Archive for the ‘The Warlords (national security)’ Category

(Dis)Integration At Gunpoint – Aug 5 2019-2020 J&K Report

Wednesday, August 5th, 2020

I contributed a chapter on militarism to this very important and comprehensive study of life and politics in J&K in last one year: (Dis)Integration At Gunpoint.

(https://jklpp.org/kashmir-reading-room-report-aug-2019-aug-2020/?fbclid=IwAR1Mf7SUA3z-dlyIpayahPRQrpeVLHAjfsWS1m6UBUDKmm07fXM7CZneC9Q)

Indians who read it with eyes (and mind) open should realize how deep our hands are in blood. And hopefully that should shake off some of the apathy and equanimity that makes this crime and violence possible.

A year ago, Indian state finished the task of completely alienating Kashmir from India and its puppet government in J&K. Ex-RAW chief Dulat and few other army commanders are worried and wonder if New Delhi is actually prepared for what is coming? One can speculate the direction local protests and militancy will take in the valley but one thing is clear that Indian state had once again made Indians insecure in name of “national security”.

One very unfortunate thing we can expect is more attempts and few successful attacks in mainland India in coming years. Indian state has known for years that whenever there are moments of hope for a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue militant attacks (and even cross border infiltration) stops almost completely.It shows who and what is the cause of violence. What happened on August 5th was an invitation to a prolonged war of counter-insurgency that will be fought all over India. Who cares if that puts Indians at risk?

This is just one reason why more Indians should be concerned about Kashmir and our State policy there. But basic sense of humanity should be sufficient to see what is happening is grossly unjust, that we should stop the violence and resolve the issue peacefully with Kashmiris. No country, especially not India, can afford militarism and a war economy when almost half of its youth population is unemployed, health care is among the worst performing in Asia and inequality is rising faster than in any other country in the world.

The Real Lesson of Kargil: We are “Wicked”.

Sunday, July 26th, 2020

The official and well known accounts of the Pakistan’s operations in the spring of 1999 in the Kargil–Dras sector of J&K is that Islamabad “undertook this misadventure with sinister plans to capture India’s land”. And as Modi said this morning, “it is the nature of the wicked to have enmity with everyone for no reason.”

The war-machine needs to constantly paint the official enemy of the day as nonredeemable evil. So, the facts that do not fit this pictures should be kept out of the sight of the public. Facts like Islamabad did not know about the Pakistan Army’s plans. And that India and Pakistan both engage in local land grab operations that are not officially authorized. And also that India in 2001 was planning a much bigger land grab operation that was only foiled by attacks in New York and Virginia by al-Qaeda.

The realization that we are no different from the “wicked” and that we too have our “sinister plans” is not conducive for war mongering.

All of the following material is taken from Happymon Jacob’s important study of ceasefire violations along LOC, Line on Fire.

1. Jacob’s says that “Pervez Musharraf’s former colleague, Lt Gen. (Retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiani, once stated: ‘I am not sure from where he (Sharif) came to know, but it wasn’t through the army and the Kargil operation was kept secret from Nawaz Sharif.’ Sartaj Aziz, a minister in Sharif’s cabinet, also confirms this in his book.”

Pakistani Army’s plan was to apply the finders keepers rule during the winter when Indian forces left their posts. There was only a tacit understanding and never an agreement that both sides would disengage the posts during winter. Jacob says that, “the Kargil operation was initiated as a series of limited tactical actions that normally would not require prior political authorization. But, spurred on by the local and personal ambitions of a very small coterie who did not foresee battlefield dynamics, this limited objective ballooned into an unintended and unplanned strategic provocation, something the military leadership suddenly found as being untenable. It is possible that the political leadership came into the picture at this stage, and without an understanding of the gravity of the situation, endorsed further actions.”

Pakistan did want to change the status quo and if successful would have cause more loss of lives and the conflict might have expanded to other sectors, heightening the nuclear risks. But the fact is it was not a “sinister plan” of Pakistani government but a military tactical operation, to gain more bargaining power over India, that by their calculations went wrong.

