient by any standards. Other deficits, which also bear a huge relevance with respect to the current pandemic include acute shortage of ventilators and oxygen cylinders. Due to the lack of space and other equipment, the hospitals are not able to accommodate patients and are forced to put them on the long waiting list.

So, the already incompetent healthcare system in Pakistan has found itself being incapacitated by the current COVID-19 crisis, as the majority of it’s resources are focussed on attending the crisis at hand and simultaneously, there are other health related issues that have arisen in the past few months. There had been concerns of a potential surge in the number of polio cases because the efforts against the Polio disease were temporarily suspended in March due to prioritization of fight against COVID-19 by the Pakistan government. It was not until July 20th, that is, after about three months that the polio vaccination was resumed. Besides, there has been an uptick in other infectious diseases like Tuberculosis, Measles and Hepatitis, etc. Also, according to the interview of Prof. Dr Tipu Sultan, a renowned healthcare professional in Pakistan, the regime of social distancing and the majority of resources being utilised for addressing the pandemic problem have led several clinics and OPDs in government and private hospitals to be shut down. Which is why the outpatients are not being attended to and treated. This can create numerous health problems for the country in the future. 

Another problem is the potential surge in the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) related diseases, as highlighted by Syed Kamal Shah, CEO of Rahnuma-Family Planning Association of Pakistan (FPAP), which works in reproductive health and family planning. In an interview with the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Mr Shah says that SRH services are often mischaracterized as non-essential or elective in times when the health systems are strained. He further indicated at “shortages or non-availability of contraceptives, antiretrovirals for HIV/AIDS and antibiotics to treat sexually transmitted infections, due to disruptions in supply chains.” So overall, from the aforementioned observations which have been derived from various articles, papers and interviews through which, Pakistan’s healthcare experts have voiced their concerns and grievances, one can glean the reality on the ground of Pakistan’s coronavirus situation and the overall state of the health system. The healthcare system seems to be significantly underfunded and neglected, and in light of the pandemic, there is a prevalent belief that it is on the brink of collapse.

India’s S-400 Missile System: A False Sense of Security

 “… the best missile defence system of all would be a just and lasting peace.” – Hillary Clinton

The Russian S-400 triumph missile system is a modern and very powerful system. It can engage and destroy enemy aircraft and missiles. However, India’s development of defence shield forces is an effort to acquire a more avid Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system, but unfortunately this offensive posture and inductance of sophisticated weapons are threatening the strategic stability of South Asia.

After China, India is the second recipient of the S-400 system, and has made a deal of $5.47 billion; its delivery will be at the end of 2021. India justifies this missile system with the argument that this system will curtail Chinese and Pakistan’s military incursions and will provide a defence shield during any conflict. Under the umbrella of having a defence shield, it has adopted an offensive posture besides the induction of lethal weapons. However, New Delhi is experiencing a false sense of security.

In South Asian and neighbouring countries, the S-400 Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system has posed a factor of destabilization. India has dealt with Russia to acquire five S-400 regiments and this will lead to an arms race in the region. On one side, the acquisition of S-400 gives India a false sense of security because this system will not be able to cover the entire Indian territory, whereas, the two neighbouring states, China and Pakistan, could easily intercept this BMD system through their cruise missiles and Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV) capability. Additionally, China is far greater than New Delhi in military capability[A1] [MA2] . On the other side, India’s BMD program, like the development of AAD, PAD and acquisition of S-400, is considered as New Delhi’s false sense of security. These unconditional inductions would lead to conventional and non-conventional arms race, therefore, strategic stability and balance of strategic nuclear deterrence between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan would be challenged.[A3] [MA4] 

Following October 2016, India and Russia signed an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) over the supply of S-400 missile system, during the BRICS Summit. After two years, a formal agreement of S-400 missile systems was signed between Moscow and New Delhi on October 5, 2018. The Asian News International reported on September 9, 2019 that Russia would deliver five regiments of Triumf missile systems to India within 18 to 19 months. Besides this, Indian news agency reported that the delivery of S-400 might not be possible before the end 2021 due to the COVID-19 engagement.

Primarily, Russian S-400 is an aerial defence system; it can engage hostile tactical and strategic airplanes, ballistic and cruise missiles, and UAV targets. This missile system can hit a target within the range of 400 km at an altitude of 30 km with 4.8 km per second. It can shoot down dozens of targets and can track 300 targets at a time. Theoretically, in comparison with American Patriot PAC-3 and the THAAD, the Russian S-400 can hit the targets  at longer ranges than the American Patriot defence systems. Notwithstanding, in battle American Patriot systems have been tested, and revealed greater assault than the S-400 system.

After Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, America restricted nations to not make deals with Moscow, Iran, and North Korea, through the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAASTA). Nonetheless, New Delhi dealt S-400 missile system with Russia. Besides this, the US had sanctioned China over purchasing the S-400 system from Russia in 2014. Indian officials thought that they could convince the US to waive off the sanction for India. According to Rajiv Nayan a research analyst at Defence Studies, New Delhi must pronounce its strategic interests, and this defence system is very crucial for India’s Air Force, India will not come under US pressure.

New Delhi is trying to acquire multi-layered BMD system – an enormous shield against China and Pakistan’s incoming missiles to shield its cities. India gives alienated arguments to justify its BMD program: one, it will curtail and impact the speedy Chinese military influence. Two, in distinct sequence of events, i.e. peace time, war time, post-incursion, its defence program will formidably impact Pakistan’s counter and retaliatory measures. India’s induction of the S-400 missile system to its BMD system, is an effort to acquire a more avid system but unfortunately this will put the region into an abyss of an arms race and will create inevitable instability in South Asia.

It is known to the world that New Delhi is trying to acquire multi layered BMD system. Besides this, Israel, an opponent state of Pakistan has cooperated with New Delhi for the acquisition of a defence program. This will further make arms race inevitable in the region. According to Islamabad officials, development and acquisition of BMD system may give a false sense of security to India. Fortunately, in terms of fighting with New Delhi, Pakistan has dedicated faith that it will take care of incoming Delhi’s missiles, either offensive or defensive. In a conflict, it is impossible for India to have such a system that will intercept short range missiles like Nasr or Ghaznavi, insofar, it is a leverage for Pakistan to ensure efficacy over Indian BMD system. It has been the Indian attitude which compelled Islamabad to enter into an arms race and develop cruise and ballistic missiles like Raad and Ababeel equipped with MIRV capability. At the same time, Indian offensive posture and its induction of BMD system will further undermine the deterrence and stability of the region.

In 2014, China was the first customer of S-400 Missile system; after four years, China got its first units in 2018. Thus, a member of the BJP, Subramanian Swamy, warned on Twitter that the Indian government should not use the S-400 system against China in any crisis. Before his statement, Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh sought an urgent delivery of S-400 missile system when India and China faced-off in the Ladakh region in which 20 Indian soldiers were killed. Swamy argued that this Russian missile system is made up of Chinese electronics and referred to Russia as a junior partner of China. If one recalls the credibility of S-400 defence system, during Israeli air attacks against Syria in 2015, the same S-400 missile and radar system were unable to detect intruders.

India has made a deal for the S-400 missile system with Moscow but its credibility is still defined in papers, not shown in combat in the battlefield. So far, Indian upgradation of its conventional weapons are posing negative implications in the region which may bring the neighbouring nuclear states on the verge of another stand-off. Pakistan can easily perforate Indian defensive shield through its cruise missiles and surface-to-surface ballistic missile the best known MIRV capability, which can deliver multiple warheads to saturate Indian BMD system. Moreover, China is far superior in military capability and technology as compared to India in both conventional and non-conventional weapons. China can easily tackle Indian threats, like in Galwan valley where several Indian soldiers died. Lamentably, this is the Indian offensive posture and its inductance of sophisticated weapons which is threatening the strategic and deterrence stability of South Asia.

The Arrival of the Rafale and India’s False Bravado

India’s increasing military adventurism is a telltale sign that it is on the quest for hegemony and dominance in the South Asian region. Looking to expand its conventional military capabilities, India’s military leadership has invested in massive defence purchases over the last decade. In fact, the very election manifesto of the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has openly asserted that a key objective is to boost the “strike capabilities” of India’s military. This has manifested in an overwhelming increase of defence acquisition over the years. Take, for consideration, its recent and much awaited acquisition of Rafale fighter jets.  

India had agreed to purchase thirty-six Rafale jets along with spares, ammunition and maintenance. With each jet costing India nearly $200 million, the total defence deal amounting to a whopping $8 billion. The Rafale jets have long been touted by the Indian political and military leadership as game changers and essential to the security of India. Even when Pakistani jets shot down the Indian Mig-21, the Indian political leadership spared no breath before declaring it a consequence of not being equipped with the Rafale jets. In the wake of the recent standoff with China, the Indian leadership repeatedly pleaded and urged France to fast track the development and handover of the Rafale jets to the Indian Air Force.

When five Rafale jets were handed over to the Indian Air Force on the 29th of July of this year, Indian political circles, military leadership and media spun into a frenzy, thumping their chests and beating the drums. Some went on to claim that the arrival of the Rafale jets will bolster India’s aerial capabilities vis-à-vis China. Comparisons were even drawn between the Rafale and the Chengdu J-20, China’s indigenous fifth-generation stealth aircraft, declaring that the Rafale has a decisive advantage over the J-20 in combat. It would seem that the Indian analysts have been much too generous in their estimations.

The reality is one cannot compare the Rafale to China’s J-20, without a thorough understanding of the economics of war and conflict. Firstly, the J-20 costs almost half as that of the Rafale and due to its indigenous servicing and maintenance, is substantially less operationally cost-intensive. The Rafale, on the other hand, is expensive and operationally cost-intensive.  Therefore, India committing its operationally cost-intensive and expensive jet against the J-20 is highly dubious.

Secondly, in terms of numbers, according to some estimates, China already fields close to fifty J-20 jets and is capable of ramping up production due to the indigenous nature of the jet. India, by contrast, does not have this luxury and is instead, forced to rely on the foreign import of the Rafale jet and its spares and ammunition. Hence, due to its indigenous production, China holds a distinct advantage fielding its J-20, should there be a case of India’s military ingress into its territory. There are talks between Dassault and India for producing Rafale by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) but that seems to be a pie in the sky. Not to mention, the massive production cost of the Rafale would also limit India’s production of the jets.

What is also important to consider is the operational capability. Comparing the Rafale to a J-20 is somewhat of an error. The Rafale is considered to be a 4.5 generation fighter with advanced aeronautics, manoeuvrability and speed, along with an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar and Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) sensor. However, the J-20, along with these features also has stealth capability. The J-20 has been designed with an internal weapons bay and is also envisioned to have ‘supercruise’ ability. These features mean that it can easily evade radar detection due to its small radar cross-sectional area. Therefore, the Rafale is not a direct competitor of the J-20. The Rafale can be regarded more of a competitor to China’s SU-30 and SU-35, of which China has a combined strength of a hundred combat aircraft. It is evident therefore that China has a visible and tangible advantage of numbers in this department as well.

Perhaps what could be regarded as a competitor to the Rafale is the Pakistani and Chinese developed JF-17. This especially holds true with the production of the Block III of the JF-17, which has granted it significant aeronautical advancement. In particular, the JF-17 Block III will be equipped with AESA Radar along with helmet-mounted displays and an IRST system as well. These capabilities will put it on par with the Rafale.

While India celebrates its latest additions to its defence capabilities, concerns have been raised on whether such armament is accentuating India’s military aggression. Could it be that India may seek another military misadventure in the Galwan Valley on the basis of its overestimation of its defence capabilities? Already, the region is witness to an escalation of border conflicts between India and its neighbours. There is a case to be made that the arrival of the Rafale might increase the chances of India risking the strategic stability of the region, in particular with China. This would be a grave miscalculation as India’s estimation of challenging Chinese air dominance is misleading at the very least.

It is time that the Indian leadership comes to grips with the ground realities. It would serve India well to introspect its approach to regional stability, where it has used military coercion and force to exercise its writ and fulfil its relentless power ambitions. This is surely not a sustainable or beneficial policy tool, especially vis-à-vis its relationship with its neighbours Instead of actively working towards regional harmony and cooperation, India has maintained a hostile and aggressive posture towards its neighbours, isolating and threatening them. With an aggressive defence buildup and a consistent influx of military arms, India’s quest for hegemony is abundantly clear. Analysts would be right to suggest that such a policy direction will be damaging for any promise that South Asia has for regional peace.

Should the United Nations Security Council be Reformed?

A successor to the failed League of Nations, the United Nations (UN) was created in the aftermath of World War II with the aim of forestalling a future ‘world war’. It first met on the 17th of January, 1946 to discharge its duties as laid out by the UN Charter, for ‘the maintenance of international affairs and security’. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC/SC) was endowed with special powers as a committee, and as the only committee empowered to pass binding resolutions: a complex structure of work. With fifteen seats in total, the UNSC is a subject of controversy for three main reasons: membership, regional representation, and the power of the ‘veto’.

In terms of membership, we may firstly reference the numerical seat count of the UNSC. With only five permanent members and ten rotating members, out of a total of 193 countries, it is a direct representation of only a fraction of the UN. Informally known as the Power Five [P5], the five permanent members are the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China – the five victorious powers of the second world war. The ten non-permanent seats rotate every two years between members of the UN. When a vacancy for a seat is impending, an election is held to determine the future holder(s). There are a number of issues surrounding membership which includes but is not limited to: a call for expansion, (whereby either the number of non-permanent seats are increased, permanent seats are increased, or both) and calls for shorter terms for non-permanent members.

Another issue arising from the division of UNSC seats is regional representation. The United Nations [UN] splits member countries into five regional segments, each of which has a specific number of non-permanent seats allocated:  the African Group (3), Asia-Pacific Group (3), the Eastern European Group (2), the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States (2), and the Western European and Others Group (5). This issue is linked to the former, where the allocation of seats and the role of regional organizations such as the European Union (EU) and the African Union (AU), is also disputed.

As we move onto the power of the ‘veto’, it is crucial that we first acknowledge exactly what the power is defined as. The option of veto was granted only to the five permanent members of the UNSC, the P5, whereby they have the power to block the passage of any resolution brought before the Security Council through their respective negative votes, regardless of the popular vote tally. This has led to 243 resolutions having been blocked as of 29th April 2018. The

exercise and usage of the veto, its supposedly arbitrary nature and the lack of a ‘veto-override’ are all areas of contention.

Firstly, in consideration of the supporting view, it is of notice that a need for reform is universally recognized when it comes to increasing council membership and making it more representative of the global community. This was pointed out by an Italian Representative to the UN, speaking on behalf of one of the factions that support various different reform proposals, the United for Consensus group at a UN meeting. This recognition stems from the belief that in the modern-day world there is a lack of representation in the UNSC – for example, although Africa is a continent with 54 countries, there is not a single permanent member representative from it. The same goes for India, which makes up a total of 17% of the world’s population. These examples shine a light on the lack of representation, which in turn arguably leads to a less representatively democratic council, which is worrying as it acts as the highest symbolic authority on any number of crucial issues the world is facing at any given moment.

The former Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, explained the need for expansion by saying that if measures for reform are not taken, the council will come under ‘stress and pressure’, and will be a victim to ‘destructive competition’ because of which some (countries) will ‘ignore council decisions’. Annan also added that the UNSC of today reflects ‘the realities of 1945’, that ‘the world has changed and the UN has to change’. Annan, with his experience in balancing contrasting ideologies as UN Secretary General, was seen as authority on the issue, and his views on this can furthermore be taken as generally representative of the perspectives of the international community at large on this issue. This is supported by representatives from countries such as Russia, a P5 member, whose Prime Minister affirmed Annan’s views at his General Assembly speech in 2009, to South Africa’s International Affairs Minister also concurred in a speech to the South African Parliament in Cape Town in 2011.

However, where the universality of agreement ends is with the discussion on veto power, as acknowledged by the representative of Lichtenstein, and others at the UN, for whom it was the ‘crux of the deadlock’. Whilst all 193 countries in the United Nations agree that seats should be added and the Council should proceed with reformation to become more representative, there is still great disagreement over veto power reform.

To introduce the argument for reform, one former researcher for the UN University, and now an independent researcher on UNSC affairs, Peter Nadin, branded the veto as an ‘anachronism’, as well as ‘an impediment to credible international action to crises’.

A number of countries maintain that due to the nature of the UN, and its emphasis on the equality of nations, the veto – a uniquely special privilege – should be abolished entirely. Other perspectives arguing for veto power reform, support either a voluntary code of conduct or a mandatory restraint on the use of veto pertaining to matters on genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and massive human rights violations. It is further worth noting that these countries are not limited to a certain region, or sphere of hegemonic influence, instead representing a fair portion of the world and containing many conflicting views.

On the other hand, there are a great number of arguments which support the idea that neither the power of veto nor the Security Council should be reformed. Jonathan Cristol, a World Policy Institute scholar who reports from the United Nations on UN Reform makes a compelling argument when it comes to membership incrementation. He states that due to the large number of proposals for UN Reform and the nature of global politics, the effort required to increase seats would only be worth it if the goal of the UNSC was ‘diversity, not functionality’. He proceeds to note that while every state is open to the idea of ‘expansion’, they are only so due to the comforting knowledge that not only will all of their candidates be turned down by their rivals, but vice versa as well.

This is backed up by former UNSC President, and Singapore’s former Permanent Representative to the UN, Kishore Mahbubani, who stated in a speech that this was the reason there had not been major Security Council reform for so many decades – the fact that there is always opposition to candidacies. He then goes on to give several examples, where ‘for every India, there is a Pakistan saying, why not me?’, and for every Brazil there is an Argentina saying the same, and so forth. It can, therefore, be reasonably argued that expanding seats on the Security Council could potentially increase hostility and reduce goodwill amongst nations, and while the global community is united in the quest for expansion, expansion itself could lead to an intense diplomatic standoff between regional rivals. To highlight this claim, there is evidence of the conflict between the G4 Nations (four countries which support bids for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council) and United for Consensus [UfC] (informally known as the ‘Coffee Club’). The G4 often clashes with the UfC movement, which started off with the sole purpose of opposing G4 candidacies.

Furthermore, opponents of veto power reform are able to present a credible argument in favor of the status quo. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia – a P5 member with the power of veto – touted the veto as an instrument that is able to maintain international stability in a 2013 op-ed in the New York Times. His opinion is popular, backed by the belief that the veto checks hegemonic spheres of influence, and helps to prevent conflicting interests from turning into

conflicts. For example, if the Security Council chose to pass a resolution on Syria that was not agreeable to the interests of Russia or China, then that could give them the incentive to circumvent council decisions to preserve their geo-political strategies as well as the economic and political stability of their own countries and their allies. Whilst this would weaken the overall power of the UNSC, it can technically be perceived as a system of checks and balances.

Another supportive argument in defense of preventing reform is that of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who stated that ‘China’s veto at the Security Council has always played an important role in checking the instinct of war and resisting power politics. His statement heavily implied that he thought the veto played a role in ensuring relative stability in areas where the interests of the P5 – or others – might overlap, lending credence to the former argument.

Finally, Vitaly Churkin – Permanent Representative to the UN from Russia – stated, “In the world that we live in, the US and its allies almost always have nine votes in favor of one resolution or another. Therefore, without the veto right, they could just put a resolution on the table and go on rubber-stamping these resolutions.” This belied his belief that the veto plays an instrumental role in checking hegemony on a widespread scale, at least in matters of international law and as far as the influence of the Security Council goes, further adding authority to the previous argument.

In conclusion, Security Council reform should be opposed. This is based on three points made throughout. Firstly, the expansion of the Council could potentially lead to a degree of anarchy or conflict. Secondly, increasing regional representation with the sole aim of increasing diversity might compromise efficiency, and take up time needed to actually maintain unity through the creation of resolutions. Lastly, there is a great possibility that veto power reform would lead to hostility, the weakening of the UNSC as an institution, and possible western hegemony.

Although the initial overview of these arguments against the question of the necessity of UNSC reform began by laying grounds for supporting the need for reform, further analysis and research leads to a more nuanced conclusion and highlights just how dividing the issue is. After learning about the ever-increasing list of propositions and plans for reform and gaining a better understanding of how none were even remotely able to gather consensus, there was a clear agreement that a perfect solution has not been found yet. Cristol describes the UNSC as having a suboptimal structure in a perfect world, but an optimal world in ours; this statement holds true especially in relation to the polarized geopolitics of the world which would then have to cope with the possible ramifications of reform. If the veto-power was reformed, it could lead to direct intervention in countries like Syria, which whilst called for from some sides, would further contribute to a worsening of US-Russia ties, further presenting a worrying prospect. If the Council was expanded, there could be a bitter fallout, something our already polarized world cannot afford. Finally, it is worth noting how the need for something does not necessarily correlate with the necessity of its implementation, an inverse correlation that explains much of why the world works as it does.

Terrorism Securitization and the Contours of RMA

Introduction

Throughout the discourse of Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), the technological aspect seems to have overshadowed the strategic aspect. Technological advancement is largely viewed as a game changer in military affairs. The development of sophisticated technologies with high end precision has revolutionized the military warfighting capabilities. Having said that, it seems that the revolution in military affairs is always characterized by breakthroughs in technological domain. But this could be the partial truth because alongside technology, strategy also plays its part. The role of strategy in instigating a revolution is often overlooked and consequently it impedes rational analysis.

The following paper seeks to provide a thorough understanding of the strategic aspect dominating the realm of RMA. The paper will also analyse the impact of US strategy of securitizing terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11 incident, and how this strategy paved the way for revolutionizing the military’s functioning. Furthermore, it also intends to highlight the pervasiveness of the MIC’s influence in the nation’s policy circles and how these trends shape the contours of RMA. Lastly, the paper seeks to address one of the most pressing issue of how the securitization of terrorism led to an all new form of Asymmetric and Irregular warfare that has not just dominated all the traditional characteristics of warfare but has made the conventional war-fighting strategies almost obsolete. 

Drawing upon the theory of securitization to describe the transitional phase of terrorism from an area of low politics to the one in higher politics, the paper will also employ neo-classical realism to explain policy choices made in the post 9/11 era. Furthermore, the role of MIC’s as a formidable interest group in the US political process, shall be assessed through the lens of Elite power theory. 

Terrorism Securitization Post-9/11

The events of 9/11 and the period of terrorism securitization following these events, has shackled international politics. Terrorism dominated the entire security realm and was elevated as an issue of high politics. Securitization theory, “that has taken impetus from constructivists school of thought argue, that an issue can only qualify as a security issue when it poses an existential threat to the security of the referent object.” Furthermore, the whole process of securitization is carried out in collaboration of various factors like ‘Speech Act’, ‘Securitizing Agent’, ‘Securitization Move’, ‘Facilitating Conditions’ and most importantly the ‘Role of Audience’.

In the context of securitization of terrorism post 9/11 attacks, the US seems to have accomplished its policy objectives. She has successfully mobilized public opinion, made interventions abroad under the pretext of fighting terrorism and promoting democratic liberal values, promoted global WOT, punished the Rogue States, and consequently has established its global reach through extensive military expansionism.

Subsequently, this strategic breakthrough in US policy has contributed a great deal in defining the future of warfare – as terrorism was been labelled as an ever-lasting threat to the global security. Following this period of securitization, the nature of warfare was once again transformed. High tech weapons, sophisticated intelligence, precision guided strikes have been locking horns with low-tech petty warfare. Thus, the said strategy has revolutionized the military’s role and functioning. 

Role of MICs

Military Industrial Complex (MIC) – as proposed by C. Wright Mills in his theory of Elite Power – has remained an influential interest group within the policy framework of the US and elsewhere in the world. According to the aforementioned theoretical construct, vested corporate interests are embedded in the very structure of the political process and thus corporations benefit from the presence or even the perception of an enduring threat. Likewise, the definition of ‘national interest’ cannot be evaluated in isolation, rather it must be synchronized with the ‘elite interests’. Thus ‘national interests’ are redefined so as to incorporate varying degrees of threats-by various corporate elites that might call for extended role of military, expansionism and intervention, for the sake of profit maximization; as it happened in the post 9/11 era.

During cold war and post-cold war era, MICs faced a huge cut in military spending. But the event of 9/11 was a critical juncture for these MICs to extract maximum gain by influencing and advocating policy options that could interpret the said attacks as a long-term threat to security, thereby encouraging weaponry to be utilized and the role of military-intelligence bureaucracies to be entrusted for combatting this global war on terror.

Irregular and Asymmetric Warfare

The strategic thinking that preceded the War on Terror (WOT), has managed to portray terrorism as an enduring threat to the security and stability of the entire world generally and to the liberal values of the West specifically. This has called for a robust response from the US, its allies and the international community, in the form of global militarization and the production and employment of decisive technologies. The growing asymmetry between the adversaries as a result of military modernization programs have opened new avenues of conflict. Such a type of warfare constitutes the conflict between the state and non-state actors. Unlike the previous wars where both the parties to the conflict were considered as legitimate actors of international system, the new wars play by the rule of discrimination because the terrorists or the non-state actors do not qualify as a legitimate authority to wage a war. 

Moreover, the terrorism securitization has also brought to the fore the justification for small wars and COIN operations. The borders between the counterterrorism and counter-insurgency has been blurred as the courtesy of global WOT. Furthermore, under the guise of combatting global terrorism the distinction between the freedom fighters and the terrorists has also been removed. Thereby providing a justification for the enhanced military role within and outside the state’s territorial sovereignty.  

Conclusion

The securitization of terrorism followed by the global WOT along with an unprecedented role of MICs has transformed the nature of warfare and has revolutionized military roles, responsibilities and war fighting capability. It implies that the strategic construct pushed the military revolution that has transformed the traditional combat military into one with a more influential and expanded role both domestically and internationally. Subsequently new wars rely more on soft and smart power rather than the traditional hard power. Psychological, irregular, information, cyber and economic warfare have now become more tempting for states rather than conventional warfare. Non-state actors, NGOs and INGOs have been empowered in an unprecedented way to a level where they can actually influence policy decisions and in extreme cases, have the potential to challenge the writ of the state. 

Indian Policies: A Stumbling Block in the Rise of South Asia

“Every neighbouring state is an enemy and the neighbouring state’s neighbour is a friend.”
 ― Kautilya, The Arthashastra

South Asia is one of the most important regions of the world. It is home to one-fourth of the human race, has a vast reservoir of talent in many fields, and two of the countries of the region are nuclear powers. Most significantly, the countries of South Asia, since they achieved independence, have not been able to forge a cooperative framework that can match the European Union or Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) remains dormant. While regionalism has taken roots in every corner of the world, South Asia lags behind because of lack of trade and interconnectivity between regional countries. The major liability for this state of affairs rests on Indian intransigence and stupor. There is no doubt that Indian policies, inspired by Kutilya’s Doctrine, have made the region face a formidable set of challenges from within. Indian policies in the region have missed out on several potential gains: trade and investment could have been expanded and countries could have united around common regional problems that could finally unlock the region’s potential.

Like previous governments, in 2014, PM Modi managed to conjure up his image as proponent of good relations and peace by propagating “Neighbourhood First policy” within South Asia to signal India’s commitment to regional connectivity. Despite such extraordinary claims, Delhi’s regional activism and ambitions have also been victims to its own policies, exposing serious implementation deficits resulting into regional displacement. Six years on, from Modi’s “neighbourhood first” promises, there have been no real advances, while, relations with most neighbours have worsened. Indeed, “dis-connectivity” remains the default state of affairs between India and its neighbours. The risk side of this ledger sheet will surely keep the South Asian region’s progress on pause. The sorry state of connectivity that India actually follows reflects its actual intentions. New Delhi must learn to live in co-existence for enduring peace and growth of the region.

Unfortunately, India’s relations with each of its neighbours are in shambles. Kautilya’s Rajamdala (Circle of States) can be seen in action today in India’s foreign policy. It sees Afghanistan as a natural ally against Pakistan. Similarly, it sees Japan as a natural ally against China. History proves that India has continued interventionist policies vis-à-vis her neighbouring countries to pursue its hegemonic ambitions. Such steps were taken by India either through its military or it’s intelligence agency RAW. Besides supporting separatism in East Pakistan, which resulted in dismemberment of Pakistan and continued assistance to the separatist elements of Pakistan’s Balochistan province, New Delhi occupied Sikkim and subdued Bhutan. It particularly employed long history of supporting, which still continues in Sri Lanka.

Recently, India has unilaterally abrogated Articles 370 and 35A of its constitution in order to annex the disputed territory between India and Pakistan. This shows that Modi government has hegemonic desires beyond the borders, after the illegal alteration of disputed J&K status. This development combined with other reasons that have led to recent China – India border standoff, is further pushing the region towards instability.

India and Pakistan being two nuclear weapon states in the region have always been in continuous tension in one way or another. Due to New Delhi’s aggressive prospects of Kashmir policy and a hot border with Pakistan, all the old instincts and animosities were constantly kept alive. Ever since independence, the relationship remained a game of snakes and ladders, with more snakes than ladders. Clearly, all civil and military leaderships which came to power in Pakistan have been eager to improve relations with India. Latest in the series has been the recent public declarations made by PM Imran Khan to resolve all disputes, including the “core issue” of Kashmir, through talks. Whereas, India has frustrated every Pakistani move for regional peace and stymied regional cooperation with its obduracy.

Added to this, in May 2020, a dispute between India and its neighbouring country Nepal escalated into a full-blown diplomatic crisis. Similarly, relations with Pakistan have plummeted dramatically. India’s controversial move to pull the autonomy of the disputed region of Kashmir marks a major moment in the regional politics of South Asia. In this context, Islamabad has been repeatedly sensitizing the world about Indian nefarious designs against Pakistan. Recently, PM Imran Khan accused that India is attempting to create an opportunity to conduct a false-flag operation against Pakistan by alleging that Islamabad was supporting terrorism in Kashmir.

As unfortunate as it is, India’s irrational anger and divisive regional strategy has all but killed SAARC. The 34-year-old organisation has a symbolic value for regional cooperation and the bloc hasn’t made any significant progress to boost trade in South Asia.  All in all, SAARC is being held hostage by tensions created due to non-settlement of contentious issues between its member states. India’s trade with Afghanistan is hampered because of the prevailing tensions between India and Pakistan. Similarly, Pakistan’s trade with Bangladesh and Nepal depends on its good relations with India.

Moreover, to fail and hijack the SAARC, and to distance other SAARC members from China, India is now focusing on sub-regional organizations like the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and the South Asian Sub-regional Economic Cooperation (SASEC). But the fulcrum of such alignments over the grave of SAARC is both illogical and contrary to the founding principles of these organisations.

In fact, the last SAARC summit, which was to be held in Pakistan in 2016, could not materialize as some member states led by Indiaboycotted the event. Pakistan’s recent efforts to host a ministerial meeting on COVID-19 and its decision to contribute to the emergency fund reflect seriousness, which Pakistan attaches to SAARC. The intention behind such a move is Islamabad’s vision where it sees SAARC as a foreign policy tool to rebuild its ties with South Asian countries for region progression as a whole.

India needs to project itself as a good neighbour to other countries of South Asia rather than a regional hegemon. While New Delhi must go on with efforts to solve specific differences with its neighbours, it has to look for a sea-change in its overall attitude. Given this, it is manifestly in the interest of New Delhi and the region at large, to forge a relationship of peace and amity with its neighbours, which will indirectly lead the region towards progression. To prove this point and for the larger good of approx. 1.9 billion people of South Asia, India has to create a lasting environment of mutual trust coupled with freedom from fear.

The Sino-Iran Agreement: A Regional Game-Changer?

The New York Times recently reported that China and Iran are in a process of negotiating a long-term bilateral cooperation agreement. The proposed agreement stretches back to President Xi Jinping’s State Visit to Tehran in 2016 during which the vision for Sino-Iran cooperation was agreed. Both states decided to expand trade over 10 years whilst also agreeing to enhance cooperation as part of a longer 25-year plan.  Although details have not been officially released in the public domain, an 18-page draft of the proposed agreement reported by The New York Times suggests that the deal encompasses a comprehensive economic and political dimension that has the potential for major strategic ramifications and mark a significant shift for China, Iran, and the wider region.

The agreement will supposedly result in $400 billion of Chinese investment in Iran over 25 years. As part of the agreement, Iran will grant China significant discounts on oil and gas with the ability to delay payments for up to a period of two years (Iran holds the second-largest natural gas and the fifth-largest crude oil reserves in the world). China will also have the added benefit of paying for the energy resources in soft currencies. This would ensure that China has access to a regular, large, and secure source of energy at a discounted rate.

In exchange, China will invest and expand its presence in the Iranian banking, telecommunications, ports, and railways sectors and therefore address Iran’s growing financial and infrastructural needs in addition to investing in dozens of other projects. This will give Iran much-needed investment into key sectors of an Iranian economy that are in desperate need of an upgrade following the U.S. led economic sanctions over its nuclear programme.  China has already defied U.S. sanctions by continuing to buy Iranian oil which has seen China emerge as a major Iranian trading partner and oil importer over the course of the last decade. The proposed agreement will, therefore, be viewed as a major long-term investment to further enhance and deepen bilateral cooperation at a time of need for Iran.

From a regional perspective, the agreement may also be seen as a strategic move to counter the warming ties between long-term Iranian ally and China’s regional rival, India, and Iran’s staunch enemy and China’s global rival, the United States. Although the United States has dominated the Middle East for decades, the proposed agreement can be viewed as an attempt to eventually attain a greater foothold in the region. With the possibility of building strategic ports as part of the proposed agreement, there remains a strong possibility that China may militarise them at some point. At present, most of the world’s oil transits through the Persian Gulf which is controlled by the United States and hence regarded as a marker of U.S. strategic hegemony. The passage is of key strategic importance and China’s potential access to the Persian Gulf with a potential military port in the area would give China a strategic vantage point. The proposed agreement, therefore, has the potential to be a regional game-changer in the long-term.

Moreover, Iran also holds strategic significance in connecting Asia to Europe for China through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The project is the flagship foreign-policy initiative of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s tenure with an ultimate goal of establishing the foundations for China’s hegemony in Eurasia. If Iran does indeed become a long-term participant of the BRI initiative, Iran would further its regional trade prospects and infrastructural connectivity with other BRI participating countries such as Pakistan, the CIS States, and also initiate deeper cooperation with China in other areas. Iran may also go further, seek membership, and eventually integrate within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) albeit with uncertainty regarding China’s stance surrounding Iran’s SCO membership given China’s trade interests in the Middle East. It is also unclear as to how China would react in the event of any escalations between Iran and its regional rivals. 

Questions will also emerge surrounding the future of the Chabahar port. If the agreement gives China access to the Chabahar port region, India’s regional ambitions will be severely dented. This is likely considering the strain in bilateral relations between Iran and India due to the emerging India-U.S. axis to repel Chinese hegemony in the region. The silence of Iran in the ongoing border dispute between India and China also highlights the change in dynamics between the two countries in recent times.

Overall, the proposed agreement is visionary to enhance cooperation between Iran and China. The implications of the proposed agreement are likely to be regional although it would be premature to predict the precise long-term implications at this early stage. The proposed agreement, which is both a product of necessity and opportunity, has the potential to advance bilateral economic and political cooperation in diverse sectors with the potential of further deepening cooperation in the future. As for the wider region, the proposed agreement may not only mark a gradual shift in Iranian priorities from India to China; the proposed deal could also mark a geostrategic shift in the regional dynamics of the Persian Gulf with an increased Chinese presence.

Us vs Them: Religious Animosity & Intolerance

There exist a religious, cultural, and communal divide that often entices people to define society as ‘us versus them’. People are tempted to discriminate themselves from the people of different faith or culture. The sense of superiority of us versus the inferiority of them has simulated intolerance in almost every part of the world. Be it Hindu superiority in India, Jewish superiority over Palestinian Arabs, or the non-Muslim inferiority in Pakistan, religious segregation jeopardizes the ideology of tolerance and co-existence as a peaceful society. The ostracism of the inferior breed places minorities under threat.

For long, Pakistan has suffered from religious animosity, violence, and intolerance against underprivileged religious minorities of the state. Whether it is the misuse of blasphemy laws, attacks on Shia Hazara community, or the discrimination and violence against the Hindus and Christians of Pakistan, the iniquitous conduct by the masses and the state misinterprets, or in a sense travesties, the fundamental teachings of Islam and humanity: tolerance, inclusivity, and plurality.    

On 23 June 2020, the construction of the first Hindu temple began in the capital – Islamabad is home to approximately 3,000 Hindus. The project was approved in 2017 under the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif but administrative obstacles halted construction for almost three years. On 3 July 2020, its construction faced sheer criticism and fatwas from the religious right, and was halted once again. The promise, or in this case rhetoric, of equal rights for minorities was shattered. The democratic essence of the state came across religious dogmatism and lost, once again. Among the critics, Khan’s ruling coalition party, PML-Q, and a Lahore-based Islamic institution, Jamia Ashrafia, took the lead saying that it’s against the “spirit of Islam” and is “non-permissible,” respectively.   

The religious right or the mullah controls a large majority of the populace and thus a significant portion of the government is, by and large, under their extreme influence. It was evident from the failure of the government to impose lockdown on mosques amid Covid-19 when other Islamic or Muslim-majority states had banned congregational prayers inside mosques. The unmatched authority of the religio-political parties grew during Zia’s Islamization of the state. Time and again, the leaders have put Islamic legitimacy in their political cause to give it a sacred theme for it is the quickest way to attract vote bank in Pakistan.

The exclusion of minorities and the distinction of us versus them, however, has been the discourse of politics in every age. For example, the superiority of Christianity over Judaism in Nazi Germany and Europe, and the inferiority of immigrants and Muslims in the west despite its social essence of human rights, manifests how the difference of ideologies and faiths can lead one to the threshold of sheer violence and conflict.

Similarly, the us versus them paradox in Pakistan was exhibited significantly in recent years: there are estimated 1,000 Christian and Hindu women that are being subjugated to accept Islam every year to marry Muslim men, reported Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. In Sindh alone, since early 2019, 50 Hindu girls were forcefully converted to Islam. A politician named Mian Mithu was reported to be involved in the conversions.

The travesty of Islam where you can force non-believers to accept your faith, one sane mind can imagine, is the definition threaded only by the self-anointed champions of Islam, and not in the actual and traditional Islam. In addition, a Hindu temple was attacked in September 2019 by an angry Muslim mob in Ghotki after accusations of blasphemy on a local principal.

The Hindu, Christian and even the Shia community are being subjected to violence and persecution. On 23 July 2019, a church was attacked by a mob of Muslims in Sheikhupura. A Christian rickshaw driver was beaten and forced to drink poison. He died later. In April 2019, 24 Shias of Hazara community in Quetta were killed in a suicide attack. Even though the Shia community falls under the umbrella of Islam, the enforced disappearances and persecution by militants never stop.

Amnesty International, in its report of 2019, said that religious hardliners continued to attack and persecute religious minorities in Pakistan. These cases, however, are pretty much the tip of the iceberg manifested to roughly assume the intensity of the extremism and fundamentalism being committed here.   

The ‘them’ is always the inferior ones and objects to active animosity. The ‘us’ will, somehow, legitimize their violence against the ‘them’ with religion and history. The manipulation of religious context and conduct is their greatest virtue. The organized violence to express their hatred is their central modus operandi.

Although, the Pakistan Ulema Council (PUC) issued a statement to support the construction of the Hindu temple, the negative public sentiment persists that the religious right ignited in the first place; the construction, to a great extent, is facing immense animosity.

The minorities in a core state have suffered a great deal of violence and the trajectory is likely to continue until it eventually stops. Neither Muslims nor Jews nor Christians nor Hindus are peculiar in this spectrum of extremism and fundamentalism. The fate of Muslims, Dalits, and Sikhs is bleak in BJP’s India until an unprecedented secular leadership takes charge; secular Israel is likely to occupy and traumatize Palestine until the US and global community’s hypocrisy ceases; and the violence against non-Muslims in Pakistan is not going to terminate until the arrival of strong civilian leadership that does not bow to the authority of the fundamentalists, and until the comprehension of the true essence of Islam: tolerance and kindness.

For Pakistan, the attention to curb intolerance and extremist mindsets should be given in three areas. First, the educational curriculum can prove to be a pragmatic approach. Since primary school, students are taught discrimination against their non-Muslim counterparts. While the Prime Minister is calling for a uniform curriculum in Pakistan, the discriminative texts – that leads one’s mind towards hatred – can be removed as well. Second is the role of judiciary, bureaucracy and the for government to not compromise or bend their knee in front of fundamentalists. Finally, NGOs can launch a campaign to spread awareness among people of what it means to live in an intolerant society.

Hostility, hatred, and ill will, whether it is ideological, religious, or cultural, are bound to end with the beginning of a new chapter of the same course. It may take a decade or a century, the end will come. Until then, the venom plays along, however temporarily. As was the case of Nazi Germany and Europe, right-wing movements inflicted a great deal of pain on nations before they eventually came to an end.

Hindutva – Indian Policy Towards Jammu & Kashmir

In many parts of India, the ideology of Hindutva was considered as a religion. In 1995, the Supreme Court of India endorsed the plea of the Hindutva ideology as a way of life and not as religion. Hindutva, the concept pertaining to Hindu dominancy all over India has been the core reason for the Indian atrocities in Kashmir. The act to promote the ideology of Hindutva has negative implications on the lives of the Kashmiris. Policies adopted by the Indian government in terms of the illegal annexation of Kashmir and revocation of Article 370 with the current inclusion of the controversial citizenship bill, indicates Hindu extremism present in the core of the Indian state. India portrays itself as the largest democracy as well as a secular state, however, Indian actions/policies are in contrast to its proclaimed stance. The gradual spread of Hindu extremism is altering the demography of Kashmir. The extremist acts of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his discriminatory policies have also deteriorated Indo-Pakistan relations. The freedom struggle in Kashmir is labelled as terrorism in order to impose Indian policies within occupied Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).

United Nations Security Resolution Council (UNSRC) called for a ceasefire in 1948 after the conventional conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. United Nations (UN) could not enforce India to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir, as per the resolution passed in 1949. Since then, Kashmir is in a continuous phase of turmoil. During the partition of 1947, the former Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten and Sir Cyril Radcliffe, the British Commissioner, divided the areas on the proportions of population majority. Seventy percent of Kashmiris were Muslim, due to which Pakistan demanded the annexation of Kashmir as a legitimate right.  
 
Since then, ties between these two states (India and Pakistan) have gotten worse, leading to three major conventional conflicts. India also adopted assertive policies against the demand of the right to self-determination of the Kashmiris. For several years, the Kashmiri nation has been deprived of their right to self-determination, which has caused a prolonged travail for the Kashmiris in their own homeland. The people of Kashmir are still asking for their rights as promised by UNRSC. The Kashmiri freedom struggle was at its peak during 1980s, however, its pace slowed down in early 21st century. An effort was made by President Musharraf to resolve the Kashmir issue with India and connections were made at several forums, but the proposals of the matter could not materialize. Both India and Pakistan were once again on the verge of confrontation after the Mumbai attacks in 2008.

Resurgence of the freedom fight in Kashmir was observed after the death of Burhan Wani, in the year of 2016, the young commander of Hizbul Mujahidden group in Kashmir for the attainment of the right to self-determination and sovereignty. Being a part of Kashmiri youth, he was considered as an icon of freedom struggle through active social media campaigns.

The Indian state started its aggressive policies towards Kashmir based on their extreme Hindutva ideology, after Narendra Modi gained power in India. To spread the ideology of ‘Hindutva’ all over India and its peripheries has remained his top priority. Modi’s wish of Indian dominancy in the region has not only disregarded the rights of Kashmiris but also of other minorities in India, especially Muslims. The Indian constitution clearly states that India is a secular state, however, the current political ventures have questioned the clauses of it’s own constitution.

The citizenship amendment bill passed by the Indian government in December 2019 has further deepened the crisis and has increased the sufferings of the Muslim minority. For long, the Muslims, whether residing in India, Palestine or in Kashmir, are in troublesome situations. As per Human Rights Commission, every nation and all humans have the right to self-determination, but this is not the case with Muslims either residing in India or in Kashmir. Indian brutality is increasing, and the international audiences have kept silent on the matter. United Nations has failed in persuading India to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. The establishment of the Human Rights Commission in 1945 was objective-orientated but eventually failed to provide relief to oppressed Muslims across the world.

Due to the manifestation of the narrative of Hindutva ideology, the Indian government and its security forces propagate violence and chaos in Jammu and Kashmir. India is carrying out the genocide of Muslims in Kashmir in order to turn Muslims into a minority in the region. Cross ethno-cultural marriages are highly supported and demanded in order to increase Hindu influence in the region. Pakistan has raised the issue at the forum of United Nations General Assembly, warning the international arena that their silence on this crucial matter will eventually break out a war between India and Pakistan, moreover the brutalities and Indian state terrorism in Kashmir is raising questions on India’s own constitution, which claims to be a secular state. Regional and global stakeholders must engage with India to put a halt to its aggressive Hindutva approach before the region faces the consequences of Hindu extremism.