U.S.-Taliban Negotiations Need A Reality Check

Due to each side's posturing and their interrelations with external forces, gauging the real status of negotiations between the U.S. government and the Taliban's leadership is nearly impossible. Nevertheless, this New York Times report appears to be truer than false. Its contents conform to the present reality surrounding Afghanistan, and thus match The Trench's continual observation of one of the weakest links in U.S. policy.

According to several anonymous officials, the Obama administration has decided to "scale back plans" for a U.S.-negotiated political settlement with Mullah Omar's inner shura (along with other Taliban factions such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin). Washington intends to distance itself through the proxy of a joint-committee with Pakistan, in order to vet potential new Taliban interlocutors, and pair this move with other incentives to "break the ice" with Kabul. This formula makes a degree of sense on one level. For years the Taliban has refused to negotiate with the Afghan government, encouraging Washington to cut out Hamid Karzai and generating a new source of friction in the process. With the U.S. backed away from the table, Afghanistan's power centers may be able to reach a more permanent agreement on national terms.

"Now American officials say they have reduced their goals further — to patiently laying the groundwork for eventual peace talks after they leave. American officials say they hope that the Taliban will find the Afghan Army a more formidable adversary than they expect and be compelled, in the years after NATO withdraws, to come to terms with what they now dismiss as a “puppet” government."

Mualavi Qalanmudin, a former Taliban minister who now sits on the High Peace Council, expects the Taliban to maintain its opposition against the Karzai administration until the bulk of U.S. troops have exited. This time would open an ideal window for cutting an agreement that yields territory and preserves their network. However the Taliban must be feeling more confident as the U.S. surge exits and NATO's alliance continues to shake, and the Obama administration's plan begins to roll downhill from here. Rather than a savvy political move, the administration is trying to salvage its strategy after the Taliban dodged the knockout blow of Obama and Petraeus's surge. Fresh Pentagon estimates still hover around 20,000 full and part-time fighters, while independent estimates push the number higher. The Taliban also find Afghanistan's security forces to be more penetrable and malleable than NATO soldiers.

Consider the damage that al-Qaeda's cells still inflict on Iraq's army and police, as well as the Taliban's superior strength and how far Iraq's security forces are ahead of Afghanistan's. Or consider how the Haqqanis view themselves as Afghan Taliban and how Washington just branded the group as a terrorist organization.

“I don’t see it happening in the next couple years,” said a senior coalition officer says of a peace settlement. “It’s a very resilient enemy, and I’m not going to tell you it’s not. It will be a constant battle, and it will be for years.”

This source utilizes the same propaganda that most Pentagon officials have memorized: the Taliban's momentum has been "blunted," "halted" or even "reversed," but the insurgency remains a "formidable" enemy. Translation: we're winning but we need to keep fighting. Obama similarly highlights the Taliban's losses and downplays its survival, however the insurgency's overall structure has been left intact. Why, then, would the Taliban unconditionally agree to Washington's terms when it still occupies a relative position of strength? In light of these factors, military insiders could be pushing back against Obama's new promise that "our war will be over in 2014.” The Pentagon surely hopes to keep a residual presence in Afghanistan after losing Iraq, and Obama's campaigning stands directly in the way.

This layer of friction between the White House and Pentagon, as well as GOP and mainstream opposition to "negotiating with extremists," stacks on top of Afghanistan's internal dilemmas.

Equally worrisome is the unrealistic settlement between Washington, Kabul and Afghanistan's neighbors: Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan and India. Opposing power politics often reach agreements over proxy territory, except this specific web continues to thicken instead of unravel. Bluntly speaking, Syria is now absorbing a higher percentage of the diplomatic energy released by Washington, Tehran, Moscow and Beijing. Pakistan and India are nowhere close to resolving their territorial disputes or ceasing their race for self-interests in Afghanistan. The odds of reaching a negotiated settlement cannot be raised much higher than 0% when division exists at the local, national, regional and international levels of Afghanistan's conflict. More than one factor needs to change significantly.

The Trench shares its observations with many others when suspecting that U.S. "negotiations" created a front for ongoing military operations. The Obama administration has yet to pursue a resolution on sincere terms, instead demanding unconditional surrender from the Taliban: renounce al-Qaeda, accept the Afghan constitution and lay down arms. Since the agreement of all three terms was unrealistic from the beginning, the negotiating process itself has shared in this futility. Washington needs to set a concrete agenda on realistic conditions, otherwise the messy end of Vietnam is not an unrealistic possibility; while the military aspect is unlikely to be as severe as Saigon's fall, the political side of a diplomatic failure will reverberate across the region.

Failure to produce an agreement equals a long-term, low-intensity conflict with no end in sight.

Questioning America’s Global Supremacy

The ongoing debate over the status of America’s power and potential decline is transiting its latest media upswing. Washington insider and Brookings fellow Robert Kagan discussed the issue on Tuesday with PBS’s Charlie Rose. Norm Chomsky, Institute Professor emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, provided Al Jazeera with a historical counterweight to Kagan’s arguments:

With such lessons in mind, it is useful to look at what is highlighted in the major journals of policy and opinion today. Let us keep to the most prestigious of the establishment journals, Foreign Affairs. The headline blaring on the cover of the December 2011 issue reads in bold face: "Is America Over?"

The title article calls for "retrenchment" in the "humanitarian missions" abroad that are consuming the country’s wealth, so as to arrest the American decline that is a major theme of international affairs discourse, usually accompanied by the corollary that power is shifting to the East, to China and (maybe) India.

The lead articles are on Israel-Palestine. The first, by two high Israeli officials, is entitled "The Problem is Palestinian Rejection": the conflict cannot be resolved because Palestinians refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state - thereby conforming to standard diplomatic practice: states are recognised, but not privileged sectors within them. The demand is hardly more than a new device to deter the threat of political settlement that would undermine Israel’s expansionist goals.

The opposing position, defended by an American professor, is entitled "The Problem Is the Occupation". The subtitle reads "How the Occupation is Destroying the Nation". Which nation? Israel, of course. The paired articles appear under the heading "Israel under Siege".

The January 2012 issue features yet another call to bomb Iran now, before it is too late. Warning of "the dangers of deterrence", the author suggests that "skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to US interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease - that is, that the consequences of a US assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States."

Others argue that the costs would be too high, and at the extremes some even point out that an attack would violate international law - as does the stand of the moderates, who regularly deliver threats of violence, in violation of the UN Charter.

Let us review these dominant concerns in turn.

American decline is real, though the apocalyptic vision reflects the familiar ruling class perception that anything short of total control amounts to total disaster. Despite the piteous laments, the US remains the world dominant power by a large margin, and no competitor is in sight, not only in the military dimension, in which of course the US reigns supreme...

U.S. Propaganda 101: James Jones Defends “The Obama Doctrine”

The latest propaganda bomb, manufactured by Charlie Rose and company, dropped by President Barack Obama’s first National Security Adviser.

Some people will approve of what they hear, but James Jones sounds more like a Neocon than the moderate voice he was billed as upon entry. His notion that Obama has personally defined current U.S. policy - especially through his inaugural address, Cairo speech and Nobel acceptance - is rendered all the more absurd by ignoring a wide backlash against U.S. policies in the Arab world. Much of what Obama “decides” is formulated by a vast apparatus of former Clinton and Bush officials, and some of their decisions are running into pitfalls.

Foreign governments and peoples do seek American leadership across the globe, but this leadership must yield a positive and balanced influence. Jones is also speaking for a selective group of foreign powers: Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, India, Japan, Australia.

Jones’ verbal barrage against Pakistan symbolizes Washington’s long-standing tendency to block out its own faults. Because a large segment of the American public feels the same way about Pakistanis as Pakistanis feel about the U.S. government, U.S. officials and media are free to slander Islamabad’s leadership at will. A defense of Pakistan’s general strategic mindset in the region is based on this inequality. We realize that Islamabad is playing a dangerous game with militant proxies, but the Afghan Taliban poses no strategic threat and America’s relationship is no less of a “Russian roulette.”

Everything is Pakistan’s fault, according to Jones. Pakistan has missed too “many opportunities” granted by Washington. Its leadership hasn’t taken advantage of U.S. and Indian aid to fix its ailing economy. Jones barely addresses NATO’s raid, instead taking the commonly-held position that Islamabad should “do more,” and lays Afghanistan’s blame on Islamabad. This reaction foreshadows Washington’s script when U.S. troops to being to withdraw in greater numbers: America would have “won” if not for Pakistan.

Jones frequently references the 2006 peace agreement made between Islamabad and militants as Afghanistan’s “turning point,” along with the time of his own “awakening.” He concludes that Pakistani policy “isn’t based on logic” and that Islamabad is “hellbent on self-destruction,” without reflecting on America’s own policy. In repeatedly basing his perspective around 2006, Jones conjures a general who deployed to Vietnam in the early 1960s, not realizing that he was stepping into hundreds of years of organized resistance. Pakistani leadership has certainly made counterproductive strategic decisions, but U.S. leadership has committed many errors under its own volition.

Whether in 2001, 2005 or 2011, U.S. and NATO troops make enemies with their own hands.

America continues to commit too many mistakes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other hotspots around the world, particularly the meltdown of U.S. policy in Yemen - which Jones clearly approves of when lauding Washington’s “streamlined” counter-terrorism with foreign governments. Situations like Yemen demonstrate how much chaos Washington is willing to create in order to preserve influence (à la Pakistan), but when pushed to find holes within U.S. foreign policy, the former National Security Adviser responds with a valid but diversionary answer of “energy security.”

Jones claims that Obama is fully conscious of his administration’s errors, when both of their actions suggest the opposite.

Pentagon Chasing Taliban’s Psy-Ops

They came armed to the teeth with prepared statements and talking points.

Roughly six months have elapsed since the Taliban began to target a progressively higher profile of Afghan officials, and the Pentagon needed answers for a Congress short on patience and funds. Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Leon Panetta and Michael Mullen, America’s Defense Secretary and outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff gave Congress what they wanted to hear. Nor could they allow the Taliban to outmaneuver them on the information battlefield.

The U.S. military and NATO are, "working with our Afghan counterparts to discuss with them how we can provide better protection against these attacks,” Panetta promised. “But the bottom line is that we can't let these sporadic events deter us from the progress that we've made.”

Not everyone is as certain of this progress. That the U.S. military and its allies have dealt a relentless series of blows to al-Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan is “undeniable,” as Panetta testifies. However the Pentagon was always going to “get its numbers,” so to speak. Thousands of Taliban foot soldiers, hundreds of mid-level commanders and over a dozen high-ranking officials have been eliminated in over 10,000 night raids and air assaults. Afghanistan’s northern provinces are relatively secure and incidents are gradually reducing in the south. U.S. casualties stand at 332, compared to 360 at the same point in 2010.

Only the Taliban are “adapting,” Mullen admits. U.S. commander had predicted a wider shift towards assassination, but the pair would leave out how the Pentagon was initially overwhelmed by these attacks. One can see and hear their concern in their language and body language - that Afghanistan’s main story during summer 2011 was the killing of Hamid Wali Karzai, not U.S. progress. Mullen and Panetta did everything in their power to counter the impression of insecurity wafting out of Afghanistan, but no amount of Senate testimony will convince the Afghan who isn’t feeling safe on their own street.

“While my overall assessment of Afghanistan is headed in the right direction, although we have to be clear-eyed about the challenges that remain,” Panetta remarks in an attempt to downplay the Taliban’s assassination campaign. “First, as the Taliban lost control of territory last year, they shifted away from large attacks on our forces to greater reliance on headline-grabbing attacks... Overall we judge this change in tactics to be a result of a shift in momentum to our favor, and a sign of weakness in the insurgency. Overall violence is trending down and down substantially in areas where we concentrated our surge.”

What Panetta avoids mentioning is how the Taliban planned from the beginning to weather the surge until U.S. reinforcements began to withdraw. Everyone involved in Washington, including the Pentagon, knows that the Taliban doesn’t need to wear a watch. This strategy was tipped immediately in February 2010, when Taliban fighters put up a loose defense of Marjah and ceded the city-center, and the insurgency immediately shifted its emphasis north and east. The Taliban has suffered extensive damage, but the insurgency draws on too many sources to be militarily defeated on a regional scale.

A concentrated assassination campaign is the correct military response to the surge in Afghan and foreign forces; not only does it spare direct confrontation with superior units, the Taliban has kept Afghanistan’s non-military momentum in its favor.

The core of this strategy, Mullen, explains is “maximum psychological impact for a minimal investment in manpower or military capabilities.” Although sold as a sign of weakness, the Taliban would be in a far weaker state had the group wasted its energy defending territory, which an insurgent isn’t supposed to do if he can’t hold it. The Pentagon wished that the Taliban would stand its ground - but that isn’t courage, only recklessness. Despite all of its flaws, the Taliban is following guerrilla strategy without substantially dropping the pressure on U.S. forces. Iraq witnessed an average of 800 casualties per year from 2004 to 2007, then experienced a drop to 30, followed by 150, to 60 in 2010. 32 soldiers were killed in hostile incidents in 2011, after combat operations were declared “over.”

By contrast, U.S. forces suffered less than 100 deaths for the first six years of war in Afghanistan. In 2008 casualties jumped from 150 to 300, to 500 in 2010, and 2011 will end somewhere in the low 400’s. If a substantial number of U.S. forces (above 50,000) remain on the offensive through 2014, they will experience more casualties than 60.

Afghanistan’s military sphere is less positive than Mullan and Panetta’s portrayal, and Washington holds its primary advantage on this battlefield. The lack of progress in Afghanistan’s non-military spheres frightens Congress, the American people and Afghans alike. Long before Barack Obama ordered a surge of over 50,000 troops, the central question was always whether America could actually win the political war, one involving Afghanistan’s government, various ethnic parties and Pakistanis. Though not necessarily “undeniable,” it can be argued that the Obama administration has lost the “hearts and minds” of most political actors, from the average Afghan and Pakistani to Kabul and Islamabad.

As with the assault on America’s embassy in Kabul, the damage of Burhanuddin Rabbani’s assassination has punctured another hole in Afghanistan's security image. U.S.-Pakistani relations, however, has been hit hardest in each time due to the Haqqani network, indicating that the Taliban realizes the benefits of their personal instability. The Taliban often suffers in the short-term after various quarrels, with each side trying to repair whatever damage had been created, but this outcome is safer than a genuine alliance between Washington and Islamabad.

For now the Taliban has denied responsibility, just as Sirajuddin Haqqani stated last week.

The Haqqani network and its links to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence may be responsible for many of the Taliban’s recent publicity assaults. What this means, in the end, is that Washington failed to align Islamabad's interests with its own, and is incapable of sharing a mutual policy. No level of provocation from the Haqqani network strategically justifies the barrage that Mullen and Panetta unleashed on Pakistan; despite their connections and tentative truce, the Haqqani network still acts independently of Islamabad. And while Mullen claims Pakistan has “lost that bet,” meaning its strategic depth of insurgent groups, many Pakistanis and Afghans won’t forget that America bankrolled that bet.

While Panetta generally has no conception of diplomacy or the public aspect of counterinsurgency, Mullen has admitted his failure to improve U.S-Pakistani relations. Now he appears to be gunning it with less than a week remaining in the Joint Chiefs.

"In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan, and most especially the Pakistani army and ISI, jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership but Pakistan's opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence... While Pakistan is part of the problem in the region, it must also be part of solution. I believe that a flawed and difficult relationship is better than no relationship at all."

Whatever U.S. officials believe or demand, they won’t obtain their desired invasion into North Waziristan with a blunt approach.

Panetta does concede that Pakistanis “should be the first one to take action on this,” but this appears to be little more than a qualifier. “The only way to deal with the Pakistanis is to send a clear message about where the lines are,” he says, adding that all administration officials must speak with one voice. Acting as if no working relationship exists with Islamabad, Panetta assured Congress, "Anything that makes clear to them that we cannot tolerate their providing this kind of safe haven to the Haqqanis, and that they have to take action — any signal that we can send to them — I think would be important to do.”

Including unilateral action and Pakistan’s potential designation as a state sponsor of terror.

Both Islamabad and Pakistanis loathe when Washington unloads all of Afghanistan's blame onto them, and do not respond productively to threats. Their message is the same message as Washington’s, reminding Panetta that Islamabad will “never” allow any troops on the ground. Pentagon officials are simply making their own job harder, even as they claim the war is gradually easing. Their argument, like Iraq’s, is that Afghanistan was spiraling out of control, and now any improvement is conclusive and permanent.

“The end is in sight,” Mullen says through classic tunnel vision, “and there’s potential for 26 million people to live a better life.”

He and Panetta would argue that Afghanistan’s mission is headed for completion, and that America must now “put to use” its lessons in Yemen and Somalia - when many of the same mistakes are already being committed.

Interview with Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Chairman of Kashmir's Hurriyat Conference, tells Tehelka's Baba Umar why a peaceful protest is not possible in Kashmir

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah announced the release of 1,200 youths arrested for stone pelting. Do you welcome it?

Not at all. It is political gimmickry. ‘Granting amnesty’ is a wrong term used by Omar. These youths are not criminals. They were reacting to the situation created last year in which over 120 people, mostly students, were shot at. There is no concept of peaceful protests in Kashmir. The state government never allows it. Kashmir isn’t Delhi where Anna Hazare can lead peaceful protests.

You talked about Anna Hazare. Are you impressed with the way he led protesters?


It was good to see one man leading a war against corruption. But let’s say we start following Anna by launching peaceful protests to demand our basic right, how will the government react? They won’t allow it. They have different stands when it comes to Kashmir. Many things have been done here in the name of nationalism and security. You see, no newspaper carried the issue of mass graves. The media walks only a certain distance in Kashmir.

There has been no reaction from the separatists over Anna’s movement. In Manipur, Irom Sharmila has called upon Anna to visit and support her crusade against the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA)...


We can always ask Anna to come to Kashmir and raise his voice against human rights violations in the state. We will discuss it in the next meeting of Hurriyat members. We may even send a letter to him asking him to join our crusade. If he is a Gandhian, he should see what has been happening in the Valley for the past 22 years.

The CM said youngsters were used and then forgotten.


I resent this statement. Remember 2008 and 2010 was a people’s movement. Leaders were led by people. The youth was angry. The government choked the movement by force.

You’re suddenly talking about corruption and release of employees’ arrears. Many say your separatism is now restricted to civic and social issues only?


We can never sideline the main issue, which is the Kashmir dispute. But at the same time, we can’t keep our eyes shut to other things. The Kashmir dispute may take time to settle but we have highlighted other issues like the illegal construction of the Kishanganga power project in Gurez.

But Pakistan is also constructing a dam on the same river on its side of the LoC?


We are not okay with that. On this issue, both sides have treated us badly. I remember the World Bank was ready to invest in power projects in the state. Why should we give these projects to NHPC? We are not against development but we are for better deals. It’s simple economics.

In his visit to J&K, US Senator John McCain met Governor NN Vohra and the CM, but no separatist leader. Do you see a change in US policy on Kashmir?


The US has its own interests in India developing economically. It was a reversal of what Barack Obama had said when he was elected president. The world is talking about Arab Spring and Libyan uprising, but we aren’t seeing similar terms for Kashmiris who have been fighting for 63 years. This is double standards.

You recently warned New Delhi over hanging Afzal Guru.


Hanging Afzal would be disastrous for Kashmir. There is a strong sentiment in Kashmir against it both in the way his case was handled and how it was politicised. Kashmir will erupt if he is hanged.

An interview with Guru can be found here.

India Forms BRIC Wall Against Arab Spring

Last week Hillary Clinton took the stage at India’s largest library, the newly-minted Anna Centenary Library, to enunciate one her patented “visions.” America’s Secretary of State chose the perfect high-tech setting to herald India into the new millennium, declaring that, “the relationship between India and the United States will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century.”

She then wonders, “what does this global leadership mean in practical terms? And what does it mean for the relationship between the two of us? Well, for starters, it means that we can work more productively together on today’s most complex global challenges. For example, to advance democratic values, the world’s oldest democracy and its largest can both support the democratic transitions taking place in the Middle East and North Africa.”

Clinton never brings up the Arab revolutions again, spending most of her time wandering through Afghanistan and China on “a new Silk Road.” This was no passing reference though. Like the similarly absent Kashmir, Clinton keeps moving away from the very help she’s requesting for a reason: India, “the world’s largest democracy,” has flagrantly opposed the Middle East’s blooming pro-democracy movements.

Days later Abdel Aati Al Obeidi landed in New Delhi to brief the government on the state of Libya’s war. Muammar Gaddafi’s Foreign Minister met with E. Ahamed, India’s Minister of State for External Affairs, who promptly reiterated a position that calls for, “the immediate cessation of all hostilities in Libya and supports peaceful resolution of the Libyan crisis through dialogue, taking into account the legitimate aspirations of the people of Libya." With Libya in a full-blown war, the majority opposition doesn’t feel that dialogue alone will remove Gaddafi from power.

Those advocating a “dialogue only” course of action - Gaddafi's allies in Africa, Russia and China - wish to see the regime retain its influence.

The same BRIC wall also overshadows the United Nations Security Council’s ongoing deliberation as the U.S. and E.U seek a firmer resolution on Syria’s crackdown. India’s inclination to vote on the Chinese-Russian side of Libya and Syria demonstrates that Clinton wasn’t urging New Delhi to assist, so much as to politely reprimand its obstruction of U.S. policy in these spheres. The Secretary insists, “As India takes on a larger role throughout the Asia Pacific, it does have increasing responsibilities, including the duty to speak out against violations of universal human rights.”

However Clinton’s rhetoric functioned as a time-bomb. While New Delhi finds itself on the wrong side of these revolutions and U.S. policy, it has landed on Washington’s good side in Yemen by opposing democratic upheaval. On Saturday Interior Minister Mutahar al-Masri met with Indian ambassador Ausaf Sayeed to discuss an array of “security cooperation agreements,” supposedly dealing with piracy and terrorism. But Saba state media conceded, “Al-Masri and Sayeed also reviewed several security issues, particularly in counterterrorism areas.”

What these agreements entail remains unknown; intelligence sharing, equipment and training of local security forces offer several possibilities. Regardless, Al-Masri “hailed the Indian stances supporting Yemen in all international events,” meaning that New Delhi supports Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime and its attempts to remain in power through the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) vampiric initiative. Sayeed “praised the security efforts the ministry exerted to maintain security and stability in the country,” lumping its actions against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) with its lethal assault against peaceful protesters and anti-government tribesmen in the south.

Sayeed then “asserted the Indian government's support to the unity and stability of Yemen,” codewords that Saleh uses to negate the northern Houthis and secessionist Southern Movement. These groups wanted out of Yemen because of Saleh and, if engaged properly, are open to unifying Yemen without him. Yemen’s democratic elements cannot flourish with Saleh’s regime in power, thus the artificial demand for “unity” and “stability” impedes a stable, unified Yemen.

With no further updates, India’s “security agreements” appear to be little more than political support for Saleh’s regime and the ruling General People’s Congress (GPC). Although this stance positions New Delhi at direct odds with Yemen’s revolutionaries, it also aligns with U.S. interests in suppressing their freedom. The end result is that America, the European Union, China, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia - a seemingly impervious wall of power - all oppose regime change in Yemen.

Clinton was presumably referencing Libya and Syria when she implored India to “support democratic transitions taking place in the Middle East and North Africa.” Given the close proximity between her visit and Sayeed’s maneuvering in Sana’a, perhaps New Delhi believed that it was finally supporting U.S. policy in the Arab Spring.

Will India's Flag Melt Kashmir's Revolution?

Having survived the latest fury in Kashmir, Omar Abdullah’s fight for political survival remains ongoing as India wrestles over its state policy. Inhabiting an unenviable position, the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir faces the potentially impossible challenge of placating Muslim-Kashmiris without alienating New Delhi. Yesterday Abdullah wisely chose to inject some much needed sanity into Kashmir’s deadlock.

''What is the need for an individual to hoist the flag?'” he rhetorically asked in response to the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) plan to raise India’s tricolor at Lal Chowk in downtown Srinagar. ''Please tell them to stop if their aim is to set Kashmir afire. I'll hold them responsible if there are any repercussions.”

But BJP, India’s main conservative party currently riding a new wave of nationalism, isn’t listening. The chief of Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha's (BJYM), BJP’s youth wing and marshaller of the flag ceremony, immediately retaliated at Abdullah. Anurag Thakur intends to raise the flag from January 12th through India’s Republic Day on January 26th, declaring, "Tensions were created because of stone-pelting incidents. Many soldiers of the country were wounded. Was there no tension then? We are hosting the flag for national integration. We want Article 370 to go and Jammu and Kashmir to be fully integrated with India."

Opposing either autonomy or independence in Jammu and Kashmir, BJP wishes to inflame tensions in order to further its hard-line position. The entire act is meant to suppress Muslim-Kashmiris seeking independence. Clearly the BJP has little regard for the consequences of fourth-generation warfare, and Abdullah knows that he would bear the initial brunt of any backlash. Maybe too aware.

Though he refused to back down from the BJP - “their plan is nothing but an attempt to disrupt the peace in the valley again” - Abdullah also issued his own unjustifiable remark: "I have appealed separatist leaders, including Geelani Sahib many a time to come on the table for the resolution of the Kashmir issue as strikes and protests can never be the solution to any problem.”

How convenient, a call to halt strikes and protests just as a new round approaches.

Such a request will be immediately discarded; there’s no truth in Abdullah’s claim to begin with. Arguing, "Due to five month long agitation which began in June we did not achieve anything except losing 112 lives,” Abdullah implored separatist leaders Syed Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chairman of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), to seek resolution through dialogue. However Geelani and Farooq aren’t closed off to negotiations with New Delhi, but await certain conditions to be met.

Like the Palestinians, they simply have no real reason to trust their occupier’s word without corresponding action. India eventually learned, like Israel, to mix rubber bullets with live ones in order to lower death totals, but this tactic is meant to suppress the movement itself more than prevent casualties. New Delhi has used Kashmir’s lull - a product of economic fragility, heavy police crackdown on the APHC, tireless curfews, and sub zero temperatures - to lull itself back into thinking the worst is over.

An unlikely possibility, and a bad time to get complacent again.

The reality is that strikes and protests, though still offering a long, painstaking climb to self-determination, have inched Kashmir towards a final resolution. International attention, while also relatively low, has risen in accordance with the APHC’s designs, having wrenched Kashmir’s struggle from militants and evolved into a civil disobedience campaign. The situation has gained a sense of urgency because of the last five months, and the APHC should be able to carry over momentum with the right strategy.

Geelani vows not to be sucked into BJP's attempt to discredit their movement through provocation, but he will try to exploit any incident in APHC’s favor.

"Again this year, the killing and oppression was meant to push Kashmiris to pick up the gun again,” he said from house arrest. “However, let it be clear to India that they cannot provoke us through brute atrocities. We will continue our peaceful struggle and won't even resort to provocative sloganeering.”

Rather, Geelani accuses the government of failing to resolve Kashmir’s dispute through dialogue, having refused to even acknowledge the territory as “disputed.”

“Once again the government pursued its policy of force and restrictions to foil a peaceful gathering,” he said of the recent curfew in Sopore, site of the Sopore Massacre. “What should one make of P Chidambaram’s assurances that space would be allowed for peaceful political activities when the National Conference is hell bent on using curfew and other coercive measures to disrupt such activities? Either the military Raj in Kashmir doesn’t give a damn about the Indian Home Ministry or Chidambaram’s statement was another eyewash like the appointment of interlocutors, meant to hoodwink the international community into believing that India is serious about resolving the issue.”

Geelani is making the most sense of anyone right now. Instead of issuing a futile demand to halt their movement, Abdullah must return to New Delhi with a very simple demand: give me a consensus. Kashmir’s problems go on and on, but the constant is erratic leadership within India’s government. APHC leaders, whatever their past (and frequent) clashes, currently hold the same views on self-determination.

New Delhi, however, suffers from total disharmony.

While Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has tried to stay above the fray, the BJP has consistently preached a nationalistic sermon to drown out dissent. Absolutely refusing to deal with Geelani and even Farooq, the BJP and its loyal elements first took aim at Indian novelist and activist Arundhati Roy, then at India’s own appointed interlocutors. Anyone suggesting the words autonomy or sovereignty is open game, even though this is the only end game in Kashmir.

Deadlock in New Delhi has abandoned Abdullah to his familial political power. Though considerable in its own right, Abdullah is paralyzed to resolve the conflict so long as India’s political establishment remains indecisive and combative. Kashmir’s task is daunting to be sure. But Geelani’s plan, “radical” as he is, offers the most realistic solution to a long-standing geopolitical dispute. Essentially stop ignoring Kashmir's problems and get them over with.

Acknowledge Kashmir as a dispute, mediate through a third party, hold a national referendum among Muslim-Kashmiris and Pandits, and allow India to “progress and grow,” in Geelani’s words.

The BJP is currently planning insanity. Abdullah is speaking it. India should enjoy the passing calm before another storm appears, as Jammu and Kashmir is likely to come alive in spring. Frozen and battered, New Delhi has put Muslim-Kashmiris under curfew during religious holidays, WikiLeaks revealing Indian torture, and after BJYM harassed Farooq during his recent visit to India.

Instead of putting a stop to the protests - while simultaneously inciting them - find an end to the conflict.

Mirwaiz: Holbrooke Behind Kashmir’s Curtain

As eulogies poured in for Richard Holbrooke, praising his bull-headed mentality for getting peace agreements done, Kashmir began to stand out more and more. Holbooke’s influence in Afghanistan and Pakistan will go down as his final mission, but not without a helping of irony. One of the world’s toughest diplomats couldn’t bring himself to breach the disputed Kashmir territories, let alone utter the word.

He even ran with the joke between Pakistani reporters, laughing as he kept his lips sealed.

Of course Holbrooke wasn’t completely inactive, and there’s no doubting Washington’s movement behind Kashmir’s curtain. Now Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chairman of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), has pulled the curtain back, saying, “Holbrooke was never officially working for Kashmir, but the fact remains that he was in touch with the leaderships in Pakistan, India and to some extent with the Kashmiri leadership.”

Farooq hoped that Holbrooke’s successor will pursue the same course: “It’s time the US appointed an envoy to take the Kashmir process forward. Peace in Afghanistan is important, but it cannot be achieved in a real sense unless and until other issues in the region are addressed.”

Unfortunately this isn’t going to happen. Holbrooke replacement, Frank Ruggiero, isn’t nearly as strong and may be relegated to lesser duties. He won’t be touching Kashmir.

Farooq’s statements aren’t surprising so much as frustrating. Washington’s problem isn’t a complete absence of diplomacy, but a lack of public diplomacy. Kashmir is a sensitive issue that requires careful handling, partially justifying Washington’s timidity. New Delhi rebuked the possibility of a Kashmir envoy within seconds of getting wind, and further pushed back against Holbrooke after being nominated by President Barack Obama. It was apparent from the start that the White House couldn’t, and thus wouldn’t, go near Kashmir.

However, the total abandonment of Muslims-Kashmiris has erred too far on the side of India’s caution and not enough on Pakistan’s. Because of Islamabad’s relationship with Kashmiri separatists and Afghan insurgents, India has leveraged Washington to ignore Islamabad's warnings in Jammu and Kashmir. But India has committed a staggering list of atrocities against Muslim-Kashmiris, and the situation has backtracked since Obama came to office.

This is no bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan, and America, as an ally of both, must assume a lead role in conflict resolution. Not from behind the curtain, where no one can see and nothing gets done.

Farooq’s thoughts on Holbrooke will fall on deaf ears after the latest WikiLeaks revealed Indian torture from 2002-2004. No surprises here either (these methods are ongoing under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act), but this information is known and ignored by U.S. officials. New Delhi has refused comment: "The spokesperson of the government of India said that this is an internal assessment of American diplomats, and for them isn't something that would warrant a response to."

Srinagar is already under curfew in preparation for Muharram and WikiLeaks is expected to provide a new spark. Too much stalling in Kashmir. More on Muslim-Kashmiris’ struggle later.

The Deepest Plot: India’s “Kashmiri Taliban”

As India and Pakistan’s medias dual for perceptions over Jammu and Kashmir, observers are bombarded with an overwhelming level of disinformation relative to information. But the following conspiracy is too deep to ignore - even a little truth would be too much. According to the sources of Zahid Malik, editor-in-chief of the Pakistani Observer, India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) is up to its latest diabolical spy-game.

“The conspiracy,” writes Malik, “for which preparatory work has been completed in all respects, is the formation of a fake group of militants in the name of ‘Kashmiri Taliban’ that will be launched under the guidance of Indian National Security Adviser's Office.”

This preparatory work supposedly involves collecting Russian arms and ammunition from Afghanistan to supply a false-flag unit - Islamic Army of Kashmiri Taliban (IAKT) - who would then claim allegiance to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Malik’s sources allege that several trial attacks inside India would establish its credibility, followed by attacks inside Jammu and Kashmir and even Pakistan. Apparently the plan is designed to draw other militants to the region to further justify the group (if the TTP doesn’t reject it), at which point the Indian military would crash down upon them.

And crush Muslim-Kashmiris’ legitimate movement for self-determination in one blow.

On the surface this plot seems to be nothing more than typical Pakistani propaganda. Having raised the threat of RAW before, notably in Balochistan, its news organizations are desperate to push back an assault from the east. India’s media has rendered its full services to New Delhi, broadcasting the narrative of a Kashmiri movement out of steam, of a people fed up with separatist leaders Mirwaz Umar Farooq and Syed Geelani. Indian officials disseminate the same message in the Kashmiri streets.

“I want to know what kind of Kashmir Geelani wants," asked National Conference (NC) president Farooq Abdullah, before answering, “Kashmir of graveyards!”

Yet this very delegitimization has generated ripples at the surface. While Malik’s conclusion to warn the authorities may be over-dramatic, his story needn't be entirely true to cause alarm. Indian officials and pundits have constantly worked to link the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) with militant seperatist groups, particularly the ISI-funded Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). While connections inevitably exist between various militants and civil seperatists, New Delhi is attempting to scapegoat all of the APHC’s actions on Islamabad as a means of excusing its own inadequate policy in Kashmir.

India is well-practiced in this hustle.

But LeT by itself doesn’t draw suspicions; last month Indian officials started another fire by alleging links between LeT and Maoists in central India. True or not, their meetings don’t imply a connection between the Maoists and APHC. But that’s exactly what Farooq’s younger brother, Omar, claimed in vivid detail.

"We have no experience with Maoist insurgency even though of late we find efforts being made to build bridges between the Maoists and Naxalites of the rest of India with militants of Kashmir and also some Left-thinking academicians and students in Jammu region as well," said the NC chairman. "There are visible links on public platforms. There are also invisible links that are sought to be built with universities and also the active militants on the ground.”

The Mirwaiz quickly denounced India for slandering Muslim-Kashmiris and their movement, and the story faded away for the time being. Its job was done, having kicked off New Delhi’s latest campaign to reconnect the APHC with the militant insurgency.

India’s pattern is one of escalating delegitimization. Kashmiri separatists reportedly chafe at being forced aside by civilian authorities, and their current operations indicate an attempt to regain control. But this strategy is disadvantageous for Pakistan, suggesting that LeT is currently acting against Islamabad’s wishes. Although LeT attacks and infiltration continue, the APHC has successfully decoupled itself from the insurgency through civil disobedience and media presence.

And India is trying every option to put them back together.

This objective is secondary to the “IAKT’s” ultimate purpose. By accusing Islamabad of funding the group, says Malik’s theory, Pakistan will be totally isolated and prepared for a U.S. crackdown, which India demands before any movement in Kashmir. Through the combination of events, India would relieve the pressure of negotiating Kashmir’s status and allow it to preserve the status quo.

Although “IAKT” is unlikely to ever surface, the thought behind it accurately reveals India’s current state of mind and may foretell future events. Already under house arrest for months, Geelani is being made out into a criminal before a potential legal trial. Non-lethal weapons are limiting casualties while still effectively dispersing protests. And the APHC’s movement is solely blamed on outside actors rather than attributed to Muslim-Kashmiris exhausted of Indian rule.

New Delhi clearly hopes to smother the embers from last summer so that they don’t re-ignite next time. There’s no telling what means it will employ to do so, and that means watching out for everything.

Syed Geelani Interview: No Killing Azadi

He is described as Pakistan's biggest asset in Kashmir. Not all Kashmiris agree with the role that Syed Ali Shah Geelani has played in Kashmir's turmoil, but they are united in saying that unlike other political leaders of the Valley, he is not a “sell-out” to India. He also came out against Pakistan for “diluting” its stand on Kashmir under General Pervez Musharraf. The hawkish views of the separatist 84-year-old, who heads his own Hurriyat Conference faction, had once marginalised him in Kashmir. But he is back in the limelight after assuming the leadership of the latest agitation in the Valley. Excerpts of an interview, by Nirupama Subramanian, with him at his Srinagar home, where he is presently under house arrest.

Hasn't the steam gone out of your ‘tehreek' (movement) of the last five months. Many Kashmiris are asking what was the point of it — more than a 100 people dead, the economy disrupted, schools closed. What did they get out of it?

It is your ignorance that makes you say it was a five-month movement. This movement has been going on since 1947. It has phases, its ups and downs, it changes faces, but it has been going on since India seized this place by force, without any moral justification or legal sanctity, and the majority of the people of Jammu & Kashmir are against that.

But your strike calls are eliciting hardly any response and people are now criticising you, saying they cannot sustain these protests …

First correct your impression that this is a five-month movement [recounts the history from 1947 up to the 2009 protests]. Now you are seeing for the last five months that people are saying ‘Go India, Go Back.' The movement was peaceful. It was an indigenous movement.

Among the 112 people who were killed mercilessly, most were teenagers. More than 3,000 people were injured, many lost their eyes, several had broken arms and legs, and then the jails were filled. Those who were organising the movement, from the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, and particularly our party, Tehreek Hurriyat Freedom Movement, were jailed. Even the Bar Association president and the general secretary are behind bars.

So is it because of these arrests, especially the arrest of Masarat Alam [leader of the Muslim League, a constituent of the Hurriyat (Geelani faction)] that the protests have weakened?

No, the arrests have not made any difference. The difference is that the killings have stopped. People's sentiments boil over when there are killings and they come out on the streets. And the government used all its resources to harm this movement. In our view, this movement is still on. India can never kill the sentiment that has always prevailed among the people …

And this sentiment is for azadi, right?

The sentiment is for freedom from India's forcible occupation.

Azadi is commonly taken to mean independence from both India and Pakistan. You have assumed the leadership of this movement, but your position has always been that of accession to Pakistan. Has this changed by any chance?

Look, at this stage, our common point is freedom from India's forcible occupation. We will decide after that what we have to do. Our demand is implementation of the [U.N.] resolutions. Our other demand is consensus — that India, Pakistan and the representatives of the people of Jammu & Kashmir, who are representing the sentiment of freedom, that these parties sit around the table. The solution that will come through consensus, that should prevail.

How long are you going to be putting out these protest calendars? When will you stop? When will the protests end?

These calendars are issued after consultations at a meeting of the executive committee of the Hurriyat (G). We take into account the realities on the ground and the feedback from the people. We cannot say at this time when we will stop issuing the protest calendars. It all depends on the ground situation. We will review the calendar when the government of India accepts our five-point programme.

About your demand that the government must accept that Kashmir is a disputed territory, do you really expect a government to amend the Constitution in order to begin talks with you? Don't you see that the willingness of the government to talk to you is by itself a tacit acceptance that there is a dispute, without saying so in as many words?

(Laughs) Do you know how many times there have been talks until date? From March 23, 1952, there have been 150 rounds of talks — between India and Pakistan, New Delhi and Srinagar [reels off the titles of each round]. But you too cannot say that from these talks, there has been any progress on the Kashmir issue.

The reason is India says on the one hand we will have a dialogue, and on the other, it says J&K is an integral part of India. No solution has come out of that position until now, nor will it in the future.

It is said that you remain the biggest obstacle to a resolution of the Kashmir issue.

Either this is your personal view (laughs) or you have been told this by people who do not wish for a resolution of the dispute. Let me tell you, I am a person who is wholeheartedly wishing and hoping that the J&K dispute is resolved — according to its historical background and the sacrifices that the people have given for the cause, by peaceful and democratic means, according to the wishes of the majority of the people of J&K.

I have spent 15 years in Indian jails. I've been attacked more than a dozen times by Indian forces to eliminate me physically. I am not given even the passport facility. I have suffered much because of the J&K issue. How is possible that I am not interested in its resolution?

India is suffering from arrogance of power and is using an imperialistic attitude in J&K disputed territory. These are the bottlenecks in the way of a permanent resolution, not Geelani.

Even in the Hurriyat Conference, there are leaders who believe that India deliberately seems to do things that strengthen your hands in order to defame the movement — to declare that this Geelani, who wants Kashmir to join Pakistan, is the face of this movement.

Doesn't this only show that India is the basic bottleneck in the permanent resolution of the Kashmir issue?

We demand the right to self-determination. India took the case to the United Nations Security Council. In total, 18 resolutions have been passed. All those resolutions have been signed and admitted by the Indian government. [India promised] to fulfil those commitments.

“I am not in favour of forced unity, I am not in favour of forced marriages.” Jawaharlal Nehru's words. If Geelani is saying that those commitments and pledges should be fulfilled, and India should co-operate for the implementation of the resolutions, then what is wrong?

On these resolutions, a plebiscite would give people only two options: India or Pakistan. From what I have heard here, Pakistan holds no attraction at all for anyone any more. So aren't you a bit behind the times on this?

Have you heard anyone saying we are not for Pakistan but we are for India? If you rule out Pakistan, and India agrees to give azadi to J&K, I will be the first person to sign that agreement, to accept. Let India come forward. This is all [said] to create confusion, that Geelani is only for Pakistan.

The interlocutors [appointed by the Centre to restart the dialogue process in Kashmir] have said azadi can be interpreted in different ways, maybe some people may not mean it as total freedom, but may interpret it as greater autonomy, more powers …

We will not accept that, the majority of the people will not accept that.

Why did you reject Musharraf's four-point formula? Is it not true that the India-Pakistan dialogue of those years yielded several benefits for Kashmiri people?

That was all about preserving the status quo. Starting a bus service, or trade between the two sides of Kashmir does not matter to a people who [are] caught in a huge quagmire. For them, the first priority is that they should be free.

At that time you said Kashmiris must help themselves as Pakistan had betrayed their cause by diluting its stand on Kashmir. Has your view changed now?

You are ignoring the background. Musharraf said that we are trying to find a solution outside of the [U.N.] resolutions. That was taking us only towards the status quo, there was nothing new in it for us. On this basis, we opposed that. Today Pakistan is saying we support the people of Kashmir politically, diplomatically and morally. Don't you see the difference between Musharraf's attitude and what [the present] government is saying?

There are concerns that you and some of your colleagues in the Hurriyat, such as Masarat Alam, are contributing to the radicalisation of the Kashmiris, giving the movement an Islamist colour, that Islamist elements are gaining dominance, which does not augur well for Kashmir in the future …

This is also a baseless allegation and assessment. We are Muslims, and will never bypass our faith as far as Islam is concerned. We are facing the worst kind of state terrorism, but we are not radical, we are peaceful people, we have no guns in our hands, no bombs, no teargas shells … These people who are using the state terrorism, they want to hide their heinous tactics, so they blame that there are radical elements.

What was the justification for America to attack Afghanistan on October 6, 2001?

What was the justification for America and Britain to attack Iraq on March 23, 2003? You people are not calling them terrorists or radicals.

Don't you contradict yourself on America? On the one hand you are against all American interventions anywhere in the world, but when President Obama comes to India and you are appealing to him to save Kashmir from India.

No, we don't want [American intervention] here. What we want is that any world leader who comes should support our cause. It does not mean that we support American actions or policies from A to Z. I have myself told American diplomats in Delhi that [they are perpetrating] the worst kind of state terrorism in Afghanistan, that there was no justification to attack Afghanistan. If the person who attacks Afghanistan says that J&K is a long standing dispute, then he is speaking our language, right? On that basis, how can we say to him no, that we will reject this too.

That sounds opportunistic …

No, it's not opportunistic. This is for our cause.

You call India a repressive state, on the other you go to Delhi, hold seminars and conferences, meet people freely, including at the Pakistan High Commission. Don't you at least appreciate that in the same India you can do all this?

(Laughs) We are also attacked, beaten. We are all the time under surveillance. Yes, I go to Delhi, but India also has the power to lock me up anytime they wish. I have been almost 73 days under house arrest.

I was not allowed to read either the Eid namaz or the Friday namaz. So you want me to praise this democracy?

Mirwaiz Refutes Maoist Link as Geelani Vows Action

As we documented earlier today, India’s apparent strategy to blur Muslim-Kashmiris and Naxalites inside India was doomed to fail. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) didn’t let 24 hours pass before Mirwaiz Umar Farooq denounced and mocked the words of Omar Abdullah, chief minister in Jammu and Kashmir.

"We reject the statement of the Government of India and especially, that of the Chief Minister,” Farooq said today. “It is an unfortunate attempt to malign the indigenous movement of people of Jammu and Kashmir by linking it to outside forces... All those children killed by the forces in broad daylight in June this year that led to present uprising were schoolchildren. Our struggle is indigenous and we have time and again showed it.”

He added for effect, "I will not be surprised if Omar in near future says that the boys, who were protesting over the summer, had links with al-Qaeda.”

The smear has naturally left Kashmiri leaders with more bitter aftertaste in their mouths. Most leaders would be after witnessing children shot to death, only to hear them accused of terrorist links. And New Delhi will pay for Omar’s remarks. The Mirwaiz extended his gratification to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for his message to Haj pilgrims, in which he appealed for Muslim elite to support Muslim-Kashmir’s struggle for self-determination. Iran has issued such calls before, with India responding by lodging protests at the Iranian embassy, but the timing has boosted the APHC’s spirits and is being wielded appropriately.

Farooq appreciated, “the statements of China, the United States and Iran about Kashmir and for referring Kashmir as a dispute.”

Or as Pakistan’s The Nation put it, “The ray of hope, however, is that despite the American guilty silence, other international voices and states are bravely stepping forward in support of Kashmiris.”

Along with the APHC chairman, hard-line leader Syed Geelani issued remarks suggesting the next cycle of protests may be at hand. With India managing to quiet US President Barack Obama during his tour, broken only by the obvious fire burning in Kashmir, the APHC continues to demonstrate an acute understanding of fourth-generation warfare. To succeed they must keep Kashmir’s struggle active in the streets and in the international media, two symbiotic tasks.

Farooq claims he will travel throughout India next week to “mold public opinion in favor of our genuine struggle." As for Geelani, who remains under house arrest, "In case India doesn't halt the human rights violations and releases the detainees, we will launch an agitation this time, the consequences of which India cannot imagine.”

The ultimate result aims for international recognition at the political level, which appears to be snowballing.

India would be wise to stop scapegoating Muslim-Kashmiris and sincerely engage them to permanently end the dispute. New Delhi can’t expect Islamabad to move on the Mumbai terror attack while it refuses to move on Kashmir. This is where America should come in: get both sides to reach out and facilitate a double apology. Farooq reaffirmed his demand for tripartite negotiations, saying talks between New Delhi and Srinagar have and will continue to produce no results.

At some point India must accept this reality. Though it holds the advantage today, New Delhi is slowly bleeding its control over Kashmir. There’s no telling how the situation will look in a year or three, and it would be foolish to wait until then to find out. Two years ago New Delhi thought stability had returned to Jammu and Kashmir through a peaceful election.

Look at it now.

Maoists Can't Save India From Kashmir

At a recent seminar organized by the India Today Group, Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah issued one of the clearest internal analyses yet on the "State of States in India.”

"In Jammu and Kashmir,” he told his audience, “there has been a gradual shift in traditional insurgency involving violence with guns, bombs and things like that to a new dimension that emerged over the last three years starting in 2008, which is a more orchestrated civil protest sort of system.”

The simplicity of fourth-generation warfare (4GW) has deceived India, who initially met these low-intensity protests with suppressive force - exactly the reaction to avoid. New Delhi’s disproportionate response would fan the very international incident it tried so hard to keep under wraps. So does Abdullah’s admission warrant the embattled minister any leeway or is this observation too little, too late?

Or is it worse than that?

If only Abdullah had limited his scope to Kashmir’s evolution. Instead he dispersed this fleeting insight with fear-mongering, contradicting 4GW by obscuring the truth in his message. His real mission, apparently, was to further tarnish Muslim-Kashmiris’ struggle for Azadi (freedom) by linking them to India’s greatest threat - the Naxalites.

"We have no experience with Maoist insurgency even though of late we find efforts being made to build bridges between the Maoists and Naxalites of the rest of India with militants of Kashmir and also some Left-thinking academicians and students in Jammu region as well... There are visible links on public platforms. There are also invisible links that are sought to be built with universities and also the active militants on the ground.”

Seems that Abdullah only isolated the civil disobedience organized by the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) to smear it in red. He was speaking, among others, of the high-profile author Arundhati Roy.

"We have seen evidence of it,” he continued. “A lot more effort to build a sort of interaction. A lot of movement of known Maoist sympathizers now traveling to Srinagar and organizing seminars and conferences with supporters of militant violence in Jammu and Kashmir as well.”

The chief minister’s remarks are set against a larger background that reveals New Delhi’s designs. Alleged connections between Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Kashmir’s primary separatist group, and the Maoists are nothing new, but most recently voiced by Chhattisgarh Police Director General Vishwa Ranjan. Two LeT agents reportedly observed a spring meeting of the Central Committee (CC) of Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist), which Ranjan interpreted as a sign of increased operations. This information surfaced as New Delhi also accused Maoists in Nepal of training Indian-Maoists under LeT supervision.

Given LeT’s connection to Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), only a minute passed before the next jump between Islamabad and the Maoists.

But this claim was too much for Indian and US analysts alike. A report by STRATFOR quickly severed a potential link and added another piece of the puzzle by listing those groups connected to the Maoists: United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), the People’s Liberation Army of Manipur (PLA), the National Social Council of Nagaland-Issac Muivah, and Nepalese Maoists operating under the the militant wing of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal. Ties have also been confirmed with the New People's Army (NPA) in the Philippines.

Religion doesn’t unite these groups so much as Indian separatism and political ideology; it would not be surprising, then, if the Maoists have made contact with LeT agents or Kashmiri figures. As much as they fight with each other, insurgent groups also sympathize with common causes and pool resources. Indian separatism provides a denominator. Yet the rapid chain of events between LeT, the Maoists, and now Kashmir’s struggle leaves little room for coincidence.

New Delhi hopes to tie its disputes into the same issue of territorial integrity, a move intended to delegitimize Muslim-Kashmiris’ struggle for independence.

Unfortunately India’s counterinsurgency remains broken and in need of direction. Instead of formulating a new strategy to replace a dying one, New Delhi intends to suppress the pressure building inside and outside the state. Although Pakistan hasn’t severed its connection to LeT, the group was a non-factor during the summer outburst of protests. New Delhi continued to blame Islamabad for organizing stone-throwers despite evidence of spontaneous action, narrow sight that contributed to a delayed reaction.

It’s possible that Islamabad would make Mumbai a priority if Kashmir was finally recognized as a disputed territory, but New Delhi cannot bring itself to do so. LeT remains viable because India continues to legitimize its existence, and because this vacuum enables its “dangerous” social activism.

"Obviously, LeT is a profoundly dangerous group and its support that it derives from doing social services is like Hamas, is like Hezbollah, and is of course of great concern," says Daniel Benjamin, US State Department Coordinator for Counter Terrorism.

Inside the Red Corridor, General Vishwa Ranjan may be right about an increase in operations regardless of the cause. Active as they’ve ever been, Maoists have recently targeted opposing villages, police facilities, and political offices, and the group appears to be strengthening as government forces struggle to organize themselves. With India hesitant to deploy the military, a paramilitary force - the Counter Insurgency Force (CIF) - was set up to combat the Maoists.

Except it’s running low on funds, recruits, officers, and intelligence.

And the Maoists don’t need Pakistan’s help according to STRATFOR. The group’s arsenal consists of AK-47 variations, NATO ammunition, and Israeli-made, Galil 7.62mm sniper rifles, along with the standard repertoire of machine guns, RPGs, and explosives. With arms manufactured in China, Russia, America, India, and Pakistan, it’s believed that no outside source is actually supplying the group. Weapons are supposedly cheaper and easier to acquire locally in India.

Like Kashmir, New Delhi has responded too slowly to the Maoists, failed to commit itself against a sophisticated insurgency, and is trying to blame its disregard and lack of results on Pakistan. Now the Maoists are supposed to extract New Delhi from Kashmir, an impossibility. Both struggles have grown because India tried to ignore them.

While the government’s team of interlocutors is ready for new outreach with Kashmiri officials, AHPC leaders have so far refused to meet until their demands are recognized. But it doesn’t help that Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Syed Geelani face periodic house arrest. Although their protests lost momentum relative to the summer outburst, recent demonstrations should prove to India that the AHPC’s movement isn’t stopping.

New Delhi’s actions are their own admission; Farooq was blocked from leading congregational Friday prayers in Srinagar for the 10th consecutive week. The APHC chairman managed an interview from his house where he explained that, for first time in the 250 years of the Mirwaiz title, authorities have barred Mirwaiz from leading prayers in Srinagar.

One of his spokesmen added that India can’t keep him away from Muslim-Kashmiris forever.

Visibly fearful that Farooq would fire up Muslim-Kashmiris, New Delhi must come to realize that suppressing pressure only makes for a bigger explosion in the end. Counterinsurgency won’t be accomplished by isolating him and Geelani from their followers. Instead this policy will intensify their struggle by hardening their resolve, with the end result being an even lower tolerance for compromise.

And India cannot delegitimize Muslim-Kashmiris’ struggle for independence through the Maoists’ own struggle, which is becoming the larger insurgency and requires extensive resources.

New Delhi still has time to evolve its own strategy, but this means the agonizing decision of recognizing Kashmir as a disputed territory and hearing out the Naxalites’ demands. Such moves are unlikely since harder decisions would follow - the status quo is too massive to let go of. For Abdullah to have the right idea about fourth-generation warfare then make a sharp wrong turn represents Indian policy as a whole: undecided and stagnant.

As the AHPC’s message of self-determination broadcasts loud and clear, New Delhi continues to pump out mixed signals that cloud the environment, whether offering an olive branch with blanket curfews and bullets or infighting over the terms “disputed” and “autonomy.” On a wider scale India's image of a vibrant democracy is being distorted by draconian measures. Though it holds the physical upper hand in many ways, it’s losing the critical war of messages.

And that's weakening India's grip on Jammu and Kashmir.

US Silence on Kashmir Emboldens Indian Nationalists, Taliban

From The Huffington Post:

As ghastly as it was for an Indian diplomat to lexically collate the words Tibet and Kashmir within the same sentence, even more surprising was the discovery of said parallelization's source, which was none other than the typically more deliberate and diplomatically adroit Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, who issued a motion today to Chinese foreign dignitaries that could easily be construed as meaning, "if you close your eyes to India's alleged human rights abuses in Kashmir, we shall do the same with respect to China's in Tibet."

Of course one would hope Krishna had perhaps been misquoted during a 70-minute bilateral conversation that took place between Krishna and Chinese diplomats on the margins of the Russia-India-China trilateral discussions. Yet, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao seemed fairly clear in relaying Krishna's sentiments, according to The Hindu's online newspaper:

"In that context," said Ms. Rao, "[the External Affairs Minister] spoke of Jammu and Kashmir and expressed the hope that China would be sensitive to J&K just as we have been to the Tibet Autonomous Region and Taiwan."

One wonders if New Delhi was able to procure President Barack Obama's silence on the Kashmir issue during his recent trip to Bharat, in which multiple billions of dollars worth of business deals were announced that would lead to the creation of 45,000 U.S. jobs, successfully attempting indirect bribery as opposed to the more extortive measures insinuated with Beijing.

Because at one point Kashmir did seem like an important issue to Obama, as Indian author and human rights activist Arundhati Roy wrote recently in the New York Times, pointing out how a week before he was elected in 2008, Obama said that solving the dispute over Kashmir's struggle for self-determination would be among his "critical tasks." However, his remarks were greeted with consternation in India, and he has said almost nothing about Kashmir since then and future decisions will likely be driven by less-than-altruistic motives, per Roy:

Whether Mr. Obama decides to change his position on Kashmir again depends on several factors: how the war in Afghanistan is going, how much help the United States needs from Pakistan and whether the government of India goes aircraft shopping this winter. (An order for 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft, worth $5.8 billion, among other huge business deals in the pipeline, may ensure the president's silence.) But neither Mr. Obama's silence nor his intervention is likely to make the people in Kashmir drop the stones in their hands.

Unfortunately, the implications of America's "see no evil" approach are written on the cave walls in the AfPak border region, and are apparent in the lack of enthusiasm Pakistan's military leaders have exhibited in rooting out Taliban and affiliated militants holed up in North Waziristan safe havens. Hence, the cost of such silence far outweighs the economic and political value of the aforementioned business deals, as Pakistan's reluctance strengthens the Taliban and Haqqani Network who are able to maintain their sanctuaries, the very existence of which have rendered General David Petraeus's counterinsurgency efforts futile.

Ahmed Rashid stressed in Foreign Policy Magazine last week that the road to Kabul runs through Kashmir, and America's biggest mistake is its failure to recognize Pakistan's near-fatal obsession with India. Pakistani Army Chief, General Kayani, has frequently voiced his security philosophy as being "India-centric", whose fears are deeply rooted in a Pakistani military mindset that will require major Indian overtures before it changes.

Throughout the past decade of the Indo-Pakistani rivalry it seems Bharat has gotten by largely unscathed by Western political leaders and Western media, especially with respect to India's transgressions in Kashmir. The U.S. has tended to demonize Pakistan especially since 9/11 as Americans learned more about the role of Pakistan's government, military and intelligence services in the creation, enabling and continued support of the Taliban movement that harbored Al Qaeda operatives - a perception that became even worse after the 2008 terrorist attacks carried out by Pakistani Islamic jihadists in Mumbai that killed 170 people.

Yet just last week Obama himself bore witness to India's burgeoning and dangerous right-wing conservative Hindu nationalism, specifically the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), whose members chastised him for being soft on terror within 30 minutes of Obama's arrival in Mumbai.

India's hardliners have exposed themselves like never before recently, with serious and persistent attempts to quell freedom of expression in the name of national security, as they attempted to jail Arundhati Roy on charges of sedition for daring to publicly dissent as she shattered the silence about India's brutality against the poor people of Kashmir.

Is India truly the world's biggest democracy - or one in name only? Just as Israel cannot call itself a democracy while bulldozing Palestinian homes with impunity, India cannot claim the same while subjecting Kashmiris to draconian curfews, Gestapo tactics and disproportionate levels of military force, as the state employs overwhelming violence against Kashmir's young "stone pelters".

More than 112 civilians - mostly youths - have been killed and several thousand injured in this most recent infitada that broke out mid-summer. The nakedly oppressive Public Safety Act provides local authorities with latitude to incarcerate Kashmiri citizens involved in civil protest for up to 2 years if they are deemed "potential" threats to the security of the state.

India's Chinese police state tactics have also included restricting journalists from reporting on demonstrations and even forcing closure of leading newspapers. And according to Murtaza Shibli in the Guardian, in absence of any Pakistani support to the new generation of Kashmiris, Indian claims to blame Pakistan, Islamic terrorism and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) have lost credibility even among its own population.

Amitabh Mattoo, Professor of International Studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University, has argued that the Indian government must better understand the anatomy of the uprising because unlike in the past, the writ of the state is not being challenged by militant organizations or even by a separatist cartel. Mattoo penned in the Hindustan Times this summer that:

While it's tempting to reduce the protests to indoctrination by extremist Islamic groups, Pakistan's machinations or the influence of other vested interests, the reality is that this radicalization has been caused by multiple factors, but above all by a sense of hopelessness. This is a generation that has seen suffering, killings, political uncertainty, and has had to remain sequestered in their homes for great lengths of time. A generation that has witnessed often a daily tragedy, seen no light at the end of tunnel, often endured harassment, and which has been distrusted by sections of the Indian establishment, is consequently simmering with deep discontent and angst. And yet is not at an age where it can introspect and take a long-term view of matters.

Mattoo also raises the hard-to-get-around reality that India security forces seem to handle protests in India much differently than they do in Kashmir, saying that "surely, in the 21st century it should be possible to control protesters, armed only with stones, without having to kill young men and women." The average Kashmiri finds it disturbing that while Kashmiri protests lead to deaths, protests during the Bharat bandh [i.e. India shutdown], for instance, lead to no such violence.

We'll finish with hope. Mohammed Khaishgi wrote in a recent HuffPost piece that according to a Pew Center poll 70% of Pakistanis desire better relations with India. Although, paradoxically, he also indicated that 53% of them also view India as the country's greatest threat. Hence, a Kashmir settlement is in order, which would directly address this dichotomy, assuming the popular General Kayani and his military are willing to adapt to the wishes of seven out of ten Pakistanis.

Michael Hughes writes for Afghanistan Headlines Examiner and the Geopolitics Examiner for Examiner.com. Hughes serves as a foreign policy strategist for the New World Strategies Coalition (NWSC), a think tank founded by Afghan natives focused on developing political, economic and cultural solutions for Afghanistan. He writes regularly for The Huffington Post.

US Dancing to India's Tune

By Robert Grenier, published in Al Jazeera:

It is an amusing photograph, and one can readily empathise with its subject. Politicians, after all, are always being pressed to do undignified things at public appearances, whether it is wearing silly hats or kissing squalling babies. But despite the insistent entreaties of the dance troupe at Mumbai's Holy Name High School this past week, Barack Obama, the US president, really ought to have kept his seat. For in taking the stage to engage in some slightly awkward gyrations before the press cameras, he was unintentionally providing an apt metaphor for current US policy: the US is dancing to India's tune.



There is an evolving US policy narrative concerning India which has gained great momentum over the past 10 years or so, is uncritically parroted by the US press, and which generally runs like this: India, the world's second-largest country, is a rapidly-developing nation of huge economic potential, beginning to take its place as one of the great powers of the 21st century. Distrustful as it is of its even larger neighbor to the north, it is therefore a natural strategic ally of the US in the latter's efforts to contain an increasingly assertive and often belligerent China. As a frequent victim of Islamic extremists, India and the US therefore are also natural allies in the 'war on terror'. Moreover, as the world's two largest democracies, India and the US share deep and abiding values, and are similarly devoted to the benefits of expanded international trade and economic globalisation.



And so, the narrative continues, the US must recognise and promote India's emerging status on the global stage, foster expansion of bilateral economic and trade ties, and develop a far-reaching geostrategic relationship which goes well beyond the narrow construct of the Indo-Pakistani rivalry, to which Indian policy has been traditionally confined.



Building on foundations begun by President Clinton and greatly advanced by George W. Bush, Obama therefore has used his recent three-day Indian trip to add further to the edifice of this putative partnership. He has stood before the Indian parliament to promise US support for India's accession to the UN Security Council. He has made a gift of lifting export controls on a host of militarily sensitive technologies. And despite the recent unpleasantness of a renewed popular uprising against repressive Indian rule in Kashmir, Obama has made clear to his Indian hosts that the US will not interfere in the dispute. Indeed, on repeated occasions during the past week, the US president has asserted that the relationship between India and the US is "the defining partnership of the 21st century."

Deconstructing the prevailing narrative



Honestly. With all respect, and even allowing for the natural exuberance of political rhetoric, that formulation is pure blather. To see why, we should take some time to deconstruct the prevailing narrative.



India is indeed a huge country with a rapidly-growing economy of enormous potential, with which US economic relations are destined to become increasingly important. The fact is, however, that those economic and trade relations are moving forward on their own momentum and of their own accord, quite independently of any US effort to forge a "strategic partnership."

Indeed, US-India trade relations are virtually impervious to other aspects of the official relationship between them. For the US government to suggest an important role in promoting continued private sector relations with India is rather like taking credit for a rising tide or the falling rain.



US promotion of India as a strategic counterweight to China, depending upon who is propounding it, is either disingenuous or simply wrong-headed. Yes, India harbours distrust of China as a result of past border disputes and the latter's close ties with Pakistan. Those concerns are not reciprocated in anything approaching full measure on the Chinese side, however. Chinese hegemonic designs are focused on East and South-East Asia, not some minor enclaves in the Himalayas. Pakistan aside, the areas of geo-strategic interest between China and India do not overlap; those between the US and China do.



To suggest that India would somehow allow itself to be used by the US as a stalking-horse, exerting military pressure on China - its largest trading partner, by the way - to promote interests other than its own, is a hopeless exercise in wishful thinking. If US firms can make profits selling sophisticated weapons to India, fine for them; but do not expect those weapons to be deployed in furtherance of US policy.
 


As true regional experts such as Teresita Schaffer have recently pointed out, India has a long history of strategic autonomy. Americans may have quickly forgotten about India's legacy as a champion of "non-alignment," its past firm orientation with the old Soviet Union and its testy Cold War relations with the US, but Indians have not.



As columnist Tom Friedman, a promoter of US-India strategic relations, has recently acknowledged in the pages of The New York Times, Indian elites are more likely to be preoccupied with US "hegemony" and "imperialism" than they are to worry about how to promote some broad, open-ended strategic alliance with the US.



Nowhere is that Cold War hangover more evident than in the Indian intelligence and security services. Their relations with their US counterparts have traditionally been frosty, at best, and I understand them to be little improved now.

While US counter-terror concerns are literally global, India's are very narrow and particular, focused on organised Kashmiri militants and domestic extremists. In short, while the US can be of considerable help to India - as evidenced when, according to press reports at the time, the US was able to broker effective information-sharing between India and Pakistan concerning the militants responsible for the November, 2008 Mumbai attacks - India is able to do precious little for the US in return.



A motivator of terrorists



Rather than focusing on India's status as a victim of terrorism and a putative ally in combating it, the US would do better to focus on India's role as a motivator of terrorists, and press it to reform.



Part of the backdrop of Obama's visit, conveniently ignored by most Americans, is the renewed popular uprising against the massive, armed Indian occupation of the Kashmir valley, and the continuation of India's traditional means of combating it: the arbitrary detentions, the torture, the "disappearances," the systematic rapes.



As Indian writer Arundhati Roy has pointed out, it is just as armed militancy in the Kashmir valley, long supported by Pakistan, progressively fades, that a new generation of unarmed Kashmiri youth picks up stones in the struggle for self-determination.



For the US, this is not "merely" a matter of humanitarian concern, but of core security interests: how does the US expect to counter a "terrorist narrative" which appeals to Muslims hungry for justice in part by attacking the US as an ally of their oppressors, when the US willfully ignores the demands of justice in Kashmir?



The US decision to turn a page by negotiating a civil nuclear cooperation pact with India in 2008 has a compelling logic behind it. US counter-proliferation policy had been hopelessly outdated, and needed to take account both of current realities and of the basic national security concerns which influence nations' nuclear related decisions.



Arguably, it was the literal-minded and inflexible application of past US counter-proliferation policy - which ignored India's "indigenous" nuclear programme, while punishing Pakistan's efforts to seek international assistance for a parallel effort which it felt its national survival required - had the unintended effect of forcing Pakistan down a rogue path, and ironically exacerbated the South Asian nuclear arms race.



Rather than using the new Indian agreement as a rough model for its dealings with others, to include Pakistan, however, the US has made the Indian agreement exceptional. Thus, in a repeat of history, it has again forced Pakistan to turn to China for assistance. Predictably, the Chinese have been forthcoming, negotiating their own civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan this year, but one which arguably provides substantially fewer proliferation safeguards than a US-negotiated deal would otherwise have achieved.



Ironically, one of the US motives in reaching a civilian nuclear agreement with India was to promote US nuclear power exports. Given the stringent accident liability regime imposed by the Indian parliament, however, private US civilian nuclear suppliers are destined to be frozen out. The exceptional nuclear cooperation deal, which only the US could push through, will redound instead to the commercial benefit of Russia and France.



Romantic fantasy



The reason for the clear disparity between US and Indian benefits in the relationship as currently constructed is that while the US is engaging in a form of romantic fantasy regarding India, the Indians remain focused on their interests - as very narrowly defined.



A number of observers, including this writer, have argued in the past that US relations with Pakistan should be less "transactional" - less oriented around demands and rewards - and more broadly conducive to a genuine partnership. Given the important disparities in the two countries' estimates of their tactical national interests, however, and given the importance attached by the US to assistance only Pakistan can provide, relations between the two countries are nonetheless condemned to remain fundamentally transactional.



With regard to India, by contrast, the US would do well to make its dealings more transactional, not less. In return for promotion of India's admission to the club of great powers, the US should insist that it take on the responsibilities of one. Currently, the political deficit in US relations with India is measured not so much in costs, but in lost opportunities - ironically not just for the US, but for India, as well.



For example, both the US and India have a common interest in a stable Afghanistan whose space is denied as a haven to international terrorists. An Indian policy of rational restraint in Afghanistan, rather than its current pursuit of zero sum advantage over Pakistan, would make it far easier for the US to gain active Pakistani assistance in achieving such an outcome, to India's ultimate benefit.



Similarly, a stable Pakistan no longer in thrall to, or threatened by the same Islamically-inspired extremists who pose a physical threat to India is very much in India's interest. A settlement of the Kashmir dispute which recognized the legitimate rights of Kashmiris, and which thereby provided a politically face saving way for Pakistan to accept an agreement which inevitably, and by any objective measure, would favor India while undercutting support for the extremists, should be very much on the cards. Given India's manifest inability to achieve such an outcome on its own, moreover, the US should insist on a quiet role in brokering such a deal, to the benefit of all concerned.



US demands of India, in other words, should not involve a sacrifice of India's national interests, which it would not concede in any case. Rather, the US should be coaxing India toward an enlightened and far-sighted approach to achieving those national interests. The fact that the US is wooing India like a lovesick adolescent, offering blandishments and making concessions in the vain hope of gaining what India will not and cannot provide, while at the same time eschewing pressure for those things India could and should provide, is simply unconscionable.



Should India refuse to pursue a more enlightened self-interest, as well it may, at least the US should stop promoting it as though it were.

In short, it is time for the reverie to end. For the benefit of both countries, the US must stop dancing heedlessly to the Indian tune.

Robert Grenier was the CIA's chief of station in Islamabad, Pakistan, from 1999 to 2002. He was also the director of the CIA's counter-terrorism center.