2. Jacob quotes Force magazine’s Pravin Sawhney’s 2014 article which says that “on 22 January 2000, fighting in the Chhamb sector left 16 Pakistani soldiers dead. While both sides blamed one another, the truth was that Indian troops, in strength, attacked a Pakistani post and overran it. Similar instances occurred in Akhnoor, Mendhar, Kotli, Naushera and Pallanwala between January and August 2000.” Jacob adds that, “during the previous year (2000), local units of the (Indian) army, with the tacit understanding and green signal from the army’s higher ups, had ‘adopted a calibrated offensive action across’ the LoC ‘to sanitise areas of infiltration’ on the Pakistani side.”

These were land grab operations which “by either side along the LoC in J&K is nothing new” Usually small scale but sometime medium scales. One of such medium scale Ops was Pakistan’s Kargil attempt and the other was Indian Op Kabaddi.

3. Op Kabaddi was primarily planned by the GOC-in-C of Northern Command of the Indian Army, Gen. Nanavatty. It would “include a wide spectrum of evolving punitive operations such as the execution of deliberate fire assaults to destroy military and terrorist points, and area targets across the LoC; ambushes and raids across the LOC; and company, battalion, and brigade-sized deliberate offensive attacks to capture objectives of tactical importance across the LoC that would improve the Indian Army’s counter-insurgency (CI) posture.”

When Jacob asked ‘How was the 2001 operation different from the Kargil operation by Pakistan?’ Gen. Nanavatty responded, ‘Not very different.’

The Operation, given its flexible nature had no start or end date but was supposed to start soon after 1st Sept 2001. The green light from Delhi came hours before the Twin Towers fell. And given Pakistan’s role under USA’s Afghan policy the Indian Army decided not to go forward.

Nanavatty told Jacob:

“With the world, including Pakistan, seemingly united in its anti-terror stance, any unilateral military action by us against Pakistan would be viewed unfavorably by the international community and be seen as taking advantage of the situation to settle scores on the side lines. I did not recommend the launch of offensive operations until the situation became clearer.”

International pressure and al-Qaeda stopped India from initiating an offensive land grab Op., while the Kargil campaign, at least initially, was targeted at an empty and limited posts.  Jacob and I am sure any one who thinks about this will wonders how would have things developed if Operation Kabaddi was not aborted. Would it have creeped into conflicts in other sectors? What about nuclear risks?

When we look beyond the “reality” conducive to state interests it is hard to find anything more “wicked” and “sinister” than the realization and the preparation of War.

On Tangible Pacifism

Monday, May 25th, 2020

“Whether the State is called monarchy or republic, crime will always be necessary to maintain and assure its triumph. This crime will no doubt change its direction and object, but its nature will remain the same. It will always be the forced and abiding violation of justice and of honesty – for the good of the State”. – Mikhail Bakunin

This piece was prompted by reading Eric Laursens’ The Duty to Stand Aside, a study of the dialogue that took place during WW2 between George Orwell and anarchist-pacifist Alex Comfort. Orwell argued that after a point the only way of defeating Nazism was supporting the Allies in the effort and that pacifism at this point practically meant taking a pro-Nazi stance. Comfort on the other hand thought the task of the intellectuals, even at that time was to bring to light the crimes that the Allies (“our side”) were committing and to oppose this militarization of society and fighting the spread of Nazi’s by supporting the local militias and not through formal soldiers engaging in battles. The debate continued till Orwell’s death, years after the war had formally ended. And answering the agonizing questions of the role of intellectuals, peace activists and the society of the nation engaged in organized violence are still as urgent as they were 60 years ago.

I consider myself to be a pacifist with a “p” and not a “P”. I think pacifism is derived from a genuine moral value and a value that all anarchists share, that conflicts should not be resolved through violent means. That all forms of violence in an unequal society serves the interests of the powerful and that a believe that conflicts can be resolved through means of force will ultimately lead to new forms of despotism or strengthen the old. But, i realize that this is one of the many moral values that anarchists and all humans share and in the reality values are often at conflict. And if by standing firmly for one value we forsake other (a position with capital “P”)  – say, the value of human life, which might in a particular circumstance be only protected through some violent means  then, it is nothing more than a selfish act that makes us feel good.

These, then, are some of my thoughts on a rational and pacifist position on question of violence:

1. Structural Pacifism:  Violence, more often then not, is a means of maintaining violence. The power system establishing, maintaining and expanding itself by means of force (and “engineering of consent”.)  Lets take states, they are by definition organization and concentration of violence in a society. They is justified and legitimized by images of a chaotic stateless society, where people cannot organize production, distribute services and goods and maintain welfare for all. So, a Leviathan is needed. This state then, through institution of violence and its threat creates a straitjacket for maintenance of its power and power of private capital. Through this imagined fear of chaos a very real violence of poverty and control is established that further creates alienation and aggression. Any serious pacifist cannot ignore these facts. The long term goal and vision of all pacifists must be a creation of society which is not based on inequalities, violence as a means of social regulation and conflict resolution. That means a society without the state, the caste system, capitalism, military and other structural forms of violence.

2. Particular instances of  necessary criminality:  Outside philosophy conference rooms and in a world of real consequences for real human beings there is no question of “should we oppose violence”? There is only the following questions:

a. In the particular context are the purported reasons for using violent means correct and justified? Driven by what (vulgarized) value?
b. Is some form of violence the only possible means through which the justified end result is sought?
c. Is the current form of violence the only possible form that can attain the results?

There are also questions like, what structural conditions have led us to a situation where we need some form of force to achieve this goal?

Even the most radical anarchist or pacifist regularly participate in the institutions of structural violence, for example, reporting robbery of your motorbike to a cop or purchasing an mobile phone. The value of being able to communicate with friends and colleagues in this particular case outweighs the value of not engaging in capitalist violence. The same principles applies in many other conflicts.

Within the current society, we have to survive, try to achieve a good life and struggle to build a new society by creating alternative structure of self management.  And in order to survive, struggle and organize we might at time use these very institutions, at time critically justify them for particular cases and at times defy them when they are in absolute contradiction to humanity, our wellbeing and survival – we have a duty to resist unjust laws and “just laws” being used unjustly.

In last few years, USA has withdrawn its support for Kurdish fighters who defeated ISIS in northern Syria. (Kurdish militias picking up arms was itself a largely justified act in face of barbarism of Daesh.) People like Noam Chomsky have argued that non-combatant USA troops should stay in the region and help the Kurdish forces. This is seen as a support for NATO and American imperialism by many commentators on the left.

Kurds beings dependent on US military for technical and air support is sign of a structural problem. But within this structural problem this particularly less lethal form of military assistance was essential for the Kurds who were threatened by being crushed by the Turkish forces.

This being said, it is important to note that such conditions where violence from powerful institutions like state can be a means for a peaceful end are extremely rare. In almost all cases, the seizing of state violence and opening up channels of dialogue would considerably eliminate violence on the planet – and the threat of nuclear annihilation. 

In Kashmir, it is very clear that the ongoing counter-insurgency operations will not end violence of pro-independence groups, or bring peace and prosperity to the valley. It is a tactic of brutally crushing the people of Kashmir. The Doval doctrine, which was described in 2010 by the current NSA to be:

“Don’t overreact, don’t give in, don’t follow appeasement, it [2010 protests] will pass off. It looks big in the midst of it, they cannot sustain it beyond a point and even if they do there is a price that they have to pay.” “In the game of power the ultimate justice lies with the one who is strong”.

The ethos of the State.

The violence in Kashmir is not a military issue, it is a political issue and a matter of grievances and political alienation of the betrayed and tortured people of the land. Like the Kurdish militants and any violent Independence struggle there is some justification for armed rebellion in Kashmir, this time against the barbarism of Indian state. And it will easily loose its traction and popular support if the Indian occupation ends. (And if not, there is a threat of further militarization of the Kashmiri society like the Adivasis in parts of active Naxal insurgency.) There will be many questions to resolve in the process, only possible through resolving the political problem and holding a plebiscite. There will also be the questions of “Pakistani aggression” in the region that can be solved with trilateral dialogues and confidence building and economic collaborations. But this much is clear, there is no justification either for the ends or the means that India seeks in Kashmir.

Coming back to the Orwell-Comfort dialogue, I believe Orwell was right in that after a point in the events of WW2 it was necessary for Allies to engage militarily. But Comfort was also right in that the duty of intellectuals and activists still lies on exposing the lies and fabrications of their own states to examine whether the purported threats are real, and are the means uses are proportionate and if there are nonviolent and more democratic alternatives available and at the same time recording the crimes of our side in hope for some justice or for same uncertain reason that Winston Smith started writing his diary.

To a large extent, these questions will remain intangible if there is no peace and disarmament movement tied with other popular struggles to make any pacifism and anti-militarism a reality. 

Of Petals and Pellets: Perception Management of Violence

Sunday, May 3rd, 2020

The institution that in rest of the world is known for pelleting hospitals and civilians in Kashmir today dropped petals over hospital in India. Militarism’s direct and indirect toll on health of the people in parts of North East and Red Corridor but most significantly in Kashmir is massive. From instances of attacking hospital ambulances to torturing and maiming civilians. The regular curfews but, more sharply since the August last year combined with the internet shutdown create an unprecedented health crisis in the valley.

Today’s military operation is part of a long history of military propaganda campaigns. This one being particularly milder and weaker. The goal of these operations is to project the military as a strong and powerful force that not only crushes the “enemies” but also supports the civilian population in time of calamities.  As explained below, well planned propaganda operations rely on hiding facts and even fabrications and lies to consciously shape the population’s perception and behavior. What is achieved is war mongering society that  sees war crimes and occupation as necessary and forgets their own economic concerns in fight against “the enemies.”

During the second world war when the so-called “Japanese inspired fifth column” of Indian soldiers, who became part of nationalist military groups and were fighting the Allies, the British Indian Army formed “Josh Groups”. In the meetings of the Josh Groups stories were circulated within the British Indian troops of Japanese atrocities on Prisoners of War and the occupied countries, as well as associate the INA troops to these atrocities.

“Josh is the strongest and most effective counter-propaganda method yet involved to combat the Japanese Intelligence offensive… it is the morale counter-offensive weapon against these dangerous activities”
(Indian National Army and Free Burma Army, Vol. 1.)

It is helpful to quote in full what the General Headquarters said it entails:

“Josh Groups are intended to:
(a) build in every Indian soldier the knowledge and firm faith that the Japanese and everyone who represents the Japanese are his own personal enemies;
(b) introduce stories of our victories against the Japanese and so turn the conversation around to the topic of why the Japanese are India’s enemies and why and how they will be defeated;
(c) introduce stories of the bravery of Indian soldiers in action and his comradeship-in-arms with his Allies;
(d) utilize entertainment, radios, dramas, information rooms, picture layouts etc., to bring home to the sepoy, through every medium that strikes his imagination, the existence of his chief enemy – the Japanese;
(e) inoculate the Indian soldier with a sound factual basis of true knowledge so that false rumours and brazen lies spread by Japanese, Jifs and Japanese agents can be easily shown as such.”
(Ibid.)

The INA is now celebrated for its heroism in the struggle against the British. So, it isn’t as much about the moral content of who is being demonized but whether it is in our interest to do so? And the lessons of containing these “dangerous activities” (i.e. questioning if our killing of thousands makes any sense or, are we actually the good guys after all) have always stayed in the Indian armed forces. But after the transfer of power, when the offensive that needed combating was no longer from the Japanese but from its own population, which might get involved in these “dangerous activities” of questioning the defense budget, the arms buildup, war mongering to sideline economic issues. So, we became a Josh Nation.

And its effectiveness can be tested by asking a simple question: whether people of this country have a “firm faith that the Pakistan and everyone who represents the Pakistanis are their own personal enemies”?

It’s not just the responsibility of the armed forces, any more, to maintain the Josh Nation but the mass media and political discourse in general is a means of maintaining it.

But within the armed forces it takes the formal form of Joint Doctrine for Perception Management and Psychological Operations of the Headquarters of Integrated Defense Staff. It starts with noting that “conflict is a struggle of wills, which takes place in peoples’ minds.” It says, “it is necessary to understand the motivation of… populations in order to shape their perceptions, affect their will to continue the conflict.” It also concedes that “the ingredients that are untrue are brought out in a manner so as to nullify element of doubt that has been knowingly / unknowingly crept into the information” – in other words, lies and fabrications. (All quotes are from 2010 Doctrine.)

Military Psychological Operations in India need a more detailed study but returning to today’s operation the Doctrine note that “image of Armed Forces for the internal audience is required to be subtly projected as a tough, focused force, offering swift and firm action not only to the enemies of the nation but also for care and protection of our countrymen when no other system can provide succour.”

Today’s “morale counter-offensive” of Josh Nation is in line with building support for state policies at large and image management for the armed forces. The whole activity is more ironic and saddening because it is precisely because of the MiGs and Sukhois that are showering petals over the hospitals the nurses and doctors inside these hospitals do not have protective gears and ventilators. Because a Josh Nation spends 4 times higher on military than it does on health. And because a similar exercise happened in USA few days ago all the bastion of Indian liberal media can tell the PM is that “a little originality would be appreciated.”

Caravan Magazine’s report on Indian armed forces’ silencing of journalists in Kashmir

Saturday, May 2nd, 2020

 

Resistance in Anchar, Kashmir

Monday, January 27th, 2020

TONS #4 – आतंकवादी कौन है?

Sunday, January 12th, 2020

पूर्व नसऐ, शिवशंकर मेनन से आज मेने ये सवाल पूछा कि क्या मोदी शाशन में भारत द्वारा बॉर्डर पार कर मिलिट्री घुसपैठ और हमले में बढ़ोत्तरी हुई है?

उनके जवाब ने साफ़ कर दिया की भारतीय राज्य का हर हिस्सा राजय द्वारा किये जाने वाले आतंकवाद के पुरे समर्थन में है. मेनन का मानना है की बढ़ोत्तरी नहीं हुई है – हम पहले भी बालकोट जेसे हमले दूसरे देशों में करते रहे है.

“1950 से आजतक ऐसी एक भी बॉर्डर नहीं है जो हमने पार न की हो, अपनी हुकूमत बनाए रखने के लिए”

बस मोदी शाशन में में ये अंतर आया है कि ये अपनी पार्टी की राजनीती के चलते खुलासे करने लगी है – जिसका ये नतीजा है की सामने वाले देश को अपना नाम बचानेे के लिए लौट कर हमला करना पड़ता है, जिससे सुरक्षा और बात-चित पे बुरा असर पड़ता है.

हम्मे बीच बीच में इस तरह हमें जो लोग हमारे दुश्मन लगते है, उन्हें गोपनीय तरीके से मारते रहना चाहिए. कोई सबूत किसी कोर्ट में पेश करने की ज़रूरत नहीं, सामने वाले का पक्ष सुनने की ज़रूरत नहीं. हम कानून से ऊपर है.

राजनैतिक या धार्मिक गैर कानूनी हिंसा को ही शयद आतंकवाद बोला जाता है? वो ही हर राज्य की नीति होती है.

कुछ राजनेता इसे गोपनीय रखना चाहते है और बात-चीत को थोड़ा महत्व देते है. और आज की सरकार बस आतंकवाद इलेक्शन जीतने के लिए उजागर करती है.

TONS #3 – Who is a terrorist?

Sunday, November 10th, 2019

tons banner

Day 98 of the continued brutal crackdown and in its response mass civil-disobedience, strikes in Indian occupied Kashmir.  Graphic novelist Malik Sajad’s Op-Art has been published by the New York Times.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists last week published an article by nuclear experts, including Alan Robock and Hans Kristensen that presents one of the many possible nuclear exchange scenarios in the near future when “each country will possess about 250 nuclear weapons. In the end, Pakistan will use all its weapons, while India will reserve 100 of them to defend against future attacks from China.”

They predict close to 10 crore deaths within weeks and”a nuclear winter would halt agriculture around the world and produce famine for billions of people… Also, ozone would be destroyed as the rising smoke absorbs sunlight and heats the stratosphere, allowing more ultraviolet light to reach the ground and creating negative effects that we have yet to study.”

On the legitimacy of nuclear weapons and deterrence, they write that “the existence of enormous arsenals of nuclear weapons during this time has not prevented terrorism or countless regional, territorial, and politically motivated military actions, taking in aggregate a terrible human toll. It would be foolhardy, of course, to suggest that an effective way to stop warfare would be to arm all nations with nuclear weapons as local deterrents. Contrarily, we understand, in the 21st century, that establishing mechanisms for conflict negotiation and resolution on a global international basis is the only safe and practical way to end the carnage. We are not Pollyannas. But it should be the mission of every concerned citizen, particularly those in positions of influence, to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons, within the context of global peace and security mechanisms”

The threat of nuclear weapons (besides, only, climate breakdown) poses the question of cosmic significance: will organized life survive? No terrorist organization or armed insurgency comes anywhere close to posing such a threat.

Nissim Mannathukkaren in The Hindu writes that, “an analysis done by political satirist Ramit Verma showed that of the 202 popular prime-time news debates across four major Hindi channels till October 19, at least 79 were about attacking Pakistan; 66 about attacking the Opposition; 36 about praising the Prime Minister and the ruling party; and 14 about Ram Mandir. There was not a single debate on the economy, unemployment, education, health, gender, farmers or the environment. This is simply staggering by any measure.” He could have added the menacing nuclear threat to the list.

Mannathukkaren also points out that “in 2018, terrorism/militancy killed 400 civilians and security personnel. Compare this to the fact that 1,02,677 children (under five) died from easily preventable diarrhoeal diseases in 2017, or that 8,75,659 children (under five) were killed by communicable, neonatal and nutritional diseases. Or consider that while the number of terrorism/militancy-related deaths have come down substantially to around 500 from 2011 onwards, the burden of deaths from diseases like cardiovascular ones has drastically increased from about 13 lakh in 1990 to 26.32 lakh in 2017.”

Yet in the 2018-2019 Union Budget of India, we spent Rs 1,14,915 crore on Rural Development, Rs 41,765 crore on Housing and Urban Affairs, Rs 54,600 crore on Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Rs 71,000 crore on Road Transport and Highways, Rs 22,357 crore on Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Rs 85,010 crore on Human Resource Development.

While we spent Rs 4,04,365 crore on “defense”.

The monster that is the Indian state is swallowing up its own population for the health of the war machine, with 10 crore life under its fingers, it is one of the biggest terrorist organization in world history. Kashmiris are bravely resisting and fighting this mammoth.

TONS #2: Lesson in Doublethink

Monday, November 4th, 2019

 

tons banner

All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your memory, “Reality control” they called it; in Newspeak, “doublethink”. – Orwell (1984)

On Oct 31st, PTI in its report on Modi’s “National Unity Day” speech noted that “Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday said that Patel’s dream of a united India had been realised.” Modi further goes on to glorify colonialism in his speech. But did Patel dream of a “united India” with Jammu and Kashmir?

Patel was not only open to the idea of parts of Pakistan occupied Kashmir to become part of Pakistan but also to give up parts of Indian occupied Kashmir to Pakistan on the condition of keeping control over regions of strategic interests.

“The Indian leadership was even open to the possibility of relinquishing its claim on parts of the State under Pakistani control. In 1948 Vallabhbhai Patel, India’s home minister, considered the possibility of partitioning Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Patel suggested that India would be willing to give up parts of Kashmir where local sentiment was pro-Pakistan, so long as India could retain areas it considered essential to its strategic interests”. (Daniel Haines, Indus Divided, pg 63.)

But in the unending exercise of “victories over our memory”, these uncomfortable facts must go into the memory hole. That there was a time when India’s extreme hawks were open to the idea of India without Kashmir does not fit well with the interests of the current holders of power – so the past must change to secure the future. But even Patel wasn’t open to the idea of a free Kashmir or interested in listening to what people in Kashmir wanted – just rearranging the region’s strategic role in the newly formed State’s plan for regional supremacy.

The article further adds, ““centuries ago, India was united by Chanakya (the ancient philosopher who is said to be the adviser of emperor Chandragupta Maurya), and after that Sardar Patel did it,” Modi said”.

The term “unity” also has a technical definition: Annexed or hold by force or coercion. The “feeling of unity” is the feeling of fear or helplessness and those unsatisfied with this unity are the “national security threats”. And, if an unfriendly state, like China,  engages in act of uniting some people its called “aggression”.

The same day IANS posted an interview with Air Marshal (retd.) C. Hari Kumar of Western Air Command “supervised the planning and successful execution of the IAF strikes in Balakot.” The piece raises many questions. Let’s take the validity of “successful execution”.

India claimed that in response to the 14 Feb suicide bombing attack in IOK that killed 40 CRPF personals, it bombed the JeM launchpad in Balakot, Pakistan. Indian government officials first claimed that around 300 “terrorists” have been killed in the attack, while Amit Shah maintained a conservative 250 estimate. This was soon refuted by reporters on the ground from Associated Press and later by the European Space Imagining agency. In fact, according to some western military analysts, JeM camp had been abandoned in 2005 after a major earthquake. IANS’s repetition of the state’s official line is yet another victory over our memory.

Threat of National Security #1

Monday, October 28th, 2019

tons banner

Day 85 of the lockdown of Indian colony, Kashmir. The Atlantic recently uploaded a documentary, Artists in Kashmir, the World’s Most Militarized Zone. New Delhi pressured London to curb the 10,000 storng Kashmiri protest on Black Day. The national security establishment is also likely to cancel a $2.3 billion tender with Turkey for its stand against Art. 370 revocation. The tender is to help build 5 support ships with HAL. In the local “elections”, BJP, the only party that participated, won 81 seats – village council members, and the general public did not participate.

Nagaland and Manipur put on High Alert before the final round of Nagaland “peace talks”. In New Delhi, even as the senior leaders of the “separatist” organization NSCN-(IN) left the organizations to take part in the “peace process” between NSCN Working Committee and Government of India the dialogues are not moving forward. The negotiations are marked by the absence of civil society organizations, many tribal groups, and armed groups. RN Ravi, the former IB chief, Deputy NSA and, current Governer of Nagaland has been the main interlocutor since the Modi government began the negotiations. The reasons for the stalemate are the question of “separate flag and constitution”. Missing from the negotiations and the 2015 Framework Agreement that initiated the process is the talk of militarism in the region and mechanisms like AFSPA.

A 2018 Standing Committee on Home Affairs’ report on Security Situation in the North Eastern States of India noted that at least in Assam the security situation has significantly improved but at the same time the “Disputed Areas” have been increased to cover the whole of the state. Even as the violence in Nagaland remains relatively high, completely rolling over the issue in the “peace process” doesn’t give a lot of hope for peace in the region anytime soon.

India might have tested it’s Arihant class nuclear-capable K4 missile from nuclear-powered submarine between 23rd to 25th Oct. A research paper published on 2nd October states that if India uses 100 strategic weapons to attack urban centers and Pakistan uses 150, fatalities could reach 12 crore people and massive food shortage for decades, water and air poising for much longer.