Connect with us

Defense

Indian army spokesman admits Kashmiris were killed in fake encounter

Published

on

Fake encounters in several Indian states are an everyday phenomenon.  However, they remain out of media limelight being camouflaged by a slew of draconian laws (Armed Forces Special Powers Act, Public Safety Act, National Security Act, so on). These laws confer immunity upon military and paramilitary forces like Central Reserve Police Force. Fake encounters are usually staged against `insurgents’ in North Eastern States and in the disputed Jammu and Kashmir State.

Indian army confesses “fake encounters”: At long last, the Indian military had to admit that the three “Pakistani terrorists”, they had earlier announced to have killed earlier, were actually innocent labourers. Indian army spokesman Rjesh Kalia admitted ‘soldiers exceeded their powers during an alleged fake gun battle in Kashmir that killed three men’.  He assured, `Disciplinary proceedings would be taken against those responsible’ for the Amshipora `encounter’. Evidence collected by the inquiry prima-facie indicated that the three unidentified terrorists killed in Op Amshipora were actually native Kashmiri. Their names are Imtiyaz Ahmed, Abrar Ahmed and Mohd Ibrar, who hailed from Rajouri. None of them was a Pakistani terrorist.

The three labourers were lured to Machil and killed there before being labeled “militants” by the army to claim a reward. Indian forces routinely arrest Kashmiri civilians from their homes or from the road, kill them by torture in custody and then claim that they were ‘foreign militants’ who ambushed them and were killed in exchange of fire.

Such cases abound. However a few are focused in media. In another case, known as Chhatispura `encounter’, the police picked up five people and later killed them in custody. They initially blamed them for massacre of 36 Sikhs at Chattisinghpora massacre.

Following outrage by the villagers, an investigation was conducted. It transpired that they were all innocent. Those killed in custody were  Zahoor Ahmad Dalal s/o Abdul Gaffar Dalal of Moominabad, Bashir Ahmad s/o Abdul Aziz Bhat of Halan, Muhammad Yousuf Malik s/o Abdul Kabir Malik of Halan, Juma Khan s/o Faqir Khan of Brari Angan and Juma Khan s/o Amir Ullah Khan of Brari Angan.

In another incident, a Muslim carpenter Abdul Rahman Padder, detained in Srinagar in December 2006, was later labelled a “Pakistani militant”, and killed in custody.

Eye-wash assurance: Rights activists surmise the military spokesman’s “assurance”  of disciplinary action as an eye-wash. The offenders would be let off with a slap on wrist, as usual. They point out that Indian forces do not care a fig for the Kashmiri lives. Cordoning congested localities, dragging people out of their houses during night searches, or killing them openly or in custody is a recurrent phenomenon.

Bipen Rawat, then Indian army chief, now India’s chief of defence staff, awarded Major Leetul Gogoi a commendation certificate for tying up a Kashmiri, Farooq Dar, on bonnet of his jeep and paraded him around. Rawat remarked on the incident “a good job”.

Farooq Dar in a video is seen showing voting -slip as proof that he was returning home after casting his vote when Major Gogoi picked him up. Local police investigation confirmed that Dar’s plea is correct. The army did not make its investigation report public leading to popular outrage against military high-handedness.

A licentiate arm y: Major Gogol was later caught red handed with paramour in a Srinagar hotel. Gogoi had “befriended” the woman on Face book hiding his real identity. That’s an adequate reflection on immoral makeup of the “officer’.

The Statesman (editorial April 2, 2019), inter alia, commented: (a) The Army would do well to bring its considerable expertise in psychiatric medicine to bear to determine possible linkages in the deviant behaviour of the officer who gained worldwide notoriety for the “human shield” incident in Srinagar in 2017, and the same man flouting prescribed regulations by entering into a questionable relationship with a young Kashmiri woman a year ago’. (b) It is a blatant violation of basic human rights and the military’s strict code of conduct that encouraged Major Leetul Gogoi to play the Casanova role. (d) The “commendation” of Gogoi willy-nilly sent out the message that dissent would be crushed with force. By commending what Major Gogoi did the Chief of the Army Staff voted for intolerance’.

Blanket immunity: Al Jazeera reported, `India has regretted every request since 1989 to prosecute Indian soldiers in civil courts in Kashmir for alleged rights abuses, including murder and rape’.

Custodial killing: Military and paramilitary  forces pick up innocent Kashmiris and other Indian nationals during diurnal and nocturnal searches. They are later secretly buried in remote border areas. A recent case of abduction of two residents of Tamil Nadu blew lid off police brutality. Police in Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu state  picked up two persons, J Jayaraj, 59, and J Bennix, 31 for breaking corona virus lockdown rules. They were brutally thrashed leading to rectal bleeding and eventual death. Following outrage by family and villagers, the local police registered a First-Information Report against five offending policemen. Death of George Floyd in the United States drew international limelight. But, the death of the Indian duo remained un-noticed in international media.

Though an FIR was registered against the Indian policemen, no punishment has so far been awarded, thanks to police connivance and tardy prosecution (Indian policemen arrested over custodial deaths of father and son, Al Jazeera July 2, 2020). It is unusual to punish military and police offenders in India.  Likewise influential offenders go scot-free. Babri mosque is a case in point. It stood demolished with several resisting Muslims lynched dead by Hindu mob. Yet, the court acquitted all offenders including BJP’s LK Advani. The Supreme Court of secular India confirmed that Ram was born at the site of Babri mosque millennia ago!

Chief minister Mehbooba Mufti’s view of fake encounters: Her party People’s Democratic Alliance was an ally of Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party. Yet, her government was dismissed for daring to expose fake encounters. She called Kashmir a Guantanamo Bay.  Mehbooba said, `Kashmiris feel that they are literally imprisoned in a cage from which almost all exit routes are barred save one, to India, which is also not without peril. Kashmiris are distrusted and treated poorly in many parts of India, whether as students or as traders’ (A.G. Noorani, Kashmir, a prison, Dawn January 12, 2019).

Indian government uses Public Safety Act to declare anyone a traitor and put him or her behind the bars. This Act was clamped on Mehbooba and several other Kashmiri politicians to keep them under detention (February 2020). Mehbooba revealed that she had asked military authorities why dead bodies of those killed in `encounters’ are not returned to their relatives. And, why DNA tests not allowed. She had called upon the Indian government to register FIRs against military or police officers accused of atrocities against the Kashmiri (Indian Express, April 18. 2019).

 After being dismissed she made many other startling disclosures. She indicated that she had called for lifting ban on Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Jama’at-e-Islami, withdrawal of `sedition’ or `terrorism’ cases against Kashmiri leaders or ordinary folk. 

Application of PSA in India: Public Safety Act originated about 160 years ago in pre-Partition India. But, it was applied in modern India to arrest over 450 persons in 2019 alone to stifle dissent.  The Act holds any person guilty until he is able to prove his innocence.  A common legal maxim is that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. It is a handy tool to slap sedition charge with impunity on anyone.

A boy who bought battery cells was slapped with sedition charges. The security forces surmised that the battery cells could be used in improvised-explosive devices (IEDs). Residents are `picked up’ without a warrant, and killed incognito in military custody. During searches, houses are burnt to ashes. Kashmiri leaders have to travel to and fro New Delhi to prove their `patriotism’ before lowly NIA officials.

A mother was dragged to jail in front of her daughter. Subrata Roy spent almost two years in jail without being guilty of any crime before being released by the Supreme Court.  Justice Karnan spent six months in jail because of being disrespectful to a judge. Advocate Prashant Bhushan hauled up for contempt just for making some remarks against the judge. Payal Rohatgi was jailed for a sedition case.

Kashmiri leader Farooq Abdullah was told to go to China and former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti to Pakistan. Or face sedition trial. This is India’s democracy.

Hoax anti-terrorism Operations: Indian armed forces conducted several operations, mostly paper work, to wipe out `terrorists’. They include operation Sarp vanash (snake destroyer), Rakshak (protection), and All-out. The demoralized Indian military do not dare go into jungle to risk their lives.

For instance, investigative media reports indicated that Operation Sarp Vanash was in fact Operation Sach Vanash (truth buster). The claims about recovery of arms and ammo and `terrorists’ killed remained unfounded.

