Comment by Riaz Haq on October 1, 2019 at 8:35am

No #trade deal, no #Kashmir win, no #investment in #India but #BJP celebrating #Modi return from #UnitedStates https://theprint.in/opinion/no-trade-deal-no-kashmir-win-no-investment-but-bjp-celebrating-modi-return-from-us/298552/ via @ThePrintIndia

rime Minister Narendra Modi Saturday returned home to a rousing welcome from BJP party workers and supporters despite not having secured the much-touted trade deal with the US. Also, the issue of Kashmir became further complicated between him and US President Donald Trump despite a massive spectacle of bonhomie between the two leaders at ‘Howdy, Modi!’.

Prime Minister Modi scored clear nil in the most contentious issue of trade during his weeklong trip to America. Trade has undoubtedly become an unavoidable stumbling block in the relationship, even as both sides continue to fiercely fight out trade disputes at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

While it is true that Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal continues to brainstorm along with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer in Washington DC, a so-called ‘limited’ trade deal remains as elusive as it was before Modi’s visit.


When the Modi government came back to power for the second time with a landslide victory earlier this year, the US was clearly not amused. Within days of the government settling into office, the Trump administration cracked the whip on India in May and revoked the trade benefits given under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) programme. The US was threatening to do so since before the elections. This was an unprecedented act on US’ part because ever since the GSP programme started in 1974, it was never taken away from India.

It is true that previous US administrations, particularly the Barack Obama administration, did threaten to revoke it, but in reality, it never walked the talk much to India’s relief.

India, on the other hand, whether it was under former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh or under Prime Minister Modi, has always claimed, rather arrogantly, that the withdrawal of GSP did not impact India’s foreign trade much. New Delhi’s public posturing has always been that the GSP, or tariff-free access to US markets for Indian goods, is not really needed as India is not an underdeveloped country anymore.

Indian shipments under GSP programme get a benefit of around $6.4 billion, which is now gone. It was widely expected that the GSP would be restored during Prime Minister Modi’s trip, and it seemed all the more plausible after ‘Howdy, Modi!’, but eventually it turned out to be a damp squib.

This despite Trump being a “true, warm, friendly and accessible” friend of Modi’s.

Prime Minister Modi was not even able to restore a waiver from US’ high duties on Indian shipments of steel and aluminium during his mega visit.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 1, 2019 at 8:37am

Has #Modi's trip to #UnitedStates and #UnitedNations internationalized #Kashmir issue? Watch Karan Thapar discuss it.

 

https://youtu.be/mBraz4BYMhs

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 1, 2019 at 5:21pm

What is the view of the Pakistan Army about the possibility of a nuclear war with India?
An excerpt from Shuja Nawaz ‘The Battle for Pakistan’ examining the strategic thinking about a potential war.


https://scroll.in/article/939003/what-is-the-view-of-the-pakistan-a...


India continues to publicly disavow the premise of Cold Start, that its forward-deployed Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly into Pakistani territory, capture key cities and territory and make Pakistan sue for terms. Pakistan continues to see this as an emerging threat and considers the 1980s thinking that led to the Brasstacks exercise as a testing of the idea of such rapid combined manoeuvres designed to hit Pakistan at multiple points of vulnerability in a modern version of the German blitzkrieg.

It countered with an offensive-defensive approach that was based on hitting India in response with a counter-strike and capturing key territory for itself. Its conventional riposte, based on a net-centric doctrine of well-planned counterattacks, was bolstered over time by the testing and development of a tactical nuclear capability by Pakistan (countered by India). This took the form of short-range so-called tactical weapons mounted on ballistic and cruise missiles, adding to the potential for a nuclear holocaust in the region with global consequences.

---------------

Loosely translated, this means that Pakistani forces can blunt any conventional Indian attack and respond effectively by undertaking its own offensive actions into Indian territory. All under a nuclear overhang.

Pakistan’s new army doctrine recognises a wider spectrum of conflict that includes sub-conventional warfare in addition to conventional warfare that, in turn, includes low-intensity operations, conventional war and nuclear warfare. The latter is aimed at complementing comprehensive deterrence and adding to the combat potential of the regular forces, leading to a potentially heavy cost for any aggressor. Nuclear war is seen “only as a last resort”.

Moreover, while conventional warfare is to be conducted under the devolved authority given by the National Command Authority to the military high command, the decision to go to nuclear war can only be initiated by the civilian authority under “the exclusive right of the NCA headed by the prime minister”. But no one has any doubts that should India launch a serious and deep conventional strike into Pakistan, the army would take the lead in deciding how to respond rapidly, with or without formal approval by the NCA.


Increasingly, Pakistan sees itself subject to potentially hostile activity from India, under the assumption that a sort of nuclear parity has led to maintenance of the status quo.
So, it expects India (the unnamed South Asian foe in its new Army doctrine) to synchronise activities at various levels to: “subtly erode [Pakistan’s]...national resilience and force compliance”. India’s willingness to bear the cost of war will help define the intensity, scale and nature of any future conflict, according to this view.

At the same time, Pakistan’s own calculations rest on the intensity of a nuclear exchange that would be Counter Value in nature rather than Counter Force. Potentially, ten major Indian urban centres and all seven of Pakistan’s major cities might be the targets in a nuclear exchange. The end result would be the destruction of large tracts of India and most of Pakistani territory, and the release of dust and debris into the atmosphere that would travel eastwards, eventually covering the entire Northern Hemisphere. In effect, Nuclear Winter could descend on the northern half of the globe for as much as six months. India’s own calculations may well mirror those of Pakistan.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 2, 2019 at 12:03pm

Rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and India portend regional and global catastrophe
Owen B. Toon1,*, Charles G. Bardeen2, Alan Robock3, Lili Xia3, Hans Kristensen4, Matthew McKinzie5, R. J. Peterson6,

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/10/eaay5478

Abstract
Pakistan and India may have 400 to 500 nuclear weapons by 2025 with yields from tested 12- to 45-kt values to a few hundred kilotons. If India uses 100 strategic weapons to attack urban centers and Pakistan uses 150, fatalities could reach 50 to 125 million people, and nuclear-ignited fires could release 16 to 36 Tg of black carbon in smoke, depending on yield. The smoke will rise into the upper troposphere, be self-lofted into the stratosphere, and spread globally within weeks. Surface sunlight will decline by 20 to 35%, cooling the global surface by 2° to 5°C and reducing precipitation by 15 to 30%, with larger regional impacts. Recovery takes more than 10 years. Net primary productivity declines 15 to 30% on land and 5 to 15% in oceans threatening mass starvation and additional worldwide collateral fatalities.

The nuclear arsenals of Britain, France, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan are thought (1–3) to lie in the range of ~100 to 300 warheads each (Fig. 1). Although the use of these weapons by any of these countries could produce a regional, and likely global, disaster, India and Pakistan are of special concern because of a long history of military clashes including serious recent ones, lack of progress in resolving territorial issues, densely populated urban areas, and ongoing rapid expansion of their respective nuclear arsenals. Here, we examine the possible repercussions of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan circa 2025 in which cities are one class of target, either by direct or collateral targeting. These repercussions have not been investigated previously. Because of the near-term regional effects of nuclear blast, thermal radiation, and prompt nuclear radiation, we find that perhaps for the first time in human history, the fatalities in a regional war could double the yearly natural global death rate. Moreover, the environmental stresses related to climate changes caused by smoke produced from burning cities could lead to widespread starvation and ecosystem disruption far outside of the war zone itself.

