Jammu and Kashmir: Need for developing strategic advantage
by S D Pradhan
by S D Pradhan
27 September 2010, 03:22 AM IST
courtesy: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ChanakyaCode/entry/j-k-need-for-developing-strategic-advantage
In the past few weeks, a number of developments have taken place on J&K related affairs, which include both positive and negative aspects. The positive aspect is announcement of eight-point initiative for J&K soon after the visit of all party delegation that includes appointment of a group of interlocutors, appointment of two special task forces-one each for Jammu and Ladakh to examine regions' development needs, advising the State government to release the those young persons, who were arrested for pelting stones and against there are no serious charges, advising the State to review the cases of Public Safety Act detainees and withdraw detention orders in suitable cases, provision for Rs 100 crore to improve educational infrastructure in the State, and ex-gratia grant to bereaved families of those killed in protests since June 11, 2010.
The negative aspects include passage of a resolution by Pakistan National Assembly and Senate "condemning" the alleged "Indian brutalities and human rights violations" in J&K and pledging moral, political and diplomatic support to people of Kashmir indicating clearly that their proxy war would continue, the reported influx of about 350 foreign terrorists in the State, recovery of huge arm cache in the State and the Pak assiduous efforts to internationalize the Kashmir issue.
These developments suggest the need for developing strategic advantages in relation to J&K over separatists and Pakistan. While the steps announced by the Govt. of India suggest the seriousness of the political leaders in New Delhi to resolve the issues involved in the problem and a move in the right direction, these certainly do not exhaust the steps needed for dealing with the Kashmir imbroglio. In addition, the timely implementation of the steps announced is crucial to address the current turmoil. More well calculated steps are required to gain strategic advantages over our adversaries.
The selection of interlocutors should be carefully done. The political leader to lead the group should be acceptable to most of the sections and should have an extensive knowledge of the complexities of the issues. While it is not clear who would be others, one would expect that they perhaps would be experts on J&K affairs. All of them must share a strong sense of commitment towards the welfare of the residents. In the past, interlocutors had failed to achieve the objectives and the memories of their lackluster performance are still fresh in the minds of the people of the State. This time we can not afford it. The objectives of the group should be clarified and they should be instructed to achieve them within the stipulated timeframe. This group must be impartial to all the sections. There should be a monitoring mechanism for keeping a close watch on the progress made by the group with a view to bring to the notice of the policy makers the problems that the group of interlocutors might face and arrange necessary facilities to them to continue their assigned tasks.
It is not clear as to why there would be only two task forces for the Jammu and Ladakh regions and not for the Valley. One may argue that the needs of the Valley for the infrastructure development have been examined several times in the past and therefore at this juncture it is not required for the Valley. One must take into account that the development of infrastructure is a continuous process and therefore the requirements of the Valley too should be examined afresh.
Crucial decision about the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act [AFSPA] is yet to be taken. In this connection two aspects must be kept in view. First, while the current protests are not linked to this Act as in the firing on the stone pelters, only State police and CRPF were involved; it has become a synonym of the alleged human rights violations by the security forces. Second, the AFSPA is essentially the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the armed forces and therefore any dilution of the Act could adversely affect the functioning of the armed forces in critical situations which are inducted as the last resort.
Karan Thapar, a well known person in electronic and print media, has forcefully argued the need for modification of the Section 6 of the Act which states that action on armed forces personnel for causing death or other violations can be taken only after the permission is granted by the Central Govt. He has suggested an amendment in this section to give veto power to the Central Govt. to stop the prosecution in case it is deemed necessary. This would ensure initiation of the prosecution process and the government would find it difficult to stop every single case.
This suggestion, though has merit, would be opposed by the armed forces. The answer lies in not amending the section but placing an effective mechanism to ensure no avoidable human right violation takes place and in case it takes place, the guilty should be punished.
The steps announced do not include probe into the deaths in the firing on the stone pelters. This must be done as the anger of the people stems mainly from the perception that the security forces had" killed" the people deliberately. They are also questioning the act of security forces to hit people above the knee while firing at the crowd. An impartial enquiry is a must to satisfy people and in case any official had committed some mistake, then he or she should be prosecuted. The non-lethal methods of crowd control should be put in place expeditiously to avoid any reoccurrence of such incidents.
The security forces and police should also make serious efforts to improve the relations with the residents. They should work to establish and maintain good community relations by encouraging and running youth clubs, community centres, playgrounds, educational institutes and sponsoring many other forms of activity at which youth can meet and be diverted from the street. They should make serious efforts to remove the image of "insensitive force". Such steps had significantly improved the image of the British police in Ireland in 70s.
The question of further political concessions is bound to come up soon. The separatists at the behest of their Pak mentors are bound to continue to demand azadi. This term too has become a symbol of freedom from curfews and other restrictions imposed by the security forces as well as "insensitive attitude of the State". Therefore a careful strategy needs to be worked out to remove the restrictions in phases. The involvement of residents in the security of their areas should be encouraged. Such steps world over had proved very effective.
The larger question of autonomy requires an in depth analysis. The demand of this is coming mainly from the State political leaders, who are seen to be diverting the attention of the people from their failure to maintain links with the people. Are the people really looking for a change in the designation of the Governor to Sadar-i-Riyasat, or removal of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or UPSC? The answer is clearly in the negative. Balraj Puri in an article in the Mainstream (Dec.12,2009) has stated that' even today, the State of J&K has more autonomy than other States of India but it has been used by the State in a manner that its people have less rights than the people of other States'. This in fact is true. Under Article 370, even 73rd and 74th Amendments have not been incorporated which are intended to enhance people's rights. The Panchayati Raj Act of J&K is negation of the spirit of devolution of power to the grass root level and in this respect it is different from the rest of India. The village panchayats in J&K are expected to work under the District Boards to be headed by the State level Ministers. This is evidently done to keep these bodies under the control of State level political leaders. There is also no provision for nomination at the panchayat level. These aspects need to be explained to the people and efforts should be made to introduce necessary amendments to give powers at the village level.
The improvement in the environment that followed the announcement of eight- point initiative, as is evident from reactions of various political parties and the stake holders, must be utilized to take further actions to win over hearts and minds of the people. A step that needs to be considered for improving the situation in the State is to improve the quality of governance. It must be admitted that the deterioration of the situation is mainly because of the collapse of the administrative mechanism. The officials are not moving out in rural areas that are not well connected by roads and the political leaders of the State have so far been not reaching to the people. The insensitive attitude of the State has received severe criticism. If normalcy is to be restored, the elements of good governance would have to be introduced, for which the responsibility lies with the State politicians and the bureaucracy.
The negative developments which include Pak efforts to raise the level of terrorism, interference in the internal matters and to internationalize the Kashmir issue deserve a strong response from India. If various websites supported by the separatist are analyzed in which the main tenor is to exhort people to take up arms against the Indian forces, it becomes clear that the Pak ISI is planning to raise the level of violence. What is worrisome is the fact that ISI had received extra Rs 5.55 bn. A substantial amount out of this must have been spent on supporting terrorist activities in India. The political developments in Pakistan are also do not augur well. There are reports of a possibility of a coup by the Army. And it is seen time and again that whenever there is a serious internal problem in Pakistan; the Pakistan Army raises the level of tension between India and Pakistan. The audacity of the Pakistan official to ask India to stop referring J&K as an internal part of India is a clear indication of the sinister Pak plans. We can expect actions by Pakistan to raise the level of terrorism and tension at the border.
This brings us to the important question of dealing with Pakistan. There are three options.
First is to allow the business as usual. This envisages that we continue to engage the civilian leadership which may be trying to establish its supremacy over the Army. By not talking to the civilian leadership we would allow the weakening of democratic forces in Pakistan. This means that we pursue the dialogue without expecting much from this process.
courtesy: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ChanakyaCode/entry/j-k-need-for-developing-strategic-advantage
In the past few weeks, a number of developments have taken place on J&K related affairs, which include both positive and negative aspects. The positive aspect is announcement of eight-point initiative for J&K soon after the visit of all party delegation that includes appointment of a group of interlocutors, appointment of two special task forces-one each for Jammu and Ladakh to examine regions' development needs, advising the State government to release the those young persons, who were arrested for pelting stones and against there are no serious charges, advising the State to review the cases of Public Safety Act detainees and withdraw detention orders in suitable cases, provision for Rs 100 crore to improve educational infrastructure in the State, and ex-gratia grant to bereaved families of those killed in protests since June 11, 2010.
The negative aspects include passage of a resolution by Pakistan National Assembly and Senate "condemning" the alleged "Indian brutalities and human rights violations" in J&K and pledging moral, political and diplomatic support to people of Kashmir indicating clearly that their proxy war would continue, the reported influx of about 350 foreign terrorists in the State, recovery of huge arm cache in the State and the Pak assiduous efforts to internationalize the Kashmir issue.
These developments suggest the need for developing strategic advantages in relation to J&K over separatists and Pakistan. While the steps announced by the Govt. of India suggest the seriousness of the political leaders in New Delhi to resolve the issues involved in the problem and a move in the right direction, these certainly do not exhaust the steps needed for dealing with the Kashmir imbroglio. In addition, the timely implementation of the steps announced is crucial to address the current turmoil. More well calculated steps are required to gain strategic advantages over our adversaries.
The selection of interlocutors should be carefully done. The political leader to lead the group should be acceptable to most of the sections and should have an extensive knowledge of the complexities of the issues. While it is not clear who would be others, one would expect that they perhaps would be experts on J&K affairs. All of them must share a strong sense of commitment towards the welfare of the residents. In the past, interlocutors had failed to achieve the objectives and the memories of their lackluster performance are still fresh in the minds of the people of the State. This time we can not afford it. The objectives of the group should be clarified and they should be instructed to achieve them within the stipulated timeframe. This group must be impartial to all the sections. There should be a monitoring mechanism for keeping a close watch on the progress made by the group with a view to bring to the notice of the policy makers the problems that the group of interlocutors might face and arrange necessary facilities to them to continue their assigned tasks.
It is not clear as to why there would be only two task forces for the Jammu and Ladakh regions and not for the Valley. One may argue that the needs of the Valley for the infrastructure development have been examined several times in the past and therefore at this juncture it is not required for the Valley. One must take into account that the development of infrastructure is a continuous process and therefore the requirements of the Valley too should be examined afresh.
Crucial decision about the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act [AFSPA] is yet to be taken. In this connection two aspects must be kept in view. First, while the current protests are not linked to this Act as in the firing on the stone pelters, only State police and CRPF were involved; it has become a synonym of the alleged human rights violations by the security forces. Second, the AFSPA is essentially the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the armed forces and therefore any dilution of the Act could adversely affect the functioning of the armed forces in critical situations which are inducted as the last resort.
Karan Thapar, a well known person in electronic and print media, has forcefully argued the need for modification of the Section 6 of the Act which states that action on armed forces personnel for causing death or other violations can be taken only after the permission is granted by the Central Govt. He has suggested an amendment in this section to give veto power to the Central Govt. to stop the prosecution in case it is deemed necessary. This would ensure initiation of the prosecution process and the government would find it difficult to stop every single case.
This suggestion, though has merit, would be opposed by the armed forces. The answer lies in not amending the section but placing an effective mechanism to ensure no avoidable human right violation takes place and in case it takes place, the guilty should be punished.
The steps announced do not include probe into the deaths in the firing on the stone pelters. This must be done as the anger of the people stems mainly from the perception that the security forces had" killed" the people deliberately. They are also questioning the act of security forces to hit people above the knee while firing at the crowd. An impartial enquiry is a must to satisfy people and in case any official had committed some mistake, then he or she should be prosecuted. The non-lethal methods of crowd control should be put in place expeditiously to avoid any reoccurrence of such incidents.
The security forces and police should also make serious efforts to improve the relations with the residents. They should work to establish and maintain good community relations by encouraging and running youth clubs, community centres, playgrounds, educational institutes and sponsoring many other forms of activity at which youth can meet and be diverted from the street. They should make serious efforts to remove the image of "insensitive force". Such steps had significantly improved the image of the British police in Ireland in 70s.
The question of further political concessions is bound to come up soon. The separatists at the behest of their Pak mentors are bound to continue to demand azadi. This term too has become a symbol of freedom from curfews and other restrictions imposed by the security forces as well as "insensitive attitude of the State". Therefore a careful strategy needs to be worked out to remove the restrictions in phases. The involvement of residents in the security of their areas should be encouraged. Such steps world over had proved very effective.
The larger question of autonomy requires an in depth analysis. The demand of this is coming mainly from the State political leaders, who are seen to be diverting the attention of the people from their failure to maintain links with the people. Are the people really looking for a change in the designation of the Governor to Sadar-i-Riyasat, or removal of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or UPSC? The answer is clearly in the negative. Balraj Puri in an article in the Mainstream (Dec.12,2009) has stated that' even today, the State of J&K has more autonomy than other States of India but it has been used by the State in a manner that its people have less rights than the people of other States'. This in fact is true. Under Article 370, even 73rd and 74th Amendments have not been incorporated which are intended to enhance people's rights. The Panchayati Raj Act of J&K is negation of the spirit of devolution of power to the grass root level and in this respect it is different from the rest of India. The village panchayats in J&K are expected to work under the District Boards to be headed by the State level Ministers. This is evidently done to keep these bodies under the control of State level political leaders. There is also no provision for nomination at the panchayat level. These aspects need to be explained to the people and efforts should be made to introduce necessary amendments to give powers at the village level.
The improvement in the environment that followed the announcement of eight- point initiative, as is evident from reactions of various political parties and the stake holders, must be utilized to take further actions to win over hearts and minds of the people. A step that needs to be considered for improving the situation in the State is to improve the quality of governance. It must be admitted that the deterioration of the situation is mainly because of the collapse of the administrative mechanism. The officials are not moving out in rural areas that are not well connected by roads and the political leaders of the State have so far been not reaching to the people. The insensitive attitude of the State has received severe criticism. If normalcy is to be restored, the elements of good governance would have to be introduced, for which the responsibility lies with the State politicians and the bureaucracy.
The negative developments which include Pak efforts to raise the level of terrorism, interference in the internal matters and to internationalize the Kashmir issue deserve a strong response from India. If various websites supported by the separatist are analyzed in which the main tenor is to exhort people to take up arms against the Indian forces, it becomes clear that the Pak ISI is planning to raise the level of violence. What is worrisome is the fact that ISI had received extra Rs 5.55 bn. A substantial amount out of this must have been spent on supporting terrorist activities in India. The political developments in Pakistan are also do not augur well. There are reports of a possibility of a coup by the Army. And it is seen time and again that whenever there is a serious internal problem in Pakistan; the Pakistan Army raises the level of tension between India and Pakistan. The audacity of the Pakistan official to ask India to stop referring J&K as an internal part of India is a clear indication of the sinister Pak plans. We can expect actions by Pakistan to raise the level of terrorism and tension at the border.
This brings us to the important question of dealing with Pakistan. There are three options.
First is to allow the business as usual. This envisages that we continue to engage the civilian leadership which may be trying to establish its supremacy over the Army. By not talking to the civilian leadership we would allow the weakening of democratic forces in Pakistan. This means that we pursue the dialogue without expecting much from this process.
The second is the policy of 'benign neglect'. This envisages that India would deal with a hostile Pakistan without maintaining the charade of talks that are not likely to yield any desired result. The proponents of this policy suggest that the different groups in Pakistan would keep on fighting and a fragmented Pakistan would have much less time and energy for mischief vis-a-vis India.
The third view is that there should be an aggressive counter strategy in place to deal with Pakistan as unless unbearable pain is caused to Pakistan, its mischief making activities would continue. In view of the proponents of this option, it is the only way to stop cross border terrorism. There is no doubt what we face today is the Pak sponsored terrorism and unless Pakistan Army and ISI are made to realize that they can not continue to foment trouble in India without paying an unbearable cost, there is no likelihood of our problems coming to an end. This would require taking all efforts to drive home the message to Pakistani Army and ISI that India would not sit silently and suffer Pakistan's pinpricks. Simultaneously, diplomatic efforts should be intensified to neutralize Pak efforts at international platforms.
In essence, we have to take adequate steps both internally and externally to deal with the current problems in J&K. All the efforts are to be aimed at achieving strategic advantages over Pakistan and the separatists supported by ISI. India need not be apologetic about its policies towards Pakistan. India can make it clear that it has genuine security concerns arising out of Pak activities and it would deal with them appropriately.
ABOUT S D PRADHAN
More
S D Pradhan has served as chairman of India's Joint Intelligence Committee. He has also been the country's deputy national security adviser. He was chairman of the Task Force on Intelligence Mechanism (2008-2010), which was constituted to review the functioning of the intelligence agencies. He has taught at the departments of defence studies and history at the Punjabi University, Patiala. He was also a visiting professor at the University of Illinois, US, in the department of arms control and disarmament studies. The ministry of defence had utilized his services for the preparation of official accounts of the 1971 war and the counterinsurgency operations in the northeast. In the JIC/National Security Council secretariat, he was closely involved with the preparation of the reports of the Kargil Review Committee and the Group of Ministers on national security as also with the implementation of their recommendations. His publications include two books and several articles.
More
S D Pradhan has served as chairman of India's Joint Intelligence Committee. He has also been the country's deputy national security adviser. He was chairman of the Task Force on Intelligence Mechanism (2008-2010), which was constituted to review the functioning of the intelligence agencies. He has taught at the departments of defence studies and history at the Punjabi University, Patiala. He was also a visiting professor at the University of Illinois, US, in the department of arms control and disarmament studies. The ministry of defence had utilized his services for the preparation of official accounts of the 1971 war and the counterinsurgency operations in the northeast. In the JIC/National Security Council secretariat, he was closely involved with the preparation of the reports of the Kargil Review Committee and the Group of Ministers on national security as also with the implementation of their recommendations. His publications include two books and several articles.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment