India’s False Flag Operations

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”

Führer Adolf Hitler

The lineage of this term is drawn from maritime affairs where ships raise a false flag to disguise themselves and hide their original identity and intent. In this milieu, the concept of the false flag emanates from the domain of conspiracy theory wherein an operation is conducted by one party or government and made to appear as though it was sponsored by another party or government. These coercive techniques are carried out with the intent of deceiving the public or target audience, with regards to the perpetrators of false flag.

These operations could be a solitary happening or a succession of deceptive episodes towards materializing a long-term strategy, with a visualized plot to fabricate and falsely accuse or allege other governments to justify aggression against them. A number of these pseudo-operations have been conducted in past, few famous amongst them were Operation Himmler by Hitler, Operation Northwood by the U.S., and Lavon Affair executed by Israel.

False flag operations have been a part of statecraft since ancient times, though, the times have changed and no country, especially a democratic one, should resort to such an agenda. However, of late, we have seen a state infested with frenzied radical Hindutva dogma has not shied away from piloting such operations against other nations, particularly Pakistan. These operations were staged by so called, Tamil separatist movements or Royal Nepalese coup of 1960 or killing own people in Mumbai and soldiers in Pulwama and later, censuring and blaming other countries for the terrorism.

India is effectuating its vitriolic and contemptuous campaign by constructing a narrative in declaring Pakistan a hotbed of violence in the region. However, in doing so the Indian government itself is endangering the stability of South Asian region. As India is a country with diverse mix of cultures and religions, it has always been in desperate need of nation-building. To serve this aim, its far-right political parties and opposing forces established a perception of a common or fictitious adversary to unite its culturally despondent populace. India’s false flag operations are conducted in sync as a force to serve and augment nationalistic perception.

Indian accusations based on trivial reasons of tarnishing the image of Pakistan in the international arena are repeatedly rejected and proven wrong by Pakistan. This has been established and attested even in the Indian courts by the Indian judges (Judgement in Chittisinghpura Massacre 2000 ). Pakistan was accused of criminal violence of almost every minor or major act of terror in India, but the Indian government has failed to provide any substantial and credible evidence of Pakistani connection in these terror attacks. Indian government has even been a practitioner and perpetrator of false flag operations since long, with dubious history of executing such operations with impunity even in its own, restive areas.

On 20 Mar 2000, (Day of Bloodshed) mass killing of around thirty-five Sikhs took place in Anantnag, district of IOK. Initially Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Pakistan were accused of this bloodshed. However, Indian court noted that the entire massacre was staged to malign Pakistan. In 2017, Lt Gen (Retd) KS Gill, who was part of a CBI investigation team, confirmed that Indian army was involved in massacre. This massacre occurred during the visit of President Clinton to India and Pakistan. The purpose was to generate more U.S. pressure on Pakistan and to discredit Pakistan globally.

The Indian Parliament was attacked in December 2001. India referred this terrorist attack as a Pakistani plan and accused LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) without any investigations which resulted into a full-scale military stand-off at borders. The Indian Media had mentioned this attack as a breach of national security due to the negligence of concerned authorities. A former home Ministry Officer Mr. RVS Mani stated that members of investigating committee claimed that the Indian Parliament attack was orchestrated by the government. Mr. Satish Verma, a member of the Central Bureau of Investigation-SIT probe team, said that “Attack on the Indian parliament in 2000 and the Mumbai attacks in 2008 were set up with the objective of strengthening the counter-terrorism legislation and to get extra funds.

Another false flag operation of India was exposed by their own media and officers holding senior positions in public offices. Indian government led by PM Modi and RSS played a Pre-Election Subterfuge in the form of Pulwama attack. Pakistan had fore warned to the world about the probability of a momentous diversionary incident by the BJP government prior to Indian elections, to cover up governance failures, to neutralize political opponents, and to rally Hindu voters behind it by fooling the Indian population and voters.

“It’s easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled”

Mark Twain

In this context, the Pulwama attack (14 Feb 2019) was orchestrated by the Hindu extremist group RSS and the government. In the wake of the Pulwama and Balokot subsequent botched attacks, the BJP government achieved its aim of patriotic mobilization and gained political mileage through its electoral strategy to raise the Pakistan ‘bogey’ in the attempt to galvanise voters’ support, while seeking to divert public attention from their domestic and foreign policy failures and other pressing problems of governance.

BJP government under the leadership of PM Modi who came into power riding a religiously sanctioned hysteria produced by politically motived violence, has after assuming power abrogated the article 370 and 35 A on 5 Aug 2019. The BJP-led government imposed unprecedented restrictions on free movement, besides imprisoning thousands of Kashmiris, including top political leaders, political workers, lawyers, civil society members and the youth. In March this year, India’s ministry of home affairs informed both houses of the Parliament that between 5 August, 2019 and February 2020, it arrested “7357 individuals” in IIJOK. On the contrary, the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition for Civil Society, a prominent human rights body based in Srinagar, estimates that the government arrested over 13,000 Kashmiris during the last one year.

In order to divert global attention from its gross human rights abuses and genocidal activities in Indian Illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) as per the fascist agenda of New Delhi, Indian media has resorted to baseless and negative propaganda against Pakistan. Moreover, India has also been persistently exploiting opportunities for false flag operations and to portray itself as a victim of terrorism and conduct military action against Pakistan. Pakistan’s PM Khan realising this threat tweeted in May 2020, as “I am reiterating again that a false flag operation is imminent from India in order to divert world attention away from its ongoing genocide in IIOJK.” 

It is the BJP leadership’s incurable obsession with Pakistan that impels them to invariably blame Pakistan for their own failings and shortcomings. This can simply be pronounced as an outcome of uncertainty and fear psychosis emanating from lack of confidence in their own capabilities to govern. It is also an outcome of past baggage, having nurtured and supported actors (Indian Army and RSS) of false flag operations as part of state policy. Such false flag operations are vivid reflection of a confused and regressive mind set of Indian government aimed at appropriating insinuations on Pakistan without facts or credible evidence. The world community needs to take stock of Indian machination which endangered the peace and stability of the region.

IAF Post-Pulwama and Galwan Skirmishes: What Should be PAF’s Response?

The last two years have been instrumental for the Indian Armed Forces as the country found itself embroiled in two of the most significant clashes with its arch-rivals, Pakistan and China. The India-Pakistan Pulwama crisis of 2019 and the India-China Galwan Valley standoff of 2020 were an eye opener for Indian Air Force (IAF) especially as they realized their shortcomings not just vis-a-vis a much more superior adversary China, but also Pakistan against which it enjoys clear numerical strength. Pakistan Air Force (PAF) was able to outgun the most sophisticated Indian fighter jets and weapon systems which made IAF revisit its battlefield capabilities and preparedness.  

IAF, post-Pulwama and Galwan skirmishes, expedited its modernization and induction spree in order to strengthen its offensive capabilities against Pakistan and China. According to Indian Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadauria, during a recent address to United Services Institute of India (USI) ‘India now has an “edge” in its ability on both the Western and Northern fronts to react fast, respond fast and hit fast.’

The IAF has a sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons. However, it operates 31/32 squadrons with the number diminishing each year as more and more aircrafts reach their retirement age. Back in 2015, then-Indian Air Chief, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha said that by 2027, IAF would build its combat fleet to 42 squadrons from the existing strength of 31/32. However, predictions suggested that IAF was unlikely to get the designated strength of 42 by 2035. Nevertheless, post-Pulwama, the Air Force realized that air superiority would be critical in any potential escalations with its rivals. Hence, it expedited its procurements and upgradation process to meet the desired squadron strength. With deals worth INR 38,900 crore, in July 2020, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) sanctioned procurement of 21 MiG-29 fighter jets from Russia, alongside an upgrade of the existing 59. Besides that, 12 Su-30 MKI aircraft were also to be procured from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). Other approved acquisitions to serve the Air Force included 250 Astra missiles which also happen to be India’s first indigenous beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air missiles, developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

IAF has inducted multiple front line platforms including fighter jets like the state-of-the-art Rafale jets, missiles, smart air-to-ground weapons, and helicopters like the Apache attack helicopters. IAF plans to induct a total of 450 fighter aircrafts to deploy on its western and northern frontiers against Pakistan and China in the next 35 years. The list includes 36 Rafales, 114 multirole fighter aircrafts, 100 Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) and over 200 Light Combat Aircraft of different variant, as reported by news agency ANI. In the basic trainer aircraft category, it also plans to induct 370 Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 from the state-owned aerospace and defence company HAL.

In the same address to USI mentioned above, the Indian Air Chief also mentioned the initiatives taken by IAF to counter drone warfare. A realization that came after an alleged drone attack at the IAF station in Indian Occupied Jammu. Although India accused Pakistan of carrying out the attack without any evidence, most analysts believe that it was a false flag operation. Nonetheless, the IAF plans to procure ten advanced anti-drone systems that would be deployed at its different facilities. The systems would be equipped with Radio Frequency jammers, Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) jammers, and laser-based Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs). Furthermore, the Air Chief outlined strengthening the country’s cyber security system which was yet another area of concern that was highlighted post-Galwan Valley clashes. Indian strategic experts have long been advocating inclusion of cyber doctrine in national defence. The tri-service Defence Cyber Agency (DCA) was also created in 2019 to work for the same purpose, i.e., to strengthen military cybersecurity specifically. The suspected cyber-attacks, post-Galwan clashes, on India’s power sector might have reinforced the need of building up offensive and defensive cyber capabilities of the country.

Given the foregoing discussion, it is evident that IAF is fortifying its capabilities in all domains, whether it is traditional arms build-up in terms of fighter jets or in non-kinetic domains, like cyber.

The aerial faceoff in February 2019 was a critical moment in Indo-Pak military engagement history. After the losses it incurred of losing two of its fighter planes (MiG 21 and Su-30) as well as a Mi-17V-5 helicopter, it seemed that Indian leadership would refrain from any further warmongering. However, the current trend of acquisitions shows otherwise. India is all geared to up the ante by starting a new arms race in the region.

Although India may argue about fighting a two-front war with China and Pakistan, it is unlikely that New Delhi will ever confront the mighty Beijing. Its current capabilities and power projection ambitions are solely for weaker regional contenders, particularly Pakistan. Hence, this Indian spree of acquisitions will ultimately put pressure on Pakistan, and eventually PAF to mitigate this threat of IAF modernization to maintain conventional deterrence.

Despite being a comparatively smaller force, for PAF, capacity, capability, technology, or training has never been an issue as was demonstrated during the Pulwama standoff. The only concern is the state’s economy. With a much weaker economic base compared to India, Pakistan cannot indulge in an arms race.

PAF has always carefully avoided an arms race and worked to keep its fleet at a level that is able to defend the national airspace. It must continue with the same spirit. To counter the Indian threat, PAF however, needs to focus on capability enhancement instead of getting entangled in a numbers game.  PAF must endeavour to retain first shot capability, standoff precision attack and electronic warfare.  This can be achieved through some new acquisitions and upgrades of the existing systems. The deployment of JF-17 Block III armed with PL-15 and PL-10 would be essential in this regard and needs to be expedited. Besides, PAF must also ensure a robust Command, Control, and Communications (C3) system to avert the adverse effects of any cyber-attacks.

“Understanding Afghanistan’s History” Lecture by Pakistan’s Ambassador (Retd) Riaz Muhammad Khan.

“Understanding Afghanistan’s History” Lecture by Pakistan’s Ambassador (Retd) Riaz Muhammad Khan. on 22 Sep,2021

Syrian Conflict: A Decade of Fighting

From March on Road of Freedom to Endless Suffering.      The never ending, unabated series of violent attacks erupted on Syrian Land from peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations against the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in March 2011 almost 10 years ago has now turned into a full-scale civil war. Widespread unemployment, chronic poverty, autocratic rule and Arab awakening led Syrian people to demand resignation of the present president, but conversely to masses demands the government used deadly force to crack down this massive descents and country wide protests. Until now; 380,000 causalities can be attributed to this conflict, alongside demolished and destroyed cities and spillover effects on neighboring countries (BBC, 2021).

Subsequently, the violence in Syria escalated rapidly among different groups. Power vacuum paved way for various regional and global powers to wage proxies, aggravate existing conflict and oust adversaries’ influence over Syrian land. Pro and anti-government groups sprung up and foreign powers involved in the conflict started sending money, weapons, and technical support to worsen the existing situation. Jihadist organizations for their own vested interests such as Islamic State IS and Al-Qaeda are also actively involved. Syrian Kurds who are fighting for their independence has also given different dimension to the conflict (BBC, 2021).

Iran is involved in training Shia Muslim militiamen and providing them financial and armed assistance via Lebanon’s Hezbollah group. Yemen military and rebel groups are also fighting alongside Syrian army. Whereas, USA and Russia are responsible for various Air strikes killing millions of innocent civilians. This foreign involvement in conflict has made the situation even more complicated.

Syria: Who controls what?   

Credit: Aljazeera

Failure of the United Nations.           Paradoxically, United Nations being the watch dog of human rights and global peace has failed to effectively and sympathetically respond to Syrian conflict. The Unprecedented devastation that caused millions of people to flee their home ground and Syrian conflict that is one of the worst humanitarian crises of 21st century clearly depicts UN failure to restrain violence and restore peace. Moreover, more than 5 million external and 6 million internal displacement and 13 million in dire need of assistance (UN, 2020) with almost 12 million people being vulnerable and prone to abject poverty and half a million children being miserably undernourished (SAR, 2021). The conflict paints unsaid miseries of Syrian people, particularly children and women.

Similarly according to SOHR (2020) report which explained that 2.1 million Syrians have been injured and faced permanent disabilities because of chemical bombardment, shows how global actors have been unconcerned towards this unabated violence. Crippling economy and social downturn compounded with mass displacement demanded urgent help to avert another tragedy. However, to make the matter worse, biased and selected Interpretation of article 39 under which UNSC decides any act of aggression a threat to peace and ineffective implementation of article 40-41 where UNSC adopt either military or non-military measures to restore peace, of UN charter has failed to address the existing situation.

As Nadin (2017) explained that unless the UNSC is not unified its decisions in general and UNSC in particular can never be effective and Syrian conflict will remain unresolved. UNSC could have fulfilled its obligations to avert the violence considering Article 2(7), which clearly states non-interference in domestic affairs of member states. But sadly the involvement of global powers has halted the peaceful solution to the conflict.

United Nations failure towards Syrian conflict can also be gauged by its hypocritical and selective responses towards various global conflicts. Contrary to speedy formation of international courts for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, it had not even opened the case of Syria. The case was held in abeyance as the council was yet to decide/ initiate either to refer it to war crime tribunal or to International criminal court (ICC). Furthermore, the vetoes of permanent 5 members of UNSC have been prolonging this conflict to date.

Series of Vetoes: UNSC vetoes and excuses get in the way of justice.

  • 2011-12: Sanctions against Assad’s regime
  • 2012: Troops movement and use of heavy weaponry
  • 2014: Referral of Syrian conflict to ICC
  • 2016: Condemning regime and cease fire for humanitarian assistance.
  • 2017: Against chemical weapon proliferation

All these resolutions have been blocked by either Russia or China. Subsequently, hampered the meaningful initiatives. It was the responsibility of the council to protect Syrian from the autocratic and barbaric system that kill Syrian citizens, blatantly violate human rights and forcefully detain and abduct them, but Security Council has utterly failed (UN, 2019). Moreover, while UN has been unable to verify missing persons’ data, various reports exposed the statistics with more than 100,000 citizens been illegally abducted, detained and disappeared by either Syrian government or armed oppositions groups.

In addition to this, among many other UN officials Carla Del Ponte, a well-known member of UN commission of inquiry on Syrian conflict has also resigned from her designated post and explicitly claimed UNSC a direct culprit of Syrian crises (Nadin, 2017). According to her UNSC has been failed to do something for justice and being the member of UN commission nothing meaningful had been achieved as the were going nowhere.

Henceforth, against these arbitrary abuses and explicit violation of international humanitarian law, justice must be ensured. All in all, it can be said that under article 1 of UN charter United Nation has been failed to establish international peace and in settlement of international disputes in case of breach of peace if Syrian conflict is to be evaluated.

UN Efforts.      Considering mounting violence and massive uprising against Assad’s regime international community raised concerns over Syrian conflict UN despite multiple failures though initiated certain measures to assuage the crises and to put a halt to existing atrocities but question remains whether these initiatives were enough or not.

The United Nations body, human right council on August 2011 established commission of inquiry to evaluate and monitor human right violations. The body alongside general assembly sent out various condemning resolutions for breach of human rights law and call upon Syrian government to abstain from brutal attacks on its citizens (Barrow, 2017).

Similarly, the UNSC has also passed Resolution 2118 in 2013, which called upon Syria to surrender its chemical weapons. In 2014 the council passed resolution 2139 and 2165 to access and ensure humanitarian assistance in Syria (Mahmood & Javed, 2017). Moreover, the council adopted resolution 2042 calling upon ceasefire in 2012 and also hired about 30 observers to monitor the implementation of resolution. UNSC has also adopted resolution 2043, under which UN peace keeping supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) was formed (Barrow, 2017).

Alongside these efforts UN Arab league especial envoy Kofi Anan, spearheaded 6 points plan to resolve the conflict. It includes placement of observer mission in Syria for shorter time period, access to humanitarian assistance and idea for OPCW-UN combined mission in Syria. All these points could bring meaning full results, but council just sidelined it and merely adopted selective resolutions (Nadin, 2017). The UNSC resolution 2254 in year 2015 paved a roadmap to ensure peace in Syria, drafting a schedule for peace talks between government and opposition groups.  In 2016 under resolution 2332 UNSC has also issued approval for interstate aid supply in Syria till 10 of January 2018.

The UN advisers on prevention of genocide has constantly raised their concerns regarding massive violation of human rights in Syria by all national, regional and global actors. They have explicitly criticized widespread aerial attacks on innocent citizens and use of chemical weapons (Mahmood & Javed, 2017). But despite all these condemning statements and Plethora of resolutions adopted by UNSC the perpetuated violence in Syria remains unabated and the conflict is gaining momentum with each passing day.

Way forward. The perpetuator of violence should be held accountable for the infringement of humanitarian law. All groups that are involved in the conflicts should go for unanimous and peaceful solution if they are to achieve lasting peace in Syria. Decisive actions beyond condemnation level should be taken to end the suffering. Under such conditions suggestions put forward by Barrow (2017) should also be considered. These includes:

  • Arms embargo should be imposed on Syria
  • Strict Sanctions should be implemented against those who breach human rights.
  • The case of Syria should be forwarded to international criminal court ICC.

To conclude the entire debate, Syrian have been suffering from aerial attacks, enduring chemical weapons, are starving to death, currency is devaluing at unprecedented rate, access to humanitarian aid is being shamefully restricted by the government and all parties are ignominiously using Syrian land for their vested interest without paying any heed toward innocent lives. What is more appalling and pugnacious in this scenario is the hypocritical role of United Nation as mere condemning statements/ speeches, peacekeeping observers and humanitarian assistance could not and never resolve this intricate conflict. If foreign forces have not been involved in the conflict the situation in Syrian could not have been that much complicated. Hence, until or unless the big powers and Syrian government do not create conducive environment for peace talks between warring parties, then unfortunately, Syria would continue to hold an uncertain future.

AUKUS and the Ruckus It Has Created!

On Sep 15, 2021, Australia, UK and the US (AUKUS) announced a new security partnership that would allow these countries to cooperate and share cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities including the sale of jointly built nuclear-powered submarines to Australia. The new arrangement surprisingly excludes India which may become a source of consternation amongst India’s strategic planners who have struggled hard to remain relevant in the US led Indo-Pacific strategy that aims to contain China. Other than the geopolitical fallout, AUKUS also has the potential to undermine the global nuclear nonproliferation regime. The sale of nuclear-powered submarines to a non-nuclear weapon state could incentivize other countries to engage in a similar trade for their own commercial and political interests thus further weakening the already stressed Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) based nonproliferation regime.

The AUKUS.    The Joint Leaders Statement by Australia, United Kingdom and the US (AUKUS) promises to protect ‘rules-based order’ by deepening diplomatic, security, and defence cooperation in the Indo-pacific region through enhanced trilateral security partnership and by promoting and sharing deeper information and technology, including the nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. For Australia, the acquisition of submarines does not serve any military purpose other than posturing and to demonstrate its allegiance to the US and UK. It would make no sense if Australia employed its military capability to protect trade from a country that is perceived as an adversary and also its largest trading partner.

Nuclear powered submarines are considered sensitive technologies and therefore its sale is restricted under the nonproliferation regime. UK was the only exception that was allowed by the US to acquire nuclear submarines before the recent agreement with Australia. India is another country that had leased nuclear-powered submarines from Russia and subsequently used the same technology to build its own submarines.

To address the proliferation concerns, Australia has committed that it would continue to adhere “to the highest standards for safeguards, transparency, verification, and accountancy measure.” Notwithstanding these assurances, there are risks associated with operating and maintaining nuclear-powered submarines by a country that does not have sufficient expertise in the nuclear fuel cycle services and has no military nuclear program.

Possible US Motives and the French Discontentment.        President Biden’s surprise announcement along with the other two leaders may have been intended to placate growing criticism on his leadership credentials, besides the commercial dividends that are associated with a $40 bn worth AUKUS.

Biden Administration may have hoped that the agreement would divert the focus away from the Afghanistan debacle that has brought humiliation and dented the US image of a credible military power. Instead, AUKUS has triggered another controversy with the global nonproliferation community raising questions about the US and UK’s commitments towards nuclear nonproliferation norms.

Contrary to the US expectations, the new security arrangement that mainly includes non-EU members may also reinforce the perceptions amongst some of the EU partners that they need to have their independent military force. Since France was not consulted by any of the AUKUS partners it feels that it has been ‘back stabbed’, and is, therefore ‘angry and bitter.’ In an unprecedented move, France has also recalled its Ambassadors from the US and Australia.

Interestingly, only a few weeks before the Australian defence and foreign ministers had reconfirmed the deal and the French President had lauded decades of future cooperation when the Australian Prime Minister visited France in June this year. AUKUS may have unravelled all the goodwill between France and the three AUKUS partners with some experts predicting that this would complicate the transatlantic cooperation, and Beijing may be the ultimate beneficiary.

France is also one of the EU members that have advocated for a separate EU army. It would now be more justified in asking the other EU states to consider a separate military force supported by the French nuclear deterrent. The EU was also in the process of unveiling its Indo-Pacific strategy in the next few days under the new French presidency. France could use the opportunity to settle scores and push for a less dependent security partnership with the US, especially when the UK is no more part of the EU.

The Future of Quad!     Another major fall-out of AUKUS could be the uncertain future of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue commonly known as the ‘Quad’ which comprises of four countries – the US, Australia, Japan and India. It was formed in 2004 after the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Over the past few years, this informal arrangement has expanded cooperation in security, economic and health-related issues. While all Quad members have voiced concerns about growing Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region, but other than India, the rest of the Quad members have refrained from pushing to transform it into a formal military alliance.

India’s exclusion from the new security partnership would be a major setback for its security planners. In a short span of one month, this could be seen as a second foreign policy failure after Afghanistan. As an emerging military power, India had also hoped to play a leading role in the US led Indo-Pacific strategy, but it may now find itself struggling to remain relevant in the evolving US-China competition. With Japan and India out of the new security arrangement, the future of Quad remains uncertain.

China’s Response.      China has shown anger and has criticized the US and its allies for “stoking arms race” which it considers is reminiscent of the Cold War mentality. Terming the agreement as “extremely irresponsible” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated that the new alliance “seriously undermines regional peace and stability, aggravates the arms race and hurts international nonproliferation efforts.”

China may not retaliate immediately by offering a similar deal to any of its allies, but if it does, the US and other western countries are in no position to admonish China or the recipient countries. It is more likely that China would use its economic leverage to punish Australia economically since the latter has opted to be part of a formal anti-China military alliance.

The Proliferation Concerns.        Australia is a non-nuclear weapon state and a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Despite possessing one of the world’s largest uranium reserves it has for now refrained from building nuclear weapons and has reiterated its commitment to adhere to the international standards of safety and security of nuclear materials and honour its obligations as a non-nuclear weapon state.

The nuclear-powered submarines (SSN) being acquired by Australia are different from nuclear-capable ballistic missile carrying submarines (SSBN), but it does carry considerable proliferation risks, whether it operates on LEU or HEU based power reactors. Since the US submarines are fuelled by HEU, it is quite likely that the Australian submarines would also use the same material, which incidentally is also used for the building of nuclear weapons. If Australia is allowed to build its own nuclear fuel cycle service to fuel its submarines, there could also be a temptation to acquire nuclear weapons in the future. This may encourage other US allies to demand similar concessions and build their latent nuclear capacity.

Conclusion.     The recently concluded AUKUS has generated an unnecessary ruckus that could have been avoided at a time when US credentials of a world leader are under scrutiny. The Afghan debacle had already perturbed most of its alliance partners and other countries that were working to bring peace and stability to the country but were not consulted by the US before imposing a unilateral decision and withdraw from Afghanistan in a hurry.

The new security arrangement would further alienate its EU partners, especially France that feels betrayed and could push for a more autonomous EU force structure. China, which has reacted angrily to the new development may benefit from the internal fissures within the US led anti-China alliance. It could exploit these differences to build in-roads in the EU while targeting countries like Australia with economic penalties to deter others from joining the US led anti-China alliance. The US that had planned to contain China’s rise may eventually find itself self-contained as a result of the recent policy debacles under the Biden Administration.      

Hong Kong: A Year After the Extradition Law

On the 30th of June, 2020 China imposed a new law on Hong Kong. China’s National Security Law (NSL) went against the independent identity of Hong Kong, subjecting it entirely to the power of Beijing. In the name of criminalizing secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign actors, Beijing declared that it would monitor individuals suspected of these crimes through wiretapping and surveillance. This has led to people fearing being arrested over minor posts, which might be considered anti-government by Beijing, on social media.

Since the law undermined the “one country, two systems” principle and the Basic Law—which allowed Hong Kong to have relative freedom in terms of speech, assembly, judicial power, and democratic rights as compared to mainland China—the influence of Beijing in the affairs of Hong Kongers has reached new heights. Aside from the laws of Beijing taking precedence over those of Hong Kong, the region has also lost its independent judiciary.

The Legislative Council: A Pro-China Entity.    Beijing has completely overhauled Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo). In June 2020, pro-democratic activists and leaders organized unofficial elections at 250 polling stations in Hong Kong, to determine which democratic candidates had the highest prospect of winning in the 2020 LegCo elections. 600,000 people voted in the primaries.

However, once the law was passed, 47 politicians and activists involved in the elections were arrested on charges of subversion. They have been denied bail and face up to life in prison. These unofficial primaries allowed Beijing with the perfect excuse to reform the council, to allow only “patriots” to run the city. Before May 2021, the council had a total of 70 seats, 35 of which were filled by direct elections.

Yet, now, Beijing has increased the number of seats in LegCo to 90 and decreased the directly elected seats to 20, hence, abating the presence of democratically-elected politicians. To further consolidate China’s hold on the council, a pro-Beijing electoral committee will vet these politicians/candidates and determine their degree of Chinese patriotism.

Increasing Arrests under NSL.           While the Communist Party of China defended NSL, citing its significance in countering terrorism and anti-government protests, Hong Kongers viewed it like a noose around their necks.  From July 2020 to  June 2021, 118 people in Hong Kong have been arrested due to the law. The arrested individuals included protesters, pro-democracy politicians, and journalists. Since the 29 of June, 64 people out of those arrested, have been charged for violating the NSL, while the rest are awaiting trials.

Instead of the presumption of innocence, the arrested individuals are presumed guilty at first glance and denied bail. For them, the possibility of bail only exists if they prove to not “commit acts endangering national security”.

The Hong Kong Police: Advocates of Justice or Brutality?   Living in fear of being oppressed and arrested by the police has become a new normal for the people in the region. With many losing faith in the justice system, the police are being viewed as a tyrannical institution forcefully subjugating the people of Hong Kong and imposing the Communist Party’s will.

The Hong Kong Police Force Support Rating indicates that from 2017 to 2020, the public’s police approval has dropped by 30%. In 2017, 66% of Hongkongers supported the police, whereas, in 2020 only 36% of the population endorse it.

Emphasizing the fact that the NSL has propelled Hong Kong on a path to becoming a police state where human rights are pushed to the shadows, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Yamini Mishra, said, “From politics to culture, education to media, the law has infected every part of Hong Kong society and fomented a climate of fear that forces residents to think twice about what they say, what they tweet and how they live their lives. Ultimately, this sweeping and repressive legislation threatens to make the city a human rights wasteland increasingly resembling mainland China.”

According to papers released by the Department of Justice, the Civil Service Bureau, and the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, the Hong Kong police have arrested more than 10,200 people since mid-2019 due to their ties with the anti-government protests deemed as acts of secession, and terrorism.

The Hong Kong police have repeatedly used tear gas and violence against the citizens, regardless of their age, gender, and physical condition. There is not a single person left in Hong Kong who hasn’t known someone arrested or followed by the police.

Hongkongers’ Self-imposed Exile.     The situation in Hong Kong has forced the people into exile. To avoid being included in this number, 322,000 people are expected to leave Hong Kong and settle in the UK in the next five years. In the first 3 months of 2021, 34,000 people applied for visas in the United Kingdom. Apart from the UK, Australia and Canada have received similar requests. If this goes on, the world will be dealing with another refugee crisis.

On top of that, the immense paranoia among Hongkongers due to the police surveillance of communications has led many to believe that even something posted on social media years ago will land them in jail. With their freedom being constrained and their lives hanging by a thread, they see no options but to leave Hong Kong.

Driven out of their homes by fear and for the protection of their loved ones, these exiled Hongkongers see no sign of the conditions improving. Voicing her concern in an interview with Al-Jazeera, Eliz C., a former nurse in Hong Kong and now a UK immigrant, said, “I can’t sleep or even live normally in Hong Kong anymore. It’s not the Hong Kong I knew. My mother doesn’t want me and my brother to die in a place with no freedom, she encouraged us to escape. I know I might never see my mother again before she dies but this is for the best right now.”

Implications for China.           Banning everything pro-democratic—be it elections, protests, films, literature, or social media content—will not prevent individuals from finding alternative platforms to project their opinions. If anything, it will only ruin China’s soft power image.

Hong Kong filmmakers realize that their work on pro-democratic protests or politics will be scrutinized by China but despite that, it can gain international recognition. An example of this is the documentary “Inside the Red Brick Wall” which won the best editing award at the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) but was banned from screening in Hong Kong. This leads to the international community pushing China in a corner and demanding an answer to the allegations of human rights abuses in the city.

While the National Security Law aimed at preventing the secession of Hong Kong and terrorism, the way the law has been implemented has induced more dissent and hatred for the mainland. The sense of injustice created as a result of the Hong Kong police’s conduct has further aggravated the fear among the general public. If this goes on, the Hongkongers will continue to protest for democratic reforms and the secessionist element within the city will intensify. The law provides other states with the space they need to intervene based on humanitarian intervention, no matter what their true intention may be.

Dismantling Global Hindutva (DGH) Conference: A Game-Changer

The unprecedented conference ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ held from 10-12 September 2021 is a game-changer. The purpose of the conference was to bring together leading scholars in South Asian Studies and public commentators on Indian society and politics around the world to discuss the global phenomenon of Hindutva. It aimed to protect the rights of minorities, dissidents, and ordinary people whose very existence is under attack by Hindutva’s proponents. The conference promoted the ideology that universities are designed to foster and protect the principle of academic freedom. The massive campaign of intimidation carried out by Hindutva affiliates was not allowed by the conference organizers to take root in the academia in the US, Europe, or around the world.

The conference was backed by 45 plus departments and centers from 41 universities including Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, University of Chicago, Berkeley, North-Western, etc. They had more than 70 co-sponsoring entities from 53 universities and received a letter of support from over 900 academics across the world. Most of the panelists were Indian academics serving in the elite universities and think tanks in the western world. The organizers received life threats to themselves and their families therefore they decided to remain anonymous. The harassment and intimidation against speakers by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) were reported by all top-notch newspapers. The presenters shared how they received life threats, suspension of their passports and other serious threats to their families by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and RSS supports across the globe to suppress their voice and stay away from the conference. While listening to the speakers’ experiences of revealing threats it was shocking and surprising that India that claims to be a democratic country does not care about academic freedom and basic fundamental rights for its citizens.

Despite a massive campaign of disinformation, threats, torture and attacks the conference was held online. According to the organizers, when the attack began, the conference media department prepared to counter the Hindutva attack. Hence, Vinay Lal (UCLA), Martha Nussbaum (Uni of Chicago) and David Ludden (NYU) came to the front and extended support to address the media concerns regarding the event.

The question is what is Hindutva and where it emerged from? The term Hindutva came in the 19th century. Its narrative is deeply rooted in Brahmanism and is the offspring of Hindusim. Its strategy is based on violence, hatred, terrorism and is an enemy to democracy. Existing Hindutva is resistant to castism. The supporters of Hindutva ideology use different means to achieve the objectives.

Hindutva has emerged from the RSS that is an Indian right-wing Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organization founded in 1925 by K.B Hedgewar. In 2020, RSS had almost 585,000 members and over 57,000 branches, including a trade union wing (Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh), women’s wing (Rashtriya Sevika Samiti), student wing (Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad), and economic wing (Swadeshi Jagaran Manch). The Print, which is a well reputed Indian news outlet estimates that 3 out of the 4 ministers in the ruling BJP are members of the RSS, including the current Prime Minister, Narendra Modi.

Here the issue is why is India under Modi scared from such an academic venture like DGH? Also, what were the biggest fears of BJP and RSS from the DGH conference? The conference was comprised of scholars, journalists, and activists from around the world who examined the historical development of Hindutva, the fascist dimensions of its ideology, its alignment with other supremacist movements and defined all that is at stake across a range of political, socio-cultural, and economic issues. The presenters unveiled the atrocities and pain caused by RSS both within and outside India.

At the DGH conference, the speaker Gyan Prakash, Christophe Jaffrelot, Meena Kandasamy, Anand Patwardhan talked about what is global Hindutva and how it poses threats to minorities, women and Muslims. The political economy of Hindutva was uncovered by Jens Lerche, Pritam Singh and Vamsi Vakulbharnaman. How Hindutva exploits castism was discussed by Gajendran Ayyathurani, Meena Dhanda and Bhanwar Megawanshi. The way Hindutva use rape as a weapon to exploit politics was examined by Leena Manimekalai, Akansha and P. Sivakami. The contours of the nation were explored by Mohammad Junaid, Arkotong Longkumer, Yasmin Saika and Nandini Sundar. How Hindutva under Modi mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic and posed a serious threat to Indian people, science and healthcare were discussed by Meera Nanda, Kavita Sivaramakrishnan and Banu Subramanian. The infamous Hindutva fake news propaganda campaign was unveiled by Cyril Sam and Salil Tripathi. The difference between Hindusim and violent Hindutva were explored by Raja Bhattar, Brij Maharaj and Sunita Vishwanath. Last but not the least Islamophobia, White supremacy and Hindutva were brought to light by Anjali Arondekar, Demetrius Eudell and Deepa Kumari. The members from the Feminist Critical Studies Collective had a good representation at the conference.

It is worth mentioning that all speakers came from the top twenty most elite universities in the world. They were on high profile designations and well known in their respective field of expertise. From Hindutva extremist ideology to ill-treatment of the women, transgender issues, minority exploitation, extreme policies towards Muslims both within and outside India, violation of the rights of Kashmiris and overall violation of the basic fundamental rights of Indian academics, medical practitioners and so on. The list is quite huge to be shared here.

In a nutshell, the conference highlighted that RSS under Modi is the largest organized extremist hate group in the world. It draws its inspiration from Nazi ideology and Italian fascism. Its guiding principle is to transform India from a secular democracy to a religious state where Muslims, Christians and other religious minorities are relegated to a second-class citizenship. In the name of Hindutva, the current government of India has instituted discriminatory policies including beef bans, restrictions on religious conversion and interfaith weddings and the introduction of religious discrimination into India’s citizenship laws. These measures led to a horrifying rise in religious and caste-based violence, including hate crimes, lynching and rapes directed against Muslims, non-confirming Dalits, Sikhs, Christians, Adivasis and other dissident Hindus. Women of these communities are specially targeted. Modi government has used every tool of harassment and intimidation to muzzle dissent. Dozens of student activists and human rights defenders are currently languishing in jail indefinitely without due process under the repressive anti-terrorism law.

In response to DGH, the RSS launched ‘Dismantling Global Islamic Jihad’ on 11 September 2021. That shows the RSS cunningness, intolerance and hatred towards Muslims, minorities, human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of academics. The DGH conference has rightly concluded that India has moved away from a secular state that it inherited to a purely Hindutva state where only Hindutva decides whom India will love or hate! Hence Indian democracy is designed to serve only Hindutva, not the common Indian citizens!

US Withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Emergence of Neo-Taliban: Lessons for Indian Afghan Policy

The US withdrawal from Afghanistan resulted from the historical Doha Agreement signed between Taliban leadership and the Biden administration on February 29, 2020. The four pages document, in three parts, laid down a complete plan of American withdrawal from Afghanistan. The drafted agreement outlined a complete withdrawal of mainly all US military forces, allies, and coalition partners from Afghanistan. The agreed framework of withdrawal became a historical document due to its significant impact on global power politics generally and South Asian regional politics particularly. The leading circles of international academic communities have marked the agreement as a critical international development that poses various questions on the American global standing.

The withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s retake of Kabul have translated globally as an American defeat in the ‘graveyard of the empires’. President Biden’s decision of hasty withdrawal plan re-validated the international community’s claims for calling Afghanistan a ‘graveyard of empires’. While analysing Washington’s losing geostrategic interests in the ‘graveyard of empires’, the international community has preferred to dub this scenario as an open defeat of the US due to the re-emergence of the Taliban. Parallel to the American evacuation plan, President Ashraf Ghani left his government in Kabul and increased the chances of chaos and disorder in Afghanistan. The UAE government accommodated the exiled President Ghani on humanitarian grounds, whereas his absenteeism became an opportunity for local Taliban and internationally recognised as Taliban victory. It is considered internationally the end of the two-decade-long intra-state conflict that compelled the US to abandon global counter terror campaign, which had already failed in Iraq.    

The defeat of the US or the victory of the Taliban has more significant implications for the broader South Asian region generally and the India-Pakistan conflict specifically. The Indian involvement in the domestic affairs of Afghanistan always remained a major hurdle in restoring peace in Afghanistan. Indian active role in Afghanistan, cemented in broader anti-Pakistani agenda, always tried to keep Afghan land an appropriate ground for crafting various anti-Pakistani clandestine activities. Indian Afghan policy purely pursuing an anti-Pakistani approach is fundamentally designed by New Delhi to keep Kabul diplomatically away from Islamabad.

The quest for weakening Pakistan’s position led New Delhi to cultivate cooperative ties with Kabul to disturb Pakistan’s ties with its immediate Afghan neighbour. New Delhi’s mainstream pattern of Afghan policy primarily revolves around its hostility towards Pakistan. With the support of the US, the Indian leadership dramatically increased its investment in Afghan society under the broader framework of numerous anti-Pakistani thoughts. In this way, the Indian Afghan policy, which became successful under the presence of US military troops, was primarily designed to remain Pakistan-Afghanistan relations disturbed and stressed. The contemporary scenario changed the situation dramatically due to India’s weakening covert anti-Pakistani campaign in Afghanistan. The promotion of anti-Pakistani sentiment has become a difficult task for India with the US evacuation plan.

The post-America Afghanistan is intended to hamper the conventional patterns of New Delhi’s multi-layered collaboration with Kabul under the shadows of Washington. In this way, the American plan to leave Afghanistan in the ashes of its global war on terror and the Taliban’s quest to manage their own country peacefully have undermined the fundamental structure of Indian Afghan policy.

As the result of American plans of evacuating from Afghan land, the re-emergence of the Taliban in Kabul and their success in securing Afghan land against foreign interventions have alarmed Indian security establishment. Taliban’s plans for developing an independent Islamic government without foreign interventions have further jeopardised the Indian role in Afghanistan. Therefore, Indian leaders need to redefine New Delhi’s Afghan policy because the emergence of neo-Taliban in Afghanistan has challenged the conventional wisdom attached to the traditional concept of Taliban. While keeping in mind the changing dynamics of South Asian regional politics under the influence of great power politics, Indian leaders need to redefine the fundamental framework of New Delhi’s Afghan policy based on the following lessons.

One – post-America Afghanistan has added a new chapter in the history of Kabul due to the rise of an upgraded version of the Taliban and their improved mindset. The recent reports on their expansion after US departure has repeatedly mentioned that the neo-Taliban have moved away from their traditional strict political rule and stringent societal restrictions. Based on the contemporary peaceful political power shift in Kabul, it can easily be maintained that the new political climate of Afghanistan will commence a new phase of the Afghan nation under the reformed ideology of neo-Taliban. Under the neo-Taliban, Afghanistan’s determination for not allowing anyone to use their land against territorially adjoining nations will start various multi-layered positive developments in Afghanistan. The determination of new leadership for securing Afghan land against foreign forces has become a serious challenge for Indian Afghan policy. So, an active New Delhi’s Afghan policy, designed to promote countless anti-Pakistan sentiments in the Afghan nation, will not be an advantageous future strategy for India.

Two – the emergence of neo-Taliban will introduce Afghanistan as a formidable power against external intervention. It will not allow anyone to use Afghan land as an appropriate place for a proxy war. The Indian critical evaluation of the new Sharia government in Kabul raised several of New Delhi’s reservations on establishing an Islamic government in Afghanistan. An anxious feeling of contemporary Indian government has labelled the Taliban’s Afghanistan as an ’empire of terror’, which is witnessing a temporary phase of a purely ideological takeover of Kabul. Instead of negatively viewing the arrival of neo-Taliban in Kabul and their intention for creating an Islamic state, New Delhi needs to seriously realise the potential of the Afghan government under neo-Taliban where a positive engagement of New Delhi with the new leadership in Kabul will produce various positive outcomes more than its conventional anti-Pakistan Afghan policy. So, New Delhi needs to learn its strategic failure in Afghanistan while reforming its Afghan policy on positive lines.  

Three – Afghanistan-Pakistan-India triangle can develop a cooperative framework cemented in different formats of bilateral relations between three neighbours instead of destroying the vision of a politically stable Afghanistan. The conventional patterns of New Delhi’s Afghan policy rooted in an anti-Pakistani obsession will not be a favourable choice for India in future. Thus, Indian leadership is required to rationally study Pakistan’s vision of peace in Afghanistan and its geographical proximity to the Afghan nation. These two elements have increased the scope of the Islamabad-Kabul cooperative neighbourhood approach, which New Delhi could not overlook. So, the Indian leadership is required to adopt a constructive Afghan policy free from its anti-Pakistani thoughts.

Four – New Delhi aims to deepen strategic cooperation with the US, increase trade volume with China, and grow strategic inclinations towards Russia will no longer be the preferred choice for Indian foreign policy. On the question of Afghanistan, Indian leadership is required to realise the potential of changing regional dynamics, in which the international community has identified the Indian negative role in Afghanistan through various authentic channels. Evidencing from the multilateral meetings for addressing Afghanistan quagmire, the leaders of different nations tried to keep India out of Afghan peace debates. In contrast to New Delhi, Islamabad’s role has been appreciated internationally for restoring Afghan peace. The international community considered Pakistan as an appropriate facilitator in resolving the Afghan quagmire positively. In this way, the international community would probably expect Indian to adopt a productive approach for Afghanistan beyond the influences of its regional bellicose. While sharing Islamabad’s vision for supporting peace in Afghanistan, New Delhi should alter its conventional strategy for opposing the peaceful settlement of the Afghan issue. Thus, the Indian Afghan policy should be structured on the principles of peace and stability instead of designing it on centuries-old outdated and offensive strategic thoughts.

Five – Neo-Taliban’s pragmatic visualisation of the changing great power politics resulted in their bilateral meetings with Beijing and Moscow. Apart from discussing in Moscow the scope of a peaceful and stable political order in Afghanistan, the contemporary leadership of the Taliban decided to meet Chinese state authorities has been labelled as the increasing diplomatic power of neo-Taliban in the world. Thus, the Taliban’s updated approach for managing cooperative ties formally with the international community will force the Indian government to positively view the political reforms in Afghanistan in the post-US withdrawal scenario.     

Therefore, New Delhi’s positive appreciation of the peaceful settlement of the government in Kabul will refine the Indian position in its home region. It will let Indian leaders overhaul New Delhi’s traditional Afghan policy. It will also force New Delhi to alter its foreign relations with Kabul according to the changing dynamics of post-America Afghanistan. Under neo-Taliban’s Afghanistan, the Indian government will be compelled to change the main course of its Afghan policy. In this way, an impartial and rational revision of Indian Afghan policy will reduce New Delhi’s strategic choices on the one hand. On the other hand, it will enhance the scope of peace of stability in the broader South Asian region. It will specifically allow the new Afghan leadership to independently manage their foreign relations with the territorially adjoining nations and the world beyond neighbours.   

Nuclear Deterrence and Stability in South Asia: Perceptions and Realities

Pakistani and Indian nuclear capabilities are the key pillars for ensuring peace and security in the region – duly acknowledged by the two states in 2004. Pakistan’s proposal of Strategic Restraint Regime (SRR) calling for deterrence stability and a peaceful resolution of all outstanding disputes offers a comprehensive proposal for achieving durable peace in the region. A London-based think tank, International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) recently examined the evolving dynamics of nuclear deterrence and stability in South Asia.

The experts have emphasized taking up the proposed nuclear Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) between India and Pakistan. Such proposals gain salience in the prevailing regional security environment where India has shunned engagement in any meaningful and result-oriented dialogue with Pakistan to resolve outstanding disputes or build confidence and ameliorate nuclear risk.  

There is a lurking danger of misperceptions and miscalculations leading to nuclear use in South Asia. Most Western experts tend to miss India’s nuclear brinkmanship and under-appreciate the irresponsible behavior moving in the direction of comprehensive first-strike capability and seeking space for a hybrid war under nuclear overhang.  At the peak of February 2019 Kashmir crisis, Hindustani leadership issued jingoistic statements and even deployed nuclear submarine. The religiously fundamental government threatened the use of nuclear weapons despite publicly maintaining a No First Use (NFU) policy. This underscores the need to develop more nuclear CBMs in anticipation of dispute resolution.

After a decade of Western and Indian denial about Cold Start Doctrine, the IISS primer finally acknowledges it – Pakistan was not responding to a myth. Since Pakistan took credible measures to deter operationalization of the CSD, even the IISS questioned the doctrine’s viability. It is heartening to see that experts propose that India should reassess the strategic implications associated with the development of hypersonic missiles because the short “launch-to-impact interval that could leave no time for the defending side’s leadership to assess and mitigate the threat.”

India is known to be struggling with the technological glitches within its Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system and the problem of integrating the imported technology with other foreign supplied military hardware. There are still misperceptions on the related issue of Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle (MIRV) technology. Western experts easily assume that Indian pursuit of MIRV capability is solely aimed at China but it contradicts Indian NFU pledge. An informed reader would seek greater insights into the Indian rationale for development of MIRVs given Chinese lack of interest in a BMD system.

Pakistan doesn’t believe in India’s NFU pledge. However, Western experts tend to discuss the potential revision of NFU policy. Several statements, including the one by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh in 2019 indicate that India’s conditional NFU policy might change in the future.

Since nuclear risk exists in South Asia, it is important for both countries to pay heed to the fifteen nuclear CBMs proposed in the primer. These could soften some grounds, paving long-term solutions for peace and stability in South Asia.

As pointed out by experts, both sides can consider reviving an ‘uninterrupted backchannel’ to resolve outstanding issues. New CBMs or official/semi-official dialogues related to nuclear issues can also be carried forward. Likewise, both sides can first develop common grounds on avoiding accidents.

Given the recent incident of theft of nuclear materials in India, the ideas like establishment of cooperative border-management measures to interdict trafficking of nuclear materials are worth greater scrutiny. Likewise, an agreement on initiating strategic dialogue between government-affiliated think tanks could break some ice.

It is interesting to note that the Western experts overlook the destabilizing role that some extra-regional players have played by strengthening Indian military capabilities and justify it either as efforts to contain China or merely as a business enterprise. India is the second largest arms-importer in the world and Russia, France, Israel and U.S.  are the top four arms suppliers for years. Closing the spigots on technology on India could outdo the proposed CBMs in South Asia. If the West runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds, the peace in South Asia shall remain a chimera.