Inevitable Politicisation of the Indian Armed Forces: Conflicting Interests

In the run-up to the Presidential elections in the US, a number of veterans' names have come to be associated with both the Presidential Nominees; General Michael Hayden, former CIA and NSA Director has endorsed Donald Trump, as has Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former DIA Director. Similarly, Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander was briefly being considered as Hillary Clinton's running mate. As the armed forces were seemingly getting embroiled in the political fight, the current Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford wrote a powerful article stressing on the need for the armed forces to stay away from the melee and not to politicise the military. In his article, General Dunford reminded his men to conduct themselves in a manner to reassure the next administration of being served by an apolitical military, while continuing to exercise their right to vote for the candidate they chose, yet guard against the institution being politicised by way of their conduct in public. He stressed upon the long American history of an apolitical military upholding the principle of civilian control, starting from General George Washington resigning his commission. 

In more recent times, General Dwight D Eisenhower has also served as the President of the US, after having served his country as Army Chief of Staff and Supreme Allied Commander NATO, retiring in 1952 before running for President.

The Indian armed forces have long prided themselves for being apolitical, even to a fault- and continue to remain subservient to the elected representatives of the people, under the principle of civilian control. Yet many events force us to scrutinize this under a lens. Historically, controversy has dogged the armed forces, sometimes bordering on endangering national security. Whether it was General Thimayya's controversial resignation as Chief of Army Staff due his differences with Defence Minister VK Krishna Menon which was withdrawn later with the Prime Minister's intervention, or Lieutenant General BM Kaul's appointment as the Corps Commander owing his proximity to Prime Minister Nehru and held responsible for the Indian debacle in the 1962 Sino- Indian War, the armed forces are no strangers to interference by the political hierarchy. Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat who had himself sought redress by the courts in his appointment as Fleet Commander, was later sacked by the Defence Minister George Fernandes for allegedly showing 'defiance of civilian authority'. Then there is the case of General VK Singh's age issue which put him at loggerheads with the government of the day. Even the ongoing tussle between the present Chief of Army Staff General Dalbir Singh with the officer slated to be the next Chief, Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi, ostensibly due to the present incumbent being from the Infantry and the next one from the Armoured Corps, has begun to take political overtones. In the bargain an officer of known calibre and professional acumen, Lieutenant General DRN Soni (also from the Armoured Corps) has become the object of machinations to keep him from Army Commander appointment.

Amidst all the brouhaha one fact remains as an undercurrent; the growing politicisation of the armed forces. The veracity of this is ascertained by the highly uninspiring leadership at the top levels of the military hierarchy; more and more one hears rumbles from the rank and file about the senior leadership failing to provide motivation to their troops. This is also amply demonstrated by the recent dissatisfaction among the armed forces with regard to their pay and status. It was left to the veterans to take up the issue with the government and led to a string of emotionally charged scenes with the veterans going so far as returning the medals awarded to them for their service to the nation. Does this call for an introspection? What further compounds it is the organizational ethos which stifles criticism at lower levels. In his 1970 book, “Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States”, Albert O Hirschmann has argued that voice can be made the mechanism of feedback for an organization. He says that criticism is a healthy thing and to encourage it means to enhance growth prospects. Whereas limiting criticism both overtly or by covert means, often expressed as culture or innuendo, would limit the ability to present alternate viewpoints or dissent. This is harmful to the organizational growth in the long run. This is the malaise that seems to be hurting the Indian armed forces. And it stems from this growing politicisation at the senior leadership levels.

That it is harmful in other and more diverse ways can be understood by the importance given to civil- military relations in a democracy. The principle of civilian control is underlined by the fact that the civilian leadership depends heavily on the inputs it receives from its military advisors. The quality of this advice depends on the integrity of the decision making and execution processes. This very reliance is undermined by the lack of a moral dimension which is a natural fallout of allowing political interference in the armed forces. Lieutenant General James Dubrik, US Army has commented on the moral dimension of strategic competence wherein he stresses upon the quality and integrity of senior military ranks as a precursor to the decisions taken at strategic level by the civilian leadership. Writing about the US army, (but what certainly seems to be apt for the Indian armed forces as well) he further advocates the empowerment of junior leadership, but rightfully also points out that the army has not taught and reinforced seniors leaders who empower. In one thesis thus, he brings out the two dimensions imperative to healthy civil- military relations; namely, looking at inward growth and having an upright moral character to outward competence. (Closer home, seminal work in this field has been done by Anit Mukherjee, currently a Professor with the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Singapore, and formerly an officer of the Indian Army).

If the US example is anything to go by, the DePuy reforms in the 1970s hefted substantial responsibility for adding professionalism to a force which was humiliated post Vietnam and faced growing opprobrium back home. It tackled not only issues related to training and administration, but delved deeper in to the experiential and creative realm, and helped put in place structures designed to identify, nurture and advance the best for future generations of leadership. Most of the contemporary generalship of the US owe their careers to this tumultuous period. However, this very senior leadership is now calling for yet another set of reforms to cater to the generational shift in the past 40 odd years since the DePuy reforms.

Is it time for the Indian armed forces also to look inward and institute a mechanism more in keeping with the paradigm shift that has taken place amidst us? The growing aspirations (at all levels) will further compound the problem of politicisation both from within and without. It appears critical to reform and indeed vital to the health of the armed forces. In the long run, it would only enable better civil- military relations and strengthen the foundations of democracy. De-linking the military from politics is crucial to this aim. It may serve the armed forces hierarchy well to remember the following words by General Joseph Dunford:

“As military professionals our most important asset is the trust and credibility with the (American) people. While we must safeguard our professional integrity, extra vigilance is required during any political transition”.

 Image Courtesy: Google

The Media Military Relations in India: Perpetual Tug of War

The arcane and abstruse world of the Military and Media landscape in India is under political and public scanner yet again following reports of reckless handling of the Kashmir violence that erupted after the killing of a Hizb-ul-Mujahidden youth leader, Burhan Wani. In an open letter to the dead militant, Major Gaurav Arya of the Indian Armed Forces heavily attacked the dubious intentions of the youth leader, stating any action by the army was totally called for. A young boy associated with the militant outfit was hunted down by the forces. This is a routine course of action and therefore there is no scope for the forces having gone haywire in their quest to establish peace and security in the valley putting an end to all apprehensions about the  ever-increasing monstrous role of the Army in the Valley. 

The  controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act ( AFSPA) and the Public Safety Act ( PSA) have created a new form of resentment against the forces in the eyes of the common people of the valley. These acts are under scanner for being draconian in nature. However, given the backdrop of the perpetual war like situation in Kashmir, it becomes necessary to analyse the currents and undercurrents in the changing dynamics of the media military relations in India especially in the context of peace keeping and conflict resolution in Kashmir.

Kashmir, since 1947 has been the cynosure of all eyes focussing on South Asia both nationally  and internationally. The news worthiness of the ‘K’ question in all deliberations, dialogues with Pakistan cannot ever be underestimated. Certain sections of the media, branded as the Pro Pakistan Lobby and the Pseudo-Liberals are currently being heavily trolled on social networking sites for questioning the intentions of the armed forces in the valley. The Supreme Court of India too has slammed the Indian Media for misinformation and false reporting, for revealing more than is necessary for the sake of sensationalism, jeopardising national security on numerous occasions. Refer to the deliberate revealing of operations and the logistical positioning of the forces by a private news channel when they were involved in the encounter with terrorists at the Pathankot Air Base earlier this year. In the Indian context, the relationship between the media, dissident forces and  the military reveals a very disturbing history.

Television Ratings and saleability of news is what drives the media today. There is little regard for what the people want to know and what they should know. Responsibility and Accountability are being sacrificed at the altar of viewership rating points. The business of news is preying upon disturbances , whether social, economic , political  or  psychological and with advancements in technology and digitisation of the world wide web, the race to become number one news service provider by private companies is getting even murkier.

The media no longer just reports an event. It acts as the judge, jury and executioner, investigating ever aspect of disturbance through the superficial prism of law creating more nuisance for the forces which are known to maintain strict professionalism in dealing with the media. The Directorate of Public Relations, Ministry of Defence, Public Relations Office deals with the media keeping military ethical standards on the forefront at all times.  Army Rule 21, Defence Service Regulations has been in place to control any misinformation flowing in the country . The impatient and intrusive reporters in their quest for exclusives often cross the lines of ethics and invariably put the military in the witness box for no rhyme or reason.

Conventionally , the role of the Media was primarily to inform, educate and entertain the masses. Recent trends engulfing the entire spectrum of mass media reveal how the fourth estate is now becoming a parallel government in itself, reporting on issues which sometimes have both political and social ramifications.  How the media projects the image of the military is hilarious in itself. The media claims to be this larger than life entity that simply has the godly right to spin stories in the name of public accountability. This hunger for news has often created both monsters and gods and the common people are yet to discover the true side of any story given the short shelf life of yellow journalism today. 

The Freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by the constitution of India, has often been misused to suit business interests. The oxygen of publicity being supplied to dissident forces, in the quintessential Kashmir valley for example calls for some serious introspection on the part of our media. Is all this necessary? It is not the media’s job to tell the military how they should function. The army through its Public Relations  Office is working to project itself as a positive force, a force for the people of India, a force of the people of India, a force by the people of  India. The media must not digress from its primary role, TO INFORM. 

Image Courtesy  : Google 

Self Reliance in Defence Manufacturing: The Indian Example, Some Reflections

                

For several experts in the field of National Defence and Security, ‘Make in India’  has been more than just a mere slogan, and an amalgamation of all the ongoing projects,  procurements and forward planning in India’s security sector. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his bid to transform the otherwise lackadaisical approach of India’s Defence Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and Defence Research and Development Organisations (DRDOs) as well as Private Companies envisioned a progressive approach strongly backed by a strategy built on the ethos of credibility and immediate deliverables, job creation, thus adding strength to India’s indigenous defence industry under his mission “Make in India”.

Some Reflections: Marred by project delays and issues of Request for Information (RFI), Request for Proposals (RFP) and Transfer of Technology (ToT), licensing issues with Russia, United States, India’s defence sector is currently undergoing massive transformation, a natural corollary to Modi’s frequent visits to other countries and subsequent discussions with his counterparts on defence and security. The revised Defence Procurement Policy is also being projected as the game changer. However financial, political and strategic investments in projects meant to modernise India’s defence industry exhibit a very uneven path. Whether it is the MMRCA, Tejas or AWACS statistics reveal that India is yet to achieve a great breakthrough in defence, compared to China or Pakistan as in the case of AWACS.

The Cabinet Committee on Security has time and again sanctioned several projects, but uneven investments have often defeated the very purpose of rapid military transformations, to tackle new asymmetrical threats.  If statistics provided by the defence ministry are to be believed, India has signed five deals of more than Rs 2,500 crore since May 2014. This includes the Tactical Communication Systems (TCS), Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) (worth $ 7.5 billion) for the Indian Army, construction of seven Shivalik class frigates (Project 17 A) for the Navy, by Mazagon Docs Limited and Garden Reach Steel Industry, amounting to Rs 45201 crores. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is currently in the process of building basic trainer aircraft HTT 40 and Sukhoi MK 1 aircraft in line with the 272 target set for 2018 by the Indian Air Force. There are several such deals being planned. But deadlock over Rafale continues to make headlines. Meanwhile, reacting to the commercial deadlock over Rafale prices with Dassault, other players such as Lockheed Martin (F 16), Saab (Gripen) are now streamlining their business strategy, to meet the requirements of the Indian industry under Make in India. Saab is willing to partner with Indian companies, giving India complete software control to build the Gripen fighter in India. Saab is also keen on setting up an aeronautic training academy in India.

For a strong indigenous defence industry both outside support and internal political commitments are very crucial. Integral to any development program, is the need to provide a conducive socio-economic and political environment where any proposed idea can take roots. The liberalisation of the FDI Policy in Defence, which shifted the fulcrum of indigenisation from ‘state of the art technology’ to ‘modern technology’ was indeed a welcome change. The buzz word, Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured' (IDDM) now stands at 30:70, (Imports 30%) focus remaining on indigenisation. The FDI policy was revised to fill critical gaps in technology aiding job creation and growth if Indian industry. Despite the very obvious reports on project delays, falling production targets in the case of the Ordnance Factories, and sudden inflow of private players such as Reliance and Mahindra for example in the defence arena, ‘Make in India’ is a progressive move aimed to strengthen India’s defence industry.

However, there is no systematic explanation for India’s dialogues with Russia and the US over defence procurements and projects. The very crucial aspect of Transfer of Technology (ToT) especially nuclear propulsion (for example, in the case of nuclear supercarrier) has often caused unnecessary delays in signing of agreements between Original Equipment Makers (OEM’s) and India. Offset policy (2012) allows Joint ventures through the non-equity route. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar recently stated that the real impact of Make in India will be seen in 2017. Parrikar stressed on the need to outsource certain products in order to maintain a healthy production chain. So the question remains: Can private players deliver better? Is the budget enough to meet the requirements of Make in India? Will the dynamics of a Russia- US power play (add China for good measure), affect India’s position as a strong defence power in South Asia and subsequently on the global stage? It was in 2001 when private players first entered the defence domain, with a 26% FDI bid. But terms and conditions laid out by the government were so stringent, that deliverables were far from being met. Technical education lagged behind affecting human resource availability.

One very important aspect of defence modernization is the ongoing Research and Development (R&D) in the field of security that has been crafted to meet the requirements of the modern day battlefield. Advancement in information technology and the changing nature of threats, whether man-made or accidental, on land, sea, air and even the virtual space now coerces one to assess the outcomes of  procurements, acquisitions and mergers, in defence manufacturing sector.

The pace with which technology is becoming obsolete is a real problem. Defence preparedness calls not just for military modernisation but also reforms, which are capable of accelerating the R& D processes in the field of security. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that no one player or OEM can fully manufacture critical equipment. Several components are now procured from various producers, making the procurement procedure lengthy and complicated. These can cause unnecessary delays too.  Another point of view currently attracting a lot of attention is that opening the doors of the security sector to foreign players will jeopardise India’s position as a strong defence power.

That foreign players are still not fully convinced with the idea of ‘Make in India’ especially shifting their production bases to India, a market which has inherent haphazard supply chain structures, is a different question altogether. Lastly, more than flooding the market with success stories, the focus should be on the needs of the defence forces and on the operational efficacy of equipment manufactured under Make in India. Positive market trends have indeed widened the horizons of defence manufacturing in India but India still needs a little more political and financial push to achieve a higher degree of self-reliance in defence technology.

Image Courtsey-Google Images

Women Combatants: The Gender Narrative

In quick succession over the past few weeks, the political leadership in some major countries have indicated their commitment to bringing women in frontline combat roles in their armies. There have been statements to this effect by the US, the UK, and India. These have evinced in turn a slew of articles debating how women would affect operational efficacy and efficiency. For the record, about three dozen countries around the world have women in their armed forces, though not necessarily in combat roles. The roles assigned to women differ from country to country, with some having passed legislation for equal rights and therefore equal roles within the armed forces, Norway and Sweden being in the forefront; while others have steadfastly held back from assigning combat duties to their women intake, notable amongst these being France and Turkey. By virtue of its acute requirement for defence forces right from its inception, Israel has always had women employed in combat duties, and has legislated equality of women in any role in the IDF to that of men. The form of recruitment varies from the voluntary to conscription in all these countries. Similarly, they have each charted their own course for the training requirements, physical standards, mandatory term of service, roles and duties assigned to women, and inevitably the laws on sexual harassment. Given the wide spectrum of issues which likely affect and govern the intake of women in armed forces, a logical debate arises about the recent declarations by the US, UK and India. Have certain realities been overlooked? What is it that compels these leaders- is it simply a race for gender equality while disregarding facts based on reality? This analysis seeks to examine both sides of the argument to decide what the right course of action should be.

Firstly, the Israeli example. As said earlier, certain issues emanating from the its very inception required each and every able bodied individual to take up arms; this in effect made it possible for women being assigned frontline combat roles. There was simply no debate, it was the need of the hour. Throughout the history of Israel as an independent nation, virtually the same set of circumstances have pushed it in to decisions based on need. Simultaneously, its armed forces served as a giant cauldron for the rapid amalgamation of its huge and varied immigrant population. These factors made it imperative first, then simpler to continue (later) with women serving in combat roles. Yet, despite its 2000 Equality amendment to Military Service Law, only one woman serves as a Major General and sections of the establishment feel that the glass ceiling may still take some time to crumble. This notwithstanding, Israel has undergone decades of strife on its borders, giving valuable insights in to problems which women may face; it is to its credit that the country seems to have dealt with most of them successfully.

Any army seeking to bring women in to combat must also realistically examine certain other issues. Primarily these deal with the biological differences (with men), followed by psychological differences and concerns related to the likely enemy they face and tactical situations arising from it. Physically women are smaller than men, have less strength, endurance and the ability to bear punishment that the body has to face in combat regimen. They are also more prone to muscoskeletal injuries, more so after pregnancy. These factors obviously make them more prone to injury such as stress fractures, and they may not be able to endure heavy weights such as carrying a wounded comrade with his equipment over long distances. Even during training women have had to be given reduced loads to maintain the momentum of training; lower physical standards in training would result in reduced fitness for basic combat tasks. At the end of the day, it has to be remembered that 'gear carried is gear required'. In aerial combat, it has been scientifically ascertained that the ability to withstand high gravitational forces that fighter pilots have to endure regularly, is reduced substantially in the female body. Certain armed forces have maintained the same physical standards for women as are expected from men because of these realities of combat, but at the cost of lower numbers at the recruitment stage, and increasing number of dropouts at subsequent stages.

Chief amongst the psychological reasons is the purported awkwardness or the inability associated with men taking orders from women seniors or officers. However, what is definitely worse is the debilitating effect on unit and individual morale that the sight of a wounded woman comrade would have. Most societies follow their own form of patriarchy, and deep rooted prejudices may be difficult to erase completely. Even if education and awareness were to bury these, the second factor of being witness to a wounded woman has been seen to arouse very strong protective instincts. While this may be an honourable thing in civilian life, it degrades the morale of the unit, lowers the robot like proficiency of the individual soldier and ultimately results in lower efficacy in combat. Evidence of this exists historically in the 1948 operations in Israel. Many anecdotal examples abound, where senior and experienced officers and NCOs have expressed their consternation at the decision to allow women in combat units.

While squeamishness on the part of women on seeing blood and gore in combat operations may be possible, suitable psychological training may help to reduce the shock effect associated with injuries and death. Another area of concern is the possibility of capture, torture and sexual assault by the enemy. This has been in fact expressed by women soldiers themselves. Feminism and gender equality may sound exalted as theories, but they cannot change biological realities. Also, given the degree of barbarianism shown by what these women would face, namely ISIS fighters, or other terror oriented groups of that genre, capture would almost certainly result in torture, decapitation and rape, probably on live media. Is any army ready to accept these costs? More importantly, is any political establishment ready to accept the cost?

The decision to announce the entry of women into combat roles is definitely politically motivated, aimed at achieving political correctness which seems to be in sync with the rhetoric on equality of sexes. However, this decision needs to be tempered with practicality and pragmatism. In their bid to achieve political correctness, governments may well end up making the biggest politically incorrect decision. It would take only one media recording of physical assault on a woman combatant to bring this house of cards down. What it will end up doing to the combat effectiveness of the armed forces is another story altogether.

Pic Courtesy: National Geographic

Press Censorship: Facts versus Fiction in Conflict Reporting, who decides?

                               

“Citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for meaningful democracy.”

                                                                                                                                       Noam Chomsky

The unprecedented rise of the fourth estate is central to any understanding of conflict and conflict reporting today. The press plays a pivotal role in shaping perceptions about the Orwellian states, warring factions, generating fresh debates and discourses around existing conflicts and peace building measures. The paradigmatic shift to citizen journalism through social networks has also changed the dynamics of journalism today. Given the political and social ramifications of “free and fair reporting” versus “carefully scripted propaganda stories”, some reflections on changing role of the Fourth Estate would help us develop deeper insights into the functioning of the media landscape today.

In 1985, British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher while addressing the American Bar Association had cautioned the world about the dangers of open society and the need to have a code of conduct for the media in place to restrict information flow which could jeopardise national security. It is the “Oxygen of Publicity” that determines the trajectory of any crisis and Ms Thatcher argued for cutting off this oxygen supply   to the terrorists and trouble makers as a security measure to protect the state and civil society. In recent years several debates surrounding the censorship act and uniform media ethics, freedom of speech have started dominating academic discourses on the Press today.  

Why censorship is necessary?

The purpose of any censorship on the media should be pragmatic and not draconian in nature. Globally, the same set of parameters work for any censorship law, or body – Regulation of broadcast, print and all media services, creating acceptable code of conduct and ethics, ensuring complaint and feedback mechanism are in place, monitoring of digital spaces etc. Censorship does not mean suppressing all that is happening in the political arena, or the security arena or any arena for that matter. It simply means doing away with any kind of “Breaking News and Exclusives Phenomenon” which could create chaos and insecurity endangering National security. Whether it is an autocratic regime or a democratic establishment the currents and undercurrents in the media landscape are almost the same.

An independent press both strengthens and weakens the democratic mechanisms of good governance. Serious debates on Press censorship dominated the political corridors of India when the Indira Gandhi government, imposed restrictions on freedom of speech and expression during national emergency in 1975. The censorship was withdrawn in 1977. The levels of restrictions however remain a bone of contention between the State Run and the Private media establishments. Whether it is the OSA (1923), or the IT act (2007) the Indian establishment has mechanisms in place to prevent information attacks of any kind.  In 2010, the Irish government was deliberating upon Internet filtering, reinforcing the graduated response mechanism in some ways to secure its digital space.  In Erdogan’s Turkey several journalists have been jailed time and again for going against the establishment. In 2014 Russia had closed down a number of media outlets and restricted foreign investment in its press industry in the name of safeguarding national interests.

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks and internal disturbances across the world, limited censorship and not absolute free press is what is required today. There was a time when terrorist explosions were covered by the print media and the radio, but monitored by official sources for factual correctness. Today, in the era of TRPs and corporate benefits, credibility has taken a back seat. Imagine a Charar E Sharif episode or any of the wars fought by the India Military against its notorious neighbour being shown live on TV today. Uncontrolled media, with the backdrop of TRP race and corporatisation, has the potential of changing the word order, and creating anarchy which will give rise to more chaos both psychological and social. The Danish cartoon controversy falls in place here. Even Movies which usually mirror society have an uncanny knack of showing us such things; case in point being the Pierce Brosnan starrer ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ in the James Bond series which depicted this race toward anarchy.

One crucial point that needs to be addressed is who decides what the Nation wants to know?  The Supreme Court of India had slammed the television media for live coverage of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The minute by minute update could have jeopardised the entire operation involving commandos, and indeed did so at times. The apex court stated that any activity which endangers national security cannot be justified in the name of freedom of speech. The live coverage of the 2016 terrorist attack on India’s Pathankot Airbase, yet again highlighted the reckless nature of the journalists in dealing with national security issues. Why should the nation suffer?

In the ongoing trend of Primetime debates on television, it must be kept in mind that not everything that is discussed between 9 and 10 PM, leads to policy restructuring or institutional transformations. However what it does is, it creates an artificial sense of the right and the wrong, spawns public hysteria, and makes that momentary lapse, appear rational in the minds of the viewers. While Noam Chomsky suggests a course on intellectual defence against manipulation and control, would someone put a check on what is being fed to us? Is that reason enough for some form of censorship? Who decides?

Pic Courtsey : ToonPool

Orwellian Tweets, Posts, Comments, Uploads - Controlling the Social Media

In the last few years, the Indian armed forces have time and again adopted measures to control increasing incidents of cyber espionage and honeytrapping through social networks. In yet another move, the Army issued a 19-page policy entitled ‘Policy on usage of social media in Indian Army’, designed to reinforce the Official Secrets Act (1923) in some ways, through a long list of do’s and donts’s for the officers and jawans. 

Technological advancements and changes in the modern day battlefield including cyberspace have ushered in a new era of military preparedness, necessitating measures to counter cyber threats on own networks. The inherent importance of information superiority for quick decision making during combat operations whether on land, sea, air or the cyberspace has led to defence forces opting for systems, policy measures that are designed to provide exceptional situational awareness with the ability to detect and destroy potential threats, whether man made or accidental. With the proliferation of myriad social media platforms, cyber threats now include attacks made on personnel coercing them to breach security inadvertently.

Unrestricted use of the social media has led to breach of security on numerous occasions. The quintessential Pathankot Attack ( January 2016) which shifted the investigative fulcrum inexorably towards the honey trapping of officials through Facebook and misinformation about operations through unidentified whatsapp groups clearly calls for a stringent control on the use of social media these days. Officers and jawans who once lived in oblivion , stationed in places which for any civilian may possibly have remained unknown  are now just 140 characters away from their friends, family and just anybody. An anonymous person hiding behind an email, or a blog or a social media account or a number which can be easily bought from any grocery store, has the potential of paralyzing an organization through transfer of unauthorized codes in its communication network using malwares, spywares etc, or through anti national videos and posts, or through thought provoking messages calling for non cooperation with Indian establishment etc. On a personal front, honey trapping of officers for anti national activities is the easiest way out to get access to sensitive information. The geopolitical ramifications of breach of national security through social media can be easily understood through a mapping of nations engaged in cyber war.

In its policy letter  on usage of social media issued to all army formations, units & stations the army recognizes the purposive and pragmatic role of social media in providing psychological and social support to their soldiers but with a word of caution. Ranks, names, stations and sensitive information are not to be made public. In fact even friends and family members of soldiers are advised not to disclose any information revealing the identity of a soldier, his/her location etc. This is a routine move and with increasing reports of misuse of social media the soldiers are now using the internet with full accountability and responsibility.

The psychological war being fought on the social media has such serious implications that it can change the dynamics of vox populi pushing it in the direction of both for or against the nation. The recent episode of 22 year old  Hizb-ul-Mujahideen operative, Burhan Wani’s sudden rise as  a hero in Kashmir inspiring many through his Facebook posts and the violence which engulfed several lives following his encounter, calls for a strong affirmative action putting a check on the social media activities of  both the soldiers and civil society.

The armed forces have an extant mechanism to address and engage with the media on issues ranging from operations to administration, the Public Relations Office. This definitely needs to be both strengthened and simultaneously brought at par with various agencies involved in cyber warfare, to be able to tackle such malinformation right at the source itself.

While the Indian armed forces have liberalized policy to keep up with the times, a similar move for the bureaucratic side is also on the cards. Online and offline activities of both politicians and bureaucrats should also be monitored. Online activity especially criticism of the government is now proposed to be viewed as a violation of the conduct rules for bureaucrats, but the government has left a huge gap by leaving politicians out of the ambit of this policy. Breach of national security may not always come from a soldier's or a pen-pusher's social media account.  It could be anybody.