Even prestigious dailies kept dishing out false information fed by un-named sources. The Times of India first reported on a major offensive in the Surankote area. On May 17, its defence correspondent, Rajat Pandit, wrote that the Army had killed “60 hard-core militants in the Surankote area proximate to the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir,” and had “also seized a huge quantity of assault rifles, mortars, grenades, rocket-propelled grenades and under-barrel grenade launchers, among other ‘war-like stores.'” The very next day, The Asian Age said that the operation had involved the use of Russian-built MI-17 helicopters, mainly to evacuate casualties. On May 19, The Tribune went one step further, asserting that the Army had killed “180 Pakistani terrorists and foreign mercenaries in the past 45 days when for the first time it launched an operation to free the high mountainous positions in Jammu and Kashmir which had so far been a haven for ultras.”

Truth: Interestingly, all concocted reports had two common features: they cited no on-record sources, and the term Sarp Vanash was nowhere used. It first appeared in the Jammu-based Excelsior on May 21. The operation, the newspaper reported citing anonymous defence sources, had been carried out “from April 21 to May 18 to clear a bulge at Hill Kaka where hardcore Pakistani groups like Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar, Al Badr and Hizbul Mujahideen had set up fortifications in a large area of strategic importance to interdict Indian Army supply lines.”

Meanwhile, reports of helicopter strikes and terrorist-held fortifications provoked hysteria among New Delhi-based journalists. On May 20, Army Chief, General N.C. Vij tried to calm things down. The next morning’s Tribune quoted him as denying “that helicopter gunships had been used to flush out the terrorists” but accepting that “helicopters had been used for logistical purposes”, a routine event!

About Operation All-Out, it suffices to say that IHK’s governor Satya Pal Malik himself said on   January 14, 2019, that there was no such thing as Operation All Out and that the phrase was a misnomer.

Inference:  Indian military dare not chase tough freedom fighters deep into jungle. So they do the next easiest thing: pick up an innocent man from the street, get him secretly killed, and name him a leader of some `militant’ outfit.  They do so to `earn’ medals, monetary benefits, promotions and a host of other perks. The military and security personnel are demoralized as is evident from suicides and fratricides n Indian forces.

Mr. Amjed Jaaved has been contributing free-lance for over five decades. His contributions stand published in the leading dailies at home and abroad (Nepal. Bangladesh, et. al.). He is author of seven e-books including Terrorism, Jihad, Nukes and other Issues in Focus (ISBN: 9781301505944). He holds degrees in economics, business administration, and law.

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

Webinar: How will we minimize conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Published

on

One of the biggest online events for this year with the theme: “How will we minimize conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean?was held by the Region of Western Greece and EuropeDirect Patra, on Thursday 25 February 25 2021, organized by the Deputy Governor of Entrepreneurship, Research and Innovation of Western Greece, Fokion Zaimis, with representatives at a very high level, from Greece and abroad. Specifically, the countries represented were Greece, Turkey, Sweden, the USA, Italy and Brussels through elected representatives, MEPs, MPs, lawyers, International Relations Specialists, political scientists, diplomats, senior officials, academics, journalists and representatives of European and international networks.

Opening the event the Deputy Governor of Entrepreneurship, Research and Innovation of Western GreeceFokion Zaimis said: “The Eastern Mediterranean, the cradle of ancient civilization and the crossroads of major economic and commercial routes has been and is the focus of many conflicts from antiquity to the present day. I warmly thank all the participants in today’s international event for conflict prevention in the Eastern Mediterranean in cooperation with Europe Direct and CPMR. Critical and serious issues emerged from completely different starting points and perspectives. Regional government has an important role to play in communication, trade and economic relations, tourism, environment and the consolidation of relations of mutual respect and trust between the communities of Mediterranean countries. The goal is the progress and prosperity of the citizens and what unites us is much more than what divides us”.

The Regional Governor of Western Greece Nektarios Farmakis highlighted: “It also proves in this way that regional government is able to organize and contribute to national or supranational issues and this is something very important, because it proves that it is not limited to the house and is not only trapped in its daily life but also looks at our world with a broader look. Knowing what is happening in the wider area ultimately concerns the regional government. I firmly believe in diplomacy and the possibility of international cooperation that can shape self-government strengthening the national diplomacy and strategy”.

