Very nice collection , Why not you put anything on Baluchistan Conflicts and Suleiman Dawood Khan and his case against Pakistan in International Court of Justice in England.

Central Asia’s Crisis of Governance
By
Philip Shishkin & Bernard Schwartz Fellow

The Region

Located in a strategically important neighborhood amid China, Russia, Afghanistan, and Iran, and sitting atop vast deposits of oil, gas, gold, and uranium, post-Soviet Central Asia is

home to some 50 million people living in five countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.. For centuries, the region has drawn the attention of the world’s superpowers as they seek leverage over their foes, access to natural resources, or a base from which to influence adjacent regions.. For just as long, the societies of Central Asia have been beset by lackluster and often abusive rule, first by warring and insular feudal chiefs, then by colonial conquerors from Russia, and then by their Soviet successors.. Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union 20 years ago, the five Central Asian republics have struggled to find viable governance models and to place their economies, long moored to Moscow, on stable footing.

The region’s governments have largely failed in that quest.. Central Asia faces a bleak political landscape: corruption is rampant, human rights are routinely ignored, economic opportunity

is limited, the mass media are sanitized in the best Soviet tradition, civil society is neutered, and even artistic expression is restricted— particularly in Uzbekistan.. On the economic front, a qualified exception could be made for Kazakhstan.. Aided by the country’s generous oil reserves, an authoritarian government there has presided over economic growth.. But Kazakhstan also faces real challenges of governance, economic diversification, and equitable distribution of wealth going forward.. Elsewhere in the region, pronouncements of economic growth and low inflation—such as those routinely voiced by Uzbek leaders and echoed by international financial institutions—do not tell the full story of the economy’s true shape.

Bundled together somewhat patronizingly as “the Stans” in Western parlance, the five nations of post-Soviet Central Asia share historical and political similarities, though there are crucial differences, too.. Oil-rich Kazakhstan, for instance, is a far cry from the poor and fractious state of Tajikistan.. And the ongoing political ferment in Kyrgyzstan offers a stark contrast to the sterile political atmosphere of Uzbekistan.. The following sections will examine the governance challenges faced by each Central Asian state in detail.. The foreign policies of the major powers will be explored as well..

In the early 1990s, well-placed Communist Party officials ascended to presidencies across Central Asia.. Twenty years later, three out of five remain in power, with no clear succession plans in sight.. The other two departed the scene, leaving behind muddled aftermaths.. Guided by autocrats, the region has experienced significant corruption, human rights abuses, conflict, and civil unrest.. As Central Asian states grapple with these problems, Washington increasingly relies on the region as a logistical staging ground for the war in Afghanistan and a possible economic development partner for Afghanistan after the 2014 military drawdown; meanwhile, China and Europe covet the region’s energy resources.

The recent wave of popular uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa is a reminder that even seemingly unassailable regimes can crumble quickly, with unpredictable consequences.. Central Asia bears some similarities to the political, economic, and demographic structures across the Arab world, a fact that has not gone unnoticed in Central Asian capitals.. Of course, Central Asia does not need external reminders of its instability—before there was the Arab Spring, Kyrgyzstan had its own season of political renewal.. The country went through two revolutions in the space of five years, both predating regime overthrows in Egypt and Tunisia.. And in 2005, the Uzbek government ordered a violent crackdown on protesters following a prison break in the town of Andijan.. Although limited in scope and not aimed at overthrowing the ruling regime, the events in Andijan showcased the government’s zero-tolerance approach to protests of any kind.. In that, the Uzbek government’s reaction was similar to those of Syrian and Libyan authorities as they tried to deal with their own insurrections in 2011.. Most recently, security forces in Kazakhstan shot and killed at least 16 people in December protests in a Western oil town— the most serious explosion of violence in the country’s history.

Watching the Arab unrest, a prominent Kyrgyz politician said, partly in jest, that the Middle East got its revolutionary virus from Central Asia.. In Kyrgyzstan, protesters shouted Ketsin!—Kyrgyz for “Get lost!”—as they chased out two consecutive dictators.. The politician coined a new term: “The Kyrgyz Ketsinism is becoming a global phenomenon..”

Ralph S.. Clem, a political geographer at Florida International University, has attempted to quantify the similarities between Central Asia and the Middle East by studying data on governance, economic development, corruption, and wealth gaps from sources such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and Freedom House.. Perhaps not surprisingly, his analysis does not bode well for Central Asia.. “The empirical data available suggest a very close fit between socioeconomic conditions in Egypt and Tunisia on the one hand and the five Central Asian countries on the other, especially with regard to the youthfulness of the population. In other respects and in some countries, the pre-conditions associated with political unrest are even more problematic in Central Asia than in North Africa,” Clem writes.. He goes on to say that “this comparison [between the Middle East and Central Asia] portends turbulence ahead, particularly for Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan..”3 None of this is to suggest that political change in Central Asia will follow the Middle Eastern or Kyrgyz scenarios of street protests and revolutions.. For all the structural similarities between parts of Central Asia and the Middle East, there are critical differences, too.. The population of Central Asia tends to be depoliticized, and some of its most active members are either content with the relative economic stability (as in Kazakhstan) or are working in Russia (as in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), and they are not clamoring for political change.. The tumultuous experience of Kyrgyzstan has given authoritarian regimes in the neighboring countries a resonant, if self-serving, argument: revolutions lead to chaos and bloodshed, and authoritarian stability is preferable to half-baked democratic experiments.. In the years to come, political change in Central Asia will likely be driven by inter-elite tussles, particularly during succession struggles following the death, retirement, or incapacitation of longtime rulers.

There are no simple solutions in the region.. A rush toward democracy and elections, by itself, will not solve Central Asia’s many crises and, in fact, may exacerbate them in the short term.. But the status quo is equally fraught with risks..

The precise events that triggered street protests in Kyrgyzstan and the Middle East vary from country to country, but what they all have in common is popular anger at the anything-goes crony capitalism practiced by the ruling elites coupled with a lack of economic opportunity for many others.. As in Egypt and Tunisia, most Central Asian regimes, at one time or another, have fused the privilege to govern with the chance to get rich.. At a time when many Central Asian men have to scavenge for livelihoods on construction sites in Russia and send remittances to their families back home, such rapacious behavior by rulers and their relatives and friends is particularly noticeable.. “There is even a belief that [it is] Russia saving Central Asian dictatorships from revolutions by ‘sucking out’ from the region the young and active, but unemployed, population,” states Daniil Kislov, the editor of Ferghananews..com, a prominent Moscow-based news source on Central Asia..

Across much of Central Asia, the failures of the ruling regimes and their crackdowns against many forms of dissent have left their citizens with few political alternatives.. In the absence of a secular opposition, religious groups may enter the fray, a scenario that is plausible in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, particularly in light of the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.. Despite their façade of invincibility, some Central Asian regimes are inherently unstable, as the example of Kyrgyzstan has demonstrated.. But as Kyrgyzstan also shows, the sudden collapse of a dictatorial regime may also have unforeseen consequences and unleash violence. Given the historical, cultural, and linguistic kinship among the five nations that make up Central Asia, one would expect a degree of regional unity.. Such unity could help the states tackle common problems, advance a coordinated position with respect to foreign powers, and ease cross-border travel for Central Asian citizens, to mention just a few possible areas of cooperation.. Over the past two decades, though, the opposite trend has emerged across the region: a gradual process of drifting apart that has exacerbated Central Asia’s problems.. For instance, an early effort to foster cooperation on regional defense, through something called the Central Asian Battalion, faltered amid the mistrust typical of the region’s leaders.. “They cooperated, but very reluctantly,” recalls retired General Anthony Zinni, who at the time headed the U..S.. Central Command and worked closely with the battalion..

The Central Asian states inherited a complex set of borders from centuries of Russian gerrymandering, giving rise to border disputes that continue to this day.. The Soviet legacy saddled the region with economic problems, too.. In the vast Soviet economic machine, however dysfunctional, Central Asia carried out a resource function: providing the Moscow engine with raw materials, such as Uzbek cotton or Turkmen gas.. Moscow would then disburse subsidies to Central Asia.. Once those Soviet links were broken, the Central Asian states struggled to create self-sustaining economic systems.

In a region that is dependent on agriculture, management of scarce water resources across borders has sharpened mutual recriminations, particularly between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, which historically have sparred on a variety of issues.. The region’s primary waterway, the Amu Darya River, flows northwest, giving the countries upstream, including Tajikistan, control over how much water travels downstream to Uzbekistan, where thirsty crops such as cotton require a lot of irrigation.. Tajikistan wants to build a large dam and harness the Amu Darya’s power for electricity production, a plan that is causing consternation in Uzbekistan.. In a healthier political environment, such disputes could be tackled more amicably.. But in keeping with their rivalries, both sides appear to view water management as a zero-sum game, to the detriment of their citizens..

The Countries

Kazakhstan: Electoral Authoritarianism

In early April 2011, Kazakhstan treated the world to an elaborately staged display of democracy in action.. Nursultan Nazarbayev, the country’s only president since it gained independence in 1991, called a surprise election to decide who would rule Kazakhstan for the next five years.. Nazarbayev’s term in office was not up for another year, but the president felt the need to settle the issue ahead of time.. Initially, Nazarbayev wanted to prolong his reign by a referendum.. But when that plan met with ridicule abroad and constitutional hurdles at home, his handlers abruptly changed tack and called the election instead.

Of course, the outcome of this vote, like of all the earlier ones, was never in doubt.. Nearly everyone who is allowed to vote in Kazakhstan did so that April Sunday, and of those who showed up, almost everyone voted to reelect Nazarbayev.. The government said that Nazarbayev won by a crushing margin approaching 100 percent.. Leaving a polling station, one rival candidate confessed that he, too, had voted for the incumbent because Nazarbayev was going to prevail anyway.

If there were any doubts that Kazakhstan, Central Asia’s economic powerhouse, had mastered the trappings of democracy without heeding its substance, then this election would surely dispel them.. Because of its oil supplies, Kazakhstan has vast economic potential.. The central question is whether the country’s authoritarian system of governance is capable of fully developing that potential—or whether its rigid, top-down regime will hinder Kazakhstan’s progress in the years to come.

During his more than 20 years in power, Nazarbayev made sure that no credible political alternative to his rule would emerge.. This approach turned Nazarbayev’s rule into a self-fulfilling prophecy.. After the latest election, a popular Nazarbayev impersonator posted a tongue -in-cheek comment on Twitter: “I didn’t expect to win, to be honest.. I was scared to go against the giants of national politics.. But what can you do? If the people ask for it—you must do it!”

The joke belies the central reality of Kazakhstan’s political life: there is no public strategy for who might succeed Nazarbayev or how that successor will be chosen.. The implications of this political paralysis grow wider as the president gets older—he is now in his early seventies.. So far, the strategy has been to extend Nazarbayev’s rule into perpetuity through elections and constitutional changes.. “Managing the transition to a post-Nazarbayev era will be a tremendous challenge, particularly given that he has now indicated he plans to be around [for years to come] and the history of potential successors/challengers falling from grace and position or winding up dead,” writes policy analyst Jeff Goldstein.

Much like the inexact art of Kremlinology— divining the fortunes of the Soviet elite— Kazakhstan has produced its own parlor game of tracking the ups and downs of various political players.. Nazarbayev’s recent trip to Germany, for instance, gave rise to unconfirmed rumors that he was undergoing surgery and triggered yet another round of speculation as to who might succeed him..

Many analysts in the West have long assumed that economic growth and free-market policies would inevitably prod authoritarian regimes toward greater political openness. In recent years, however, this view has been challenged by the rise of China, where the Communist Party seems to have succeeded in decoupling economic growth and prosperity from political liberalization.. The financial crisis that crippled the traditional bastions of economic and political freedom—the United States and Western Europe—provided another argument to those who believe that authoritarianism is a viable political model, and not only for China. In Kazakhstan, supporters of the president can make a case that the country’s autocratic system has delivered economic results and therefore should be preserved, or at least not changed too quickly.. But unlike China, where the Communist Party has a track record of orchestrating peaceful transitions of power from one crop of leaders to the next, Kazakhstan has no such experience. In fact, Kazakhstan’s political system most closely resembles not China’s but Russia’s, where elections have degenerated from fostering genuine competition to simply legitimizing the ruling regime.. Russia’s recent parliamentary elections, however, have shown that a significant number of voters are no longer content with such a system.. Another similarity is that both regimes have been able, with varying degrees of success, to deploy their oil and gas wealth to cushion themselves from criticism and challenges.

Russia’s and now Kazakhstan’s systems have been deemed, paradoxically, “electoral authoritarianism..” The model, perfected in Russia under Vladimir Putin, has taken root in Central Asia, and nowhere more so than in Kazakhstan: “Electoral authoritarianism is very convenient for rulers, particularly as it makes the regime presentable to the outside world.. For even the most biased observer will admit that a situation where there are no elections, and the opposition is not even formally allowed to participate has nothing to do with democracy. Rather, it is a tyranny.. Terms such as a ‘hybrid regime’ or ‘imperfect democracy’ are far more acceptable.. They are convenient for Western politicians who do business with these regimes as well as for investors.. Nobody wants to have any dealings with a dictator—but an imperfect democrat is quite a different matter..

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

A military encounter on the LoC last week is threatening to erode the hard fought gains in relaxing trade and visa regimes by India and Pakistan in recent times. The rhetoric is shrill in India which claims it has been grievously wronged. But the facts are not so one-sided.

It is established that when the Indian army recently started to build some bunkers in Charanda in Haji Pir Sector of the LoC, it violated an agreement in 2005 not to change the status quo. This provoked the Pakistanis to shell Indian positions in a bid to stop the construction of the bunkers. The Indian commander of 161 Brigade in the area countered on January 6th by ordering a raid across the LoC to silence the troublesome Pakistani post. One Pakistani soldier was killed, provoking a protest by Pakistan's DGMO on 7th Jan, followed by a Pakistani counter attack across the LoC on Jan 8th in which two Indian soldiers were killed. At that stage, on Jan 9th, the Indian media erupted with allegations of a "beheading" of one Indian soldier and "castration" and "mutilation" of the other by the Pakistanis. This was an unprecedented act of savagery, said the Indian media, that called for reprisals. The initial reaction of the Indian foreign and defence ministers was measured and cautious no less than that of the spokesmen of the Indian army. But this soon gave way under media pressure, prompting both to become hawkish.

The Indian outrage turns on the alleged act of "beheading". Mainstream Indian media insists it is both unprecedented and Pakistan-centred. But the Indian media has ignored reports of beheadings by both sides in earlier encounters in the Kashmir sector. Several Indian journalists have drawn attention to such practices also by Indian troops since the Kargil conflict in 1999. Barkha Dutt, a top NDTV anchor, wrote about it in her "Confessions of a War Reporter" in Himal magazine in 2001. Sankarshan Thakur, a former editor of Kolkota's Telegraph newspaper, wrote about Naga and Jat regiment excesses in the Drass sector of Kargil in his article titled "Guns and Yellow Roses". Harinder Baweja made similar observations in "A Soldier's diary" published in India Today. And Praveen Swami confirmed such mutual incidents in a timely article in The Hindu on Jan 10th.

Three questions arise. Is this jingoism meant to obscure the Indian army's original sin of violating the 2005 agreement followed by a raid across the LoC to punish the Pakistanis? Are sections of the Indian media leaning to the BJP and trying to exploit the situation by putting the Congress on the back foot and stopping it from getting public kudos for opening people-to-people and business contacts between the two countries? Is the Indian media effectively sabotaging a proposed visit by the Indian Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, to Pakistan before the forthcoming general elections?

This isn't the first time sections of the Indian media have sabotaged attempts by the Indian government to normalize relations with Pakistan. In 1990 Rajiv Gandhi all but signed an agreement in Islamabad with Benazir Bhutto to demilitarize the Siachin glacier but was compelled to backtrack on returning to India when asked by the media what he had got in exchange from Pakistan for withdrawing Indian troops from the commanding heights on the glacier. In 1997, Prime Ministers I K Gujral and Nawaz Sharif agreed in Male to start a composite dialogue for conflict resolution, only to put the process in cold storage in 1998 when Mr Gujral was faced in the run-up to the general election with media criticism for including Kashmir in the composite dialogue. More recently, at Sharmal Sheikh in Egypt, Dr Manmohan Singh and Yousaf Raza Gilani vowed to move ahead in normalization but the Indian opposition, spurred by sections of the Indian media, accused Dr Singh of betraying the lives lost in the Mumbai incident of 2008 and put paid to his efforts. Indeed, the position of the Indian media and establishment even on the "low hanging fruits" of Sir Creek and Siachin have hardened and made resolution almost impossible in the short term.

This is not to deny that sections of the Pakistani media have also played such a negative role in the past. But there is now a dynamic new consensus in Pakistani civil society, media and political parties to normalize relations with India, proof of which is now forthcoming from the government's determination to give MFN trade status to India as soon as possible.

The Indian government has delayed implementation of the relaxed visa regime. It is discouraging future sporting contacts with Pakistan. The Indian army chief and prime minister have both made strident statements. But Pakistan's foreign minister has offered ministerial talks to reduce tensions. Common sense suggests that the India government, opposition and media should resist succumbing to the politics of opportunism in the larger national interests of their peoples and country.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Why Indian Troops attacked a Pakistani Post ?
By
Col Muhammad Hanif (Retd)

As highlighted in the media reports, on 6 January 2013 Indian forces had raided a Pakistani Military post across LOC in Hajipir sector in Kashmir and killed a soldier of Pakistan Army. Indian troops also left a pistol and dagger behind. On this cease fire violation Pakistan lodged a protest citing pistol and dagger as a proof. However Indian authorities rejected Pakistan’s allegation. Later, on 8 January 2013 Indians claimed that Pakistani troops had killed two Indian soldiers namely Lance Naik Hemraj and Sepoy Sudhkar Singh and one dead body was multilated with the head chopped off. Pakistan Army has denied these allegations. Indian press release condemned the alleged incident and media hype was created linking the incident with the alleged death and torture of an Indian Captain during Kargil conflict. Indian Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Indian Chief of Army Staff and Indian Chief of Air Staff gave statements accusing Pakistan of repeated LOC violations. Indian Air Chief even warned Pakistan by stating that if repeated violations occurred from Pakistani side India will have to think about other options. Salman Khurshid, Indian Foreign Minister even said that this incident will factor in the future road map of India‐ Pakistan relations.

Also, Pakistan’s High Commissioner in New Delhi was summoned on 9 January 2013 by Indian authorities and a lengthy protest note was handed over to him. The note stated that Pakistani troops crossed the control line and ambushed an Indian patrol killing two Indian soldiers. It added that bodies of two Indian soldiers were mutilated and head of one of the bodies was missing. Apart from many allegations contained in the protest note it was said, the action was done by Pakistan Army troops with a view to negating the efforts of the two governments to improve relations. It was also stated that Pakistan Government should investigate the incident. Our High Commissioner however denied Indian allegations of crossing of LOC by Pakistani troops and committing brutality against Indian soldiers. He stated that the actual fact was that on 6 January 2013 Indian troops had crossed LOC and attacked our

post at Haji Pir pass as a result of which one of the Pakistani soldier embraced shahadat. About this violation Pakistan had already lodged a protest to India. Stating that such incidents should be resolved through DGMOs hotline and flag meetings, our High Commissioner also suggested that while separate inquiries may be done by both military authorities, the UNMOGIP should also be asked to inquire into the incident. Indian authorities however rejected an inquiry to be conducted by the UNMOGIP.

LOC violation carried out by the Indian troops on 6 January 2013 in Hajipir sector killing one Pakistani soldier, subsequent violations by Indian troops and hard statements of Indian leadership on the subject and Pakistan’s mature handling of the situation indicates that it is India and not Pakistan that wants to disturb the ongoing bilateral peace process. Now the question arises as to why India created such a situation on the LOC, created a media hype to blame Pakistani troops for violating cease fire agreement across the LOC and India’s senior leadership gave threatening statements thus creating tension which was noted worldwide? The US and the UNO Secretary General had to issue policy statements asking India and Pakistan for de escalating the tension on the LOC.

An in depth analysis of the situation indicates that India created this tension at the LOC to achieve some political objectives relating to its domestic and foreign policy issues. To achieve such objectives India always first creates a propaganda theme, then it creates a suitable ground situation to support the theme and simultaneously its military and political elite, media persons and think thanks start a well coordinated propaganda game to exploit the ground situation to India’s advantage. This time, by violating cease fire agreement across LOC, India wanted to achieve following likely objectives. Since Pakistan‐ India trade through land routes was opening up, Kashmiris of Jammu were also pressing India to open Jammu‐ Sialkot and Jammu Nowshera‐ Mirpur‐Mangla routes for trade with Pakistan and Azad Kashmir which India was not willing to do. This issue was about to be discussed in the next round of composite dialogue about to be held soon. The situation on the LOC was created and propagated to put pressure on Pakistan and Kashmiris that due to LOC tensions, discussion on opening of aforementioned routes was not possible since it will not fetch domestic political support in India.

This LOC violation done by Indian troops may also be aimed at serving India’s propaganda objective of blaming Pakistan as a state sponsoring terrorism by blaming that it is still pushing fighters across LOC. That is why Indian newspapers had alleged that Pakistan had facilitated crossing of its fighters to Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) by attacking Indian post and creating the situation of cross firing.

The Indian LOC violation may also be related to Afghanistan situation. Recently the US leaders have given policy statements that Pakistan is the key to post withdrawal peace in Afghanistan. And according to many press reports Pakistan‐ US are already cooperating in arranging peace talks to seek a peace agreement in Afghanistan. In this scenario, India sees its role in Afghanistan to be diminishing. It also envies Pakistan’s significance in the final settlement of Afghanistan situation. Therefore it appears that India has created tension across the LOC to attract world attention regarding its importance for keeping peace in South Asia and that it should also be assigned some major role in Afghanistan. That is why India’s top civilian and military leadership gave policy statements blaming Pakistan for LOC situation, whereas in case of such a violation on the LOC there is no need for such high profile leaders to speak as the issue can be resolved in a flag meeting of local military commanders.

It is also likely that India wanted to blame Pakistan Army for disrespecting dead bodies of enemy personnel by mutilating their bodies, to catch world attention on a concocted issue of mutilation of body of an Indian officer who died during Kargil war and whose case is likely to be referred by India to the International Court of justice (ICJ). This game of referring such engineered matters to ICJ is part of India’s old and consistent policy to defame Pakistan at international level. Therefore blaming Pakistani troops for mutilating body of an Indian soldier on LOC is a propaganda act of India since it was Indian Army who attacked Pakistani post. Even otherwise, being professional force Pakistan Army personnel cannot be expected to disrespect dead bodies of enemy soldiers.

There is another possibility that in view of the general elections due to be held in India in 2014, Congress leaders wanted to use anti Pakistan sentiment as a slogan for the upcoming election campaign to attract voters. According to its old tradition Congress would like to attract attention of voters by creating tension with Pakistan even at the cost of postponing the recent progress being made on the trade front to counter BJP claims that Congress is over keen in building relations with Pakistan. Thus in this regard creation of tension with Pakistan was only possible if peace at LOC was disturbed and Pakistan was blamed by the highest leadership of India to highlight the tension at regional and world level.

Therefore from the foregoing discussion it is quite clear that the LOC incident was created and used by India to meet its political objectives. If this was not the case then Pakistan’s suggestion of an inquiry by UNMOGIP would not have been rejected by India and its top leadership would not have given hard statements on the issue. Pakistan Army was blamed without its involvement just for covering Indian Army’s action and alleging Pakistan as an aggressor state that uses terrorism as a tool of its foreign policy. In the light of this discussion it is in the interest of evolving good relations between Pakistan and India that Indian civil society and media should go into details to know the facts of the incident instead of blindly following government line. It is also important for regional countries and international community to understand India’s clever politics of sponsoring and committing aggressive events on LOC in Kashmir and propagating those to its advantage and also blaming Pakistan for undermining its international image and peace oriented foreign policy.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The escalating conflict in Mali can best be understood if we pick up the narrative from NATO action in Libya.

Just when the Europeans were salivating on Libya, the Americans showed an early aversion to another adventure, after Afghanistan and Iraq.

The International Herald Tribune published a quarter page cartoon. Hatted European gents are sipping Campari under an umbrella. Uncle Sam, looking rather like a butler, reports, "There's a fire next door". One European, snapping his fingers, orders "Don't just stand there. Go put out the fire". So, the US and NATO came in.

There were a dozen reasons why Qaddafi had to be killed. One of these was the Libyan strongman's extensive influence in all of Africa, from the 70s when wars of National Liberation were in vogue. His influence extended from the remarkable intellectual Hasan Turabi in Sudan to the somewhat thuggish Charles Taylor in Liberia and beyond. Turabi was imprisoned. Taylor, of course, was tried for war crimes and jailed. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, with a Postgraduate degree from the US, (Like Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia) was installed President in 2006 for two terms of six years each. She has proceeded to outsource all logging and mining businesses. Democracy is on the march.

Likewise, when I turned up at El Fasher to see relief operations in Darfur, I expected to meet Africans since the African Union was managing relief camps. Instead I was introduced to Col George D'Vione, a Frenchman who greeted me with great authority. He was as surprised by an Indian journalist in Darfur as I was meeting a Frenchman wearing an African union hat. It turned out he was representing the European Union on the AU's ceasefire commission for Darfur.

Earlier I had met Brig David Richards in Sierra Leone. He proceeded to become Britain's Army Chief. Years ago Mrs. Thatcher's son Mark Thatcher was placed under house arrest in Cape Town for attempting a coup in Equatorial Guinea with the help of Africans aching to be recolonized.

More recently, UN envoy for Western Sahara, Christopher Ross, has been making ominous statements. "It would be a serious miscalculation to believe that the status quo can last". He said the threat to the status quo came from "extremists, terrorist and criminal elements in the Sahel region".

In other words, the arrival of the French in Mali could well be the beginning of link ups across the oil and mineral rich regions stretching from Sudan across Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and Western Sahara where the Polisario movement will derive strength from the reverberations. The Moroccan Monarchy will watch with anxiety how direct French intervention in the region will affect Rabat's claims on Western Sahara. The Polisario, with support from Algeria, also has claims on this strategic stretch. Christopher Ross will obviously give the status quo some movement.

The United States launched its war on terror in Afghanistan in November 2001. The targets were Al Qaeda and its Taliban affiliates. Eleven years on, Islamic terror is striking at American troops in what is called Green on Blue or insider attacks.

The secular, efficient dictatorship of Saddam Hussain was destroyed and "Islamism" took over, including its terrorist variants. Likewise, Libyan secularism was replaced by the kind of extremism which resulted in the US ambassador being assassinated in Benghazi. Meanwhile, howls of protest are coming from the direction of those earlier opposed to the Assad regime in Syria and who now see Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate, gaining the upper hand among Syrian opposition.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is all over Yemen, mutating as al Shabab in Somalia. There already is Boko Haram in Nigeria linking up with Ansar Dine in Mali.

In the Mali chaos, no one is talking about the 15th monuments destroyed in Timbuktu, vandalism on a scale reminiscent of the Bamyan Buddhas or even the looting of the great museum of Baghdad.

In the near future, there will be a line along the Sahel which will divide Africa into Muslim North and Christian South, with adjustments here and there. First, the Darfur model maybe tried: bring Arab Muslims and African Muslims into conflict.

Toss in the hundreds of tribes on both side of the religious divide, and there will be enough confusion to distract the Chinese who have stolen a march on all the others who are looking for Africa's mineral wealth.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Was a country that came into being in the name of religion destined to be a theocracy in the longer run? And that is what exactly happened with Pakistan. Pakistan is awash with religious militancy and radicalism. The religious militants have taken Pakistan hostage. The sectarianism is assuming monstrous proportions and running amok with the social peace and stability of the country. The founders would have never imagined that in the state they are striving hard to create, the religious sects would slaughter in public view their opponents and still get away from justice.
The civil liberties in the Islamic state of Pakistan are fast disappearing. The national institutions like police, courts, municipalities, post offices, banks, schools, hospitals, water and power, transportation, taxation and revenue collection are in a state of continuous decay and dysfunction. All these state building departments are infested with unremitting maladies of corruption, malfunctioning, red tape, disorder, and lawlessness. The visible progress that one can witness is the number of mosques growing; the religious traditional events celebrated every year with renewed passion and fanfare and sectarian vendettas escalating.
If this nascent country was supposed to be rampaged and taken over by bigots and religious reactionaries with no vision of civility and the need of a civil society, then better it was not created. The cut throats fundamentalists force the people to remain stuck up in the past, follow the rituals and then feel free to indulge in any conceivable villainy, wickedness, lawlessness and rioting.
A good citizen, a good human being and a good Muslim are the benchmarks to be set in a civilized society specifically in a country like Pakistan with an official religion. Perhaps in Islam and in other religions, all these three facets merge in varying degrees. In Pakistan, unfortunately, we are neither of these. The religious robots are being manufactured by the preachers, clerics and theocrats that are mentally barren about the imperatives of a modern society and its fundamentals.
The conflict between state and religion has started after the state of Pakistan came into being. Prior to that, under the British rule, the sectarian bad blood and mutual annihilation, the sway of religious factions and the ensuing massacres were almost nonexistent. This is one of the great tragedies of the modern times that a state that came up in the name of religion, is now hostage to the religious lords and fanatics who brook no mercy and no humanism. They forcibly drive the people to adopt a way of life that is out of sync with the imperatives of a modern civil society.
The Islam that they project, profess and force down the throats is not the real Islam. It is a distortion and deformed version of Islam depending upon the sect one belongs to. In Pakistan the religious fundamentalist are serving Islam in getting it a bad name. A liberal and progressive Islam could be the answer to integrate the tradition with the modern. But the emphasis of the religious clergy is on a kind regimented theocracy that did not exist even in Medina during the time of first four caliphs.
Now an orgy of bloodletting is sweeping across the whole country. The barbarous religious militants equipped and armed with all kinds of deadly weapons have managed to strike terror in the hearts of the citizens with loathsome and bestial acts. They kill at will; kidnap for ransom, slaughter kidnapped captives if the ransom is not paid or if they belong to a different sect. They target mosques, shrines and funeral processions, destroy schools, publicly flog outgoing women and behead the religious rivals.
The Islamic radicals pick up the youth from the religious seminaries and train them into suicide bombers. They do not feel any qualms of moral or religious conscience in marrying underage girls with old bearded Jihadists and militants.
This is how they spread the Islam: by intimidation, by fear and hair-raising punishments and by bombing and brutal vendettas. They do so because they earnestly feel that what they were doing was religiously justified as for them killing of infidels and modernists was a religious obligation. Now if the saner and educated Islamic scholars bear with these distortions and defacing of Islam, how a true Islamic polity could emerge that could be the envy of the non-Islamic world.
But the tussle between a progressive (Ijtehadi) Islam and the orthodox with improvisations by the opportunistic, ignorant, illiterate clerics fixated on rigid rituals and traditions has been there for centuries. There has never been a consensus on a unified code of Islamic creed or set of beliefs. The cult of Taliban and within Pakistan the Jihadist groups profess and follow another kind Islam that looks more barbarians and savage than what the prophet of Islam preached and passed on to humanity under the divine command.
Just picture if you can, every male having a long beard, with a heavy turban over the head, every female confined within the four walls of the house. She can come out only if covered from top to bottom in a baggy veil with holes in front of the eyes. The modern gadgets as cell phones, computers, and televisions are all banned as instruments of Satan, and impiety. The children permitted to attend solely the religious schools for cramming the Quran or Suras or learning the etiquette for praying, fasting and performing rituals.
The other branches of knowledge from Sociology to Physics are banned for being Unislamic. The human and fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, expression and pursuit of religion, the choice of job and entertainment would be effaced from the society. The pagan justice of beheading even for the minor to major crime would be imposed.
If you are ready for this kind of life in Pakistan, I am ready too. If this is the antithesis and negation of the pristine Islam and creation of an island of ignorance, oppression, medieval-ism, and robots to stereo-type certain dictated rules then let us accept it or challenge it. Can we, born in an enlightened age, wage a war against such antiquated and pitilessly rigid way of life?
There is a dire need to reinterpret Islam by fusing its fundamental obligations and beliefs, with the ingredients and imperatives of the modern society. We should not opt and resign to a frog’s life living in a well. The lethal sectarianism within Islam has undermined its conceptual and doctrinal unity and sublimity since the beginning.
Now Islam is divided into various sects. Can we make it possible that all the sects coexist and follow their tenets without fear and hindrance? Can we make a broad-based and tolerant civil society where there is freedom of practicing any religion? Why Pakistan should be singled out to be the citadel of Islam. Before partition in 1947, no parts of the undivided India or Indian Muslims were ever looked upon as the only defenders of Islam. Islam does not need custodian in particular areas. It is universal religion and would remain so on its own strength and merit.
Why can’t Pakistan be a progressive modern state with an Islam that is permissive and goes hand in hand with the basic imperatives of a modern state? Should we become another Saudi Arabia or another Iran for implementing strict and orthodox versions of Islam at the cost of a free society and by sacrificing sectarian harmony? Shall Muslim societies remain backward intellectually, scientifically, technologically and socially under the misconceptions that such dimensions were against Islam?
The indispensable need of the present times is to cast away conservatism and embrace also what was beneficial for the Muslims as human beings and citizens of a modern state. Pakistan has got to be liberal, enlightened, and secular state with the framework of Islam. Islam was there when Pakistan was not born and would be practiced if God forbids Pakistan disappears.
The religious right wingers want political power and then forget the remarkable aspects of Islam and humanitarianism. Their narrow agenda is to freeze or turn Pakistan into a medieval state.
The newly elected Egyptian president Morsi of Muslim brotherhood is caught up in the same dilemma. The majority of Egyptians do not want a rigid and reactionary Islam. We in Pakistan need an enlightened and forward looking Islam, not the one that looks like an island of ignorance and primitiveness catapulting brutal sectarian feuds, bigotry and ruthless cults like Taliban.

The writer is a senior journalist and a former diplomat

A blood-soaked election

On April 11, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) took responsibility for killing Fakhrul Islam, a Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) candidate for the National Assembly and Sindh Assembly. Islam was shot in Hyderabad by two armed men riding a motorbike. The ubiquitous TTP spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan called a newspaper and said that the TTP had followed up on its threat and repeated his earlier statement that "all secular parties were on the TTP's hit list". He said: "The killing is part of our war against secular parties, including the MQM, PPP and ANP, which committed genocide of our tribal people and Muslims while remaining in power for five years."

The MQM reacted with understandable rage, noting that "The way Fakhrul Islam has been killed and his father remained unhurt shows the precision the killers have and also their intention to target him in particular." On March 17, three MQM activists were gunned down in an attack on the party's office in Hyderabad. On November 4 last year, the party's former taluka nazim, Jalilur Rehman, was shot dead.

In the current month the ANP has suffered two of its leaders' murders at the hand of the Taliban in Karachi and Peshawar and an attempt on its leader Ghulam Ahmed Bilour last Tuesday came close to being successful. It is expected that the PPP will be targeted too. A PPP covering candidate for a provincial assembly seat in Karachi, Adnan Aslam, was target-killed in Orangi Town on April 3. The TTP has in memory its successful execution of the PPP top leader Benazir Bhutto right in the heart of the garrison city, Rawalpindi.

The three so-called "secular parties" have all been incumbents in the last democratic term, ruling or allied to rulers in three provinces of the country. The Taliban have taken sides and by announcing that they would target their leaders have put Election 2013 in near-jeopardy. If they think they are favouring the "non-secular" parties opposed to the three, they are mistaken. The PMLN and Imran Khan's PTI expect to win after what they think have been five years of abysmal governance - and they don't want the Taliban to ruin their victory and tarnish their name.

The ANP is the most exposed party as it campaigns in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The TTP chief, Hakimullah Mehsud, has farmed out attacks on the Pakhtun-dominated party to his savage warlord from Orakzai, Tariq Afridi. All the top leaders have been attacked and one senior minister Bashir Bilour's murder by a suicide-bomber shook the entire nation in December last year. (Don't be taken in by the "principled stance" of TTP; it nearly killed the late former Jamaat Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad although he was no secularist. It has also at least attacked twice the JUIF leader, Maulana Fazlur Rehman.)

All the three targeted parties are determined to take part in the May 11 election knowing full well that their campaigns will be marred by terrorism and their voters may not even turn up. Recent PPP reactions to security threats - one such threat made the party chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari leave Pakistan temporarily - have worried impartial observers.

Clearly, the election no longer offers an even playing-field for all, but the political consensus in Pakistan is against postponing the 2013 election. The reason is obvious: a truly fair election may not be possible for many years to come, given the fanning out of Taliban-Al Qaeda terrorists across Pakistan and the almost total immunity to terrorists from punishment by the courts for one reason or another.

What bothers Hakimullah is not so much that he is riled by the "secularism" of the three targeted parties as their determination to fight terrorism. The ANP stance is particularly noteworthy for its deviation from the national misdiagnosis of the disease of terrorism eating into the state of Pakistan: "It is the Taliban we have to fight, not America. The enemy is not the trio of America, India and Israel, but the home-grown terrorists under the tutelage of Al Qaeda."

Many think the elections may not be held after all. Looking at the increasingly bloody record of the terrorists in the provinces, excluding Punjab, they think something truly horrible may happen to make the polls lose their meaning. The entire world looking at Pakistan knows that the country is too infested with terror to do anything normal like elections. The world also knows that extremism has permeated all walks of life, including state institutions and that more and more swathes of the country are becoming ungovernable. The latter may be one reason the three targeted parties have assented to go to the polls in these conditions.

One is thankful that the largest province Punjab is spared the savagery of the inflicted misery of Sindh, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, for the moment at least. But this smoking of the peace pipe with the Taliban in Punjab may not last long. By the end of this year, Afghanistan will be ripe for another bout of civil war in which Pakistan will willy-nilly participate. The demand for funds for non-state actors will go up. And after Karachi has been sucked dry, it will be the turn of Lahore where kidnappings and bank-robberies will go up alarmingly. The consensus on elections must also be complemented by a consensus on fighting terrorism.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Owning the war

It has become a political commonplace to say that Pakistan is fighting the wrong war, and that it is doing so at the behest of the United States. It is also claimed that once Pakistan stops siding with the wrong party, all will be well. This is particularly the mantra of Imran Khan and his Tehrik-e-Insaf which is challenging the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) in the forthcoming general elections. The PMLN also appears to be soft on the Taliban, recommending dialogue with the terrorist outfit. Maulana Fazlurrahman's Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam has even put together a grand Jirga to seek peace with an enemy - or pseudo-enemy - which has the upper hand.

These politicians' apologists say that since they want to campaign freely all over the country, contest elections and bring out their voters without fear of violent reprisal, they have no other choice, in the face of the state's failure to fight terrorism. The political parties that have a more unequivocal stance regarding terrorism, namely the PPP, MQM and the Awami National Party are paying the price for their convictions. Hundreds of their activists and some of their leading figures, have been done to death.

The Pakistan Army is fighting the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan in the Tribal Areas, not because America has ordered it to do so, but because the TTP has killed innocent civilians, including women, targeted respected leaders like Bashir Bilour and Qazi Hussain Ahmad, and massacred thousands of soldiers. Since infiltrating Karachi, the TTP has also left a trail of blood in that city, bombing and killing with impunity and handing down punishments through their own courts. On many an occasion, starting in General Musharraf's era, the Army has gone through the exercise of seeking peace. It has concluded peace deals with the TTP and saw them routinely broken.

In a recent address at General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, the Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Kayani has declared that the war against the TTP is "Pakistan's own war". He asked the assembled audience whether waging war on "those who do not accept Pakistan's institutions or the writ of the state; those who massacre soldiers and innocent civilians" is not Pakistan's war. It is good that the general is speaking realistically, but this realization has been years in the making.

We have resisted for years the truth of that which has dawned on us of late, straining our relationship with allies, neighbours and the Western world in general. The biggest bone of contention between Washington and Pakistan has been the safe havens of our Tribal Areas from where terrorists of all hue and many a nationality operate. The Pakistan Army has resisted the challenges of punitive action from America, risking the breakdown of the relationship, and stuck to its definition of "good" and "bad" Taliban.

According to this logic, the "good Taliban" are the Haqqanis who have safe haven in North Waziristan, who fight in Afghanistan and whom the Army has not ousted from Pakistan's sovereign territory. The "bad" Taliban are the TTP who wage war on Pakistan and Pakistanis. Many commentators at home and abroad have been crying themselves hoarse for years that these distinctions are spurious.

Turning our backs on North Waziristan and letting the festering sore be, has not only wrought havoc on Afghanistan, it has also wrecked the peace of Pakistan. The TTP flourishes in North Waziristan, along with the Haqqani Network and various offshoots of Al-Qaeda, training international terrorists and planning and executing attacks on the Pakistani heartland. The irreducible fact is that the Taliban want an Islamic order of their choice, the sort they imposed on Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. The fact also is that the vast majority of Pakistanis would find life very difficult under such a regime, and all our institutions as they are presently constituted would have to be radically altered or they would have to bite the dust. This includes the military, judiciary, civil services, parliament and all other modern organs of economy and society.

Fighting terrorists in Khyber, Swat, Bajaur, Mohmand and Orakzai, and looking the other way in North Waziristan has caused irreparable damage to Pakistan. The country has paid a huge price for maintaining this specious distinction - its economy is bankrupt, its isolation is near complete, the state is increasingly dysfunctional and the peace and prosperity that Pakistanis crave is becoming more elusive each day.

General Kayani's remarks should be welcomed but the malady that afflicts the country is so pervasive that all stakeholders must come together to seek solutions. Terrorism has to be fought, and the time for parleys comes after the terrorists have come to the conclusion that they cannot achieve total victory. Those who most refer to the "political solution" of the Irish problem in the UK often forget that. If civilian political leaders are to take "ownership of Pakistan's own war", they must have the freedom to fashion the foreign and domestic policies that will allow the country to become a normal state, at peace with itself and the world.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The US Approach to Regional Security

KHALID CHANDIO

In world politics, the term regional security has become an important concept for the continents of the world such as Africa, the Americas, Asia, Oceania, Europe, Subcontinents (e.g., South Asia), and the areas surrounding seas. The past sixty years have gradually witnessed a resurgence of regionalism in world politics. International system witnessed the establishment of multi-lateral regional organizations across the world, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU), the Organization of American States (OAS), the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor of the African Union, (AU), the Arab League, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and so on. Old regionalist organizations have been revived, and new organizations were formed. Similarly, call for strengthened regionalist arrangements has been central to many of the debates about the nature of the post-Cold War and post-9/11 international orders.

Today, the United States is confronting a dynamic and complex strategic environment that defies neat categorization. The policymakers in America think that non-state or sub-state actors may be using conventional weapons to achieve their goals, and rising state powers may be turning to non-conventional means. The relationships between allies, friends, partners, and adversaries are fluid. Pakistan must be prepared to react to changing circumstances as the same could be witnessed in any new US regional-security strategy in future. Security dialogue and conflict management are considered as the main tools in regional security but the US seldom believed in it and rather went for direct actions. The Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are some of the examples in this regard. The role of the United Nations in these crises has been somehow equally shaky and not appreciated by the majority countries.

Actually, the Regional Security System was created out of a need for collective response to security threats. But absolute unilateral approach, duly supported by the UN, to regional security did not bring fruits and had miserably failed in the past. The US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have introduced new complications in security cooperation between the US and the rest of the world (particularly Asia) and revealed inconsistencies in the US approach towards regional security. The increased US security focus on the region has led other regional powers especially Russia and China to compete for influence, and a continued American military presence is likely to create tensions in Russian-American and Chinese-American relations in post-2014.

The withdrawal of the Soviet military forces from Afghanistan and the end of the Cold War led to a significant geopolitical reorientation in South Asia. The US interests in South Asia have been evolving since then. An intense focus on counter-terrorism and Afghanistan since 9/11 has been giving a way to a broader range of interests. Washington takes India’s global status seriously and is working closely with New Delhi on a range of regional and global issues. China’s rise, often neglected as a factor in South Asia policy, is encouraging a more strategic US approach to Asia policy as a whole. It is almost impossible for the US to achieve an integrated South Asia policy following the 2014 military draw-down in Afghanistan coupled with neo-appeasement policy towards India on the expense of Pakistan and China.

There are some other threats, i.e., religious and ethnic violence, health and environmental disasters, refugee movements, and humanitarian crises that cannot be dealt with military might alone. The rise of non-traditional threats will require Asian nations to cooperate with one another, as they will have no choice but to work together to cope with trans-national threats. On the one hand, the role of sole super-power, i.e. the US, would be tested in years to come and it would have to cooperate with the regional states. On the other hand, American approach towards South Asia and involvements in the region would, undoubtedly, affect its future direction, given the strong military and economic conditions of the US. Many scholars are of the opinion that the US is “the single most important external factor affecting Asian integration.” So, the world may witness the rise of multi-lateral system where regional powers would be on a driving seat with competing interests vis-a-vis the US in the future.

As far as South Asia is concerned, it is still characterized by a variety of security challenges ranging from territorial disputes, religious terrorism to left-wing extremism and the threat of nuclear warfare, etc. The regional security is still fragile, as agreed by many analysts, especially with regard to relations between the two nuclear powers, i.e., Pakistan and India. And according to many policy analysts, the US has a vital interest in the regional stability only if US handles the affairs pragmatically. So, any new US approach to South Asian regional security should not ignore this paradigm. But in recent years it has been witnessed that America’s tilt towards India and efforts to re-design the Asia Pacific security order (to annoy China) would not serve its interests in particular and interests of other regional states in general. This is due to the fact that China, an emerging super-power, is being involved in the US policy of “Asia Pivot.” China may not compromise on its territorial integrity and national interests unlike other smaller states.

It may be kept in mind that the region from Iran through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India has come closer together and at the same time has become more complicated and intertwined on various levels, which is why only policies of moderation, peaceful coexistence, and cooperation are helpful and viable to deal with the multiple crises of the region. The US approach to regional security would work only if it takes into consideration the above-mentioned principles. Therefore, it is suggested that the US role in shaping regional security should not disturb the existing power structure and any approach to regional security should be consensus-based.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Competing narratives in Kashmir
Shujaat Bukhari

The decades-old chasms that exist between New Delhi and Srinagar have again been reflected in the just concluded elections for the Lok Sabha. While the battle in rest of India was about managing more seats to come to power, apart from the insignificant campaign (in terms of issues), in Kashmir people were wrestling on the polling days on the issue of boycott and vote. This again showed how Jammu and Kashmir state (except for Jammu and Ladakh regions) was differently placed when it comes to the critical issue of democracy and strengthening the democratic institutions.

The process has been projected as having nothing to do with the larger question of resolving the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. This has been the policy adopted by the pro-India political parties whose main objective has been to be in power. However, negating their own argument the same parties have also chipped into the political discourse and carved out a space for being the stakeholders in the final resolution. For example, both National Conference and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have come up with their solutions to address the Kashmir issue. Though they know that the political empowerment is something which New Delhi will not allow a regional party to enjoy, the noise continues unabated. The bottom line for all the discourses these pro-India parties are shaping is to attract the attention of people. And this is being done through a collage of “restoring dignity and honour” and “a quality life” by way of good governance.

Similarly, the separatists have not brought any change in their strategy. They continue to call for the boycott but fail to give any pragmatic roadmap for taking the process of resolution forward. Notwithstanding the fact majority of people in Kashmir boycotted the elections, but that was not purely because of their boycott call. They did thank people in wholesale for “paying heed” to their call, but that was not the case when it comes to real situation on the ground. They failed to explain as to who should own those who chose to vote in these elections.

What has New Delhi gained?

For those who are at the helm in Delhi, it hardly matters how many people would come to vote. For them conducting the process is more important. In past six decades they have not learnt any lesson so they would refuse to do so in this round as well. When the UPA government sent Afzal Guru to the gallows, it was a clear message to people in Kashmir that they don’t care about what they thought about the “illegitimate” rule of Delhi. They are confident about the power to overcome any challenge in Kashmir. And at the global level too there are more takers for India’s version than that of Kashmir or Pakistan. However, what they cannot ignore for long time is the fact that Kashmir’s new generation has empathically declared that it was at far distance from them both politically and emotionally.


Mainstream Failure

Those who have been in power in Kashmir for last over 17 years have also lost the battle. Leaving the results aside, the way people, especially youth, behaved in these elections, it puts the entire pro-India political set up in a bad picture. Leaders of both NC and PDP came under attacks from youth and it was the demonstration of growing influence of those who don’t support the electoral process.

Fear may be an important factor in keeping many voters away but the majority of people did not allow legitimizing this process out of their own will. The incident of beating those in Sopore and Baramulla, who voted in frontier district of Kupwara, is another example of how people of an ideology perceived it.

Separatists Illusions

On the other hand, the separatists also need to introspect. Like in 2010, this time also the people took the control of enforcing the boycott. Stone pelting on polling days, locking of polling booths and attacking those who wanted to vote or encouraged others to vote was the telltale story on polling days. Except for the routine statements they did not lead the people. They did thank them for the boycott but so did the mainstream parties for voting (to those who did). They also claim to represent the people of Jammu and Kashmir but then in Jammu and Ladakh there was record turnout. Why did the people at these places not listen to them?

There are lessons for all but will they ever think of taking them seriously. People also need to think on shedding this stigma of “40 lakh” being with all the parties. If one goes by the election meetings held in past two months, it is difficult to understand as to why there was low turnout. However, the urban centers such as Srinagar, Baramulla, Sopore, Tral, Anantnag and Pulwama have shown that they are steadfast in their ideology of not taking part in the elections. This election was no different in the context of Kashmir politics – competing narratives and crossing ideologies.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins