Introduction

India’s Armed Forces are among the largest in the world. They embody the will of the Indian people. In return, their high morale and cohesion provide a sense of well-being and confidence to the masses. What has significantly changed in this relationship is the nature of the mission, which now includes growing domestic security, safety and administrative responsibilities. The fallout includes greater public visibility and scrutiny. Mission success under these conditions demands sustained support from the masses. Consequently, public perception has become a critical factor in military planning and operations.

Paradoxically, public perception is becoming increasingly hard to cultivate, in spite of latent goodwill and faith reposed in the Armed Forces. Perceptions today are also liable to change within a blink of an eye, given the speed at which content propagates within a susceptible, angst-ridden society. The Indian Armed Forces are especially vulnerable, given the traditionally restricted scope of civil-military dialogue. This is aggravated by limitations in scope and thought, obsolescence in practice, and a centralised, top-down, unwieldy, at-arms-length approach to public relations. The inability to stay abreast of, and optimally leverage optimal social engagement methods is preventing the Armed Forces’ narrative from becoming accessible to a larger audience, which is routinely exposed to a disproportional amount of negative commentary on social media. This is adversely affecting the military’s image and gradually eroding its brand image.

Social media engagement is undoubtedly the biggest influencer of public perception today and will be a focus of this piece, since the potential for brand enhancement is immense. The social media success of India’s paramilitary organisations, Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) and select examples from other Armed Forces signifies the potential gains that may be achieved, based on better ‘design’ of content, a robust PR ‘structure’ empowered with speed of trust across the hierarchy, and healthier ‘interaction’ with the masses.

The Indian Armed Forces’ Social Media Score Card: Untested Assumptions, Misguided Efforts

The Indian Army, the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Navy manage social media channels, largely showcasing promotional activity, inputs about visits, exercises, appointments, community support activities and trivia about past battles and military heroes. Focusing primarily on events and activities, they rarely communicate the vision, mission and ideas of the organisation, assuming that the audience will figure this out on their own. This failing could be due to an inability to understand the target audience, or an unwillingness to address their expectations, instrumental in most perception management failures. These issues, their impact and possible solutions are discussed below by first focusing on ‘design and treatment’ of content – an execution-related issue, and then moving on strategy and planning.

Quality of Recruitment and the Inefficacy of Promotional Videos

The Indian Armed Forces suffer from a perennial staffing problem, unable to attract the right quality of talent in spite of changes in terms of service or huge spends on promotional activities. Considering that the Armed Forces offer decent pay, perks, privileges, as well as intangible benefits like job security and respectability, doubts about better opportunities elsewhere leading to a shortfall in talent are not fully merited, given the one lakh plus average, trainable, high integrity individuals entering the work force every month. But what if we are unknowingly targeting only a narrow pool of talent in the first place?

Presently, social media promotional activities revolve around motivational videos and eye-catching advertisements with a call for action around key themes like adventure, physical exhilaration, high technology and challenging leadership avenues. This has two problems. First, it indicates that the profession is only suitable for adrenalin junkies, weeding out the majority from the candidate pool. Secondly, by focusing 80% of promotional content on 10% of actual roles / tasks, it sets incorrect expectations in the minds of a candidate. Since one can’t leave the Armed Forces at will, this gets passed on to a disillusioned candidate pool who opt not to take a chance. The other lacuna with promotional activity is that the branding is designed as per the ‘insider’s view of what a potential recruit will get swayed by’, which is validated by the steady stream of ‘self-aggrandisement’ themed promotional activity over the decades. There are three suggestions to improve this activity:

(i) Appealing to a mass audience: Consider the universal, time-tested expectations of job-seekers. These include self-esteem, advancement, feedback, public adulation, up-skilling, etc1. All these attributes can be realised at an Armed Forces desk as effectively as on a high-adrenalin field assignment. A predominant focus on high-energy, action-oriented messaging weeds out a larger pool of potential candidates, who may have preferred a less action-oriented career. Importantly, in a society where parents play a major part in career decisions, promotion activity focused on the job seeker solely has the disadvantage of playing up risks vis-à-vis benefits from the parents’ perspective, further narrowing the talent pool. In trying to project an Armed Forces career as an attractive differentiator vis-à-vis other professions, there exists a risk of alienating the public, a majority of whom are seeking job security and stability.

(ii) Including contemporary concerns into the narrative to cater to an entirely new audience set: Millennials prefer individual attention over social approval, and tend to seek out a career that matches unique lifestyle expectations2. Instead of a value proposition focused on patriotism, pride, valour, and courage, promotional messaging could be made more relevant by focusing on sustainability, freedom of expression and other hooks of national purpose, beyond security. While it is not recommended to lift and shift campaigns from another culture, a military recruitment campaign from Norway could be a good pointer, which reflects national values and purpose without a single direct reference to military roles and tasks3. Similarly, non-traditional aspirations relevant to the target audience could be integrated within promotional campaigns.

(iii) Infusing fresh language and a wider range of emotions: Moving beyond the use of heavy emotions, messaging could reflect an element of ‘fun-in-adventure’. Fresh college and school graduates, while aspiring to a life of great deeds and sacrifices in uniform, also tend to associate the profession with a life of perpetual seriousness. A training academy video from the USAF is informative in this regard, significant in that it carries risky content, done in a fun and matter-of-fact manner. In contrast to paratroopers breaking into a sweat before a jump, a clip of young trainees jumping off planes without batting an eyelid makes the larger-than-life become achievable4.

The point being made is that we need to sell reality, and provide hooks relevant to the present generation. If the hooks don’t work, it may mean that we are portraying a wrong reality – of the job being all action, loaded with heavy emotions, and markedly different from a nine to five lifestyle.

A detailed assessment of promotional activities and recruitment messaging may also help the Armed Forces reinvent themselves. The successful ‘walk-the-talk’ by the IAF with regards to its ‘women power’ campaign opened up opportunities for an entire demography, and enhanced the credibility of its engagement efforts. This is critical, because no amount of appealing content will sway today’s youth if there exists a marked difference between values exhorted and actions / conduct on ground. It can be safely assumed that every candidate and their parent will scrutinise Armed Forces’ activities carefully. In this context, sustaining the larger narrative will remain critical.

Social engagement, because everyone else is doing it: The Armed Forces’ social media handles have a healthy followership, upwards of a few million in the Indian Army’s case. But a major reason for this is the nation’s latent support for the men in uniform – a well-wisher premium. This number does not reflect the popularity enjoyed by other social media influencers, a main reason being that these handles are not able to establish a unique identity. They largely replicate official content or post commemorative content which is also shared by other social media pages and individuals. In following this process, the Armed Forces fail to appreciate the stark difference in engagement objectives, criteria, audience types, etc. between the official and online engagement mediums, one of which is to constantly hone engagement based on audience ‘feedback’, the ability to hear, interpret and refine engagement.

A social engagement strategy must have clarity about the strategic purpose of engagement, and unique call to action. These could be fundamental perception building queries like – what do citizens think of the Armed Forces?, who are its major supporters / detractors and why?, and, is there a changing trend in the public’s perception of the Armed Forces?, etc. all of which boil down to an important question – how relevant are the Armed Forces to India’s public today? A few thousand likes, shares or mentions are by themselves no indicators of any of these queries.

Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) across India provide a good example of online community engagement, in spite of traditional structural and social handicaps. They too have to work around tightly controlled and centralised communication protocols. Moreover, as a public service dealing with law and order, their relations with society have traditionally bordered on fear, hostility and even anger. From their humour-infused and empathetic interactions, it is clear that an important ‘strategic imperative’ was to mitigate their ‘confrontationist’ dynamic with the public. Their focus on reassurance and their receptivity to inputs from the public has been instrumental in unearthing issues, building confidence and encouraging positive community relations. In addition, by generating objective debates around constructive topics like safety and well-being, they are able to avoid politicising the narrative, weed out extreme opinions, and still generate healthy participation and support from the masses.

Twitter Handle (A)	Account setup date (B)	No. of Tweets (as on 30 Jul 2018) (C)	Followers   (D)	Likes by the page (E) Engagement factor E = C/E
Bengaluru Police	Aug 2012	75,700 (1,066 per month)	1.24 Million (Mn)	12,600 E=6
Mumbai Police	Dec 2015	69,600 2,245 per month)	4.62 Mn	2,236 E=31
Indian Army	Feb 2013	7,555 (113 per month)	5.59 Mn	63 E=120
Indian Air Force	Oct 2016	1,394 (66 per month)	173,000	122 E=11
Indian Navy	Jun 2016	6,335 (253 per month)	99,000	255 E=25
BSF	Mar 2015	2,907 (72 per month)	200,000	1909 E=1.5
CRPF	Jul 2016	5,454 (227 per month)	196,000	7373 E=0.7

 

*The per month figures above do not reflect actuals, but denote an average over the handle’s existence. What distinguishes the Armed Forces /Paramilitary forces from the LEAs in the above graphic are the frequency of their tweets. Since military/paramilitary forces do not have a direct public interface in their daily working, this is understandable. But as public scrutiny increases, and as they begin to earn greater mindshare among the population, their number of interactions (number of tweets, for example) should ideally increase.

*Engagement Factor (E): indicates the handles’ liking of other content (their external engagement on Twitter) relative to their own broadcasts. BSF and CRPF have fewer number of overall tweets, comparable to the Armed Forces, but have substantial followership, which can be partially attributed to their engagement factor of 1.5 and 0.7. Such engagement makes an handle seem opinionated but also accessible. This could be a reason for their relative popularity, compared to the Indian Air Force or the Indian Navy.

As public interface and the public’s mindshare increases with respect to military matters, greater amount of social media interaction focused on sharing relevant content and addressing concerns. Only then can we expect to credibly provide the necessary ‘context’ about military life, roles and operations to an audience that is likely to benefit from better quality awareness and knowledge. The ideal social engagement strategy will straddle the two halves between restraining opinion and sharing profusely, with the ideal balance arrived at by focusing on the larger strategic queries posed above, and refining the strategy periodically. Thus, a healthy civil-military dialogue would require the Armed Forces to take charge of the narrative, in contrast to their present day passive approach.

Surrendering the Narrative: Today, the Armed Forces’ external communication activity is ‘awareness’ oriented. This, however, is not sufficient to change perceptions. With multiple sources and conflicting opinions populating the national discourse, attention spans are getting severely constrained, encouraging snap judgments based not on objectivity, but emotions and sentimental appeal. Managing reputation under this reality requires sustained, constructive engagement, with a built-in ability to respond in near-real time to damaging / defamatory content. Failure to institutionalise this will result in a slow erosion of reputation and brand of the Armed Forces built over centuries and after countless sacrifices.

This is all the more pressing, given that a minority opinion wielding a false counter-point can, even unwittingly bring disrepute to the Armed Forces. A recent example of this includes an op-ed by an Indian US based journalist, on Pakistan’s election outcome. His contention was that for an Imran Khan-like figure to rise politically in India, he won’t be able to rely on the army to help him gain top office, since Indian generals would be busy playing golf, rather than playing politics5. Inserting comments totally irrelevant to the argument and taken out of context is how spoilers claim glory by insinuating organisations which have limited capacity for recourse.

Even veterans of high repute resort to public bashing of the Armed Forces. Lt. Gen. Panag’s media trial about a sub-judice matter involving a serving officer reflects the kind of reputational damage the Armed Forces may have to regularly contend with, even if done unwittingly, or in their ‘best’ interests6.  Rather than treating these as solitary cases, the damage needs to be appreciated from the perspective of a steady loss of confidence among the public, given the numerous misquotes and allegations that form part of a daily commentary. The handicap of not being able to rebut encourages brand-bashing among such activists to the detriment of the Armed Forces. This is also likely to have long-term adverse effect on the serving rank and file who get caught in the cross-fire, and on potential talent who may harbour second thoughts about a career in the Armed Forces.

Controlling damage and restoring public faith would require real-time spotting of such content and a quick rebuttal in a matter of hours. In order to deter such activity, subsequent actions should be followed up expeditiously. A positive fallout of a good image on social media is the possibility of self-enforcing similar standards on ground by serving personnel. There are enough example of ‘unit’ ethos and culture bringing about positive change in personalities, and creating a good social media brand can only add to it.

Meaningful engagement around relevant concerns and narratives can be achieved using three prongs, focused on the official organs of communications/ public relations, serving personnel who can act as eyes and ears, and the columns of passive supporters outside the system who can force-multiply official efforts.

Upgrading the Quality of Our Official Communications: The essence of a successful perception management strategy is accuracy, unambiguity and timely response. To achieve this, the Armed Forces need to modify their PRO-based centralised information control/dissemination structure – by integrating a OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) decision model, employed widely in military planning. This would require a clear chain of command from the PRO down to field formations and include: (1) Facilities for improving situational awareness at each level, (2) A structure and method for sharing of information in real time between elements, and (3) A decision/escalation matrix to respond to unforeseen situations. The model would need to be adequately flexible to ensure quick learning through necessary trainings/tools, to build confidence in the system through positive relationships and transparency, and to enable pro-activeness in response. Success will depend on routine coordination at multiple levels. The basic structure would revolve around PROs and field formations as a hub and spoke model, with ownership over observing and acting (disseminating online or on-ground). It could extend upward to the Chief’s office, for orientation and decision, completing the respective service linkage. Depending on the nature of the issue, it could further link up to the MoD, the Integrated HQs and the other two services. In addition, coordination with agencies like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) could help craft appropriate responses to sensitive issues within the ambit of international law, potentially enhancing international credibility. Frequency and type of coordination needs to be refined with an aim to keep the lower levels orientated about issues and potential fallouts, while on the other hand enabling them to pass relevant ‘observations’ up the chain in quick time.

The OODA Loop, originally conceptualised by Col John Boyd, USAF (Ret.)

(Source: Patrick Edwin Moran[i])

 

Sensitising Serving Personnel About Their Role and Influence in Brand Building: The BSF jawan video clip of Jan 2017 complaining about the poor quality of food served8 indicates that official information control measures can be conveniently subverted by disgruntled elements, that content about the Armed Forces has a high potential of gaining virality (in this case abetted by adversaries across the border), and that in the confusion leading up to identifying the elements responsible, allied organisations may suffer damage, in this case the Indian Army. Given this reality check, it is recommended that while the PRO remains the hub of the model, all serving personnel need to be included in the larger narrative. While not expecting the individual units to interface with the public (except in case of crises), it is imperative that all should clearly understand the vision of the organisation.The consistency in thought, action and projection across the chain of command adds to the credibility of official communications. A proactive step in this direction would be to designate ‘situational awareness, communication and engagement officers’ at the unit / field level. These can act as the pivot around which the command’s vision and mission is communicated down the chain, in exchange for sharing local sentiment and information with the apex.

A positive outcome of understanding the larger picture may also infuse empathy among people removed from the decision matrix. Rational and consistent interactions on this pattern is likely to positively impact morale and discipline, and possibly deter public outpouring of disgruntled behaviour.

The personnel could be selected from local intelligence formations and could be linked with regional / central PROs. With Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) from social channels providing valuable inputs regarding community sentiment and enhancing situational awareness, this will also partially serve the intelligence mandate of the formations.It is assumed that these individuals would have a base level of understanding about modern communication techniques, mass psychology, and emerging social issues, which could be further honed. This cadre can then be expanded, to include personnel from units, to be trained by these individuals. Aside from linking hierarchies and mapping sentiment on the ground, these units could also be trained to respond to emergent situations proactively, and provide appropriate inputs to higher formations in quick time.

To augment this, the Armed Forces should consider institutionalising perception management training cells at training institutions beginning with junior courses and extending up to higher command curriculum, incrementally covering the tactical, operational and strategic nuances of the topic. A positive fallout of this could be an enhancement of critical thinking among personnel, and a more empathetic view of decision and policies afforded by a bigger picture understanding of the operational context.

Promoting Supporters and Converting Fence-Sitters: An option that can be put into action in quick time would be to cultivate external sources – supporters, veterans and stakeholders – including academics, journalists, etc. who are both interested and knowledgeable on service matters and who have a strong followership on social channels. These individuals can force-multiply the efforts of the Armed Forces by acting as their eyes and ears, while operating in arms-length manner, so as to maintain objectivity and ensure credibility. This may involve imaginative thinking, like the commissioning of ‘unofficial’ handles controlled by official spokespersons, which can permit sharing of a wider range of opinion. The Armed Forces could set up a working group involving such personalities which can meet at regular intervals to enhance collaboration potential. A key deliverable of such a collaboration should be to identify brand damaging content in real-time and create a response strategy within a defined time window, preferably not extending beyond 24 hours from the time the issue first surfaced. Executing such a mandate would require a skilled team under the auspices of the PRO, comprising social media experts, sociologists, and military scholars straddling the middle and senior management of the Armed Forces. It should also have a legal element, to coordinate with neutral bodies like the ICRC, study clauses and precedents, and analyse avenues to craft appropriate responses to all contingencies, within the auspices of international law.

Conclusion

For those equating this ‘capacity enhancement’ proposal with a double-edged sword need to keep in mind the numerous cases of disgruntled individuals and the ready-to-strike capabilities of adversaries who can easily augment these efforts, as was done in the BSF video clip case. Under such onslaught of misinformation, maintaining credibility will be difficult, unless countered in quick time. Other militaries have become wise to this, and are building capacity to mitigate such damage. One among many recent examples of such social media rebuttals came within 12 hours, by a handle supporting Israeli security forces9. The force-multiplier effect is there for all to observe.

While it may be that “the truth does not ever quite catch up with the initial lie if the initial lie is emotional and juicy enough”,10 countering baseless allegations and outright lies should be an important responsibility of militaries, which set the benchmark for national unity and cohesion. The Indian Armed Forces today remain a comfort zone for anyone seeking their support, and a home for anyone who has served in uniform. They stand for respect, order, uniformity, accountability and dedication, which can inspire and motivate society like few other. Appreciating this larger goal, it is high time the Indian Armed Forces took control over their social narrative and reimagined their engagement with the Indian people.

References:

1     https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293605705_Career_Expectations_and_Organizational_ commitment_of_Millennials_in_Indian_IT_industry_-_An_SHRM_perspective

2     http://www-personal.umich.edu/~prestos/Downloads/DC/pdfs/Redman_Sept29_TwengeCampbell2008.pdf

3     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B_TlHJq1-4

4     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUo8REevWQM

5     https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/what-pakistan-teaches-india-one-or-two-good-decades-is-not-enough-to-guarantee-a-smooth-path-to-development/

6     https://www.newslaundry.com/2018/06/07/panag-major-gogoi-indian-army-transgressions-human-shield

7     https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3904554

8     https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pak-sites-lapped-up-jawans-video/article18700988.ece

9     https://twitter.com/TheMossadIL/status/1027572117431361537

10           https://www.weeklystandard.com/jenna-lifhits/deepfake-videos-are-a-national-security-threat

 

(Squadron Leader Anshuman Mainkar (Retd.) served with the IAF (2003-14) as a Fighter Pilot and Air Intelligence Officer. A Computer Science graduate from the National Defence Academy, he also holds a Master’s degree in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He heads the Strategic Intelligence, Communications and Engagement team at Reliance Global Corporate Security. He can be reached at @anshumig /anshuman.mainkar@ gmail.com Views expressed are personal.)

(This article is carried in the print edition of September-October 2018 issue of India Foundation Journal.)

 

The US high power delegation led by the Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, and including the US Army Chief, has just concluded its visit to India. The two countries are moving towards closer cooperation in their efforts for regional and global peace and development. The US lately recognizes that the strongest and the largest democracy in the world should have convergence on approach to many regional and global problems with terrorism at the top of them all.

Strategic importance of relationship between the US and India lies primarily in their political arrangement of democratic governance. While the US is the strongest democracy in the world India is the largest. Both are multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, multi-religious and multi-cultural societies. Together they send a message to the entire world that they are living examples of unity in diversity, something which other countries with diversified social structures can emulate and adapt voluntarily. In a world torn by contradictions and controversies democratic dispensation is the time tested module of accommodating different shades of opinion and approach. Protection and preservation of democracy against the forces of exclusiveness becomes a priority with the two countries.

Security and trade are crucial to development. Both countries have stakes in the security of the region which is catalyst to free flow of trade. Three-fourth of oil requirement of the world passes through the Arabian Gulf and equal size of international trade has to flow through the Straits of Malacca. This speaks loudly for the need of security of the Gulf and India-Pacific regions. Good relations between India and the US are a key to the imperative of security and trade with development as the final destination.

The United States was favourably disposed towards the leadership of Indian freedom movement against colonial power. However, during the cold war era the US found its interests served better by patronizing Pakistan. India pandered to the Soviet bloc. Nevertheless, the US did not fail to understand that despite many odds, India was wedded to democratic governance. Therefore relations never reached a freezing point which reflected maturity of statesmanship on either side. This understanding was reflected in the US offering huge quantity of wheat to India to overcome her grave food shortage during 1950s. The PL- 480 programme is a significant landmark in the history of bilateral relations. India improved its agriculture sector as a result of collaboration with the advanced agricultural expertise of the US. This was part of PL – 480 and later on it became catalyst to what Indians call “Green Revolution” or self-sufficiency in food production.

A marked change appeared in India’s policy towards the US after the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991. Heads of the two governments exchanged friendly visits. India found vast scope for collaboration in many areas of development like strategic security, trade and commerce, science and technology, energy resources etc. But the most significant area was that of civil nuclear cooperation. The civil nuclear initiative has been strengthened by the regular meetings of the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Working Group (CNWG).

Cooperation between two major democracies purports prosperity of people in both countries and the world at large. Modi government’s objective of cooperation with the US is multi-dimensional but regional security and free and fair trade concept is at the centre of this cooperation. At present, the trade side of the U.S.-India partnership is vastly underperforming. Two-way trade in goods and services is about $115 billion. This pales out in comparison with two-way trade between the United States and China, which at about $650 billion is almost six times as large. Modi believes that raising bilateral trade to match the size of Sino-US trade is the key to the success of his doctrine of “Make India”. Here lies the importance of a “free and fair” trade agreement between the two sides that would serve their common interests. A fair and free trade agreement when signed could go a long way in strengthening bilateral relations. However, for the time being the process of finalizing such an agreement remains in suspended animation owing to unjustifiable tariff regulations on either side. Once they clinch an agreement, India could take care of other areas like energy, defense production, anti-terror and the growing influence of China in the region on its own.

Mechanisms like defense and anti-terrorism cooperation; strategic consultation, mutual investment programmers, space civil science cooperation, energy development projection etc. are the instruments that will enhance trade and economic prospect of both countries.

Trump administration’s India policy is a component of US’ South Asia policy overarched by Indo-Pacific strategy. Initially Trump’s strong stand on H-1B, EB-5 visa and immigration caused disquiet to New Delhi. His predecessors were liberal on these matters. Trump’s accusation that India was seeking billions of dollars from advanced countries in exchange for its support for the Paris Climate Change Agreement caused serious concerns in New Delhi. However, Prime Minister Mode’s US visit to the US helped normalize the situation.

Trump-Putin understanding bodes well for New Delhi. It can stop Russia from falling into the embrace of Xi Jinping. It allows India greater room in proposing important projects like the International North-South Trade Corridor.

President Trump’s deviation from the lukewarm policy of the Bush and Obama administration in dealing with terrorism and extremism gives satisfaction to India which is a victim of terrorism. During his visit to India, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had hoped that India would take her rightful place at the global table meaning the Security Council. The two sides have also focused on strengthening cooperation in the Indo-Pacific and respecting freedom of navigation, over-flight and commerce. It is a matter of great relief for India. Revival of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue among the US, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia last year indicates expanded bilateral engagement between New Delhi and Washington. However, accusing India of raising tariff on US imports is the latest irritant in Indo-US relationship. Their representatives are scheduled to meet soon to find a solution to the issue.

In his South Asia policy statement in 2017, President Trump said India was crucial to America’s interests in peace and stability in Asia-Pacific region. Previous administrations in Washington did not seriously think so. Trump administration also recognizes India’s role in stabilizing Afghan peace and economy. In Trump administration’s “Defense, Technology and Trade Initiatives” India occupies a prominent place as the world’s largest democracy and fast developing economy conducive to strengthening of peace in Asian region and the world. Calling ties with India as of utmost importance, US Defense Secretary Mattis said, “Washington would pursue a long term partnership with India to stabilize Asia-Pacific region.”

Trump has not minced words in declaring US’ determination of fighting terrorism to let humanity live in peace. He has made a resolve to take on these enemies of peace with the cooperation of democratic countries in the region. Indian Prime Minister Modi has been emphasizing on world powers to understand the seriousness of terrorist and extremist threat to peace. This shows convergence of policy of fighting the menace of terrorism.

Trump administration will support India’s membership in the Security Council as well as in NSG. The US supports Quad – 4 viz. Japan, Australia, South Korea and India. Thus Trump administration recognizes the strategic importance of India to peace and security of the Indian Ocean.

However, among the irritants in their relationship are the trade imbalance and Trumps’ decision to do away with EB-5. In both cases prospective Indian investors will be affected adversely. However, the two sides will be talking to resolve differences.

Asia-Pacific idea, dating back to 1960s was related to Cold War strategy of the US in the East. The proposition that future world history would be actually the history of Asia made the American think-tanks focus on broad East Asian cooperation in Asian politics and economic growth. However, China’s rapid economic growth enabled her go militarily strong enough to intimidate the South China Sea states and make naval forays into the Indian Ocean. This posed threat to the vital world maritime trade route passing through the Straits of Malacca. The concept of Indo-Pacific was thus born to meet military and commercial challenges in the Pacific region.

The concept was first expressed by the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in his address to the Indian Parliament in 2006. In 2010 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about “expanding our work with the Indian Navy in the Pacific because we understand how important Indo-Pacific basin is to global trade and commerce.” The rationale for re-cycling the nomenclature is that the region now boasts the world’s three largest economies, seven of its eight fastest growing markets, and seven of the world’s ten largest armies and it is expected to produce more than half of the world’s economic output in the coming years. The reason why the US prefers Indo-Pacific instead of Asia-Pacific is that it acknowledges the historical reality and the current-day reality that South Asia, and in particular India, plays a key role in the Pacific and in East and Southeast Asia. Secondly, it is in the interests of the region, that India plays an increasingly weighty role in the region. India is a nation that is invested in a free and open order. It is a democracy. It is a nation that can bookend and anchor the free and open order in the Indo-Pacific region, and it’s America’s policy to ensure that India does play that role, does become over time a more influential player in the region
(Prof. K.N. Pandita is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University, Srinagar.)

A fracas over a telephonic message from the Secretary of State Michael Pompeo to Imran Khan on 23 August only added to the already strained relations between the US and its former South Asian ally. Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi contradicted the content of the call. The State Department had said in readout that during the call “Pompeo raised the importance of Pakistan taking decisive action against all terrorists operating in Pakistan”. Islamabad refuted the US readout as incorrect, saying that this “issue of terrorism” was not discussed. However, when questioned by a reporter, the U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said there would be no correction in response to Pakistan’s complaint and said, “I can only say we stand by our readout.”

Mike Pompeo’s message was preceded by the visit of Iranian foreign minister Zarif to Islamabad and Imran Khan Government’s outright expression of support to Iranian stand in the face of Trump’s threat to rescind the nuclear deal. Pakistani foreign minister’s mind was also worked about the New Delhi visit of the US high-power delegation likely to take place after about a week of its visit to Islamabad. By raising the controversy Pakistan government wanted to give a message to the people that the US had taken the first initiative for rapprochement in bilateral relations that had begun to nosedive with the famous remark of Trump that “we gave billions of dollars to Pakistan and in return, they gave us lies and deceit.” Qureshi’s compulsion of distorting the factual message reflects discomfiture caused by Washington’s insistence on “do more”.

Pak Foreign Minister’s attempt to dilute the content of the telephonic talk becomes meaningless when we focus on Pentagon’s overview of Pak-US relations with reference to the fighting in Afghanistan.
The denial could also be an attempt to dodge the closely guarded commitment that Pakistan army top brass might have made to their counterparts in Washington. What was the army top brass of the two sides talking about all these months? In a statement given at a briefing in the Pentagon the spokesman Mr Faulkner said “Since January, they have consistently engaged with Pakistani military officials at the highest levels, based on both a shared commitment to defeat all terrorist groups that threaten regional stability and security, as well as on a shared vision of a peaceful future for Afghanistan”. Does Pakistan army now want to make the scapegoat of the civilian government for wriggling out of the broad frame of a formula worked out during these parleys for ending Afghan crisis?
Days before Pompeo delegation’s departure for Pakistan, Defence Secretary James Mattis said in a news briefing at the Pentagon that in their talks with Pakistani officials, the delegation will “make very clear what we have to do, all of our nations, in meeting our common foe, the terrorists, and make that a primary part of the discussion.”
Evidently, the issue at hand is Afghan war and Pakistan’s hand in fuelling its flames. Noting that repeated warnings to Pakistan to deny safe haven to Afghan Taliban, particularly the Haqqani and Let networks fighting the US-led NATO forces have fallen on flat ears, Trump administration put into practice its three-point agenda of containing global terrorism with epicentre in Af-Pak region as was announced by him in his speech in Saudi Arabia last year. He earmarked three facets of US’ new strategy for South Asia viz. (a) stripping terrorists of their territory (b) cutting off their funding and (c) exposing the false allure of their evil ideology. “Terrorists are nothing but thugs, criminals and predators”, he had concluded.
Referring to Afghanistan and Pakistan in his Camp David speech last year, President Trump had underlined the basics of his strategy as (a) stopping resurgence of safe havens and (b) preventing nuclear weapons and materials being used against us or anywhere in the world. This very emphatically suggests that Trump administration’s main concern is to find a mechanism that would deny the terrorist groups in Af-Pak region access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Trump administration’s indication of discouraging IMF to bail out Pakistan with 9 billion dollar loan from its crumbling financial crisis is in addition to the cancellation of US dollars 300 million aid to Pak army. The loud and clear warning has come on the eve of the visit to Islamabad of a high powered US government delegation. Pakistan foreign minister Qureshi is trying to minimize the adverse impact of the cancellation of a hefty amount of aid by raising flimsy technical issues. However, Lt. Col. Kone Faulkner, the Pentagon spokesman in an email to the AFP made clear why the US had blocked the amount of aid. He said, “Due to a lack of Pakistani decisive actions in support of the South Asia Strategy… $300m (actually $323.6m to include non-Pakistan funds) was reprogrammed by the Defence Department in the June/July 2018 time frame for selected urgent priorities”.
This statement touches on the essence of the irritants between the two countries. It found reverberation in the statement of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Joseph F. Dunford, who also had attended the Congressional briefing, that the US had “permanent interests in South Asia” and wanted to “maintain a presence (there) to have influence in that region”.

Incidentally, General Dunford’s inclusion in the delegation dispels the impression that this was not a proper visit but just a stopover, as US State and Defence Secretaries were both going to be in New Delhi next week for the first two-plus-two talks between the United States and India.
The “permanent interest in the region” to which the American General was referring has to be understood by what President Trump expressed about dismantling of terrorist organizations active in Afghanistan-Pakistan region, and its threat to American interests. President Trump asserted that 9/11 had originated in that very region. A further clarification of the expression of interest is reflected more eloquently in how Trump looks at India in his vision of the new South Asian strategy. He had made a very clear and threadbare statement:

“Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India — the world’s largest democracy and a key security and economic partner of the United States. We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development. We are committed to pursuing our shared objectives for peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region”.

At the Pentagon meeting Secretary Defence, Mattis said, “We see the strengthening of India’s democracy, its military, its economy as a stabilising element in the world. And we want to make certain that where we have common interests, we are working together.”

This is a paradigm shift in US’ South Asia policy. In other words, US acknowledges the significance of India’s role in stabilizing peace in the South Asian region where Afghanistan and Kashmir continue to be the zones of activity of terrorist organizations, particularly those that have been designated by the US or the UN. The first pillar of the new strategy in South Asia enunciated by President Trump and stated above is of “stripping terrorists of their territory”. This means chalking out of a joint strategy with friendly countries to deny space to the terrorists presently active in two conflict zones in South Asia. The message is clear and loud for all terrorist networks and their handlers as well as safe haven providers.

As for the second pillar meaning “cutting off their funding” the Trump administration has taken two explicit steps viz. using its clout with IMF to obstruct bailing out Pakistan from financial crunch and cancellation of 300 million US dollar aid, a proposal waiting Congressional determination likely to come before the close of September.
Curiously, Pakistani foreign minister Qureshi has disputed the $33b figure quoted by President Trump, insisting that around half of the money relates to reimbursements. His contention about the cancelled aid is that the payment, which the US is now considering scrapping, is, in fact, the support coalition fund. “This is not an aid of any kind that can be suspended,” he said. “This is actually the payment of expenses incurred by us during the war against terrorism.” However, forcefully rebutting Pakistan’s contention, Pentagon spokesperson Faulkner analysed the US stand as this.

“Unfortunately, recent reporting has distorted the details of the Coalition Support Fund (CSF) by stating several things out of context. The suspension of security assistance to Pakistan was announced in January 2018. The CSF is included in the suspension and it remains in place. This is not a new decision or a new announcement, but an acknowledgement of a July request to reprogram funds before they expire. Reminding Pakistan that since January, they have consistently engaged with Pakistani military officials at the highest levels, based on both a shared commitment to defeat all terrorist groups that threaten regional stability and security, as well as on a shared vision of a peaceful future for Afghanistan.

He made it clear that the US “continues to press Pakistan to indiscriminately target all terrorist groups, including the Haqqani Network and LeT, and we continue to call on Pakistan to arrest, expel or bring the Taliban leadership to the negotiating table.” Asserting that 2018 DoD Appropriations Act, published on March 23, details $500 million was rescinded by the Congress. He dismissed the Pakistani stand by arguing that owing to a lack of Pakistani decisive actions in support of the South Asia Strategy, the remaining $300 million was reprogrammed by the Department of Defence (DoD) in July 2018 time frame for other urgent priorities before the funds expire on September 30.
In final analysis the message brought to Islamabad by the US delegation boils down to this: Sever all links with Taliban terrorist groups including Haqqani and LeT networks; become our partner in new South Asian strategy of uprooting terrorism of all hues and in stabilizing peace in the region; ensure that nuclear weapon and material does not fall into the hands of terrorists. In return, we shall restore the process of giving the aid money and develop a sound partnership in bilateral trade and commerce.

Evidently, Pakistan will make a deep study of the repercussions of dropping down the Haqqani and LeT networks as that would amount to the all-time departure from the policy of carving strategic space westward and eastward with focus on Afghanistan and Kashmir. Islamabad will also carefully study the outcome of the US high-level team’s parleys with the Indians next week. Interestingly, New Delhi has done some advance spadework in J&K as a complement to the US’ theorem of stripping terrorists of their territory. In this context, some analysts view the dismissal of PDP-led coalition government as a much needed intervention to restrict the support to terrorist organisations from some within the government. As per them, the continuation of the process will see the revival of the suspended assembly to prop up a government with far less commitment to the spectre of separatism and fundamentalism.
Islamabad will closely watch to what extent the US high power delegation will gravitate to the Indian perception of terror phenomenon in South Asia. In the impending 2 + 2 meets in New Delhi, the status of Sino-Russian forays into South Asia and India-Pacific politics is likely to be the keynote subject for discussion. Remember that the Chinese foreign minister is expected to show up in Islamabad soon after the departure of the visiting US delegation.
(Prof. K.N. Pandita is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University, Srinagar.)

In all probability the stalemate in J&K is finally heading towards an end and the legislators hitherto hibernating in suspended animation are gearing up for resumption of their normal function of law making. The political scenario unfolding now in Srinagar and New Delhi shows that stakeholders were silently working out a formula for breaking the impasse. It seems that good wisdom has prevailed and re-alignment of forces is round the corner. Political parties were given adequate time to cobble a government capable of delivering the goods.
Analyzing the sequence of events, we find that the Union government has firmly upheld the dignity of the office of Governor by allowing Mr. N.N. Vohra to complete three months of extended term. He demitted office gracefully.
Hopefully,, from her nearly three years’ stint in office, the PDP chief will have learnt at least one far-reaching political lesson, viz. no covert conciliation or espousal of anti-national elements is going to separate the State from the Indian Union. The hard core of her vote bank carved out of radical ideologues was the last arrow in her quivers that is now standing exhausted.
Not only that, owing to her political shortsightedness and flawed conviction she gradually and recklessly paved the way for disintegration of the PDP, a party which she had built with the tacit support of Jam’at-i-Islami of South Kashmir. The cracks in the party became visible soon after the coalition government fell. She lost the strength which otherwise she would have made use of in projecting PDP as a victimized party to retrieve her image. The question of horse trading, an inevitable consequence of suspended assemblies, did not arise for her when she found her herd in total disarray. At the end of the day if the stint in a thorny office has had any lesson for her it is that this nation and its people have to be governed by democracy essentially anchored in justice and benevolence not in hatred and acrimony.
For the NC chief also there is the stark lesson that he cannot extract unjustifiable concessions from New Delhi by dramatizing situations and handing out subtle threats to known or unknown adversaries. He seems to be euphoric about a fair chance of returning to power, something for which he has the inscrutable penchant. However, he needs to realize that sometimes his unpredictable waywardness can become ruinous for him. Now that he is again pandering to nationalist politics after brief honeymooning with a faction of the Hurriyat, he will be faced with the challenge of rebuilding his and his party’s along the old profile. One is tempted to argue that old parameters have collapsed and there is no escape from looking at Kashmir politics through the prism of pragmatism. With his re-assessment of ongoing situation and its candid public expression, Dr. Farooq has to remember that he has chosen to categorize Kashmir situation as indisputable part of Islam’s domestic strife between the radicals and the progressive forces. As such, nearly three decades of violence and mayhem in Kashmir could be called the lull before the storm.
These realizations of current Kashmir politics by the mainstream parties have to be counted as signals for a positive change in Kashmir political scenario after three decades of violence and blackmail. In 1975, when late Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah returned to power after signing the Accord with Indira Gandhi, a correspondent asked him what the achievement of his long years of political exile was. He quipped that for all those years they had done only “awaragardi.”
Dr. Farooq is known for his whimsical statements and contradictory comments. It is difficult to assign him any specific category in the game of politics. Yet proverbially speaking he has a method in madness. Dr. Farooq’s nationalist utterances at the funeral of Vajpayee and his bizarre interview to Arnab Goswami of Republic TV channel have already caused anger and revulsion in separatist groups in Kashmir. At the Hazratbal shrine, the traditional stronghold of NC, he sat with ordinary people in a row to offer Eid prayer. Miscreants unsuccessfully tried to rough him up. The so-called freedom fighters in Kashmir Valley consider it a scandalous setback to their Islamic radicalization movement and threat to their anti-democracy campaign. They have already begun to pour abuse on him in crudest possible terminology. However, Farooq with inherited as well as acquired knowledge is not at all a stranger either to the Kashmirian psyches or to the secrets of who butters whose bread in Kashmir.
Nevertheless, he has never been ideologically comfortable with the Jamat-i-Islami or the Ahle-Hadith factions. True, these rabid communal groups did succeed in diluting some of NC’s constituencies in previous election, yet Dr. Farooq retains the capability of retrieving the lost ground with some meaningful input when he means it. NC and BJP have the history of working in unison at the Union level. Dr. Farooq’s recent statement that while the nation has progressed and moved forward, the State of Jammu and Kashmir remains stagnant, at least gives the impression that the stagnation of the State must come to an end. He candidly holds the separatists and the Jamat is responsible for the sordid phenomenon of destruction. Maintaining the pace of development of the State with the rest of the country is possibly only when there is peace and State’s relations with the Union are smooth and congenial.
The credit of fostering a re-think of ground situation in the State should actually go to the Jammu BJP electorate that sent in a solid team of the national mainstream party to the State Legislative Assembly. For the first time in the history of the State, Jammu has played the crucial balancing role. Its results will be known after some time.
A Good deal of spade work has been done behind the curtain during last couple of months to bring about political stability in the State. BJP top leadership was throwing subtle hints to that effect intermittently. One can find the rationale in Modi government taking Dr. Farooq into confidence while contemplating a thorough shake-up in the ground situation in the State in general and Kashmir Valley in particular.
A new chapter in current Kashmir politics opens with the appointment of new Governor Mr. Satya Pal Malik who has essentially a political background and is not a bureaucrat or a retired army officer. His friend Dr. Farooq was the only Kashmiri leader present at the airport to receive him.
The tasks before the new governor have to be prioritized. Restoring the rule of law and denying politicized and polarized bureaucracy the freedom of defiance with impunity, thanks to the intransigence of PDP’s pro-Jama’at proclivity, is of immediate importance. Entire State administration must go through a purge of anti-national moles that have created networks and dens. Clean administrative system is largely dependent on improving and strengthening of democratic institutions like Panchayats for which elections are overdue. Developmental works have come to a standstill and public services have become farcical owing to widespread corruption. Yet another area that must receive the attention of the new Governor and the in-coming government both is that discriminatory treatment of Jammu and Ladakh regions has to be done away with. Disgruntled Jammu and Ladakh are the source of instability of the State and no government with the well- being of the entire State at its heart can afford to become a prey to regionalism.
(Prof. K.N. Pandita is a former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University, Srinagar. Views expressed are personal.)

For long has been the opinion that tens of millions of Bangladeshi Muslims had been facilitated to infiltrate into Assam and to some extent West Bengal and even Bihar by the vote-hungry political parties in power. That there has been a massive influx can be inferred by two facts – unusual increase in the population of Assam and Bengal, census after census and more and more districts in Assam and Bengal becoming Muslim majority.

Growth of Muslim Population ( Fig in %)

[table td1=”” td2=”1951″ td3=”1951″ td4=”2011″ td5=”2011″] [td1]  [/td1] [td2] Hindu [/td2] [td3] Muslim [/td3][td4] Hindu [/td4][td5] Muslim [/td5][td1] Assam [/td1] [td2] 84.1 [/td2] [td3] 9.8 [/td3][td4] 61.47 [/td4][td5] 34.22 [/td5] [td1] West Bangal [/td1] [td2] 79.85 [/td2] [td3] 19.46 [/td3][td4] 70.54 [/td4][td5] 27.01 [/td5]  [/table]

While Muslims of Bangladesh are entering into India ostensibly for better economic prospects, but surely also to “Muslimify” the border states, the Hindus in Bangladesh had been having to migrate to India because of the discrimination and deprivation that are being inflicted by the Muslim majority in East Pakistan /Bangladesh ( since 1972). That this is true can be inferred from the fact that the more than 30% Hindu population in East Pakistan / Bangladesh in 1947 is now only about 7% and is still declining . That there is an ethnic cleansing had been studied by Richard Benkin and this great man has been sensitising the nations of the world about theuninterrupted ethnic cleansing of Hindus that has been going on in Bangladesh. Actually, even in Pakistan the Hindu, Sikh population which was over 17% before 1947 is now about 1%; obviously again due to ethnic cleanings and enforced conversion.

2. The problem is historic. When in Assam Mohammed Sadullah was Minister ( 1924, 1929-35) and Premier (April 1937 to Sept 1938; Nov 1939 to Dec 1941; Aug 1942 – Sept1946) he encouraged the East Bengal Muslims to come and settle down in Assam, ostensibly for improving the agricultural production but assuredly to alter the demographic composition of the Assam state. When SyedaAnwaraTaimura was Chief Minister (Dec 1980- June 1981), she too connived at Bangladesh’s Muslims’ infiltration into Assam. When Fakhruddin Ali Mohammed was Minister in Assam (1957-67) he almost blatantly connived at Muslim infiltration from Bangladesh. Indira Gandhi had to remove him from Assam. She brought him to Delhi into her cabinet and later as president.

3. It may be recalled that the Cabinet Mission ( 1946 ) that came to India at the conclusion of the Second World War proposed that Indian provinces be grouped into A,B,C categories, two of them namely the North West and the North East being Muslim majority and the other one Hindu majority. The North East group was to consist of undivided Bengal and Assam. This would have resulted in two Muslim states squeezing the Hindu majority state, India between them. It was Gopichand Bardolai a sturdy Congress leader of Assam who mobilised the people’s opinion in Assam to resist this grouping as it would mean the “minoritsation” and consignment of Hindus in Assam to the mercies of the Muslim majority. Actually, if the Cabinet Mission plan was accepted ( it was accepted by Congress but later rejected by both Congress and Muslim League) the whole of Bengal and Assam would have become another Pakistan from which all Hindus would have had to flee.

4. The native Hindus of Assam and the tribes there had been consistently opposing the infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims into Assam and thereby disturbing the demographics in Assam state. It is true that along with Bangladeshi Muslims, Hindus from Bangladesh came to Assam and that is because of the ethnic cleansing measures in Bangladesh. India is the only Hindu majority country (besides small Nepal). Hindus anywhere in the world subjected to religious, administrative and legal discrimination can take refuge in the only large country namely Bharat that is India.

5. The Congress party opposed the exchange of minorities between Pakistan and Hindustan as originally proposed by Md. Ali Jinnah and his Muslim League. The exchange was cogently and vehemently advocated by Dr.Ambedkar in his book, “Pakistan or India Divided” as the only permanent solution to the Muslim problem in India. If the exchange of minority populations had been done in peaceful manner before partition as a condition of partition, the decimation of the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist population in Pakistan and Bangladesh would not have happened. Under Gandhiji’s lead, the Congress opposed the exodus of Muslims from India to Pakistan while millions of Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists from West Pakistan and East Pakistan had to leave their lands of birth for generations and become refugees in India. That the Congress party is not uncomfortable if Hindus become refugees is further evident from the fact that from the Muslim majority Kashmir valley of the J&K state of India, 400,000 Hindus had to flee for fear of a holocaust and they are now refugees in India. No Indian governmenthad the guts or the moral fibre to resettle these Hindu Kashmiri pundit refugees in Kashmir itself in a safe area.

6. In Assam, the student launched a movement in the 1980s (which morphed into the Assam GanaParshad ) again the facilitated infiltration of Muslims into Assam, their enrolment into electoral rolls and getting citizenship and other entitlements. It is as a result of those persistent agitations and the Congress governments lukewarmness about identifying the infiltrators and pushing them out, the Supreme Court in response to a PIL had to intervene and direct that there should be verification of the nativity of those who are in Assam and prepare an updated National register of Citizens. The forty lakhs that the National Register of Citizens has identified as of non-Indian origin, seems to be but a fraction of the many more who had somehow managed through various means to establish that they are traditional natives. That the Congress party and some regional parties are creating a furore against the NRC shows that all these have been building up minority vote banks. It is not only in Assam or Bengal but even in far off states like Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu and Karnataka Muslims are being built into vote banks by various appeasement measures like backing the demand for 12% reservations for Muslims, establishing separate schools and hostels for Muslim students; constructing Urdu ghars and ShadiKhanas and showering gifts like Shadi Mubarak ( Rs. 100,000 in Telangana) and sending Muslims on Haj with government money (even as the central government is stopping that on order from the Supreme Court) and the establishment of Urdu universities, Islamic Cultural Centers, payment of salaries to Imams and muezzins etc.

7. A truly national party and its government should not buckle under the baseless charges of Muslim phobia against the BJP government in Assam or elsewhere which identify the illegal residents preparatory to their deportation. The Amnesty International jumps into the fray and says that India is making these four mln people and more stateless persons and that it is inhuman and against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ( Is it ignorant of the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights which differentiates Muslims as a different species of human beings). Government should not buckle under the pressure of the foreign selective do-gooders and indigenous pseudo- seculars, left-liberals and congenitally anti-Hindu and anti-India Marxists and communist parties. If the government buckles, it would be a tragedy for Hindus in their only homeland that is Bharat.

8. The declaration of the intention of MamataBanerji in Bangla, that is West Bengal to carry out its own exercise to list Indian nationals in the state of Bengal is most welcome. District after district in West Bengal is becoming Muslim majority. And the % of population of Muslims in West Bengal now is fast approaching what it was before partition showing that both by furious breeding as well as infiltration that proportion is increasing. Those who undertake and help the honest identification and listing of the infiltrators and their progeny would be doing the most patriotic duty though such lists may not be recognised by the local or any other government. But the identification and publication of such a register would certainly mobilise public opinion elsewhere in order to force governments to carry out the same exercise in West Bengal as was done in Assam. This country should not become a repository for those people who historically have been inimical to Hinduism and have the most hateful record of inhuman and uncivilised conduct towards the conquered Hindu people and their places of worship and their culture.

9. Finally, all Hindus among the forty million outside the NRC must be given Indian citizenship as these had to come to India, unable to bear the atrocious treatment given to them as kafirs in the Muslim majority state of Bangladesh ( which already reduced the 30% Hindu-Buddhist minority to 7%). Chakmasare Buddhists and were native to and the majority in Chittagang Hills region of East Pakistan / Bangladesh . This region should have been severed form Pakistan in 1947, just as Muslim-majority Sylhet was severed from and made part of East Pakistan / Bangladesh. The Congress party did not press for it (just as it did not press for severance of Hindu majority Tharparkar District from Sindh, and its merger with Gujarat). The BuddhistChakams, just like Hindus had to flee from East Pakistan / Bangladesh , to escape oppression and forced conversions. They are part of the Hindu Dharmic fraternity and so should be given Indian citizenship. Bangladeshi Muslims infiltrators in Assam should be gathered into camps and gradually deported to their country. Malaysia and Saudi Arabia hunted such illegals and deported them not withstanding that they are coreligionists.

(Dr. T.H. Chowdary is a Padma Sree awardee and is Chairman of PragnaBharati, Andhra Pradesh; andDirector of Centre for Telecom Management & Studies. He is a former Information Technology Advisor to Government of Andhra Pradesh and a former Chairman and Managing Director of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Views expressed are personal.)

On 25 July, Pakistan completed the third general election to the National Assembly. In the run-up to election campaigning, brutal unleashing of violence in Baluchistan and KP leading to hundreds of deaths and wounded marred the sanctity of election.

How should we in India look at the recent election scenario in the neighbouring country with which our relations are not friendly? For more than half of her life, the Islamic State of Pakistan remained under the sway of military dictators who intermittently evicted civilian regimes including elected ones on the oft-repeated pretext of “threat to the integrity of the State”

From the very beginning, Pakistan army established its supremacy over the elected government for more than one reason. During the Raj, the British rulers considered Punjabi soldiers faithful and good fighters like some more communities in the country. Since Punjab is the most populous province of Pakistan and Pakistan army comprises nearly 80 per cent Punjabis, their social and political influence over the country remained supreme. More importantly, taking the geographically strategic location of Pakistan into consideration, the Anglo-American bloc saw great utility in befriending Pakistan army as a bulwark against the burgeoning Soviet Union of the early 1950s and 60s. After the US stepped into the shoes of weakened Great Britain in post-WW II era, it gave Pakistan army special treatment and included development aid to Pakistan army as a head of expenditure in its annual budget.
Continued Anglo-American patronage of Pak army was the main reason for the failure of democracy to find roots in Pakistan polity. However, after its debacle in Bangladesh war, Pak army was obliged to make a very small space for a civilian government albeit under its strictly delineated parameters. The parameter, among other things, encompassed the country’s foreign and Kashmir policy.

Washington’s extraordinary warm treatment of Pak army during Afghan mujahideen war against the Soviets was a feather in Pak army’s hat but it dealt a fatal blow to the tender sapling of democracy in Pakistan
This background should explain why no civilian government in Pakistan (Muhammad Ali Bogra, Zulfikar Bhutto, Benazir or Nawaz Sharif) could make any headway in a peace dialogue with India over Kashmir issue.
During his third term in office, Nawaz Sharif essayed to convince General Bajwa that the Constitution of the country had to be respected by allowing the elected government the freedom of framing policies and making vital decisions in the broader interests of the nation. At the end of the day, all those efforts became counter-productive just because in Pakistan real power rests not with the COS but with the triumvirate of the feudal lords, powerful bureaucrats and committed Generals. The triumvirate is bound not only by economic interests but by matrimonial alliances as well.

Observers ask why Pak army did not stage a coup when during last two years the gulf between the civilian administration and the army’s assertiveness was widening. The most contentious issue was the burgeoning of Theo-fascist groups in Pakistan and ever-increasing threats and reprimands by the US. The simple answer is that firstly, Pakistani state is now recognized by world powers as the home and breeding ground of international terrorism, and secondly, Pakistan’s economy is in shamble, no military dictator would take the risk of dragging the nation into the depths of disaster.

Therefore, the army and its brainchild the ISI deeply reflected on how the army would sustain its dominance without opting for a coup, which, against the previous practice, would become only counterproductive. The formula was something like this: (a) frame the incumbent head of the government (b) create and sponsor a proxy as the Kings Party, and (c) demean judiciary. All the three components moved simultaneously. Nawaz Sharif was framed, convicted and given ten years jail term. His daughter has been given seven-year jail terms. In this way, the source of main opposition to the army has been removed days before the actual polling. It is almost the re-enactment of Zia vsZulfi perfidy.

The judiciary played a shameful role in giving not tuppence to its conscience. The three-time former Prime Minister was summoned to the court no fewer than eighty times, something which has no parallel in the history of the judiciary.

And finally, about the King’s party (PTI) the less said the better. In his 2011 autobiography, Pakistan: A Personal story, the Khan blasts conservative clerics for causing the murder of Pakistani senator and Governor SalmaanTaseer through their zealous and fanatical views on blasphemy. In an interview, he had told The Express Tribune that “extremism and radicalism have penetrated our society deeply” and these were harming the youth, adding that “elements like Qadr (Taseer’s assassin) are under the impression that Islam is under threat and act accordingly”.
But the drubbing in 2013 elections seems to have triggered a fundamental change in him. He realised that if one part of the power puzzle could be solved by piggybacking the military, the other was incumbent on a strong pro-Islamist stance. No surprise if his party is now supping with the fundamentalist loonies and Khan is pandering to every regressive cause. In their battle against Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), PTI members asked the public to choose between “the party that flaunts Qadri’s image on election banners and the party that executed him”. Imran is doubling down on the message, telling rally-goers: “No Muslim can call himself a Muslim unless he believes that Prophet Mohammed was the last prophet. Pakistani Ahmadiyyas are rightly disturbed.
In another rally, Imran said, “We stand with Article 295C and will defend it,” referring to a clause in Pakistan’s Constitution that mandates the death penalty for any “imputation, insinuation or innuendo” against Prophet Muhammad, reports The Guardian. A commentator elaborating how Oxford alumni Imran Khan boasted he would change Pakistan but actually Pakistan changed him.

Another dimension of this election which may appear curious to unsuspecting analysts but actually is a very calculated move is that the Theo-fascists groups like those floated by Hafiz Saeed and others of his ilk could not garner even one seat in the elections. The fact is that the army does not want these Theo-fascists to be given any space in the governance arena because that would pose a threat to their own domineering status in Pak polity. But the army is prepared to extend all help, arms, funds and logistics to them to keep them engaged in Kashmir and Afghanistan knowing that with the passage of time their cadres would be decimated by the Indian forces in Kashmir and National Security guards in Afghanistan and that would be a good riddance.
Finally, major world media has openly expressed serious reservations about the fairness of Pak elections. Sharif brothers have rejected it and so have the religious groups who are now preparing for a nation-wide movement demanding the annulment of the result and holding fresh elections under the supervision of UN supervisory agency (strangely not OIC). They have released videos showing carriers with PTI mark carrying ballot boxes to the booths and ladies casting bundles of votes in vote boxes.

(Prof. K.N. Pandita is a former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University)