Sports have great potential for the promotion of inter-provincial harmony and national integration in Pakistan by strengthening the collective identity of the alienated segments of the society. Sports are a formidable force at the national level which positively contribute to the formation of national identity. Sports provide a medium for interaction and cultural exchange to the people of diverse regions and different cultural backgrounds for exchange of experiences which promote mutual understanding and strengthen sentiments of solidarity among them. National solidarity is the sense of unity and inclusiveness shared by diverse segments of a composed political entity. It is an important source of national integration as identified by Ibn-e-Khaldun in his work ‘Muqadamma’ which is a preface to his voluminous research on the science of history and society. Khaldun called it ‘Asabiyya’ which is a concept of social solidarity. This social solidarity gets strengthen in those societies where adequate social and economic justice mechanisms are provided for the welfare of masses.
Since its inception, Pakistan has faced the challenge of national integration due to the multiplicity of factors. Founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah envisioned Pakistan as a separate democratic homeland for Muslims to be run on principles of Islamic ideas of social justice and equality. Pakistan became a reality for the inhabitants of the Muslim-majority areas in the sub-continent in 1947. The theory of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his Muslim League perceived the Muslims of India to be a distinct “Muslim Nation”, opposed to a “Hindu Nation” in the shape of “Two-Nation-Theory.” Pakistan inherited a wide variety of ethnic and linguistic groups and subgroups, which had very little in common besides being Muslim. Presence of national and diverse regional languages along with diverse ethnic identities constituted a heterogeneous state. The founding fathers hence had to make Pakistan into a “Nation“, to integrate the several ethnic groups into a national community – without over-emphasizing on the bondage (religion) they had in common. This challenge still exists which needs an innovative approach for its solution.
Pakistan is still facing challenges of national integration in the face of growing sentiments of ethno nationalism. Therefore, the need to promote Asabhiya through non-conflicting and apolitical ventures such as sports has vital significance for Pakistan. Pakistan is blessed with a diversity of people belonging to different cultures and regions. Thus, the government needs to play an instrumental role in promoting mutual understanding among people of different regions of Pakistan through the promotion of common sports among them. Organization of sports events and patronization of sports activities at the interprovincial levels can offer the best venue for it. Pakistan needs to expand its project of national integration from the ideological spectrum to the spheres of social and economic justice.
Sports can be a mechanism for the provision of social and economic justice to deprived classes to address their grievances. Ministries of Sports at the national and provincial level need to formulate a national sports engagement framework for the organization of sports activities across the country. This will promote positive competition and heathy activity among people of Pakistan as well as encourage youth for involvement in sports. According to economic survey of Pakistan 2019-20, Pakistan’s 64% population falls under the category of youth. This youth bulge is a blessing, as well as a challenge for Pakistan, depends on the management of this resource by the government. Government of Pakistan needs to make a timely intervention to effectively channelize this potential as a demographic dividend. Sports have played a crucial role in the development of societies since time immemorial.
Cricket is the most celebrated sport in Pakistan. This is also the most lucrative sport in the country as the state provides consistent patronization to this sport in the form of Pakistan cricket Board (PCB). Hockey is the national support of Pakistan but it lacks patronization at the national level. The fate of football is gloomier as compared to Hockey. This is the condition of national outdoor sports. Indoor sports are not sufficiently encouraged and promoted at the state level which manifests from the lack of participation of national teams in the international events of indoor games. The situation for regional supports is also deplorable which demands great attention from national and provincial governments.
Federal and provincial governments need to promote regional supports as a public engagement tool in the respective domains of different sports. This will attract mass participation in regional sports activities. Resource constraint is another major factor in the lacklustre performance of national and provincial governments. The country’s sports sector got a meagre share in the Federal Budget 2020-21 as only two new schemes worth Rs 595 million that are related to preparation and holding of South Asian Games have been made part of the budgetary documents. Governments need to allocate more funds for the promotion of sports activities in the backward areas of KP, Gilgit Baltistan, AJK, Sindh and Baluchistan for the involvement of youth in sports.
The youth of these regions consider development in Punjab at the cost of consumption their resources which creates irritants in interprovincial coordination and discord national integration efforts. If these opportunities are not provided to the already alienated people of these economically deprived areas for national inclusion than it can push them toward extremism and anti-state activities. Therefore, critical infrastructure and transparency in opportunities required for sports activities in these peripheral areas must be provided to the indigenous of these regions because ensuring provision of social and economic Justice can only create dividends for national integration in Pakistan in its true sense.
The term ‘genocide’ is used and perceived in many ways with varying criteria on what passes as genocide. It depends on the individual but in this article, the meaning will be that of the common understanding among scholars and academics: the deliberate killing of a large group of people belonging to a specific ethnicity, race, religion or nationality.
India is home to multiple religions, ethnicities, and races, out of which the predominant are the Hindus, making up 79% of the population. Other minorities which are also quite considerable in number are Muslims who make up 14.2% of the population, while 2.3% are Christians, and 1.72% are Sikhs.
Since independence, India’s history has been quite complex. One of the greatest icons of independence as well as peace, Mahatama Gandhi, was killed by a Hindu fanatic. The country’s only woman Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was killed by a Sikh. In India, Sikhs have met their fair share of persecution at the hands of the state. Hindu extremist groups have targeted other minorities like Christians and Dalits. However, the real beef was with the Muslims.
The complex history as well as emergence of Hindu nationalism are some factors among others which contributed much to tilt India toward its present path – the path of genocide. Many people across the world, even Muslims in India, disagree with this notion. Their argument is that the situation is not as bad as it is being portrayed and they question how it would be possible to kill more than 200 million people.
It is a valid argument if they had not overlooked one very important point: genocides do not happen overnight. It is as the celebrated Indian writer Arundhati Roy said during an interview with Mehdi Hassan on the Intercept, “Any expert on history of genocide will tell you that genocide isn’t something that just happens one Sunday morning. There is a huge cultural preparation where a community is dehumanized, profiled (etc).”
If we just turn a discerning eye towards history, we will start to see it. Excluding the Hindu-Muslim riots of 1947, the first time when the state was used against the Muslims was when the Indian military was deployed to Indian side of Kashmir to put down an insurgency against the Indian rule. There is little need to mention how many bodies were buried, how many people are missing, how many loved ones had to cry, or how many atrocities were committed. The point to be made here is that the military deployment in Kashmir was the first time when state powers were unleashed upon a specific community. Furthermore, it need not be mentioned how the defenders of the state were above the law in Kashmir during that time and even now.
The scope widened when in 2002, Muslims were massacred in the Indian state of Gujrat when Hindu extremists ruthlessly killed innocent Muslims. In addition to that horrifying event, the Chief Minister of the time, who is now the Prime Minister of India, did not do so much as order law enforcement agencies to stop the violence or even act against the extremists and bring them to justice. Kashmir is considered an autonomous region with only a select few areas like defence, foreign affairs and communication in the hands of the central government. However, Gujrat was India’s own territory, the Muslims there were full citizens who were protected by India’s secular constitution.
Fast forward to 2014, the ground realities hit a new low with cases of violence against minorities rising. Muslims were beaten up, tortured, and brutally murdered. In some cases, the killings were over beef consumption or even suspected beef consumption. Destruction and vandalizing of mosques also happened with not even a whisper of condemnation from the BJP government.
But it did not stop there. After the 2019 elections and before the municipal elections, the BJP did not even attempt to mask the hostility and hatred towards Muslims. Party candidates like Kapil Mishra openly and publicly passed appalling comments that incited violence. Such a scenario was seen perhaps for the first time in India’s history.
The BJP also made changes to the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the controversial Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB). Never has there been a bill in India’s history which so starkly targeted a minority as the CAB. Let’s not forget to mention the time when the sitting Home Minister Amit Shah called Muslim migrants, ‘termites’. Work on detention camps has already started. The workers, some of whom are Muslims, cannot help but wonder whether they will also be detained there as well.
In terms of the peaceful protests to the controversial bill, police brutalities on university students were there for everyone to see. Despite the protestors, most of whom were Muslim, not having broken any law is reminiscent of the path that India is treading. Then there is also the vigilante violence against Muslims in the northeast of Delhi. All of this happened as the leader of the free world was at a stadium packed with 100,000 people in Ahmedabad.
Covid-19 did not help. Muslims were advertised by the government as well as mainstream media as super spreaders of corona. Tales of Corona Jihad were told by a BJP Member of Parliament Anantkumar Hegde on Facebook.
A gathering of the Tableeghi Jamaat of Islam was going on when PM Modi announced the lockdown. So when the lockdown came into effect, they were assembled in a limited space in large numbers. Hence, the term ‘corona spreader’ was tagged on the members of the Tableeghi Jamaat. This happened despite there being even bigger gatherings in Hindu temples. This situation is quite similar to when the Nazis used the typhus disease to stigmatize Jews. It is frightening that the Indian government is using the coronavirus to stigmatize Muslims.
Keeping in mind these chain of events, it leaves little doubt as to the direction in which India is heading. We can hope against hope that the situation in India will get better; hope that it regains its status of a secular state, if it ever was one, as the world’s biggest democracy, making it safe to live there for the millions of minorities. However, as much as we would like to believe India will get better, the ground realities say something different. The ball is in the global court now. It is up to the international community whether they want to keep things as they are or take action. Dissuading India from the path of genocide seems to be a plausible option unless the world wants to witness the biggest crisis in human history. Then it is another matter entirely.
Nuclear posture is the confluence of a state’s overall military structure, command and control, rules and procedures of employment and targeting, and the physical characteristics of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. If nuclear doctrine represents the declaratory stance of a state regarding nuclear forces, then nuclear posture dictates the operational axis of nuclear forces. Nuclear postures can be classified into several categories and, unlike nuclear doctrines, can provide crucial information regarding the behavior of states which either have not declared their nuclear prowess or in the process of developing nuclear capability. Vipin Narang has formulated the term catalytic posture to represent the posture of state with undeclared or ambiguous nuclear prowess, and he has applied the same terminology to describe the posture which Pakistan maintained throughout its covert nuclearization phase, i.e. 1974-1998. As per Vipin, catalytic posture involves the military or diplomatic intervention of a third party – often the United States – on the behalf of the allied state which is facing a significant threat to its vital interests and has ambiguous nuclear capability. The catalytic posture is, thus, based upon preconditions: first, the state’s nuclear program is either in the developmental phase or the initial phase of maturity; and second, the state must have a considerably warm relationship with a major power that can provide patronage at the time of crisis.
The strategic calculations of Pakistan altered significantly after the 1971 Indo-Pak war. The loss of its eastern flank and the failure of an intervention on part of the international community created the realization within the governing apparatus that Pakistan, as a sovereign state, could no longer rely on security commitments provided by global powers and instead needed a nuclear deterrent of its own for its security requirements. The Indian nuclear test in 1974 – the so called Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE), proved New Delhi’s ambitions of nuclear weaponization and further catalyzed the progression of Pakistan’s nuclear program.
For the development of nuclear weapon technology, Pakistan followed a dual approach and henceforth established two institutes, i.e. the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), which followed the route of Plutonium Re-processing technology; and the Kahuta Research Laboratories (KRL), which adopted the path of Uranium Enrichment technology for weapons development. This dual approach allowed Pakistan to simultaneously pursue two different routes of nuclear weaponization.
In the late 80s, the Soviet-Afghan war and the subsequent joint participation of the United States and Pakistan reinforced the Pak-U.S. relationship. From a security perspective, the warmth of the relationship benefited Pakistan in two primary ways. On one hand, Pakistan acquired modern conventional weapons from the U.S., and on the other it utilized the political cover of the Ronald Regan administration to mature its nuclear program using the strategy of sheltered pursuit. Sheltered pursuit is a nuclear proliferation strategy which is followed by a hedger state to advance a nuclear weaponization program using the political and strategic cover of a patron state. This efficient strategy has, so far, been successfully executed by Pakistan and Israel using the United States as a patron. The Regan administration, admiring of the Zia regime’s contribution to the Soviet-Afghan war, was under the impression that it was ‘killing two birds with one stone’, i.e. by supplying advanced conventional weapons to Pakistan, it was denying the need for Islamabad to consider unconventional defenses.
In 1986, India initiated the multi-phase Brasstacks military exercise and deployed nine army divisions in the Rajasthan and Punjab sectors in combat posture. The apparent Indian political ambition was to use this combat exercise as a tool to coerce Pakistan into abandoning its support for the Khalistan insurgency in Indian Punjab. At the time India initiated Brasstacks, the Indian army had already raised 26 armored regiments and had a numerical advantage of 2:1 against the Pakistan army. The mainstay of the Indian armored corps was the Soviet-origin T-72M tank which was superior to any tank type within Pakistan’s arsenal. The Pakistan army had advanced anti-tank defenses and fire support assets supplied by the United States, but with the Soviet Union on the Western front and India on the Eastern front, Pakistan’s armed forces were overstretched. Similarly, the qualitative edge of the Pakistan Air Force F-16 Blk15 fleet had been matched by the Indian Air Force which first procured the Mirage-2000H from France and then the Mig-29 Fulcrum from the Soviet Union. Henceforth, despite receiving military support from the United States, Pakistan’s conventional forces were still not in a position to conventionally deter the numerically superior and qualitatively matched Indian armed forces.
The Chief of the Indian Army, Gen. K. Sundarji, was reportedly acting autonomously beyond the commands of New Delhi, and there was growing ambiguity regarding the final objectives of such a large-scale exercise. As per Lt. Gen. P. N. Hoon, who was then heading the Indian Army Western Command, “Brasstacks was no military exercise. It was a plan to build up a situation for a fourth war with Pakistan.”
The options available to Pakistan were limited and complex. On one side Gen. Zia had to abide by his commitments with Washington that Islamabad would not develop a nuclear bomb, and on other side, deterrence was necessary to thwart any possible Indian offense. Although by March 1984 both the PAEC and KRL had cold-tested nuclear weapon designs, a credible delivery platform was absent. Theoretically, these nuclear devices were deliverable by C-130 Hercules aircraft operated by the Pakistan Air Force, but these cargo aircrafts were highly vulnerable to enemy air interceptors and air defense systems. Therefore, it can be claimed that at the height of the Brasstacks crisis, Pakistan was still a latent nuclear state as it lacked a credible nuclear payload delivery system; moreover, its ability to actually detonate a nuclear weapon was uncertain – at least in the eyes of the Indian establishment. Above all, an assertive display of nuclear capability for deterring India would have created a major rift in Pak-U.S. relations – something which was neither in the interests of Pakistan nor of the United States. There was also growing concern within Pakistan’s leadership circles that India might exploit the crisis for triggering a conflict and use that to pre-emptively strike Pakistan’s nascent nuclear infrastructure – a move akin to Israel’s air strikes on Iraq’s Osiriq nuclear plant.
Pakistan’s responsive strategy, despite all the complexities involved, was well-calculated and it delivered the requisite results. On one side, Pakistan counter-deployed its armed forces, and on the other it increased the scale of activities linked with nuclear proliferation as a sign of resolve that Pakistan would exercise all options – the ones already at its disposal as well as the ones which could be made available in near future – to safeguard its sovereignty from external threats. These visible activities were perceived by United States as a possible shift within Pakistan’s nuclear policy, meant to address the security challenges posed by India’s assertive deployments. The result, as per Washington’s perception, would have been nuclear proliferation by Pakistan to get the weapon ready as soon as possible to credibly deter India-centric threats. The entire situation compelled Washington to intervene with diplomatic efforts for de-escalating the Indo-Pak crisis. Chari, Cheema and Cohen have summarized Pakistan’s strategy as such: “American intervention came in as they were worried about changes in Pakistan’s nuclear status that would lead to termination of American military sales and other forms of aid, directly endangering the war efforts in Afghanistan.” Moreover, “Pakistan’s nuclear threats fit into a larger Pakistani strategy: that of linking its own nuclear program with an American commitment to defend Islamabad from an Indian attack.”
Nonetheless, the combined effect of American diplomatic efforts and Gen. Zia’s cricket diplomacy finally settled the crisis, which had been at its peak in January 1987, by the end of February the same year. The U.S. Ambassador John Dean was tasked to act as a moderator to ensure the orderly removal of security forces from both sides of the border. The Brasstacks crisis was the very first litmus test of Pakistan’s strategic framework involving the combination of a nuclear deterrent and diplomatic projection for crisis management. It provided insight into how the nuclear forces can be used to formulate a certain nuclear posture according to threat perceptions, and how that posture then affects the course and termination of any major security crisis. The Brasstacks exercise also highlighted the vulnerability of nascent nuclear capability against the superior conventional prowess of an adversary and proved the importance of conventional defenses – which can, not only better deter low-end conflicts, but also supplement the credibility of the nuclear deterrent for thwarting high-end conflicts. For Pakistan, the need of credible delivery options was realized as the lack of a potent delivery system was the core reason why the Indian leadership had not been deterred by Pakistan’s nascent nuclear prowess, and had instead required the patronage of the United States in crisis dissolution. The learnings of the Brasstacks crisis were applied during the Kashmir crisis (1990) when Pakistan successfully deterred India, predominantly due to its nuclear posture, despite the bitter Islamabad-Washington relations in the wake of the Pressler Amendment.
The whole world is eyeing the new economic and strategic partnership between Iran and China. According to a report in the New York Times, the agreement is worth 400 billion dollars under which Iran will provide oil to China at cheap prices for the next 25 years; in return, China will invest a huge amount to build the weakened Iranian economy and infrastructure. Moreover, China will cooperate with Iran in the technological, industrial, energy and scientific sectors. This is a significant breakthrough for the Iranian economy which is under severe strain due to US sanctions.
A few days after the agreement was announced, Iran declared India would be removed from the Chabahar project. India was to build a railway track from Chabahar to Zahedan, but due to the Modi’s regime failure to provide funds for the project, Iran has undertaken it on its own. These recent developments between Iran and China have major implications for regional politics as well.
Back in 2016, China and India both offered to invest in Iran. India was probably keen to invest because at that time, Iran and the US were looking to reach on a deal regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But Indian interests regarding investment in Iran decreased over the years. This is likely due to Trump having withdrawn from the JCPOA, and India could not afford American displeasure. On the other hand, China availed the opportunity and engaged Iran with a huge economic investment and geo-strategic partnership. China’s increased influence in East Asia and Africa has successfully challenged the American hegemonic status; by engaging Iran, China aims to open a new battlefield against the US in the Middle East too. The Iran-China economic and geo-strategic partnership impacts not only the US but also the latter’s allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The deal has created a win-win situation for both partners, bringing Iran out of economic isolation while also allowing China to level a real threat against US dominance in the world. The economic pressure built on Iran by US sanctions will decrease to a large extent due to this bilateral agreement. Due to Trump’s harsh policies, foreign investment in Iran had almost ceased, but the recent agreement can speed up the developmental process in Iran. Iran has faced some serious security threats from enemy states like Israel, something this strategic partnership will go a long way towards addressing in terms of security. At the same time, China will able be able to leverage the gas and oil products from Iran to positively impact its Belt and Road Initiative.
The recent deal has no fruitful consequences for India and can only hurt India’s interests in the region. A few years ago, Iran was the major state exporting oil to India, but India stopped this due to US sanctions. India’s investment in Chabahar port, which was of strategic importance for it, was aimed at countering the Gwadar port of Pakistan. Now, the presence of China severely curbs benefits to India’s policy in the region.
India has traditionally followed a non-alignment policy in international conflicts. But in recent years, the ultra-nationalist approach of Modi’s regime has impacted its foreign policy. It seems that India is going into the US bloc in having backed from several Iranian projects. India should realize that the conflicts between Iran and the US, China and the US, and the US and Russia are not its conflicts, and should focus more on its self-interest.
Pakistan can utilize the recent situation to further push India into a blind alley. This deal has significant effects for Pakistan in a number of ways. For instance, in the past India has used Iranian soil against Pakistan; the spy Kulbhushan Jadhav was also sent to Pakistan from Iran. Moreover, Pakistan has shown India used Iranian grounds for fomenting the insurgency in Baluchistan; therefore, the removal of India from certain major projects in Iran is a breakthrough for Pakistan. Pakistan realizes that a decreased Indian presence on Iranian soil is directly proportional to peace and stability in Pakistan. In this regard, Pakistan should adopt a proactive approach towards Iran and ensure smooth relations, especially in terms of the futures of the Chabahar and Gwadar ports. Gwadar is a flagship project of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor and China aims to invest in Chabahar port; so Pakistan can work towards making both ports complement each other. Pakistan can capitalize on China-Iran nexus for not only improving its weak economic conditions but can also further Indian isolation in the region. For this, Pakistan needs to engage regional stakeholders more and capitalize on areas where India has shown weakness.
Last week thousands of people protested in Berlin against coronavirus restrictions–mandatory masks, social distancing and limited gatherings. Many in the affluent western European state regard the curbs imposed to contain the spread of the virus as an attack on their freedom. How unbearable and frustrating it would have gotten for the Germans before they decided to take to the streets. Now point your compass south and cross the proverbial seven seas to reach Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IIOJK), a place where a strict curfew is a norm; movement and communications channels are heavily censured; highspeed internet is suspended; abduction, torture, rape and civilian killings are routine. Ironically, the restrictions that Germans consider infringement of their rights would be regarded as luxuries in this valley that is symptomatic of twenty-first century Nazi oppression.
August 5, 2020 marked completion of one year to the preposterous curfew imposed by Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi’s government on Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IOJK). Last year on this date, Modi’s Hindu nationalist government revoked article 370 that deprived IOJK of its special status in the Indian constitution and formally merged the disputed region into the union of India. According to the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, it is only the prerogative of the people of Kashmir to decide if they want to be part of India or Pakistan–the two bitter rivals who have fought three wars over the region–through a plebiscite. Contrary to the will of the indigenous population of Kashmir and at the risk of jeopardizing regional security, the Indian Prime Minister abrogated article 370 and claimed that the contentious move would bring peace to the region; it has brought unrest, bloodshed and suffering instead.
A report by Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society & Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons posits that in this year alone at least 229 Kashmiris were killed in different incidents of violence. The figure includes extrajudicial killings of at least 32 innocent civilians in IOJK, besides extra-judicial executions of 143 freedom fighters. The report also points out that between January 1 and June 30, 2020 the Indian security forces conducted at least 107 Cordon and Search Operations (CASOs) and Cordon and Destroy Operations (CADO’s) in IOJK. Vicious and inhumane vandalism, damage and destruction of civilian properties are hallmarks of these CASOs. Natives also lambaste that Indian forces use CASOs as a pretext for harassing, searching and pillaging their homes and property.
In addition, Indian occupied Jammu & Kashmir has endured more than its share of death, human misery and suffering. On July 1 this year, a 65-year-old man was ruthlessly sprayed with bullets by the Indian security forces right in front of his three-year-old grandson, who was later photographed crying over the lifeless body of his grandfather. The picture was widely shared on social media, albeit it failed to shake the world’s conscience. Earlier, on June 26, a five-year-old child was also killed in cold-blood by the Indian security forces. The unanswered question is omnipresent in the bleeding valley of Kashmir: how many more women and children would have to die before the peace promised by the founding fathers of India would come to IOJK?
The painful answer is that the abrogation of article 370, that granted little autonomy to the region, was a political gimmick by the incumbent Hindu nationalist Prime Minister to appease his Hindutva base and win domestic political mileage. Attainment of peace has, of course, never been an objective of the Modi government. During the last one year, hundreds of people have been killed, dozens made homeless, while an estimated 400 political leaders and civilians have been imprisoned or put under house arrest.
New Delhi has also deviously enacted new laws that allow non-natives to buy property, hold jobs and obtain citizenship rights in the occupied region – 25000 domicile certificates have already been granted. Indigenous Kashmiri population especially the youth is not blind to this crude and concerted Indian effort to systematically change the demographics of the region. In fact, anger is building among the Kashmiri youth who routinely pick up sticks and stones against the sophisticated weapons of the Indian armed forces. For the time being, Modi may have quelled dissent and silenced the cries of freedom in Kashmir under the weight of brute force, but a perennial curfew is unsustainable and cannot be enforced forever.
Sooner or later the curfew would have to be lifted, and the people who have been subjected to the modern-day Nazi brutality would rise again against New Delhi. Would the international community wake up and press for the rights of Kashmiris as vociferously as it does of Uighur Muslims, or would it continue looking the other way, and only spring into action if the frustrated Kashmiri youth chooses to respond to the Indian security forces in kind? Time to decide is now!
There are many factors that shape global affairs: politics, businesses, technology, economics, now pandemics, and even individualism. And it is a challenging task to determine which one of these factors have, so far, affected our world the most. The three religions of the book – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – have their sacred places situated less than a half kilometer from each other, so the Israeli-Palestinianconflict under discussion is religious in nature, while also retaining other compelling factors.
The territory of the state of Israel lies in a very hostile environment, encircled by Muslim majority countries like Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and in a very militarized region of the eastern Mediterranean. Accordingly, from 1948 onwards, Israel never forfeited an opportunity for expansion of strategic cushions. As a result of theSix-Day War in 1967, Israel defeated Arab armies and took control of the strategic Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Sinai-Peninsula from Egypt. Regardless of what countries and international organizations have to say about it, Israel now fully operates the Golan Heights. As a result of the bilateral peace treaty to normalize the relationship between Israel and Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula has been given to Egypt. However, the West Bank remains the core of the conflict as Palestinians insist the area as part of the future state of Palestine, while Israelis regard that territory as the biblical Judea and Samaria.
Let’s take a look at the rationales for the annexation of the West Bank from the perspective of Israel national interests:
To the already booming and high-tech agricultural sector of Israel, the arable land of West Bank will provide adequate conditions for crops like citrus fruits, vegetables and olive oil, as well as for the production of dairy. The area, situated primarily near the Jordan River, has two sources of fresh water, the Jordan River itself and the underground water.
In this conflict, the Israeli settlements are a weapon to alter the demographics in favor of Israel. And the annexation of the West Bank will create room for additional Israeli settlements, while at the same time further curtailing the chances of sharing Jerusalem with Palestine.
Although Prime Minister Netanyahu is a pragmatist, the annexation will strengthen hispolitical career by winning support from nationalist and hardline religious Zionists.
In military conflicts, the notion of ‘strategic depth’ is about gaining in order to protect main borders, heartlands, major cities, etc. So the West Bank annexation for Israel will act as a buffer against hostile Middle Eastern countries. Also, in the context of Israel’s acquiring strategic depth against Jordan in the contour of West Bank, annexation is important for future consideration because, after all, Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries.
Now consider how Israel’s plan for the annexation of the West Bank is just a matter of time:
The stance of the countries opposing the annexation has no significance on the ground; the opposition is symbolic. This is especially given that capability is a deciding factor; and Israel is more capable than Palestine in any aspect possible.
On one hand, Israel has the full diplomatic support of the United States, as evidenced most recently by the Trump administration’s decision to shift the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; furthermore, Israel remains the top recipient of US aid. Israel also has a peaceful relationship with China and Russia due to its high-technology production capability.
Moreover, Israel is a nuclear power, and its nuclear arsenal assures it a strategic deterrent in the complex geopolitical chessboard of the Middle East. Israel is highly competitive in the global arms market as it has developed its ownmilitary-industrial complex. Additionally, the military intelligence of Israel is highly competent.
When it comes to the economy, Israel is a highly developed one. Its high-tech sectors include agricultural production and software, aerospace, advanced electronics, renewable energy and biotechnology, to name a few.
On the other hand, Palestinians are divided internally and politically. Areas A and B of the West Bank are administered by the secular and patriotic movement known as Al-Fatah; the Gaza Strip has been administered by the Islamic Militant group Hamas since 2007. As a result, there is no single unified force that can speak for the Palestinians.
Yasser Arafat sided with Saddam Hussain when many Arab nations endorsed Operation Desert Storm. Also, with the existence of Palestinian militants in countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, the Palestinian leadership had turned away many Arab countries. The UAE and KSA find Israel their regional bedfellow because regional and geopolitical interests do have the power to make strange alliances. So right now, Palestine lacks support even from middle-power Muslim countries like the KSA, the UAE, Egypt, etc., let alone international institutions that are not more powerful than the countries that created these institutions, namely the US, the EU, China, and Russia, etc.
So, the lesson that can be learned from the calculated strategy adopted by Israeli political, military, and intellectual elites and their foreign backers from the very beginning (1948) to date, is that the West Bank annexation is a question of ‘when’ not ‘if’. Because, based on the possible ramifications, it is plausible that such a project will be undertaken as a gradual process rather than as the result of one broad invasion, in order to forestall some of the most counterproductive scenarios.
“The talent of the strategist is to identify the decisive point and to concentrate everything on it, removing forces from secondary fronts and ignoring lesser objectives.” Carl von Clausewitz, On War
Blitzkrieg forever changed warfighting manoeuvres for conventional forces by introducing unprecedented tactics at tactical levels, accomplishing strategic objectives. The Achilles Heel to Blitzkrieg, however, was the inability of the German army to keep up. America’s Operation ‘Rolling Thunder’ at Vietnam and use of Bombing, Escalation, Air and artillery, Search and destroy and Technology (BEAST) also introduced a whole new era of warfighting via conventional means. Fractures in this strategic manoeuvre were, once again, the inability of one segment to remain in tandem with others.
Suddenly, under the nuclear umbrella, India’s Land Warfare Doctrine 2018 emerges, trying to combine Blitzkrieg with BEAST; codename ‘Cold Start Doctrine’. What Indian conventional warfighting suffers from is perhaps an abundance of doctrines. Problems with logistics, integration of armed forces, subdivision of goals/objectives and consolidation afterwards is what plagued Hitler’s Eastern Front and America’s Vietnam and Afghanistan quagmires. For India, lessons are well-written in history; campaigns rolling back, strategies capsizing and wars lost.
Indian military modernization and conventional warfighting posture is based on its desire to allow strike corps to create vacuums for holding corps to fill and retain, discouraging its adversaries from retaliation. Theoretically, with a naval blockade assisted by carrier-borne air support, ground forces moving under aerial protection and sophisticated electronic warfare acting as countermeasures, Indian armed forces can accomplish what they are preparing for. Practically, ever since Sunderji, India has not moved beyond a large collection of expensive equipment confused between rapid mobilization, attritive tendencies and too many goals for one tactical disposition. For Indian strategists, options on the menu range from penetrative operations to surgical strikes, use of electronic warfare to employment of artificial intelligence and counterinsurgency to nuclear escalation. The Land Warfare Doctrine 2018 talks volumes of the importance of a doctrine yet, in its practical manifestations, ends up confusing its own rationale of existence.
For conventional warfighting to truly succeed in achieving its desired ends, doctrinal canons need to be integrated yet self-governing. Under a nuclear umbrella, conventional warfare is both a supplement and a catalyst which makes its diversity more important than its uniformity. Pakistan, unlike India, understood this principle through an intensely brutal learning curve. Pakistan’s conventional warfighting doctrine is gyratory; its armed forces are continuously transiting from asymmetric warfare to guerrilla tactics, from classical engagements to urban warfare and all the way to nuclear preparedness. The foremost reason for this gyration is that Pakistan’s armed forces are transiting between threats practically to have its doctrine tested and calibrated as required. For India, most of its doctrinal requirements are restricted to exercises and simulations, practical manifestation in controlled environments, and inability to fine-tune as required; there is inertia. Justification from New Delhi is always based on maintaining the status quo and determination to not upset the delicate balance of nuclear deterrence, only to contradict it by acquiring billions of dollars’ worth of conventional warfighting equipment.
Indian armed forces, perhaps photocopying from America’s conventional forces, upgrade naval and aerial platforms, leaving ground forces abysmal only to make doctrines that require ground forces to perform at optimal efficiency. Such exhaustive directives not only damage morale but also raise questions about the intended results. The doctrine itself, then becomes a combination of statements and remarks cushioned around by dreams and high hopes. Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs) for Bipin Rawat’s refusal to opt for ‘One Size Fits All’ end up being just that. With an air force equipped with all things modern and ground forces still struggling to maintain logistical coherence, there would not be much to hold or much to strike. Procuring sophisticated technology is one thing, having consistency in choice of operations at which to use it is another. Ever since Balakot, India’s conventional warfighting doctrine have come under immense pressure of being able to prove that they even hold substance. Hitler’s jubilations at the pace and ferocity of his Blitzkrieg soon became a reason of his demise; immense stretches of territory with insufficient potential for consolidation.
Hypothetically, in a scenario where nuclear weapons are excluded from the argument, even if Indian air force is able to create a vacuum, logistical inability at ground level would render the entire exercise futile. Even if battlegroups do make it to intended targets, their insufficient exposure to urban warfare and guerrilla tactics would be ‘Vietnam Reincarnate’. Pakistan army, as opposed to Indian conventional muscle, has been diversely trained to change doctrines with temperament of target intended. For India, an inflexibility to retain Sunderji’s vision while accommodating newfound strategic ‘demands’ vis-à-vis Pakistan and China and spending billions of dollars without revisiting priorities, is a disaster. Conventional warfighting doctrine is part morale and part measure with very limited space for experimentation. Rafael might give India a ‘taste of Luftwaffe precision’ but without a substantive ground presence to ensure consolidation, might land it in a ‘cup of tea’.
Simultaneously, India is trying to execute three separate doctrines; surgical strikes, attrition warfare and brute force. All three doctrines require distinct preparedness and temperaments and integrating all three into one would need nothing short of a miracle. Similarly, catering to two distinct adversaries, under distinguished environments and requirements is also something that cannot be merged. China and Pakistan might be strategic partners but their threat calculus towards India is largely individual. For Indian conventional warfighting doctrine to really address its challenges, it has to appraise and appreciate its surroundings. India’s adversaries are not only well equipped but their conventional forces are acquiring both doctrinal evolution and sophisticated technological upgradation. Pakistan might not be acquiring hardware quantitatively but it sure is aiming to procure the same qualitatively.
India’s multibillion dollar ‘box of toys’ has little to do with those who intend to ‘play war’ with them. Indian political demands coerce its own armed forces into uncomfortable risks only to receive disconcerting results. For Indian armed forces, morale sinks all the way down to either targeting civilian population or listening to their Prime Minister saying ‘No intrusion into our territory, no post captured.’ Stuck between this array of doctrines and strategies, Indian armed forces can do little to integrate and infiltrate, let alone strike and hold. An armed force crinkled by so many theoretical victories and practical disappointments can seldom do more than garnish airplanes with lemons to ward off the spectre of its gruesome doctrine. India’s arsenal is impressive and the pace at which it is growing raises quite a few eyebrows, but an inflexible yearning to accomplish Sunderji’s dream, despite so much changing around it, is like a guillotine’s blade in freefall. Conventional warfighting doctrine incorporated by India is a relic that sank the Wehrmacht because it asked more than could be delivered.
‘An absolute doctrine is impossible, for once a doctrine and its articles become dogma, woe to the army which lies enthralled under its spell.’
Major-General John Frederick Charles Fuller, Men Against Fire
“To the left, to the right, step it up it’s all right”
(Step it Up is a 1992 single by British group Stereo MC’s)
For faith communities worldwide, the pandemic has brought to the fore the dangerous currents of Far Right (FR) and Far Left (FL) extremism.
From the UK, I watched images of the pandemic’s impact and reflected on how 2020 has been unprecedented in so many ways, for so many people. Any astute observer would have been farfetched to predict the disruption that we have witnessed at a multi-faceted level to our lives, health, travel, work, and well-being due to the outbreak of novel coronavirus COVID-19.
COVID-19 and its lasting impact has triggered many to question their own human mortality with transcendental compulsory shifts to our daily lives.
Many will be familiar with the term and the threat inherent in Far Right Extremism (FRE), sometimes phrased as Alt-Right Extremists – few more than the people of Christchurch, New Zealand in March 2019 when two consecutive mass shootings occurred at mosques during Friday prayers at the hands of Australian Brenton Harrison Tarrant, who was inspired by xenophobic, white supremacy – the great replacement theory,leading to 51 people losing their lives.
In the U.S., Donald Trump’s election to power as President in 2017 was based on FRE narratives that galvanised his base, orchestrated by his chief strategist at the time and now former executive chairman of Breitbart News, Steve Bannon.
This momentum was further typified by the signing of an executive order banning people from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. and slamming the door on refugees once Trump assumed office – a move which has recently been challenged in Congress with the introduction of a No Ban Act.
Such an Act would prohibit any future President from using religious discrimination as a basis for restricting immigration but requires approval from the Senate – where it will be blocked, unless there is a change in the presidency after the November 2020 U.S. elections; Joe Biden having promised to repeal the Muslim ban were he to assume office.
Trump did not fail to use theo-political optics to provide momentum for his campaign in an election year by holding a Bible in front of a Church, while a string of chemicals were still in the air as troops fired tear gas to disperse mass Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstrations protesting the killing of George Floyd Jr at the hands of a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, who knelt on Floyd’s neck for nearly eight minutes.
At the Church of Presidents, “Trump stood for pictures, awkwardly balancing a Bible in his right hand. When a reporter asked if was “his Bible,” Trump exclaimed it was “a Bible” and went on to state, “We have a great country. That’s my thoughts. Greatest country in the world. We will make it greater. We will make it even greater. It won’t take long. It’s not going to take long. You see what’s going on. You see it coming back.”
The Rev. Mariann Budde, the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Washington, D.C., objected to Trump’s photo-op stating, “the Bible teaches us to love God and our neighbour; that all people are beloved children of God; that we are to do justice and love kindness,” Budde wrote on Twitter.
The President “used a Bible and a Church of my diocese as a backdrop for a message antithetical to the teachings of Jesus,” Budde wrote, and “to do so he sanctioned the use of tear gas by police officers in riot gear to clear the Church yard.”
The FR and FL diplomatic tune played out further when on 15th May 2020, the American government announced an escalation in its campaign against Huawei, a Chinese company which is the largest provider of telecoms equipment in the world.
In May 2019, citing alleged violations of sanctions against Iran (charges Huawei denies) the U.S. used powers designed to stop the transfer of military technology to bar the company from receiving American components vital to the systems it sells.
Understanding the loopholes, suppliers could keep on selling Huawei many components as long as they were made in facilities outside America.
The U.S. will seek to target the supply chain and from September 2020 it will be seeking to stop companies around the world from using software or hardware that originally comes from America to manufacture components based on Huawei’s designs. The Trump administration has also accused TikTok and others of providing data to the Chinese government, which Beijing and TikTok deny and has intimated that the U.S. government should get a cut from the sale of TikTok’s U.S. unit if an American firm buys it.
The special relationship that the U.S. has with its ‘all weather ally’ the U.K., was vividly observable when on July 14th 2020, the British government said it would ban mobile network operators in Britain from buying Huawei equipment from their 5G networks, and told them to remove equipment already installed by 2027.
FRE and anti-Muslim bigotry in the UK has been more manifest and vocal via parties such as UKIP and neo-Nazi organisations such as National Action, proscribed as a terrorist organisation in 2016; Britain First and the English Defence League (EDL) spearheaded by Tommy Robinson and Alan Ayling and political commentators such as Katie Hopkins who was permanently suspended on Twitter in June 2020 for violation of their ‘hateful conduct policy’.
A recent report produced by Hope Not Hate and published in the Independent, revealed that the online hosting site BitChute was “platforming hate and terror in the UK;” accommodating FR, neo Nazi, racism, violence, hate preacher videos and material on what is often described as “alternative social media” with strong ties to the “dark web.”
In Europe, we have also seen the FR narrative being advocated by Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban through national conservatism, anti-immigration policies and advocating of the great replacement theory that fuelled the protagonist who committed the Christchurch attack.
The post Brexit deconstruction and divorce from the EU that the UK is going through could further fuel the insular far right playbook in the years ahead.
FRE observance and brutality is overtly visible in the way the Communist Party in China has been repressing the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region where more than a million Muslims have been arbitrarily detained in what the Chinese government describes as “re-education camps”.
International organisations such as Human Rights Watch have highlighted that what is taking place is mass arbitrary detention, torture, forced political indoctrination and mass surveillance of Xinjiang’s Muslims.
While there has been a relative silence in recent years of the brutalities that are unfolding against the Muslims in Xinjiang from nation states in close proximity to China (mainly due to vested economic and geo- strategic political ties), there has been a shift since the outbreak of COVID-19 of governments at the Centre Right or FR of the political spectrum in countries such as the UK and the U.S.
These governments have heightened diplomatic and economic pressure on China by condemning the heavy-handed repression by the Communist Party of China against the Muslims in Xinjiang province.
The same Centre Right or Far Right political parties that have become renowned for espousing unsavoury remarks and introducing discriminatory policies against Muslims in their native countries are now vocally against the human rights violations that are taking place against Muslims abroad in countries such as China, when it is politically, economically and diplomatically expedient to do so to foster their global strategic objectives.
There cannot be a selective barometer in the reprimand of human rights violations at the hands of state and non-state actors based on vested interests – it has to be applied universally by the civilised comity of nation states and international organisations across the political, racial and religious divide to ensure such atrocities and injustices are minimised and that justice and humanity is preserved.
In India, FRE ideology has been overtly apparent and manifest under Modi’s BJP government and RSS affiliate base through the multitude of anti-Muslim policies that have been enacted since he regained power after the Indian elections in 2019.
As a reciprocation of the ‘Howdy Modi’ reception that was arranged for the visit of Modi to the U.S. in September 2019, a ‘Namaste Trump’ reception was laid down by the Modi government when Trump visited India in February 2020 showcasing the Far Right symbiotic optics in operation on a global stage.
Trump’s visit to India took place during the worst riots in recent times in Delhi in what was described as a “pogrom” by reputable mainstream media outlets, where brutal violence was unleashed against Muslims by pseudo Hindu mobs adhering to the Hindutva ideology – most of the 53 people who died were Muslims.
The Delhi violence brought flashbacks of the violence that ensued in 2002, when Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat and there the authorities did nothing to stem the carnage that killed some 1,000 people, the majority of them Muslims; and also brought back memories of the revenge killings of at least 3,000 Sikhs in Delhi after the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards in 1984.
The outbreak of COVID-19 led to a new stigmatisation to come to the fore using the mantra of “corona Jihad” after the first week of lockdown in India in late March 2019.
Pseudo-Hindu nationalist groups blamed the spread of the virus in India not on its highly contagious nature but specifically on Indian Muslims who belong to Tablighi Jamaat (an Islamic reformist movement founded in 1927 whose followers travel around the world on propagation missions) and who held a central gathering at their HQ in Delhi in order to purposefully infect the rest of India – an outlandish claim.
Indian media and government were quick to apportion blame on this gathering being the epicentre from which new cases of COVID-19 materialised.
August 5th, 2020 signifies a year when the Government of India revoked the special status granted to Kashmir via Article 370 of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir which gave Kashmiri’s rights to property, employment, health care along with Article 35A which granted permanent resident status and imposed a curfew.
With the onset of COVID-19, the situation in Kashmir has worsened a year after the revocation of its special status – a year in which gruesome stories have come to light of infringement of basic human rights, the closures of schools, suspension of internet services, and unlawful detaining of politicians, activists and children along with thousands of additional Indian troops being deployed in the Muslim majority state.
Less coverage has been provided on the emergence of Far-Left Extremism (FLE) in recent times and its implications for faith communities, and societies at a social, geo-strategic and political level.
Yet the current state of the world demonstrates that both modes of extremist manifestations should not be ignored at our peril.
In the UK, the FL is a phrase that has recently been coined against the Labour Party under the leadership of former leader Jeremy Corbyn.
We are now beginning to see a pendulum shift towards the Centre Left under the new leader Sir Kier Starmer similar to the New Labour doctrine that made the party turn from a party of opposition to one of government under Tony Blair in the mid-90s.
While the “extremist” tag can be brandished quite loosely in the current populist social media age, the parties on the Centre Right of the political spectrum such as the Conservatives have been quick to highlight the anti-Semitic problems the Labour Party has had in its internal machinery in recent times.
Labour has been equally vocal with reference to issues of anti-Muslim hatred present within the Conservative Party whom they allege have done little to reprimand members at an official senior party level.
This brief whistle-stop coverage of the threats of FRE and FLE narratives from different corners around the world demonstrates that the outbreak of COVID-19 has further fuelled narratives of hate, discrimination and nationalism to the detriment of narratives of compassion and humanity which are also taking place but often get diluted in the matrix of the 24 hour global media age.
It is imperative that the civilised comity of nation states, NGOs, human rights organisations, supranational institutions like the United Nations, European Union along with normative trusted faith-based organisations and regional blocs counter the FRE and FLE narratives, racial and religious bigotry.
They can do this by becoming advocates and mouth pieces for the ‘Middle Ground’ in our national and global political, diplomatic, and socio-religious discourse.
It is only by “stepping it up” in this regard as the 1992 single by British Group Stereo MC’s advocates at this critical juncture in our polity that the thought that “it’s all right” can materialise into a practical reality.
Kashmir till date has remained a powder keg of anger and a bone of contention between the two nuclear powers of South Asia (India and Pakistan). Since its independence, the issue of Kashmir has influenced the course of Pakistan’s foreign policy, and remained at the top of foreign policy priorities. Posing a threat to the deterrence stability of the region, this issue marks its importance as an international issue. Several Security Council meetings have been held on the dispute, but no possible solution came out. Revocation of Articles 370 & 35A has changed the dynamics of Kashmir struggle and now it has entered a revolutionary phase. Pakistan’s support for its Kashmiri brothers and sisters remained unassailable throughout the episode. Diplomats were the front runners in the process and their efforts were concentrated towards highlighting Indian atrocities and their Nazi mindset. Indian Saffronism in the pretext of Hindutva is an attempt to jeopardize the rights of Kashmiri Muslims. This issue can bring both the nuclear neighbours at daggers drawn.
Pakistan’s diplomatic struggle for Kashmir. The diplomacy of Pakistan has been vigilant and supportive throughout the Kashmir struggle. Since 1947, Pakistan’s policy has been to achieve Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan. Pakistan’s stance is that Kashmir is indivisible, and Kashmiris should be provided the right to self-determination in light of UN resolutions. After a military defeat and the loss of Bengal, Pakistan was weakened both politically and militarily. It was time for the re-evaluation of Pakistan’s foreign policy. Bhutto’s rhetoric at that time indicated that Pakistan was determined to continue the struggle for Kashmir. A new strategy was needed to confront India. Conventional military options were unviable, therefore, during the 70s, Pakistan’s Kashmir strategy reverted to pre-1965 diplomatic measures. This strategy was maintained until 1999 when Musharraf came into power and the expedition of Kargil was launched. However, Kargil turned out to be a strategic and diplomatic failure, causing the disgrace of Pakistan around the world.
Diplomacy at that critical time focused on maintaining the status quo rather than addressing the core issue. Such approach resulted in a diplomatic fiasco; they nullified gains on the battlefield. Post 9/11, the situation worsened when Indians tried to correlate the legitimate Kashmir freedom movement to that of terrorist activities in Afghanistan. The diplomatic efforts at that time were to support Americans on the anti-terror campaign and in this way save the Kashmir movement, because the denial of US support could have strengthened the Indo-US alliance resulting in US support to India against Kashmir’s freedom movement. After attacks on the Indian parliament, India blamed Pakistan and termed these attacks as ‘the Indian 9/11’. Pakistan’s perspective on the issue was; “Kashmir runs in our blood. No Pakistani can afford to sever links with Kashmir. We will continue to extend our moral, political and diplomatic support to the Kashmiris.”
Diplomatic failures like Agra Summit in 2001 and Indian hypocrisy leading to zero tangible progress on several rounds of dialogues stalled any possible solution of the Kashmir issue. After 2008 elections, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) came into power. Having anti-Musharraf sentiments, they reversed the changes made by the previous government. PPP’s president, Asif Ali Zardari’s stance on the Kashmir struggle was: “Kashmir cause should not become an impediment to normalization between India and Pakistan.” He later asserted that his statement was wrongly interpreted. Whilst it is evident that even after multiple meetings with the Hurriat Leadership, bilateral dialogue proposals and UNGA speech of Zardari, the PPP government failed to produce an effective response to further the Kashmir cause. Similar efforts were carried out in Nawaz Sharif’s tenure, but all in vain.
Limits of diplomacy. The task of diplomacy is continuous, arduous and demanding. It requires ample knowledge and extraordinary skills. Pakistan luckily had the good luck of having some professional stalwarts leading our foreign office. There are certain limitations in our foreign policy and diplomacy regarding Kashmir. The outcome of any national effort depends upon the synchronization and co-ordination amongst various elements of power, diplomacy being only one such element. If we consider the recent episode of abrogation of Articles 370 & 35A, Pakistan with the support of China called a UNSC meeting but no solid results came of it; the unilateral Indian decision remained unchallenged. Indians, using their media power, became successful to some extent, portraying Pakistan as a supporter of terrorist activities in Kashmir. An analytical view is that because of this perception that Pakistan covertly supports militant groups in Kashmir, Islamabad now has ‘little credibility’ on the issue.
Way forward. India’s attempt at changing the demography of Kashmir by scuttling Articles 370 & 35A is crystal clear. The plan is to make an ‘Akhand Bharat’ having Hindu supremacy. Nazi Modi along with his racist BJP team have malicious intentions against the legitimate freedom struggle of Kashmiri Muslims. Indian policies are driven by the concept of ‘Hindutva’, and such policies have not only regional but also international implications. Pakistan has to take outright measures which could have international outreach to secure the Kashmir struggle. The following are some ways which could be helpful in supporting Kashmir cause on diplomatic grounds:
International lobbying:
Pakistanis living in the western world do not need tanks or guns to pursue the Kashmir struggle. A pen and intellect are more than enough for successful lobbying which could be effective in gathering support internationally. The Kashmiri diaspora should participate by widening the scope of cooperation with Muslim and non-Muslim groups who believe in humanity. There are five basic aspects of lobbying for Kashmir: pen, intellect, informational facts, human resources and financial support. Those who are aware of the Indian atrocities in Kashmir should create awareness in their localities regarding Kashmir’s fight for freedom. They should try to convince their respective parliamentarians and lawmakers to visit the devastated valley. Diplomats and overseas Pakistanis should act as a bridge between the Kashmiri and western community to provide updated knowledge about the humanitarian crisis in Kashmir.
Adopting a multilateral approach:
Considering the current Indian government’s anti-Pakistan rhetoric, a bilateral approach will not help the Kashmir issue. Simla agreement has also lost its relevance after Indians changed the special status of Kashmir. Article 60 of Vienna Convention on the law of treaties states, “If a country commits material breach of a bilateral treaty, such as India has done in case of Simla agreement, the other country is entitled to terminate the treaty.” Therefore, the first step for Pakistan is to consider a withdrawal from the Simla agreement and then seek third party mediation on Kashmir, but such an option should not be misunderstood as the suspension of communication between the two countries.
The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres laid emphasis on the multilateral resolution of disputes. Pakistan should cash this opportunity and engage with the UN’s high level advisory board on mediation for a possible solution of the Kashmir conflict. Pakistan should also ensure that it uses its geo-strategic location to its maximum advantage for building global pressure on India. Being a huge market because of its large population, India would remain a close ally of western powers like US, but Pakistan given its role in the region especially in Afghanistan can use it for a give-and-take policy. Similarly, it should urge China which is an all-weather strategic partner to Pakistan to take a firm stance to support Kashmiris internationally.
Enhancing one-on-one discussion:
Realistically, India is stronger than Pakistan on diplomatic grounds; they have been more successful in perspective-building as compared to Pakistan. Even though it’s hard to have a successful dialogue with Indians on Kashmir, we still need to develop a robust diplomatic channel which works on a give-and-take policy. One-on-one discussions should not be totally culminated. PM Imran Khan called for a complete blockade with India after India revoked the special status of Kashmir but, realizing the importance of composite dialogue in an issue as delicate as Kashmir, he tried to revive the back-door diplomatic channel with India through Kartarpur corridor.
Public diplomacy over Kashmir:
To expose the real face of India, social media should be used as a tool. Diplomacy along with the power of social media can counter the fascist Indian mindset regarding Kashmir. Pakistani youth and students should counter false Indian narratives. They should appraise the world about the barbarism that Indian military is subjecting upon the poor Kashmiris. Social media can pave a way towards strengthening the Kashmir cause. Youth should keep themselves up-to-date with the situation in Kashmir and run social media campaigns. There are 3.81 billion social media users in the world which makes it an impactful platform. Any campaign on social media will have a global outreach and it can be helpful in making people aware of the issue and the human rights violations being committed by Indian authorities in the valley.
Conclusion. To conclude, it can be said that if there’s a way left for a possible breakthrough in the issue of Kashmir, it would be through the diplomatic channel. The solution to this perplexing issue cannot be a war between the two nuclear states. A diplomatic dialogue with comprehensive solutions is needed which benefits every stake holder, making a win-win situation for all. Just like the Musharraf-Manmohan four-point plan, a more modernized approach is needed which could break the ice. Delaying the resolution of this delicate issue can bring serious consequences. Indian belligerence in the face of Balakot strikes and Pakistan’s swift retort is an indication that things can heat upin the future as well. The possibility of a nuclear war is not evident in the current circumstances, but it cannot be overlooked.
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.