Pic Courtsey : India Today

Silencing the Media :The Curious Case of Kashmir

   

        “All this trouble from a matchbox like this” 

-Hosni Mubarak, erstwhile President of Egypt, upon touring Al Jazeera Headquarters in Doha, Qatar, in Spring 2000

Does the Media play a Purposive, Pragmatic and Positive role in transforming mental constructs regarding the  conflict in J&K or does it act as a tool for a new age psychological warfare?

Pic Courtsey :NDTV

With the recent killing of 22 Hizb-ul-Mujahideen operative Burhan Wani and the clampdown on  media in Kashmir following widespread violence, it is critical that we must now dissect  the dynamics and various paradigms of Media’s role in escalating and de-escalating conflict and this also entails the development of a common ground to understand universally accepted basic academic perceptions, theories revolving around the increasing power of media in contemporary times, both domestic and international, with a comparative perspective. To understand political ideologies, processes, decision-making political institutions, war strategies and functioning of a nation in times of conflict and peace , in- depth knowledge about the socio-economic and historical background which provides a support structure on which new trends in conflict reporting are further analysed, becomes necessary.

What made Wani a hero or a poster boy of terrorism in the valley was  the pivotal role of Media in determining the conduct of governments, laws governing the masses and explaining political formulae such as national welfare, national security, conflict resolution, transformation and peace building etc. Wani posing with weapons and posting images on social networks was a clear indication that something was not right in the way he looked at the world around him. Hashtags and retweets in support of Wani created a new undercurrent in the field of violence that could not be controlled.

Most of the available literature on Media and Media intervention in conflict as well as peace revolves around the implications of “info-attacks” i.e disinformation, psychological disillusionment and propaganda stories ,campaigns which may or may not lead to conflict and also which may or may not lead to resolution of conflict and transformation of post-conflict societies.

It was essentially this info attack through digitisation and the internet , that coaxed Wani to pick up arms. The establishment in Kashmir imposed a three-day ban on the media to tackle possible episodes of violent protest. Silencing the media is not the way forward.

The way forward: In a world where news is just 140 characters away , one simply cannot trust what is being posted online or reported from a newsroom. Gone are the days when news was restricted to a half an hour slot in between the evening movie screening on our national channel. The breaking news formula reached new heights with the mushrooming of news channels and spread on the Internet from 2005 onwards. The mad race for increased TRP s forced once ethical journalists to now report on just anything and everything  under the sun. 

Media discourses have undergone discernible changes in the last few decades and with changing global political order, wars, natural calamities and political mobilisation a fresh approach towards understanding the functioning of Media in times of conflict and peace becomes inevitable. Equally, the need of the hour is to remember that an arbitration by juxtaposed media, however well meaning may serve to aggravate situations, inflame passions and therefore subvert or frustrate conflict resolution measures. 

In all intents and purposes the mushrooming of 24x7 News Channels , widespread use of the world wide web and the rise of Social Media platforms recently have redefined the mental constructs that helped us to understand the functioning of Global political order especially in times of Conflict and Peace. The effect of a strongly linked, cosmopolitan and international neighbourhood owing to superior access to all forms of media may not necessarily be a positive aspect; ideologies, identities, territorial integrities, and indeed the very concept of nation states may be challenged by perceptions of global institutions percolating via the Media.

Access to 24x7 real-time information through diverse media forms and their ability to mould perceptions have forced a reevaluation by governments, international businesses and even non-state actors to view the heightened role of the Media in the shaping of conflict. Time and Space are two distinct variables in communication studies that have aided paradigm changes in existing theories and questions that have already been answered but need a fresh perspective that can solve key issues which affect the socio-political environment in contemporary times. With real-time broadcasting of on-ground events our perceptions about the world around us have undergone significant changes. One of the sterling examples of this was demonstrated during the 9/11 attacks on the American mainland; raw ability to transpose events as they unfolded into people's homes was on evidence, giving a perspective not seen hitherto fore. The Arab Spring is another example which shows how digitization has changed the way we look at social and political structures across the globe today.

It has been widely debated that the Media is prone as well as responsive to influences wielded by governments because of their inherent need to access corridors of power. Contrarily it has also been argued that governments are vulnerable and inclined to pressures by commercial media, due to their widespread reach and their ravenous yearning to connect with the masses.Eminent Political philosopher Aristotle had said that man is by nature a social animal and therefore the relationship that thus develops between man and the state becomes an important subject matter of research; ultimate aim of that defining relationship being welfare and happiness.

Welfare and happiness have taken a backseat and voices all across the media community have elicited the response that it is war or conflict that makes news and not peace. This bias is evident from the way our production teams shift focus on violence being recorded on camera even though it may be just one sporadic incident. Haven’t all of us witnessed the changes in existing media landscape and have been affected by what the newsrooms, internet and the newspapers want us to know?

Wani having an access to social media clearly calls for a deeper introspection on the dangers of having unlimited access to images and Videos without any control on the content by any establishment. Therefore it is the media which can act as a damage control tool by highlighting both sides of the story involving the Valley. 

One simply cannot choose violence over peaceful dialogue and blow it out of proportion for higher television ratings. This marks the end of ethical journalism and end of civil society.  The solution does not revolve around political powerhouses or the military bases in the valley or in clampdowns, like the recent 3-day ban on local media in Kashmir.  Newsrooms and classrooms can serve as the larger cauldron from which pragmatic positive and purposive dialogues can emerge.

           

How the Lone Wolf syndrome is a Black Swan in Terrorism Predictive Analysis

The recent attacks across the world have seen a twist in the modus operandi of terrorists making prediction and prevention of terrorism extremely difficult for law enforcement agencies. So called ‘Lone Wolves’, operatives working in ones or twos, without any ostensible connection to known terrorist organisations such as the Islamic State or any prior known  record of such activities suddenly seem to crawl out of the woodwork and create new and unique mayhem, adding to the list of terrorist actions which were not on the radar of any agency. The sheer lack of anticipation, or improbability, or both push these acts (increasingly so) in the category of Black Swan events, which by their very definition are deviations from the normal. As a result, and due to the very audacity of the act, they create ruptures in the development of defence strategy against such acts in future. These unconventional strategic shocks have been classified as ‘Known Unknowns’ by veteran Lieutenant Colonel Nathan Freier of the United States Army. In our ongoing analysis of these terrorist acts whether in Paris or Orlando or Istanbul or Medina,  and most recently in Nice in France, it becomes  critical to dwell upon certain underlying factors for accurate prediction and prevention of such acts in the future.

Why They Do It 

Though the reasons may be multifarious, they share a common thread- fanatical or jihadist Islam. This in itself is a thought provoking term, since learned Muslims differ on the meaning attributed to jihad by those who choose extremist means; a growing section within Islam itself feels that the term has been abused to suit their extremist purposes and tendencies. Also, recently a debate has been initiated as to whether the right description is radicalization of Islam or Islamisation of radicals. In itself, source for a stimulating debate, albeit the end result being the same.

European states such as France  have had long histories of colonial rule over large tracts of the Middle- East and North Africa, and therefore large populations of immigrants from these former colonies. These European countries are perceived as being responsible for the hopeless state of affairs in their former colonies. They have also left lasting legacies of suppression both by their armed forces and by mercenary militias. It is these former colonies where the current threat is now sprouting from, probably seen in equal measure as giving a bloody nose to their former masters as being religious in nature. The United States is viewed as being responsible for the present state of complete chaos owing its flawed policies over control of oil, a bid to foist its democratic principles, and perhaps anything else which goes wrong in the region. To add fuel to the raging fire, recent reports in the UK and the US have attributed much of the present state of affairs on the Blair and Bush administrations respectively, including certain reports that hold the US responsible for the creation of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State as a means of furthering it’s own policy in these regions. No doubt, these give sufficient ‘WHY’ to any new recruit, especially when it is spiced up by impactful  images and quasi- religious and hate rhetoric.

The West is not the only one target, in fact it is any corner of the earth where signs of going against the terrorists notions of ‘unbeliever’ are evident. Or any corner where they want to impose their perception of Islam. Therefore, an act in Dhaka or in Medina is equally acceptable. Which makes it all the more difficult to ascertain where the next such act would be or who the targets would be, because the world is full of people who do not agree with their notions or live their lives in accordance to what they feel is right.

Who are they?

It could be just about anybody. Despite high terror alerts, the perpetrators still manage to get through, indicating that they exist below the threshold meriting attention by anti- terrorist agencies. Organisations seem to be tapping certain criminal underclass who may have a police record, but may not go beyond that. Or disenchanted students. Or unemployed youth. Or even educated converts for their new found religious zeal. Or attention seeking hyperactive individuals looking for their moment under the sun. Or immigrant population not having social security or identity papers. These people may be model citizens in their normal lives, could be going to work with you on the same bus or train, attending PTAs just as you do. Occasionally you may feel the lack of communication with some of them, but don’t we all attribute it to those Arab types? They cannot even be termed sleeper agents and hence be traced by reverse engineering.  What they do in their private time is simply beyond the reach of investigative agencies, they may be getting indoctrinated via social media, that all pervasive new demon of our times. And then one fine day this person gets up, leaving that normal life of his behind, drives a truck over a promenade full of people or on a shooting spree at the local nightclub or theatre or makes a bomb from ingredients available at the local hardware store and decides to explode it on a busy Street.

Investigative and watch agencies simply do not have the resources to keep a check on every single individual of society, something which works very well in favour of these Lone Wolves.  Technology has added to our headache; an encrypted phone is as easily available as grocery. A city has deployed anti aircraft batteries and 50 calibre machine guns on rooftops, backed up by phased array radar and F16s in near proximity, yet a postal worker managed to fly a gyro copter into these defences. The same city has deployed pathogen detectors against possible biological weapons. The city is Washington D.C.  What about all the other cities around the world? It is these lacunae that are exploited by the Lone Wolf.

How do they do it?

Again, as unexpected and unanticipated as could be. While the national and financial capital is being watched with an Eagle eye, an attack takes place in Orlando. Or an attack in Nice, not in Paris. Or an attack in a little known third world capital when everyone is busy looking west. Or suddenly in Istanbul for aligning against the Islamic State.  This is probably most indicative of a deviation (Black Swan). Or even worse, you may be expecting it on Bastille Day, but not by a truck driver on a promenade in a Mediterranean city; known unknown shock at its best.

What they expect to achieve

Obviously the idea is to create an atmosphere of trepidation, uncertainty and disquietude. In using tactics of hit and run ( or hit and die!) The Lone Wolf does not expect to follow up or follow through on his actions; it is a standalone action, to be treated as such but with sufficient impact to generate palpable fear. But what it definitely achieves in addition is further alienation of immigrants and racial profiling which works in favour of the terrorists’ rhetoric. It also tends to instil a feverish pitch of activity amongst anti terrorist agencies, but usually in the wrong place and just trying to piece together the last act. Invariably this makes the next attack even more unexpected.

Since these Lone Wolves are just that, working in isolation, there is no apparent connection between one attack and another,  therefore there are virtually no unravelling threads during an investigative process. Moreover since they are usually ordinary people, it leads to the question of who all should be investigated. As brought out earlier it becomes humanly impossible to probe every single individual despite all the technology at their behest. For instance it is not possible to monitor cellular conversations of an entire city of people, and if it is tried, it utilises resources from elsewhere and leaves discernible gaps that may be exploited.

Lastly, alienation and racial profiling work in favour of terrorists. In the eventuality that they are able to upset the balance to such an extent that the target country decides to impose a an extended state of emergency, it serves to further existing social divides on racial and economic lines. Such a possibility is being discussed in places such as France and will only serve the interests of terrorist organisations by providing them more fertile grounds for recruitment, more number of people ready to go that extra mile for the cause.

In the same pattern of unpattern that works for a Lone Wolf no fixed time or date is a good or a bad time. It may be sometimes symbolic in nature, such as the Medina ( 4th July) or Nice (14th July or Bastille Day) or it may simply be a bolt out of the blue.

Pic Courtsey: Google Images/ Counterjihadreport

The Eagle Bear Affair

India aspires to build a nuclear super carrier INS Vishal to add to its maritime  footprint. The carrier is slated to be a 65000 Ton  displacement vessel , 300 metres long and 70 metres wide. It would give the Indian Navy the capability to conduct operations in distant oceanic regions while engaging both land and sea based enemy targets. 

A nuclear super carrier gives India the potential to ensure operational stability of its naval forces, protect its landing troops and provide air defence. Such an addition gives India the ability to transform itself into an expeditionary  military power.

India and the United States ( US) are currently engaged in discussions on ‘Transfer of Technology’ (ToT) for a Nuclear supercarrier. Amidst this ongoing process, Russia has offered to sell such a nuclear supercarrier, the STORM. The offer comes at a time when Russia is desperately looking at measures to boost its own economy which has taken a massive beating especially with falling crude prices and international  sanctions. It is akin to the sale of twenty four SU 35 Fighters to China , a more than $2 Billion deal based on harsh economic realities that Putin is facing domestically.
India, however needs to measure it’s responses to both the discussion with the US and the offer from Russia on stringent parameters which necessarily arise from its own requirements,  the technologies, the financial angle and geopolitical  realities.

Pros and Cons

United States

1. Technology existing with US -hastens the process of acquisition of technology which otherwise would mean international  help.
2. Transfer of Technology will catapult India into select group of countries possessing such technology.
3. Financially viable proposition in the long term with additional promise of creation of employment opportunities. 
4. It will further strengthen Indo-US ties.
5. The US is currently restricting itself to EMALS ( Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System).
6. So far no mention of transfer of nuclear propulsion technology.
7. Time bound project would augur  well for the Indian Navy’s long term strategy.

Pros and  Cons 

Russia

1. India has worked with Russia for acquisition of INS Vikramaditya ( Kiev class carrier) which Russia claims gives it the requisite experience for building such supercarriers.
2. Russia claims it can give India the requisite nuclear propulsion technology 
3. The supercarrier may cost as much as $ 12 billion- will that be a financially viable deal?
4. Any decision in favour of Russia will help to cement Indo-Russia  relations which has taken a beating due to India’s  perceived shift to the US for defence procurement.
5. If delays in Admiral Gorshkov’s  case are any indication it may entail a long wait, jeopardising the Indian Navy’s strategic plans.
6. Russia has shown a tendency to go back on its guarantee process. There are no iron clad guarantees with Russia.

Barring the issue of nuclear propulsion technology , it may well be in Indian interest to continue with the US option. If a need is felt to buttress Indo-Russian  relations , several other defence projects can do the same without holding to ransom such an important project as the nuclear supercarrier. 

Image Courtesy: Google Images 

The Nadir of Ethical Journalism?

      “All this trouble from a matchbox like this” 
-Hosni Mubarak, erstwhile President of Egypt, upon touring Al Jazeera Headquarters in Doha, Qatar, in Spring 2000

Does the media play a purposive, Pragmatic and positive role in transforming mental constructs regarding the  conflict in J&K or does it act as a tool for a new age psychological warfare? 

With the recent killing of 22 Hizb-ul-Mujahideen operative Burhan Wani it is critical that we must now dissect  the dynamics and various paradigms of Media’s role in escalating and de-escalating conflict and this also entails the development of a common ground to understand universally accepted basic academic perceptions, theories revolving around the increasing power of media in contemporary times, both domestic and international, with a comparative perspective. To understand political ideologies, processes, decision making political institutions, war strategies and functioning of a nation in times of conflict and peace , in- depth knowledge about the socio economic and historical background which provides a support structure on which new trends in conflict reporting are further analysed, becomes necessary.
What made Wani a hero or a poster boy of terrorism in the valley was  the pivotal role of Media in determining the conduct of governments, laws governing the masses and explaining political formulae such as national welfare, national security, conflict resolution, transformation and peace building etc. Wani posing with weapons and posting images on social networks was a clear indication that something was not right in the way he looked at the world around him.
Most of the available literature on Media and Media intervention in conflict as well as peace revolves around the implications of “info-attacks” i.e disinformation, psychological disillusionment and propaganda stories ,campaigns which may or may not lead to conflict and also which may or may not lead to resolution of conflict and transformation of post conflict societies.
It was essentially this info attack that coaxed Wani to pick up arms.
The way forward : In a world where news is just 140 characters away , one simply cannot trust what is being posted online or reported from a newsroom. Gone are the days when news was restricted to a half an hour slot in between the evening movie screening on our national channel. The breaking news formula reached new heights with the mushrooming of news channels and spread on the Internet from 2005 onwards. The mad race for increased TRP s forced once ethical journalists to now report on just anything and everything  under the sun. 
Media discourses have undergone discernible changes in the last few decades and with changing global political order, wars, natural calamities and political mobilisation a fresh approach towards understanding the functioning of Media in times of conflict and peace becomes inevitable. Equally, the need of the hour is to remember that an arbitration by juxtaposed media, however well meaning may serve to aggravate situations, inflame passions and therefore subvert or frustrate conflict resolution measures. 
In all intents and purposes the mushrooming of 24x7 News Channels , widespread use of the world wide web and the rise of Social Media platforms recently have redefined the mental constructs that helped us to understand the functioning of Global political order especially in times of Conflict and Peace. The effect of a strongly linked, cosmopolitan and international neighbourhood owing to superior access to all forms of media may not necessarily be a positive aspect; ideologies, identities, territorial integrities, and indeed the very concept of nation states may be challenged by perceptions of global institutions percolating via the Media.
Access to 24x7 real time information through diverse media forms and their ability to mould perceptions have forced a reevaluation by governments, international businesses and even non state actors to view the heightened role of the Media in the shaping of conflict. Time and Space are two distinct variables in communication studies that have aided paradigm changes in existing theories and questions that have already been answered but need a fresh perspective that can solve key issues which affect the socio political environment in contemporary times. With real time broadcasting of on ground events our perceptions about the world around us have undergone significant changes. One of the sterling examples of this was demonstrated during the 9/11 attacks on the American mainland; raw ability to transpose events as they unfolded into people's homes was on evidence, giving a perspective not seen hithertofore.
It has been widely debated that the Media is prone as well as responsive to influences wielded by governments because of their inherent need to access corridors of power. Contrarily it has also been argued that governments are vulnerable and inclined to pressures by commercial media, due to their widespread reach and their ravenous yearning to connect with the masses. Eminent political philosopher Aristotle had said that man is by nature a social animal and therefore the relationship that thus develops between man and the state becomes an important subject matter of research, with ultimate aim of that defining relationship being welfare and happiness.
Welfare and happiness has taken a backseat and voices all across the media community have elicited the response that it is war or conflict that makes news and not peace. This bias is evident from the way our production teams shift focus on violence being recorded on camera even though it may be just one sporadic incident. 
Wani having an access to social media clearly calls for a deeper introspection on the dangers of having unlimited access to images and Videos without any control on the content by any establishment. Therefore it is the media which can act as a damage control tool by highlighting both sides of the story involving the Valley. 
One simply cannot choose violence over peaceful dialogue and blow it out of proportion for higher television  ratings. This marks the end of ethical journalism and end of civil society.  Where are we heading. The solution does not revolve around political powerhouses or the military bases in the valley.  Newsrooms and classrooms can serve as the larger cauldron from which pragmatic positive and purposive dialogues can emerge.

Image Courtsey: Google Images 


           

The Dichotomy of the Discourse in Jammu & Kashmir

The land sees violence just as matter-of-factly as most others see peace. It is marred by almost daily curfews and protests involving  hundreds of thousands pouring out onto the streets. Incidents of violent stone pelting in response to gun-toting armed forces result in clampdown by the machinery of the state. This is Jammu and Kashmir today ; despite the complete weight  of the establishment, violence has become a way of life.

One of Asia’s apparently  inveterate  and almost ceaseless  conflict has no political  solution in sight. Mainstream political parties at both regional and national level are perceived as having no inclination towards resolution; Instead they pay lip service in times of uneasy calm doing little or nothing to seek dialogue with the stakeholders. The rhetoric  remains the same, only the faces espousing the rhetoric change from one election to another.

This has seen growing clamour from sections of civil society, academicians and indeed all right thinking individuals, shifting the focus inexorably to a  questioning of New Delhi ’ s policy on Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) – is it simply erroneous or impervious to the demands of the times?. Extant literature has ample proof of the utter disinterest that the state machinery has shown in any move towards resolution . As is often quoted mindless suppression by the state cannot make for an ideal climate of dialogue. Even if one discards Pakistan’s  baseless claims on the state of J&K it is simply impossible to ignore a continuous and ever increasing demand for self determination. The youth fighting as armed militants today were not even born when trouble erupted in 1989-1990 but they have definitely  grown up in a climate of sheer alienation, fear hatred and animosity towards the establishment which is unfortunately  and largely denoted by the humongous presence of the Armed forces in the state. What no one has bothered  to acknowledge are the aspirations of this youth, a constituency  equally capable of swinging elections as of swinging  public opinion. This is a generation which is adept at use of social media and the power of the Internet and indeed , do so, despite severe clamp downs by the government.

J&K’s  chequered history from the inception of the independent countries of India and Pakistan  in 1947 has little meaning for the generation of today. However, what does make a difference is regimented memory ( or in this case folklore ). More than four decades or repeated decimation and abrogation of the electoral process coupled with slow institutional decay , definitely  makes for great folklore ! What does make a difference is the word -of mouth passage of information outlining the transition from the pro India times of the 40’s,  50’s and  60’s to the eruption of militancy in the 1990’s  to outright rebellion against Indian control in the first decade and half of the new millennium. This folklore is what moulds the minds of the youth today largely focusing on the harsh control exerted by the state through its armed forces.

Needless to say the whole process has been generously aided and abetted by Pakistan in the garb of a symbolic unity with the people of J&K . All the while, it has actually been trying to wrest  control of J&K from India. Pakistan realised from its earlier futile attempts that the option is not possible militarily (Pakistan has fought four wars with India with the core issue of J&K). It has therefore adopted the via-media of a hybrid conflict meant to slowly bleed India and keep its conventional forces tied down in the bargain. In the meantime the Pakistani establishment has carefully downplayed it’s own legacy of violence in the part of J&K controlled by it , known as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir  (POK) or Azad Kashmir; depending on which side of the fence you are on.

The recent killing of 22 year old Hizb-ul-Mujahideen operative Burhan Wani has once again seen  large scale violence erupting across the state. Interestingly the incident has numerous facets meriting attention and analysis. First amongst those is how the persona  of Burhan Wani  was built up. Enough investigative, analytical and anecdotal evidence exists for us to piece together this information. 

Wani was the son of Muzaffar Ahmed Wani and younger sibling of Khalid  Wani of Tral in South Kashmir. As a young boy apparently  good at his studies , he seems to have been exposed to the extreme measures adopted by the Armed forces in the case of his elder brother and his father. Following the 2008 and 2010  suppression of youth protests, Wani emerged on social media as the face of militancy , posting pictures of himself and his friends in combat fatigues with an open display of assault rifles and other weapons. Where the Armed forces saw him as a terrorist , popular opinion rapidly built up by social media , deemed him as the face of youthful aspirations.

The second facet meriting  analysis is the increasing role of social media in formulating public opinion. With the near universal outreach of social media platforms it is a dangerous tool in the wrong hands. Similar popularising of extremist views has been seen in the case of Islamic State in the middle east. This discourse tends to veer towards the level of control that state agencies must exert on activities  of non-state actors on social media platforms.

The third facet is the role of mainstream print and telecast media. In the instance of the Wani killing , an increasing focus has been on keeping the J&K issue artificially stoked in a bid to garner Television Rating Points (TRP). In the past too , the media has not shown a maturity in dealing with such news. Similarly government  sources place the blame squarely on the Media for not amply highlighting measures initiated by the government to resolve the contentious  issue. In either case , it has served to put a blot on the integrity and unbiased reporting by the media.

Stuck amidst the chaos, are the Armed forces, tasked to maintain peace at all costs. They have been granted sweeping powers under the Public Safety Act ( PSA) and the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act ( AFSPA) . Both these are perceived as draconian by the public opinion but essential by the Armed forces tasked to fight armed terrorists who are not bound by any code of ethics. The Armed forces are also unable to counter onslaught of media and social media generated hyperbole. The tremendous experience garnered by the Armed forces by constantly having an ear to the ground could have been gainfully utilised to ensure a transition to post conflict transformation. In practice , this is not so , indeed the Armed forces are often ignored in the play between whimsical political interests and bureaucratic tangles. As a result the Armed forces are forced to maintain a stony faced silence in a conflict that is bleeding their ability to fight conventional opponents.

Most unbiased writers have written scathing articles , ranging from the sarcastic to outrightly questioning and targeting the flawed policies followed by the establishment. Successive governments have ignored the largest stakeholders in a peace process- all those who benefit  from a return to normalcy and a resurgence in tourism, once considered the biggest industry in J&K. A case in point of how political interests overtake other compulsions is the role of Mehbooba Mufti  in the 2010 protests. She was  then, an opposition leader; she is today the Chief Minister of the State when it is witnessing a resurrection of the same violence. The fact remains that the credibility of all mainstream political parties is at an all time low. Neither do they have leaders who by sheer force of personality can steer public opinion away from violence ; nor do they have policies to stem a growing alienation.  With rapidly escalating tensions, the situation may well spiral out of control. Political rhetoric dwelling on peace has failed the test of Vox Populi. 

Images courtesy: Google images

The South China Sea Imbroglio

The ruling of an international  tribunal at the Permanent  Court of Arbitration  ( PCA) yesterday has finally  and decisively pronounced a verdict on the legality of China's position in the South China Sea.

Though China has refused to be part of the proceedings claiming that the matter pertains to its territorial waters or maritime borders and hence out of the purview of the PCA, the Phillipines managed to ask for an assessment  of its own sovereign rights, jurisdiction over its maritime entitlements, and the validity of China's nine-dash-line claim under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS).

Very categorically, the ruling has it that there exists no legal basis for China's claims to historic rights to resources within its nine-dash-line. Further it says China has aggravated the dispute and violated the Phillipines' sovereign rights by its construction  of artificial islands and interference with fishing and energy exploration. This brings us to the interesting question of future positions of various players.

The Phillipines : Though it may not be in any state to challenge China militarily, the Phillipines  has successfully  staged a diplomatic coup  and has sound legal backing for future claims or disputes in the area.With the mercurial Duterte now the President of the Phillipines  we my see further action on this front.

China : The dragon does not seem overtly concerned and with the kind of construction activity and setting up of military basis, is not likely to now rescind its position. Having gone from strength to strength economically and militarily, China does not need any international  approval that it used to seek in the past. Overall it may not make very substantial difference to China's stance, but it will have to deal with greater resolve and antagonism on the part of other stakeholders.

Other Littoral States : This decision will certainly boost the claims of other littoral states as also give them moral and legal ascendancy.

United States : The US is now in a stronger legal position to bring to bear pressure on China in its dealing with the South China Sea Imbroglio. Though this may not be sufficient to make any difference in actual terms, the US  will be on a moral high ground when it takes up military and naval exercises in the area along with countries such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and South Korea.