Where do India and Pakistan go from here?

[niaz]

An article from NYTimes.

This Is Where a Nuclear Exchange Is Most Likely. (It’s Not North Korea.)
March 7, 2019

Tensions have cooled between India and Pakistan after a terrorist attack, but their nuclear arsenals mean unthinkable consequences are always possible.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

James Yang

The current focus on North Korea’s growing arsenal obscures the fact that the most likely trigger for a nuclear exchange could be the conflict between India and Pakistan.

Long among the world’s most antagonistic neighbors, the two nations clashed again last week before, fortunately, finding the good sense to de-escalate. The latest confrontation, the most serious between the two nations in more than a decade, gave way to more normal pursuits like trade at a border crossing and sporadic cross-border shelling.

But this relative calm is not a solution. As long as India and Pakistan refuse to deal with their core dispute — the future of Kashmir — they face unpredictable, possibly terrifying, consequences.

The current crisis dates to Feb. 14, when a Kashmiri suicide bomber killed at least 40 Indian paramilitary officers in the deadliest attack in three decades in the divided region that both nations have claimed since partition in 1947. The militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad, which seeks independence for Kashmir or its merger with Pakistan, took responsibility. While it is on America’s list of terrorist organizations and is formally banned in Pakistan, the group has been protected and armed by the Pakistani intelligence service.

Last week, India sent warplanes into Pakistan for the first time in five decades. Indian officials said they had struck Jaish-e-Muhammad’s “biggest training camp” and killed a “very large number” of militants, although those claims have been called into doubt. Pakistan counterattacked, leading to a dogfight in which at least one Indian jet was shot down and a pilot was captured by the Pakistanis.

The situation could have easily escalated, given that the two countries have fought three wars over 70 years, maintain a near-constant state of military readiness along their border and have little formal government-to-government dialogue.

Adding to the volatility, India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, is waging a tough re-election campaign in which he has used anti-Pakistan talk to fuel Hindu nationalism.

With Pakistan’s Army most likely shaken by the Indian raid and unwilling to slide into protracted conflict, Prime Minister Imran Khan returned the pilot to India, in what was seen as a good-will gesture, called for talks and promised an investigation into the bombing. Mr. Modi took the opportunity to back off further escalation.

The next confrontation might not end so calmly.

Pakistan has never seriously cracked down on militant groups that attack India and the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir. In recent days, Pakistani authorities said they detained 44 members of various armed groups, including a brother of Masood Azhar, the head of Jaish-e-Muhammad, and planned to seize assets of militants on the United Nations terrorist list. But Pakistan has rarely followed through on such promises.

Without international pressure, a long-term solution is unlikely, and the threat of nuclear war remains.

China is a major ally and lender to Pakistan, and if it stopped blocking moves in the United Nations Security Council to add Mr. Azhar to the United Nations terrorist list, it would signal to Pakistan that it has to curb the militant groups.

While the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations aggressively worked to ensure that India-Pakistan confrontations in 1999, 2002 and 2008 did not spiral out of control, the Trump administration has done little but issue a few statements urging restraint. It’s hard to see a role as a mediator for Mr. Trump, who has shifted the United States more firmly against Pakistan and toward India, where he has pursued business interests.

But the United States needs to get involved. It could help India strengthen its counterterrorism capabilities to prevent future attacks, and it could encourage India to modify its approach to those opposing its rule in Kashmir, which the United Nations and other groups say involves widespread human rights abuses that simply spawn more militants. And while it’s good when India and Pakistan decide to walk back from the brink, as they seem to be doing now, the United States should be ready to assist if they cannot.

A solution to a conflict that touches so many religious and nationalist nerves must ultimately come from within, through talks among India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir. It’s a long shot, and the protagonists have shown no serious interest, but that’s the reality nonetheless.

The two countries have crossed into dangerous territory, with India attacking Pakistan and engaging in aerial duels. The next confrontation, or the one after that, could be far more unthinkable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/...h_190308&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=596850410308

 

[coffee_cup]

I'll repeat, what I have been writing for so many times.

Come what may, Indians, and all of them, no matter what kind of intellectual mask they are wearing, will discuss everything with you. From possible life on mars to how actually vedic era planes might have completed their inter-galactical voyages; from Jaish this to Jaish that. Everything.

But they will NEVER EVER talk about the terrorist organizations at home. RSS, Bajrang Dal. Or terrorist supporters sitting on highest positions in Indian govt. Even international media such as BBC and other which are littered with Indians would censor their support of terrorism in the region.

We Pakistanis have to learn one thing, lets play their game with them. Lets not focus on Jaish whatever, but focus on them and their terrorism support. This is their Achilles heel.

We have to be as loud and noisy as them. There are ample proof everywhere, something Indians can never deny.

Lets bracket India and terrorism support and keep repeating them, just as Indians do unless they understand we can play their game just as good.

And now why all of sudden world seems to be having at least a neutral stance. It is simple, world always favors those who they know can survive. India was pitched as a counterweight to China. Looking at how she is doing against a much smaller country, they are simply shocked at the incompetency of these Indians.

This is not to say that their business interest in India is going to be less, or Indians habits of threatening Pakistan at breakfast, lunch, dinner and 6 times in between are going to go away, but this is surely going to make them rethink their policies.

As for India and Pakistan: India's complex of being ruled for foreign invaders for a millennia and now finally having a few hundred ultra rich to give them a false sense of finally able to taking revenge is too deep. Unless his hatred filled curriculum not revised in their schools, there is no way that the region can be at peace.

 

[Arsalan 345]

This is not over yet.anything can happen.united states issues travel warning for India.they urged citizens not to travel Jammu Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But they will NEVER EVER talk about the terrorist organizations at home.

The issue is that their ‘terrorist’ organizations function domestically. The world pays more attention to the likes of JEM because they operate trans-nationally.

 

[I.R.A]

That is very important, and it's not the first time that principle has been articulated.

I don't know if its intentional or indian military really doesn't keep a check on its adversary but Pakistan Army has surely undergone a paradigm shift. Most of them have seen the war and fought at front, they know pretty much that these non state actors are a liability only. And the thing is they come from the same Pakistani society with a lot vested in the society, treating them different and trying to create a divide between Pakistani society and Pakistan Army is fruitless strategy.

I had told @padamchen many times, we have faced our extremists, fought them and overcame them ..... we will see how you perform and survive against yours. It has started previously it was minorities only, now its the relatives of soldiers who are suffering abuse at their hands, and given the size of indian population even if it remains within indian borders it still is worrisome.

 

[Arsalan]

And that, @Arsalan is the way forward for both countries, no matter what media on both sides of the border say. As I have said from the beginning, there will be no wider war, and both sides are too wise to let things get out of hand. I know I am right, despite the howling of the warhounds of all persuasions.

Nah mate, despite my extreme dislike for our media, THIS was not a case of "on both sides", no!! The war mongering was from one side and one side alone with very very few on Pakistan's side looking for escalation, those looking for deescalation on Indian side were harassed.

 

[coffee_cup]

The issue is that their ‘terrorist’ organizations function domestically. The world pays more attention to the likes of JEM because they operate trans-nationally.

Members of these terror organizations make to the highest posts in the govt and hence endanger the peace of whole region.
Not only this, India has been very successful on playing down the support she has been giving to LTTE, Mukti Bahini, TTP, BLA etc. Can we call them domestic as well?

Those who introduced the evil of suicide bombings in the region? So we need to highlight it. Perceptions these days matter more than small details. So lets call their bluff out...

 

[untitled]

The issue is that their ‘terrorist’ organizations function domestically

Also for the fact that incidents like these don't receive a lot of press:
1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

 

[VCheng]

Given that the Kashmir issue is regarded as central to the present tussle, this article is a good read:

@Joe Shearer @Vibrio @Nilgiri

@Arsalan @AgNoStiC MuSliM

https://www.economist.com/asia/2019...-is-intensifying-a-failed-strategy-in-kashmir




Nadir in the valley
India’s government is intensifying a failed strategy in Kashmir
Resentment is growing ever stronger

Print edition | Asia
Mar 7th 2019| DELHI

Guns have slipped back into holsters and diplomats behind their desks; the Samjhauta or “Concord” Express has resumed its reassuring bi-weekly chug connecting Lahore Junction and Old Delhi Station. Relations between India and Pakistan are returning to the normal huffy disdain after a week of military brinkmanship. For the divided and disputed border region of Kashmir, there is relief. Yet in the Kashmir Valley, a fertile and densely populated part of the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, this comes tempered with weariness. For its 7m inhabitants, most of them Muslim, a return to normal means a large and growing pile of frustrations. Some, such as bad government services and a deepening shortage of jobs, are familiar to all Indians. Others are unique to the valley.

Pakistan views the valley’s Muslims as sundered citizens; its constitution prescribes what should happen not if, but “when”, Kashmiris vote to join Pakistan. And since independence in 1947, Pakistan has never ceased trying to hasten this moment by sending guerrillas over the border to stir up jihad—although this week it claimed to rounding up such militants. India, for its part, says that Kashmir was lucky to fall to a secular, democratic country at partition and not to its violent, narrow-minded neighbour. But Indian governments turn deaf the moment people in the valley speak of greater autonomy, let alone azadi (independence). Their efforts at counter-insurgency have been disturbingly bloody. The conflict has claimed 50,000 lives since the 1980s.

The deafness has been especially pronounced of late. When Narendra Modi came to power in India in 2014, violence in the valley was near its lowest level in a quarter century. Perhaps jihadist action would have risen again anyway, but government policies plainly have not helped. Senior officials have called for the scrapping of constitutional clauses that grant the government of Jammu & Kashmir a few more powers than those of other states. Security forces have become even more heavy-handed. They use shotguns to suppress angry crowds, thereby blinding many protesters with metal pellets. An army officer who kidnapped a civilian and strapped him to a jeep as a human shield was not punished, but lauded and promoted.

Many Kashmiris were further alienated when Mr Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which had swept polls in Jammu, the largely Hindu part of the state, first joined in an opportunistic coalition government with a pro-independence party and then abruptly quit. This allowed Mr Modi to impose direct rule from Delhi. Those who had derided Indian democracy as a sham seemed vindicated.

Infiltration from Pakistan has been rife. In the words of Shivshankar Menon, a former Indian national security adviser, “When they think you are in trouble in Jammu & Kashmir, their temptation is to stir up that trouble.” Violence began to mount, and with it the intensity of the government’s response. When guerrillas hole up in villages, the security services tend to blitz their hideouts. Bystanders are often injured in the crossfire and their property destroyed. A growing proportion of the insurgents are local, even college-educated Kashmiris, not from across the border. Huge crowds gather at their funerals.

It was a local recruit of a group based in Pakistan who drove a bomb-packed minivan into a convoy of Indian police in the valley in mid-February, killing 40 and initiating the face-off with Pakistan. In response, online agitators and even BJP officials goaded mobs around India to attack Kashmiris. Omair Ahmad, an Indian writer, despairingly remarks, “The Indian right has always seen Kashmir as our Kosovo: a land to be loved, a people to be hated.”

In recent weeks Mr Modi’s government has escalated the repression in the valley, bringing in extra troops, rounding up non-violent activists and banning a moderate Islamic group that runs scores of schools, employing some 10,000 teachers. It has cut government advertising in local newspapers, their main source of revenue. Curfews and internet shutdowns have intensified. Senior officials speak, alarmingly, of the need to “instil India” in locals.

This article appeared in the Asia section of the print edition under the headline "Nadir in the valley"

=============================

Nah mate, despite my extreme dislike for our media, THIS was not a case of "on both sides", no!! The war mongering was from one side and one side alone with very very few on Pakistan's side looking for escalation, those looking for deescalation on Indian side were harassed.

Let me just say that media on both sides is used only to further a prescribed view as suits the enforced national narrative.

 

[Hellfire]

Dear Sir.

Thanks for the tag. Interesting read, but yet, a write up by a person either with an agenda to leave a message of a sense of despair being prevalent in the State of Jammu & Kashmir or plainly unaware of the complete picture.

Guns have slipped back into holsters and diplomats behind their desks; the Samjhauta or “Concord” Express has resumed its reassuring bi-weekly chug connecting Lahore Junction and Old Delhi Station. Relations between India and Pakistan are returning to the normal huffy disdain after a week of military brinkmanship. For the divided and disputed border region of Kashmir, there is relief. Yet in the Kashmir Valley, a fertile and densely populated part of the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, this comes tempered with weariness. For its 7m inhabitants, most of them Muslim, a return to normal means a large and growing pile of frustrations. Some, such as bad government services and a deepening shortage of jobs, are familiar to all Indians. Others are unique to the valley.

For the blue italicized:

a. Bad government services and a deepening shortage of jobs is the result of the failure of successive Governments of J&K, composed of people of the state itself, led by Mr. Farooq Abdullah, Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, Mr Omar Abdullah, Mr. Mufti Mohammad Sayeed and Ms Mehbooba Mufti, at various times, over the past three decades, to lay down and implement policies that have tangible effects on the ground.

b. Further, the role of the Hurriyet, who has extensive business networks that remain dependent on a large security force presence, needs to be understood by the people of the State.

c. Dearth of jobs: automation is reducing the number of traditional jobs as businesses seek to streamline their processes and adopt technology to reduce costs. The local Imams are deadly against any form of birth control and have somehow linked birth control to an 'attack on Islam' and if that does not work, an 'Indian conspiracy to reduce their population' RIP logic. I entered Kashmir Valley (Kupwara district in a particular year) When I landed at my location, we had a village with about 40 odd houses and miles and miles of forests. No electricity, we relied on generators, both military and civil inhabitants there. Four years later, as I left the place, there were three new villages in the surrounding area each with anywhere between 200 to 250 houses, roads and electricity 24x7. Although this indicates even ground work done by Government of the day, it serves to highlight the massive population explosion that has occurred in the Kashmir valley proper. It is a problem that is a subset of the rest of the country too.

For the red highlight:

The author merely made a statement and went quiet. What other problems are unique? Counter insurgency operations? That is in North-East in certain regions too.

Pakistan views the valley’s Muslims as sundered citizens; its constitution prescribes what should happen not if, but “when”, Kashmiris vote to join Pakistan. And since independence in 1947, Pakistan has never ceased trying to hasten this moment by sending guerrillas over the border to stir up jihad—although this week it claimed to rounding up such militants. India, for its part, says that Kashmir was lucky to fall to a secular, democratic country at partition and not to its violent, narrow-minded neighbour. But Indian governments turn deaf the moment people in the valley speak of greater autonomy, let alone azadi (independence). Their efforts at counter-insurgency have been disturbingly bloody. The conflict has claimed 50,000 lives since the 1980s.

a. Autonomy, exists, they choose the Government they want, from amongst themselves, there is no out of state voter allowed to vote there, and we see how that has panned out.

b. Lives: of that, more than half is of the militants, killed in scores in a day in 90s and since identification was neigh impossible as quite a bulk came from outside the state, buried into what the same ignoramus claims as 'mass graves'! Every villager knows there 'mass graves'.

The deafness has been especially pronounced of late. When Narendra Modi came to power in India in 2014, violence in the valley was near its lowest level in a quarter century. Perhaps jihadist action would have risen again anyway, but government policies plainly have not helped.

Incorrect. It was lowest in 2007-2010 as by 2006, militarily the effort had exhausted and Pakistan and Secessionists had failed to achieve a breakthrough. Subsequently, they switched tactics and introduced the Palestinian concept of 'Intifada', where by 2010, a trend to stoning was seen, often people attacking convoys or security forces vehicles and in instances, burning them, after a sustained period of stone throwing. To meet this challenge, the Security Forces had to adopt to tactics that aimed at dissuasive force posturing - to debatable success. This period also saw the Indian Intelligence Agencies anticipate the turn of events and sow the seeds of change in nature of the struggle in the 05 districts of Kashmir - Kupwara, Baramulla, Bandipora, Shopian and Anantnag, thereby allowing the metamorphosis to what was essentially branded as the Kashmiri struggle against Indian Occupation, to what today is by and large accepted as terrorism in name of Islam.

Senior officials have called for the scrapping of constitutional clauses that grant the government of Jammu & Kashmir a few more powers than those of other states.

Which indeed, grants the state the autonomy it enjoys. And the Supreme Court of India, in its verdict in April 2018, ruled out the abrogation of the same based on a challenge to the legality of the said clause. It upheld the legality of the clause and dismissed the case.

Security forces have become even more heavy-handed. They use shotguns to suppress angry crowds,

Defined very clearly under Sections 143, 144, 268, 129, if IPC and CrPC and Sections 54, 151 CrPC to name a few. In addition, it has been upheld in Karam Singh Vs Hardayal Singh (CLJ 1979) that three prerequisites must be satisfied before a magistrate can order the use of force to disperse a crowd:

a. First, there should be an unlawful assembly with the object of committing violence or an assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace.

b. Second, an executive magistrate should order the assembly to disperse.

c. Third, in spite of such orders, the people do not move away.

It must be noted that the force can be used under law, as must be by a legal State, based on the above. The same criteria exists for the AFSPA, the only difference is that it legalizes legal protection to the service personnel acting under the directions of an authority authorized to take decision on use of force, if the intent of the act was in accordance with the principles and spirit of the law. Further, the same, the use of force, is in consistence with the Right to Life for the security personnel, whose life is at stake due to stone pelting.

An army officer who kidnapped a civilian and strapped him to a jeep as a human shield was not punished, but lauded and promoted.

He did not kidnap, he caught hold of the nearest protester (in spite of the protestation of the protester to teh contrary, tied him to the jeep and escorted a civil election party out of the area, when the people in the area were keen on pelting stones at the authorized government functionaries, who were facing grave danger to their life. Further, the Officer did not resort to use of force, something that was as per law, and as per Army Law, if the firing has to be resorted to, fire has to be for effect. Army does not fire in air to disperse the crowd.

Overall, instead of creating a body count, the officer used resources to reduce the same. Further, he was a Major and is a Major facing due action for failure in another case.

Many Kashmiris were further alienated when Mr Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which had swept polls in Jammu, the largely Hindu part of the state, first joined in an opportunistic coalition government with a pro-independence party and then abruptly quit. This allowed Mr Modi to impose direct rule from Delhi. Those who had derided Indian democracy as a sham seemed vindicated.

So, the Mahagathbandhan too is a sham? Politics sees strange bedfellows, why should J&K have a special status even in Politics?

Rest, got bored of rebutting. And have to step out. But in a nutshell, the metamorphosis of the militancy to what is now referred to open acts of terrorism as also tactics of using civil unrest techniques of the kind as being seen, are more in favor of India than Pakistan. It is only Pakistan and Hurriyet who have failed to realize what has happened.
I have mentioned this a couple of years back, that people here needed to step back and ask why Burhan Wani was required to be removed.

Sir, the fundamental characteristic of Kashmiris 'struggle' has shifted from a narrative of genuine political issue to an ideological one, more easily identified with struggles as those espoused by AQ and ISIS. And we know how much the world cares for that. Howsoever hard Pakistan may try to project it, they made a gross mistake a decade back.

 

[Hellfire]

An article from NYTimes.

This Is Where a Nuclear Exchange Is Most Likely. (It’s Not North Korea.)

The usual write up to promote the region as being a flash point. Third decade now?

 

[VCheng]

Sir, the fundamental characteristic of Kashmiris 'struggle' has shifted from a narrative of genuine political issue to an ideological one, more easily identified with struggles as those espoused by AQ and ISIS. And we know how much the world cares for that. Howsoever hard Pakistan may try to project it, they made a gross mistake a decade back.

I think what the article alludes to is that social deprivation, regardless of cause(s) only makes turmoil and mayhem easier to instigate by those who have vested interests to fan such divisions. That statement applies equally to Kashmir as it does to many other areas, including Baluchistan.

And the remedies are equally evident, but very hard to implement.

The usual write up to promote the region as being a flash point. Third decade now?

I agree that such claims of a nuclear flashpoint are designed only to inflate the issue internationally and will not go very far now as it has not for three decades already.

 

[Nilgiri]

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Vibrio


https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/28/india-and-pakistan-should-stop-playing-with-fire

Modi’s dangerous moment
India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

With an election looming, Narendra Modi is under pressure to act tough

Print edition | Leaders
Feb 28th 2019

The armies of India and Pakistan often exchange fire across the front line in the disputed state of Kashmir. When tensions rise, one side will subject the other to a blistering artillery barrage. On occasion, the two have sent soldiers on forays into one another’s territory. But since the feuding neighbours tested nuclear weapons in the late 1990s, neither had dared send fighter jets across the frontier—until this week. After a terrorist group based in Pakistan launched an attack in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir that killed 40 soldiers, India responded by bombing what it said was a terrorist training camp in the Pakistani state of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Pakistan retaliated by sending jets of its own to bomb Indian targets. In the ensuing air battle, both sides claim to have shot down the other’s aircraft, and Pakistan captured an Indian pilot.

A miscalculation now could spell calamity. The fighting is already the fiercest between the two countries since India battled to expel Pakistani intruders from high in the Himalayas in 1999. The initial Indian air raid struck not Pakistan’s bit of Kashmir, but well within Pakistan proper and just 100km from the capital, Islamabad. That, in effect, constituted a change in the rules of engagement between the two. India and Pakistan are so often at odds that there is a tendency to shrug off their spats, but not since their most recent, full-blown war in 1971 has the risk of escalation been so high.

The intention of Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, in ordering the original air strike was simple. Pakistan has long backed terrorists who mount grisly attacks in India, most notably in Mumbai in 2008, when jihadists who arrived by boat from Pakistan killed some 165 people. Although Pakistan’s army promised then to shut down such extremist groups, it has not. By responding more forcefully than usual to the latest outrage, Mr Modi understandably wanted to signal that he was not willing to allow Pakistan to keep sponsoring terrorism.

In the long run, stability depends on Pakistan ending its indefensible support for terrorism. Its prime minister, Imran Khan, is urging dialogue and, in a promising gesture, was due to release India’s pilot—presumably with the approval of the army chief, who calls the shots on matters of security.

But in the short run Mr Modi shares the responsibility to stop a disastrous escalation. Because he faces an election in April, he faces the hardest and most consequential calculations. They could come to define his premiership.

Mr Modi has always presented himself as a bold and resolute military leader, who does not shrink from confronting Pakistan’s provocations. He has taken to repeating a catchphrase from the film “Uri”, which portrays a commando raid he ordered against Pakistan in 2016 in response to a previous terrorist attack as a moment of chin-jutting grit. The all-too-plausible fear is that his own tendency to swagger, along with domestic political pressures, will spur him further down the spiral towards war.

The ambiguity of Mr Modi’s beliefs only deepens the danger. He campaigned at the election in 2014 as a moderniser, who would bring jobs and prosperity to India. But, his critics charge, all his talk of development and reform is simply the figleaf for a lifelong commitment to a divisive Hindu-nationalist agenda.

Over the past five years Mr Modi has lived up neither to the hype nor to the dire warnings. The economy has grown strongly under his leadership, by around 7% a year. He has brought about reforms his predecessors had promised but never delivered, such as a nationwide goods-and-services tax(GST).

But unemployment has actually risen during Mr Modi’s tenure, according to leaked data that his government has been accused of trying to suppress. The GST was needlessly complex and costly to administer. Other pressing reforms have fallen by the wayside. India’s banks are still largely in state hands, still prone to lend to the well-connected. And as the election has drawn closer, Mr Modi has resorted to politically expedient policies that are likely to harm the economy. His government hounded the boss of the central bank out of office for keeping interest rates high, appointing a replacement who promptly cut them. And it has unveiled draft rules that would protect domestic e-commerce firms from competition from retailers such as Amazon.

By the same token, Mr Modi has not sparked the outright communal conflagration his critics, The Economist included, fretted about before he became prime minister. But his government has often displayed hostility to India’s Muslim minority and sympathy for those who see Hinduism—the religion of 80% of Indians—as under threat from internal and external foes. He has appointed a bigoted Hindu prelate, Yogi Adityanath, as chief minister of India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh. A member of his cabinet presented garlands of flowers to a group of Hindu men who had been convicted of lynching a Muslim for selling beef (cows are sacred to Hindus). And Mr Modi himself has suspended the elected government of Jammu & Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state, and used force to suppress protests there against the central government, leading to horrific civilian casualties.

As reprehensible as all this is, the Hindu zealots who staff Mr Modi’s electoral machine complain that he has not done enough to advance the Hindu cause. And public dissatisfaction with his economic reforms has helped boost Congress, the main opposition party, making the election more competitive than had been expected. The temptation to fire up voters using heated brinkmanship with Pakistan will be huge.

Mr Modi has made a career of playing with fire. He first rose to prominence as chief minister of Gujarat when the state was racked by anti-Muslim pogroms in 2002. Although there is no evidence he orchestrated the violence, he has shown no compunction about capitalising on the popularity it won him in Hindu-nationalist circles. With a difficult election ahead, he may think he can pull off the same trick again by playing the tough guy with Pakistan, but without actually getting into a fight. However, the price of miscalculation does not bear thinking about. Western governments are pushing for a diplomatic settlement at the UN. If Mr Modi really is a patriot, he will now step back.

Thanks for the tag, an interesting read.

Send me an email when you got a little time my friend. I have something you might be interested in.

 

[VCheng]

Thanks for the tag, an interesting read.

Send me an email when you got a little time my friend. I have something you might be interested in.

Sent!