Nuclear arsenals of India and Pakistan
The United States and Russia account for around 93% of the world’s estimated 13,900 nuclear weapons. Seven other nuclear-armed nations are not bound by treaties that require them to divulge information, such as the number of strategic launchers and the number of warheads deployed on missiles, allowing estimates of the numbers of nuclear warheads and yields in their arsenals, but between them, the seven nations may now hold a total of 1200 warheads. As shown in Fig. 1, India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear forces in 2019 each may contain 140 to 150 warheads, with a possible expansion to 200 to 250 warheads in each country by 2025 (1, 3–5). Britain (~215), France (~300), China (~270), and Israel (~80) have a similar number of weapons but have been maintaining relatively constant arsenals (2). Estimates of the numbers of warheads possessed by India and Pakistan are based on the capacity of delivery systems that can be observed from remote sensing, rather than on the amount of enriched uranium and plutonium fuel that the countries may have produced.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 2, 2019 at 4:11pm

A #Nuclear War Between #India and #Pakistan Could Kill Twice As Many People As #WWII , Study Finds

https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-war-india-pakistan-death-toll-ww2-...

The immediate effects of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could cause up to 125 million deaths, a new study published in Science Advances has found. That's 2.5 times the fatalities of the Second World War, when an estimated 50 million people were killed as a direct consequence of military action.

The study, co-authored by researchers at Rutgers University, quantifies just how catastrophic a nuclear conflict between the two nations would be. In addition to the 100 million-plus death toll in the immediate aftermath, the study authors warn we could expect global vegetation growth to decline 20 to 35 percent as ocean productivity fell 5 to 15 percent⁠—a result that would cause mass starvation, ecosystem disruption and more deaths. It could take over a decade to fully recover from the impacts, they say.

"Nine countries have nuclear weapons, but Pakistan and India are the only ones rapidly increasing their arsenals," said Alan Robock, a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University—New Brunswick.

"Because of the continuing unrest between these two nuclear-armed countries, particularly over Kashmir, it is important to understand the consequences of a nuclear war."

Ads by scrollerads.com
Indeed, only last week in an address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan appealed for international support against India's decision to remove semi-autonomous status from its share of Kashmir last month and impose a lockdown on the majority Muslim population—stressing the threat of nuclear war.

"If a conventional war starts between the two countries, anything could happen," said Khan. "But supposing a country seven times smaller than its neighbor is faced with the choice: either you surrender, or you fight for your freedom till death, what will we do?"

"I ask myself this question and my belief is la ilaha illallah, there is no god but one, and we will fight. And when a nuclear-armed country fights to the end, it will consequence far beyond the borders."

Robock et al.'s calculations are based on a potential war scenario for 2025, when it is estimated the two countries could have 400 to 500 nuclear weapons between them. Each nuke could have an explosive power between 15 kilotons—equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT, i.e. the same size as the "Little Boy" that fell on Hiroshima in 1945—and a few hundred kilotons, the researchers say. The largest known nuclear weapon in existence today, the Tsar Bomba, far exceeds those considered in the study with an explosive power of 50 megatons.

The researchers conclude that were India to release 100 strategic weapons in a nuclear conflict and Pakistan 150, the number of fatalities caused by the initial effects could total 50 million to 125 million people—the exact size depends on the size of the weapons used. For context, an estimated 50 million people were killed in the Second World War, although that number excludes those who died from disease and starvation. Many more would die from the mass starvation that would almost certainly follow, they add.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 2, 2019 at 4:12pm

A #Nuclear War Between #India and #Pakistan Could Kill Twice As Many People As #WWII , Study Finds

https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-war-india-pakistan-death-toll-ww2-...


Starvation is likely because the explosions would cause fires that could, between them, release 16 million to 35 million tons of soot into the atmosphere. This soot would absorb solar radiation and heat the air, which would then cause the smoke to rise further, blocking our sun's light so that 20 to 35 percent less would fall on the Earth. This would trigger a period of global cooling—resulting in a nuclear winter—that would see surface temperatures drop 3.6 F to 9 F to levels not seen on Earth since the last ice age. We could also see global precipitation levels plummet 15 to 30 percent, affecting some regions more than others, the study's authors conclude.

As a result, they predict 15 to 30 percent less vegetation growth and a 5 to 15 percent decline in ocean productivity worldwide.

"Such a war would threaten not only the locations where bombs might be targeted but the entire world," said Robock.

"I think we have been lucky in the 74 years since that last nuclear war that we have not had another due to mistakes, panic, misunderstanding, technical failures or hacking," Robock told Newsweek.

"If the weapons exist, they can be used. And the ongoing conflict in Kashmir has the potential to escalate."

Neither party is likely to initiate a nuclear conflict without major provocation, the study's authors wrote. However, they did warn of a new Cold War.

"India and Pakistan may be repeating the unfortunate example set by the United States and Russia during the 'Cold War' era: that is, building destructive nuclear forces far out of proportion to their role in deterrence," they write.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 3, 2019 at 4:55pm

#Kashmir is a nuclear flashpoint between #India and #Pakistan. #UnitedNations can’t ignore it anymore. UN’s lack of resolve is a sad sign of dysfunction in #international #diplomacy as #American leadership declines and divisions among world powers grow. https://nyti.ms/2nJsLXQ


NY Times Editorial.

Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, was a man on a mission at the United Nations, imploring members last week to persuade India to lift its siege of Kashmir, a longtime flash point between the two nations, which both have nuclear weapons.

Failure to do so, he warned in a speech before the General Assembly on Friday, could result in war between the neighbors if Kashmiris push back against the suffocating presence of thousands of Indian troops.

Since Narendra Modi, the Hindu nationalist prime minister of India, revoked the semiautonomous status of the Muslim-majority state on Aug. 5, his government has imposed a curfew and detained nearly 4,000 people, including lawyers and journalists. There have been serious allegations of torture and beatings. India cut phone and internet service, leaving millions of people isolated.

While Mr. Modi didn’t address the issue in his United Nations speech, at a rally in Houston a few days earlier he said that revoking the constitutional clause on Kashmiri autonomy meant “people there have got equal rights” with other Indians now. That’s an absurd assertion to make about a state in the world’s largest democracy that’s essentially under martial law.

“If the U.N. doesn’t speak about it,” Mr. Khan told The Times editorial board the day before his speech, “who is going to speak about it?”

He may need to keep looking. Resting any hopes on the United Nations seems futile, given the approach it has taken to the dispute in recent decades.

At one time, the United Nations made an effort to play peacekeeper in Kashmir. The Security Council tried to mediate tensions between India and Pakistan within months of their independence and partition in 1947.

While the United Nations still has an observer group to report on cease-fire violations in Kashmir, it has stepped back since the 1970s, when, after the two nations went to war, they agreed to take care of future differences through bilateral negotiations.

Pressure from India — which has long resisted outside intervention in Kashmir — helped keep Kashmir off the Security Council’s agenda until August, when China backed Pakistan‘s request for a discussion of Mr. Modi’s power grab. The session, held out of view of the media and public, accomplished little, though. The Council couldn’t even agree afterward on a common message.

---

Countries are unwilling to risk crossing Mr. Modi and losing access to India’s huge market. Pakistan is economically weak. It also damaged its standing, and its position on Kashmir, by supporting militant groups that have attacked Indian troops, stirring a conflict that has torn Kashmir apart for decades.

Mr. Modi claims his clampdown would resolve that conflict and bring normality and development to Kashmir. But it seems more likely that it will only heighten tensions and make life more miserable for Kashmiris.

He could avoid disaster by lifting the siege, relaxing movement across the border between zones of the Kashmiri region that are held by India and Pakistan, releasing political prisoners and allowing independent investigators to look into alleged human rights abuses. Perhaps India’s Supreme Court, responding to various legal petitions, could even order him to reinstitute autonomy.

Those hopes are almost certainly in vain.

At least, in their last few crises, India and Pakistan demonstrated restraint. But it is easy to see how tit-for-tat actions can begin to escalate.

The Security Council should make clear that it opposes Mr. Modi’s brutal tightening of India’s control on Kashmir. While Mr. Modi may think he can control this volatile conflict on his own, he almost certainly cannot.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 4, 2019 at 10:26am

#Rutgers U. stands behind professor who said Hindutva was "inspired by #Nazism" amid backlash. During the rally at #UnitedNations, @AudreyTruschke criticized #BJP, which #Modi is a member of, for adhering to #Hindutva, a form of #Hindu nationalism. https://www.newsweek.com/rutgers-newark-audrey-truschke-hindutva-na...

Hindutva, she claimed, was inspired by Nazism. At a time when people often hear the term Nazi, which she credited with being used loosely, Truschke clarified that when she said Nazism, she was talking about "real, actual, historical Nazis."

"Early Hindutva founders openly admired [Nazi Party leader Adolf] Hitler," she said. "They praised Hitler's treatment of the Jewish people in Germany as a good model for dealing with India's Muslim minority."

Ads by scrollerads.com
People criticized Truschke for her comments, saying they were anti-Hindu and Pakistani propaganda. Several people called for her to not be permitted to visit India and more than 8,000 people signed an online petition to have Rutgers investigate her. Newsweek reached out to the petition creators but did not receive a response in time for publication.

However, Rutgers stood by the professor. The public New Jersey university told Newsweek that Truschke had a long track record of welcoming "reasoned debate" about the cultural, imperial and intellectual history of early-modern and modern India. So, the university supported her remarks.

"The Rutgers-Newark administration is standing strong behind me," Truschke told Newsweek. "I am privileged to be part of a scholarly community that values both accurate history and public-facing scholarship."

She called her comments outside the United Nations "well-established historical fact" and said the pushback was designed to "intimidate and silence scholars." Instead, she claimed, it showed a need for professors to work harder to educate non-academic audiences about Indian history.

The assistant professor identified two types of people who were attacking her: those who appeared to be ill-informed about Indian history and those who made ad hominem attacks in bad faith. For those who were ill-informed, she advised them not to "shoot the messenger."

"It is understandably upsetting to learn about the troublesome roots of a political ideology to which you may adhere, but I am not the appropriate target for your anger," Truschke said.

Truschke described Hindutva as being a political ideology and Hinduism as being a "diverse set of religious traditions." While speaking at India Today Conclave, a global thought platform in India, Indian Parliament Member Shashi Tharoor said the Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the founder of Hindutva, saw it as being about cultural and racial identity.

Vinay Sahasrabuddhe, a member of India's parliament and National Vice President of BJP, Modi's political party, argued that the BJP took Savarkar's comments "much more ahead" and described Hindutva as "spiritual democracy" and the "call of everything that is Hindu."

"Unfortunately Hindutva has become a favorite ripping point for people like Shashi Tharoor," Sahasrabuddhe said.

In an effort to deflect criticism from Hindutva, Truschke accused people of conflating it with Hinduism, which she characterized as being "inaccurate and highly offensive." However, others claimed it was Truschke who was inaccurate in labeling Hindutva fascist.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 11, 2019 at 4:12pm

#Pakistan PM #ImranKhan blasts #media 'double standard' over #HongKong protests. #HK "is a part of #China, but this (#Kashmir) is a disputed territory". "The story of barbarism (in Kashmir) hardly gets reported in international media,"
https://news.yahoo.com/pakistans-khan-blasts-media-double-standard-... via @Yahoo

Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan accused international media Friday of a "double standard", saying news outlets give more prominence to the ongoing protests in Hong Kong than to the situation in disputed Kashmir.

Khan, who returned this week from a trip to Beijing, also told a crowd of roughly 300 people at a rally in Islamabad that Hong Kong "is a part of China, but this (Kashmir) is a disputed territory".

"The story of barbarism (in Kashmir) hardly gets reported in international media," Khan said.

"So I want to put this double standard in front of the world."

Hong Kong has been battered by 18 consecutive weekends of unrest, fanned by widespread public anger over Chinese rule and the police response to protests.

While for more than two months now Indian-held Kashmir has been under a security lockdown after New Delhi scrapped the region's semi-autonomous status.

The move has angered nuclear arch-rival Pakistan, which also administers part of the territory and, like India, claims it in full.

Khan appeared to minimise the impact of the Hong Kong protests.

"As far as I know, till now only a few people have been injured, maybe two or three people have been killed due to accidents" in the strife-torn city, he said.

But in Kashmir, he said, "eight million" people were living under curfew, while "100,000" have been killed in the past three decades.

Hundreds have been wounded in the four months of clashes in Hong Kong. One death has been linked to the unrest, when a demonstrator protesting on the side of a building fell during a botched rescue attempt.

Tens of thousands of people are believed to have been killed since the Kashmir insurgency erupted in the 1980s. New Delhi puts the toll at 47,000, while rights groups hover around 70,000.

The curfew is no longer in place there, though tens of thousands of extra security forces are still in place, some restrictions on movement remain and communications are still largely blacked out.

Khan, whose government has been criticised for shrinking press freedoms in recent months, also expressed his frustration with the global community, which has historically stayed out of Kashmir.

"I regret that the world only sees that (India) is a country with one billion (people), so they can trade and make money from them, and money is more important for these countries then humans," he said.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 31, 2019 at 10:51am

#India Lets #Lawmakers Into #Kashmir: Far-Right Europeans including Alternative for Germany (#AfD) , #Poland’s Law and Justice party and #French party National Rally. Indian news reports said 22 of the 27 lawmakers in the group were from far-right parties https://nyti.ms/31XKmZU

After months of denying journalists, Indian lawmakers and an American senator access to the locked-down Kashmir region, the Indian government on Tuesday allowed a visit by mostly far-right members of the European Parliament, representing anti-immigration parties with histories of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

India stripped the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomy on Aug. 5, and it has stopped international journalists from traveling there, locked up local politicians and severed phone lines and the internet. The government partially restored cellphone service this month, but all other communication remains cut.

The European delegation allowed to visit on Tuesday consists mostly of members of far-right populist parties, including the Alternative for Germany, Poland’s governing Law and Justice party and the French party National Rally. Indian news reports said 22 of the 27 lawmakers in the group were from far-right parties. Embassies from some of the countries that the delegation represents confirmed their attendance when contacted by The New York Times.

A United States senator, Chris Van Hollen, was prevented from traveling to Kashmir earlier this month, and the Indian government has consistently blocked the country’s own lawmakers from visiting the area to assess the situation.

The Twitter account of Mehbooba Mufti, one of the Kashmiri politicians who have been detained, was scathing about the European delegation’s visit. Members of Ms. Mufti’s Peoples Democratic Party have been prevented from meeting with her during her detention.

“In its desperation to convince international community that normalcy’s restored in Kashmir,” the government of India is “engaging with what seem like pro fascist, right leaning and anti immigrant EU MPs. Royal mess,” the post read. (Ms. Mufti’s Twitter account is being operated by her daughter while she is in detention, supporters say.)


Kashmir is in dispute between Pakistan and India. It became an autonomous Indian state after independence from Britain in 1947, but it did so under an agreement that eventually Kashmiris, who are predominately Muslim, would be allowed to vote on whether to stay with India or join Pakistan. That vote never occurred.

In August, the Indian government suddenly revoked Kashmir’s autonomy, in a bid to increase its hold on the territory. On Thursday, India will officially change the status of Jammu and Kashmir, making it a federally controlled territory rather than a state. The move will separate it into two union territories — Ladakh as one territory, and Jammu and Kashmir as another.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page