The MEP (epp) Manolis Kefalogiannis, stated: “A very important initiative of the Region of Western Greece with many distinguished guests from Greece and abroad on an important issue concerning the conflict and the reduction of conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean. It really concerns a dominant issue at this time because we have a neighbor Turkey and President Erdogan who are behaving like riots in the wider region violating every concept of law, every good neighborly relationship and creating tensions in the wider region. We must respect, in accordance with international law, the decisions of the United Nations, the decisions of the European Union, always guided by good neighborly relations, always with respect to the international law of the sea, resolve any disputes in a spirit of peace, cooperation and relations as befits a country such as Turkey, a country that is part of the European family “.

Particularly honorable was the representation of NATO through the speech of a senior official, Dr. Nicola De Santis, Head of NATO Public Diplomacy, presented by Theodosios Georgiou, President of the Greek Association for Atlantic and European Cooperation, who highlighted, among other things, the role that Regions can play in security and cooperation. Dr. Nicola De Santis spoke about the important role that NATO plays in the challenges and what security prospects in the Eastern Mediterranean, explained the principles of the Alliance, pointed out the important role played by citizens through their demands, security as a necessary condition for development, as well the consultations and cooperation proposals promoted by NATO.

Speaking about the institutional-legal framework, the Ambassador (ad.hon.) and former Ambassador of Greece to Washington, Alexandros Mallias, pointed out: “It is exactly one year since the operation of violating the borders of Greece in Evros. The invasion and occupation of Cyprus, the aggressive moves against Greece and the constant official provocations, the strategic intervention of Turkey in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh are violations, incompatible with Article 1 of the NATO Statute. So this is an ally behavior that allows NATO rivals to question the consistency between declarations, principles and actions. The goal of Mr. Erdogan’s policy is not sound in the negotiations to ensure the terms of an honest peace that will ensure relations of cooperation and good neighborliness. On the contrary, its goal is the forced adaptation of Greece to the expectations and conditions of Turkey. Therefore, it does not have a short-term character. It is no coincidence that Mr Erdogan is systematically calling for a revision of the Lausanne Treaty. At the same time, Ankara aims to nullify the trust of Greek citizens in its political leadership”.

The business framework was set by former Minister of Culture & Tourism, Pavlos Geroulanos: “One can not ignore the provocation of Turkey and its willingness to create tension in the region. Obviously we can not discuss any cooperation as long as we have such a deployment of Turkish troops in the Aegean Sea. The basis of cooperation is with countries that have strong diplomacy, economy and army. Only when you can stand on yourfeet can you impose peace in an area.”

Dimitrios Kairidis,  Professor of International Relations and MP (North Sector of Athens, New Democracy), explained why Turkey, a country with special structural elements, is a particularly destabilizing factor for the wider Mediterranean region.

Suleyman Ozeren, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor, George Mason University talked about forced Migration, Refugee Crisis and the Abyss of Securitization in Turkey, which consist really concerning issues. He referred that Turkey is not only a country of entry for many refugees, such as Syrian people who were considered guest in the beginning, but also a country of exit for many Turkish people due to law and democracy issues. In this context he made some policies recommendations.

The representation of ELIAMEP (Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy) was also particularly honourable by Thanos Veremis, Vice President of the Boardand Emeritus Professor (Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Athens, History, International Relations) who expressed strong concerns about Greek-Turkish relations.

An important parameter in international relations regarding the value code that each country has, every citizen, put the Ottoman, Turkologist, Associate of the Laboratory of Turkish & Eurasian Studies and Lawyer at the Supreme Court, Dr. Dimitris Stathakopoulos stating: “We have common interests with Eastern Mediterranean, but we also have different quality characteristics which our value codes and the historical memories we have prevent us from resolving the existing issues in a sense of” associations “. Because we start from a different historical basis and it is by no means self-evident that we perceive International Law or conventions in exactly the same way. The Turks believed and believe, for example, that Greece liberated not Greek territories, but conspiracy theoristically conquered new countries. He sees Greece as an ungrateful part of the Ottoman Empire which made a “stop”, not a Greek revolution “, and added that” we can get along with Turkey, but the logic of Turkey does not allow us to agree, since it does not want cooperation with equals”.

Matthew Crosston, Ph.D., Professor, Director of Academic Transformation Office of the Provost, Bowie State University, Executive Vice Chairman and Author at  Modern Diplomacy.eu talked about the Hydrocarbon Hybrid War asan untangling conflict in the Eastern Med. He pointed the problem of missing information in western and eastern media regarding the real  situation, as well as the vision of Turkey to be an energy hub.

Through this event besides presenting the current situation in the wider Eastern Mediterranean region, the opportunity was given to identify those points that complicate the situation and views were expressed from different perspectives within a democratic, multicultural and pluralistic context that seeks to find cooperation solutions through dialogue, democracy, human rights and the peaceful coexistence of peoples.

The event was also attended by the honorable speakers:

  • Mitat ÇELİKPALA, Vice Rector, Professor, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of International Relations, Kadir Has University
  • Emmanouil Karagiannis, Associate Professor, Department of Defense Studies, King’s College London
  • Ioannis Mitsios, Political Scientist, International Relations Specialist, M.A. Northeastern University, Boston
  • Giorgos Alexakis, Vice Governor on European and International Affairs at Region of Crete, Vice-President of CPMR & EUROMONTANA
  • Theodoros Louloudis, Publisher of “Peloponnisos” Newspaper, Member of the Organizing Committee of the Regional Growth Conference,
  • Annika AnnerbyJansson, President of Region Skåne, Chair of the CPMR’s Task Force on Migration Mamangement
  • Dimitrios Triantafyllou, Professor, Department of International Relations, Kadir Has University
  • Dimitrios Rizoulis, Journalist, Director of the newspaper “Dimokratia”.

Continue Reading

Defense

India – The US Promote National Defense – Security Cooperation

Published

on

US and Indian foreign ministers and defense ministers at a press conference after 2+2 Dialogue on 27/10 (Source: IANS)

In recent years, the India-US bilateral relationship has been more closely bonded, especially defense-security cooperation in various fields including nuclear technology, maritime defense and security, anti-terrorism in the region and in the world … has been continuously promoted, contributing to the development of an intensive bilateral relationship. This results from the demand for security strategy, economic, security and political interests of the two parties. The United States wants India to become its ally in the Indo-Pacific region, counterbalancing China’s growing influence, ensuring U.S. maritime security interests and a huge commercial arm market for the US. To India: a good relationship with the US will help India highten its position in the region; India also wants to rely on US power to increase its military strength, to watch out China and create pressure on Pakistan. In addition, India’s comprehensive diplomacy and the US’s regional strategy carried out simultaneously without overlapping, is conducive to strengthening the bilateral security cooperation for both countries.

It is evitable that in recent years, defense-security cooperation between India and the US has made remarkable progresses. After removing the Sanctions on India for nuclear testing in May 2018, the US and India announced the Joint Declaration on Civil Energy Cooperation between the two countries. Accordingly, the US will provide nuclear fuel and technology support for India to develop civil nuclear energy. This has opened the door for India to develop their nuclear weapons and improve military strength. The two countries also cooperate in many defense activities including ballistic missile defense, joint military training, expanding arms sales, strengthening military staff exchanges and intelligence, as well as loosening two-way technology exports.

To be specific: In January 1995, the two countries signed the “US-India Defense Relations Agreement”, stipulating that in addition to conducting cooperation on research and production of military weapons, the two countries also conduct exchanges between military and non-military personnel. In May 2001, the Indian government announced its support for the US to develop a ballistic missile defense system, and proposed to purchase the “Patriot 1 (PAC-3)” air defense missile system. In March 2005, during the Conference on Cooperation in Ballistic Missile Defense, the US, India and Japan agreed to set up a joint working group, to implement close cooperation on ballistic missile defense. In June 2005, the United States and India signed a 10-year military cooperation agreement, which not only required increased exchanges between the two countries’ armies, but also proposed to strengthen military cooperation regarding weapons production, and trading as well as ballistic missile defense. In July 2009, the two countries signed a “Comprehensive customer surveillance treaty” on defense, the US sold advanced defense technology to India. This treaty allowed India to obtain a “permission card” to buy the US’s advanced weaponry. In addition, the two countries also cooperate in counter-terrorism in the region and around the world, maritime security, and joint military exercises …

One of the activities promoting bilateral relations between India and the US was the “2 + 2 Dialogue” taking place on October 27, 2020 in New Delhi. Within the framework of this dialogue, India and the United States had shared exchanges of a free and open Indo-Pacific vision, embracing peace and prosperity, a rules-based order with  the central role of ASEAN, resolving disputes, ensuring the economic and security interests of all related parties with legitimate interests in this region … The focus on defense-security cooperation in this “2+2 Dialogue” is the signing of the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA). The agreement allowed India to access accurate data, topographic images, maps, maritime and aviation data and satellite data on a real-time basis from US military satellites. Thereby, this will assist the provision of better accuracy for such weapons as cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones of India, and support the rescue operations during natural disasters and security strategy. The BECA is one of the four basic agreements a country needs to sign to become a major defense partner of the US. The other three agreements that India had previously signed with the United States are the General Security Of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA),  the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) and theCommunications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) . These are “cornerstone” agreements allowing the armies of the two countries to fight together in the event of a conflict. Accelerating the signing of the BECA was just one of various ways India reacted to China threats, especially after the border clashes in Doklam (2017) and Ladakh (5/2020-now). India, the US, Japan and Australia were more active in the Quartet Meeting on October 6 in Tokyo. India also invited Australia to join the Malabar naval exercises with the US and Japan in November.

The signing of BECA was a further institutionalization of the Indo-US strategic relationship to promote the two countries’ intensive cooperate on strategy and military, without pressure to become an official ally yet have benefits. Washington received interests in selling weapons to New Delhi, especially when conflict starts. New Delhi has attached more importance to US military equipment because of its transparent pricing, simple operation and maintenance, thereby reducing reliance on Russia for weapons. Currently, the total value of Indian weapons purchased from the US is more than 15 billion USD and is expected to double in the coming time. The US-India military cooperation, therefore, will be closer in the future.

Also at this dialogue, the two countries agreed to cooperate in dealing with the Covid pandemic, considering this a priority for bilateral cooperation in this period. Accordingly, the US and India will cooperate in RDto produce a series of vaccines, to expand access to vaccines, and ensure high-quality, safe, effective and affordable medical treatment between the two countries and on a global scale.

Currently, India-US defense-security cooperation is at its heyday in the history and is likely to develop further. This relationship has profound effects on the regional security environment, especially direct effects on China. As military forces grow, India will probably implement their military strategy “taking the Indian Ocean in the South, expanding power to the East Sea in the East, attacking Pakistan in the West, watching out for China in the North”, plus nuclear deterrence. This will worsen the fierce arms race in such regions as the South Asia and the Indian Ocean, leading to an imbalance of forces and add up a number of unstability factors in these regions.

In short, India-US defense-security cooperation is making remarkable progresses and has created impact on regional security, especially China and other countries with common interests in this region, including Vietnam. Therefore, the China-American-Indian triangle relationship is currently in an unstable state. In this scenario, it is suggested that countries actively identify issues relating to the this three military powers relationship and devise appropriate diplomatic strategies, balancing bilateral relations with major powers with disagreements to ensure national security and stability in the region.

Continue Reading

Defense

India-Pakistan LOC peace

Published

on

India and Pakistan have both announced to “strictly observe” the truce along the Line of Control and all other sectors “in the interest of achieving mutually beneficial and sustainable peace along the borders”. Such an announcement could not have emerged without Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s imprimatur.  A hunch is that the move is an upshot of a nudge from the US president. This impression is fortified by several events that are accentuated by India-Pakistan entente (so called surgical strikes, 5000 ceasefire violations, hype about 2008 Mumbai attack and the one at Pathankot  airbase, so on). From Pakistan’s angle, India believed in might is right. And while it was open to compromises with China, it displayed a fist to Pakistan.

Need for a dialogue

In the past, peace at the LOC proved ephemeral as it was not backed up by sufficient follow-up. A dialogue is needed for the hour. It is a good omen that Pakistan is open to talks despite chagrin at abolition of the occupied state’s statehood.

Misconception about the sanctity of the India-Pakistan LOC vis-a-vis the Sino-Indian LAC

A common misperception is that the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is more sacrosanct than the LoC. For instance, India’s prestigious Indian Express explained: ‘The LoC emerged from the 1948 ceasefire line negotiated by the UN after the Kashmir war. It was designated as the LoC in 1972, following the Simla Agreement. It is delineated on a map signed by Director General Military Operations of both armies and has the international sanctity of a legal agreement. The LAC, in contrast, is only a concept –it is not agreed upon by the two countries, neither delineated on a map nor demarcated on the ground’.

To understand Sino-Indian differences, one needs to peek into the Indian mind through books such as Shivshankar Menon’s Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy, Shyam Saran’s How India Sees the World, and A G Noorani’s India-China Boundary Problem 1846-1947.

The afore-quoted newspaper poses the question: “What was India’s response to China’s designation of the LAC?” It then explains India rejected the concept of LAC in both 1959 and 1962. Even during the war, Nehru was unequivocal: “There is no sense or meaning in the Chinese offer to withdraw twenty kilometres from what they call ‘line of actual control…” In July 1954, Nehru had issued a directive that “all our old maps dealing with this frontier should be carefully examined and, where necessary, withdrawn. New maps should be printed showing our Northern and North Eastern frontier without any reference to any ‘line’. The new maps should also be sent to our embassies abroad and should be introduced to the public generally and be used in our schools, colleges, etc”. It is this map that was officially used that formed the basis of dealings with China, eventually leading to the 1962 War’ (Indian Express, June 6, 2020, Line of Actual Control: Where it is located and where India and China differ).

India considers the LAC to be 3,488 km long, while the Chinese consider it to be only around 2,000km.

The LAC was discussed during Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng’s 1991 visit to India, where Indian PM P. V. Narasimha Rao and Premier Li reached an understanding to maintain peace and tranquility at the LAC. India formally accepted the concept of the LAC when Rao paid a return visit to Beijing in 1993.

The reference to the LAC was unqualified to make it clear that it was not referring to the LAC of 1959 or 1962 but to the LAC at the time when the agreement was signed.

India’s disdain of the LOC

India’s mindset on the LOC should change. The problem is Nehru never cared a fig for the disputed state’s constituent assembly, Indian parliament or the UN. This truth is interspersed in Avtar Singh Bhasin’s 10-volume documentary study (2012) of India-Pakistan Relations 1947-2007. It contains 3,649 official documents which gave new perspectives to Nehru’s state of mind.

In his 2018 book (published after six years of his earlier work), India, Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds (Bloomsbury India, New Delhi, 2018), Bhasin discusses Nehru’s perfidy on Kashmir.

LoC peace should lead to Kashmir solution

The tentative solutions include (a) status quo (division of Kashmir along the present Line of Control with or without some local adjustments to facilitate the local population, (b) complete or partial independence (creation of independent Muslim-majority tehsils of Rajauri, Poonch and Uri, with Hindu-majority areas merged in India), (c) a plebiscite to be held in five to 10 years after putting Kashmir under UN trusteeship (Trieste-like solution), (d) joint control, (e) an Indus-basin-related solution, (f) an Andorra island (g) Aland island-like solution and (h) permutations and combinations of the aforementioned options.

Another option is for Pakistan and India to grant independence to disputed areas under their control and let Kashmir emerge as a neutral country. An independent Kashmir, as a neutral country, was the favourite choice of Sheikh Abdullah. From the early 1950s “Sheikh Abdullah supported ‘safeguarding of autonomy’ to the fullest possible extent” (Report of the State Autonomy Committee, Jammu, p. 41).

Abdullah irked Nehru so much that he had to put him behind the bars. Bhabani Sen Gupta and Prem Shankar Jha assert that “if New Delhi sincerely wishes to break the deadlock in Kashmir, it has no other alternative except to accept and implement what is being termed as an ‘Autonomy Plus, Independence Minus’ formula, or to grant autonomy to the state to the point where it is indistinguishable from independence”. (Shri Prakash and Ghulam Mohammad Shah (ed.), Towards understanding the Kashmir crisis, p.226).

Sans sincerity and the will to implement, the only Kashmir solution is divine intervention or the unthinkable, nuclear Armageddon.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending