<p>It is hard to imagine that most Americans have survived a year under the weight of a chaotic presidency. A year ago, the American political landscape was permanently transformed when Donald Trump was elected its 45th President. Trump rose to power by channeling the worst xenophobic and misogynist impulses that had, for long, stayed dormant in American society.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>His economic platform was heavily protectionist and the social one, a dog-whistle to white supremacists. He brought with him a history of sexual misconduct, displayed little grace in international diplomacy, demonstrated a shocking ignorance of American and international politics, and in the past year, has essentially ceded much of America&rsquo;s global leadership.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Moving forward, the Trump presidency is likely to further damage the credibility of American political institutions and destabilize the liberal international order. &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>A year into the Trump presidency reveals several dangerous trends.&nbsp;</p>

<p>First, the president has shown little regard for America&rsquo;s most cherished political institutions &ndash; in particular &ndash; a free press and law enforcement. The liberal press has come under heavy attack for seeking accountability on facts. In what has turned into an hourly ritual, the president takes to social media where he attacks, vilifies, and spreads false information about the press, sowing confusion and breeding ignorance among the average American public.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Intelligence officials and law enforcement agencies have faced similar persecution. The unceremonious dismissal of the FBI Director, James Comey, in May 2017, for investigating the Trump presidency&rsquo;s links to Russia, was a remarkable abuse of political power. Donald Trump&rsquo;s strong-arm tactics, threats, and coercion signal a dark new reality. America is slowly but surely embracing authoritarianism. A reckless and power-hungry president with no respect for checks and balances threatens to seriously weaken American institutions and some critics correctly predict a possible constitutional crisis emerging soon.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Second, the Trump presidency has become synonymous with reclaiming white nationalism, evident in the president&rsquo;s inclination for harsh immigration policies (recall the Muslim ban, &ldquo;building the wall&rdquo; with Mexico) and his recent statements disparaging immigrants from non-white countries.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>A combination of exclusionary policies and toxic rhetoric carries a ringing endorsement that unless you are white, you are not American. The Republican party shows signs of moral decay, failing to call out the president on his actions and is complicit in aiding a white nationalist agenda.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Third, Donald Trump believes America needs a stronger military to win its wars. This means a more muscular approach in foreign policy, sharp increases in defense expenditure, more bombs, more weapons, but little reflection on the lessons of history for America&rsquo;s future conduct of war. While the president swears by the American military, his actual policies and statements on transgender troops and women in the military are deeply prejudiced and will dent the image and professionalism of the American military.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>American civil-military relations often appear to be in tension when the president and his advisors make contradictory statements on matters of national security. While both James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, and H.R. McMaster, National Security Advisor, have shown thought and resolve on pressing national security issues like North Korea and Iraq, it is not entirely clear how much influence they can ultimately exercise in shaping policy independent of the president&rsquo;s political preferences.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Finally, America&rsquo;s image as the leader of the free world has suffered a major debacle abroad. An understaffed State Department, withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, and a less prominent role in the United Nations are some of the many diplomatic failings of this presidency pointing to the growing absence of global American leadership.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>What might a Trump presidency mean for India?&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The answer here is hard to predict as little value can be placed on the words of an unpredictable megalomaniac. It is unlikely that the Trump administration will significantly deviate from the Obama administration&rsquo;s approach to India. Cooperation in defense, trade, and technology will continue as before and the two countries will continue to maintain a viable partnership.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The only decisive shift affecting foreign relations of both countries could emerge on the Pakistan front. In recent months and weeks, Trump has taken a much harder line on Pakistan than previous administrations. He has communicated a strong desire to dismantle terrorist groups, called Pakistan a state-sponsor of terrorism, and in the last few weeks, withdrawn aid to the country. Trump&rsquo;s pressure on Pakistan has been welcomed by many of India&rsquo;s top political leaders.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>While this works in favor of Indian security interests, it would be profoundly unwise for India to predicate its Pakistan policy around Donald Trump&rsquo;s plan to isolate Pakistan. As much as Trump believes, in theory, that Pakistan can be backed into a corner, it will be much harder, in fact, for the United States to sever all ties with Pakistan. The United States will require Pakistan&rsquo;s support to fight terrorism in some form and it would be prudent for India to not allow America&rsquo;s relationship with Pakistan to be the defining benchmark of its relationship with both. &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>A separate and troubling moral question the Trump presidency poses for India is whether India is going to ignore the revival of white nationalism at its own peril to embrace its security interests first. America has a large Indian-American immigrant population who will, undoubtedly, be seriously impacted by Trump&rsquo;s immigration policies.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Tata Consultancy, India&rsquo;s largest software exporter, has already expressed serious concerns over the administration&rsquo;s unclear and draconian H1-B policy. Since Trump became president, Indian communities have also been threatened and persecuted by resurgent white nationalist groups. Some have even been murdered. Case in point: Srinivas Kuchibhotla, a 32-year-old Indian immigrant who was shot to death in Olathe, Kansas by a white nationalist.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>There are important moral questions for the future of Indians living in America that are equally vital for India to consider in its current relationship with the United States. White nationalism is a scourge and India is no stranger to the legacy of colonialism. To secure a stronger economic future with America, it should not compromise its moral standing in the world.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


Trump administration will not significantly deviate from the Obama administration’s approach to India. Cooperation in defense, trade, and technology will continue as before.

It is hard to imagine that most Americans have survived a year under the weight of a chaotic presidency. A year ago, the American political landscape was permanently transformed when Donald Trump was elected its 45th President. Trump rose to power by channeling the worst xenophobic and misogynist impulses that had, for long, stayed dormant in American society. His economic platform was heavily protectionist and the social one, a dog-whistle to white supremacists. He brought with him a history of sexual misconduct, displayed little grace in international diplomacy, demonstrated a shocking ignorance of American and international politics, and in the past year, has essentially ceded much of America’s global leadership. Moving forward, the Trump presidency is likely to further damage the credibility of American political institutions and destabilize the liberal international order. A year into the Trump presidency reveals several dangerous trends. First, the president has shown little regard for America’s most cherished political institutions – in particular – a free press and law enforcement. The liberal press has come under heavy attack for seeking accountability on facts. In what has turned into an hourly ritual, the president takes to social media where he attacks, vilifies, and spreads false information about the press, sowing confusion and breeding ignorance among the average American public. Intelligence officials and law enforcement agencies have faced similar persecution. The unceremonious dismissal of the FBI Director, James Comey, in May 2017, for investigating the Trump presidency’s links to Russia, was a remarkable abuse of political power. Donald Trump’s strong-arm tactics, threats, and coercion signal a dark new reality. America is slowly but surely embracing authoritarianism. A reckless and power-hungry president with no respect for checks and balances threatens to seriously weaken American institutions and some critics correctly predict a possible constitutional crisis emerging soon. Second, the Trump presidency has become synonymous with reclaiming white nationalism, evident in the president’s inclination for harsh immigration policies (recall the Muslim ban, “building the wall” with Mexico) and his recent statements disparaging immigrants from non-white countries. A combination of exclusionary policies and toxic rhetoric carries a ringing endorsement that unless you are white, you are not American. The Republican party shows signs of moral decay, failing to call out the president on his actions and is complicit in aiding a white nationalist agenda. Third, Donald Trump believes America needs a stronger military to win its wars. This means a more muscular approach in foreign policy, sharp increases in defense expenditure, more bombs, more weapons, but little reflection on the lessons of history for America’s future conduct of war. While the president swears by the American military, his actual policies and statements on transgender troops and women in the military are deeply prejudiced and will dent the image and professionalism of the American military. American civil-military relations often appear to be in tension when the president and his advisors make contradictory statements on matters of national security. While both James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, and H.R. McMaster, National Security Advisor, have shown thought and resolve on pressing national security issues like North Korea and Iraq, it is not entirely clear how much influence they can ultimately exercise in shaping policy independent of the president’s political preferences. Finally, America’s image as the leader of the free world has suffered a major debacle abroad. An understaffed State Department, withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, and a less prominent role in the United Nations are some of the many diplomatic failings of this presidency pointing to the growing absence of global American leadership. What might a Trump presidency mean for India? The answer here is hard to predict as little value can be placed on the words of an unpredictable megalomaniac. It is unlikely that the Trump administration will significantly deviate from the Obama administration’s approach to India. Cooperation in defense, trade, and technology will continue as before and the two countries will continue to maintain a viable partnership. The only decisive shift affecting foreign relations of both countries could emerge on the Pakistan front. In recent months and weeks, Trump has taken a much harder line on Pakistan than previous administrations. He has communicated a strong desire to dismantle terrorist groups, called Pakistan a state-sponsor of terrorism, and in the last few weeks, withdrawn aid to the country. Trump’s pressure on Pakistan has been welcomed by many of India’s top political leaders. While this works in favor of Indian security interests, it would be profoundly unwise for India to predicate its Pakistan policy around Donald Trump’s plan to isolate Pakistan. As much as Trump believes, in theory, that Pakistan can be backed into a corner, it will be much harder, in fact, for the United States to sever all ties with Pakistan. The United States will require Pakistan’s support to fight terrorism in some form and it would be prudent for India to not allow America’s relationship with Pakistan to be the defining benchmark of its relationship with both. A separate and troubling moral question the Trump presidency poses for India is whether India is going to ignore the revival of white nationalism at its own peril to embrace its security interests first. America has a large Indian-American immigrant population who will, undoubtedly, be seriously impacted by Trump’s immigration policies. Tata Consultancy, India’s largest software exporter, has already expressed serious concerns over the administration’s unclear and draconian H1-B policy. Since Trump became president, Indian communities have also been threatened and persecuted by resurgent white nationalist groups. Some have even been murdered. Case in point: Srinivas Kuchibhotla, a 32-year-old Indian immigrant who was shot to death in Olathe, Kansas by a white nationalist. There are important moral questions for the future of Indians living in America that are equally vital for India to consider in its current relationship with the United States. White nationalism is a scourge and India is no stranger to the legacy of colonialism. To secure a stronger economic future with America, it should not compromise its moral standing in the world. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: What might a Trump presidency mean for India and US?

<p>Perhaps no single demographic faces greater persecution than women living in conflict zones. Either as members of rebel groups or victims of state-led violence, women in armed conflict are vulnerable and usually always the victims.</p>

<p>This victimisation is part of an organised policy that weaponises their bodies and minds for dominance, power and control by men, in war. And it&rsquo;s a method chosen by both state and non-state actors. Whether it be the enslavement of thousands of Yazidi women by ISIS, the abduction of women and girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria, or the mass-scale rapes of women by soldiers in Syria, conflict always reveals horrific levels of repression women across the world continue to face. India is no exception to the rule. Frequently prone to insurgencies and ethnic conflict, the stories of women in India&rsquo;s conflict zones, whether it is Manipur, Chattisgarh, or Kashmir, bear the scars of brutality, sexual violence, and oppression.</p>

<p>One of the most important cases that catapulted the issue of brutality against women in war in India was the murder of a Manipuri girl, Thangjam Manorama by members of the 17 Assam Rifles. The Chairman of the Judicial Inquiry Commission tasked with the responsibility to investigate the murder called it one of the most shocking custodial killings.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>In Kashmir, years of a brutal insurgency between the Indian state and militant groups inflicted its highest toll on women.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=In Kashmir, years of a brutal insurgency between the Indian state and militant groups inflicted its highest toll on women."><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Thangjam had been sexually assaulted repeatedly and had eight bullets pumped into her. In Kashmir, years of a brutal insurgency between the Indian state and militant groups inflicted its highest toll on women. Rita Manchanda and Urvashi Bhutalia who have extensively worked on this issue show, in their body of work, that in Kashmir, women are either killed in crossfire, shot at in public demonstrations, blown up in grenade explosions across the Line of Control (LoC) or raped by militants.</p>

<p>Both security forces and militant groups use rape as an instrument of control, though, the objectives are markedly different. While militants use rape to humiliate and silence members of minority communities like the Kashmiri Pandits and Sikhs, Indian security forces have used rape to punish those suspected of links to militant groups.</p>

<p>A Human Rights Report published by the US State Department in 1999-2000 documents how paramilitary forces in Jammu and Kashmir and the police were culpable in a broader pattern of custodial abuse. The 1991 Kunan-Pushpora incident is still a dark episode in the history of Kashmir&rsquo;s internal conflict when four soldiers belonging to the Rashtriya Rifles allegedly raped at least 23 women in Kashmir&rsquo;s Kunan and Pushpora villages.</p>

<p>Twenty-six years later, six of the victims are deceased and justice remains elusive. In a separate case in 2009, 22-year-old Neelofer Jan and her 17-year-old sister-in-law Asiya Jan were allegedly raped and murdered by CRPF forces in Shopian, Kashmir. Despite setting up several inquiries to investigate the matter, the results were inconclusive and justice, again, a foregone conclusion.</p>

<p>There is another side to the story, though. A 2017 NPR report reveals how many Kashmiri women are actively aiding militants against the Indian state. Alternatively, Kashmiri Pandit women belonging to the Hindu community are killed in militant attacks, the 1998 Wandhama massacre being the case in point. These stories are telling in that not just majority Muslim women but Hindu women and those belonging to minority groups in Kashmir are caught in a relentless cycle of violence between state and militant groups.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The women are deeply indoctrinated into an ideology that views violence as a means of liberation and emancipation.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The women are deeply indoctrinated into an ideology that views violence as a means of liberation and emancipation."><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Women living in Maoist-held insurgent territory face a similar fate. In 2015, the National Human Rights Commission reported that at least 16 tribal women were allegedly raped and killed by police in Bastar. While many of these reports are evidence of the impunity state security forces and police exercise in conflict zones, one cannot entirely ignore the role of female Maoist cadres leading an orchestrated campaign of violence against the Indian state.</p>

<p>But their victimisation has a different source. These women are deeply indoctrinated into an ideology that views violence as a means of liberation and emancipation. Much of the result of such ideological violence is that the same women inevitably become victims of both state violence and extremist indoctrination, their bodies constant targets of physical and emotional abuse.</p>

<p>Where do we go from here? There are several ways to address the subjugation and brutalisation of women in India&rsquo;s conflict zones. While these measures will not entirely eliminate the problem, they could alleviate the suffering of many women.</p>

<p>First, a speedy justice system that punishes the perpetrators quickly is essential. Much of the violence against women continues unabated when those perpetrating the abuse are convinced they can get away with it. For instance, problematic parts of laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) need to be amended to place limits on military powers.</p>

<p>Second, police and military personnel must receive mandatory training and socialisation in how to approach women in conflict zones, carrying a penalty for misdemeanours.</p>

<p>Third, civil society must work with non-governmental organisations to spread greater awareness about the experiences of women in violence-afflicted zones and offer assistance in any way possible. Journalists, too, must continue to educate and confront the problem. Finally, cultural norms that sustain a deeply patriarchal society must be challenged and broken. The onus is on us, both men and women, to do it.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).</em></p>


There is need to end violence against women in conflict zones because as members of rebel groups or victims of state-led violence, women in armed conflict are vulnerable and usually the victims

Perhaps no single demographic faces greater persecution than women living in conflict zones. Either as members of rebel groups or victims of state-led violence, women in armed conflict are vulnerable and usually always the victims. This victimisation is part of an organised policy that weaponises their bodies and minds for dominance, power and control by men, in war. And it’s a method chosen by both state and non-state actors. Whether it be the enslavement of thousands of Yazidi women by ISIS, the abduction of women and girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria, or the mass-scale rapes of women by soldiers in Syria, conflict always reveals horrific levels of repression women across the world continue to face. India is no exception to the rule. Frequently prone to insurgencies and ethnic conflict, the stories of women in India’s conflict zones, whether it is Manipur, Chattisgarh, or Kashmir, bear the scars of brutality, sexual violence, and oppression. One of the most important cases that catapulted the issue of brutality against women in war in India was the murder of a Manipuri girl, Thangjam Manorama by members of the 17 Assam Rifles. The Chairman of the Judicial Inquiry Commission tasked with the responsibility to investigate the murder called it one of the most shocking custodial killings. In Kashmir, years of a brutal insurgency between the Indian state and militant groups inflicted its highest toll on women. × Thangjam had been sexually assaulted repeatedly and had eight bullets pumped into her. In Kashmir, years of a brutal insurgency between the Indian state and militant groups inflicted its highest toll on women. Rita Manchanda and Urvashi Bhutalia who have extensively worked on this issue show, in their body of work, that in Kashmir, women are either killed in crossfire, shot at in public demonstrations, blown up in grenade explosions across the Line of Control (LoC) or raped by militants. Both security forces and militant groups use rape as an instrument of control, though, the objectives are markedly different. While militants use rape to humiliate and silence members of minority communities like the Kashmiri Pandits and Sikhs, Indian security forces have used rape to punish those suspected of links to militant groups. A Human Rights Report published by the US State Department in 1999-2000 documents how paramilitary forces in Jammu and Kashmir and the police were culpable in a broader pattern of custodial abuse. The 1991 Kunan-Pushpora incident is still a dark episode in the history of Kashmir’s internal conflict when four soldiers belonging to the Rashtriya Rifles allegedly raped at least 23 women in Kashmir’s Kunan and Pushpora villages. Twenty-six years later, six of the victims are deceased and justice remains elusive. In a separate case in 2009, 22-year-old Neelofer Jan and her 17-year-old sister-in-law Asiya Jan were allegedly raped and murdered by CRPF forces in Shopian, Kashmir. Despite setting up several inquiries to investigate the matter, the results were inconclusive and justice, again, a foregone conclusion. There is another side to the story, though. A 2017 NPR report reveals how many Kashmiri women are actively aiding militants against the Indian state. Alternatively, Kashmiri Pandit women belonging to the Hindu community are killed in militant attacks, the 1998 Wandhama massacre being the case in point. These stories are telling in that not just majority Muslim women but Hindu women and those belonging to minority groups in Kashmir are caught in a relentless cycle of violence between state and militant groups. The women are deeply indoctrinated into an ideology that views violence as a means of liberation and emancipation. × Women living in Maoist-held insurgent territory face a similar fate. In 2015, the National Human Rights Commission reported that at least 16 tribal women were allegedly raped and killed by police in Bastar. While many of these reports are evidence of the impunity state security forces and police exercise in conflict zones, one cannot entirely ignore the role of female Maoist cadres leading an orchestrated campaign of violence against the Indian state. But their victimisation has a different source. These women are deeply indoctrinated into an ideology that views violence as a means of liberation and emancipation. Much of the result of such ideological violence is that the same women inevitably become victims of both state violence and extremist indoctrination, their bodies constant targets of physical and emotional abuse. Where do we go from here? There are several ways to address the subjugation and brutalisation of women in India’s conflict zones. While these measures will not entirely eliminate the problem, they could alleviate the suffering of many women. First, a speedy justice system that punishes the perpetrators quickly is essential. Much of the violence against women continues unabated when those perpetrating the abuse are convinced they can get away with it. For instance, problematic parts of laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) need to be amended to place limits on military powers. Second, police and military personnel must receive mandatory training and socialisation in how to approach women in conflict zones, carrying a penalty for misdemeanours. Third, civil society must work with non-governmental organisations to spread greater awareness about the experiences of women in violence-afflicted zones and offer assistance in any way possible. Journalists, too, must continue to educate and confront the problem. Finally, cultural norms that sustain a deeply patriarchal society must be challenged and broken. The onus is on us, both men and women, to do it. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Women and the wounds of war

<p>In an important step forward to initiate dialogue with the Kashmiris, the Modi government has appointed former Director of Intelligence Bureau, Dineshwar Sharma, to facilitate talks on behalf of the government with various representatives of Kashmir. Sharma comes armed with experience and insight having served previously as an interlocutor for peace talks with Assam&rsquo;s insurgent group, the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA).</p>

<p>While the appointment is promising, it is unclear if it merely represents a symbolic gesture or if New Delhi is seriously intent on engaging with the Kashmiris. While it is premature to assess Sharma&rsquo;s ability to bring contesting parties to the negotiating table, there are several reasons why the job will be a highly challenging one and is unlikely to improve relations between the central government and Kashmiris.&nbsp;</p>

<p>A question most Indian administrations are reticent to discuss (including this one) is whether New Delhi is ultimately interested in seeking a political settlement to the Kashmir conflict. This means for a negotiated settlement to work, the facilitator of peace talks will need to address the political aspirations of those who seek an independent Kashmir.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Kashmir is deeply embedded in its idea of territorial integrity and sovereignty which has not been up for debate until now and is unlikely to change even with the appointment of an interlocutor.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Kashmir is deeply embedded in its idea of territorial integrity and sovereignty which has not been up for debate until now and is unlikely to change even with the appointment of an interlocutor.?" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>This includes a variety of pro-secessionist groups, including the Hurriyat and the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). If Sharma comes to the negotiating table representing the primary political interests of the BJP and the Indian state, then a long-term settlement is unlikely to succeed. If, however, Sharma intends to exercise his agency independent of New Delhi and be willing to address the grievances of a variety of Kashmiri groups, he could be in a stronger position to influence change.</p>

<p>Note, this is not the first attempt to manage the conflict diplomatically. Even if efforts to influence Kashmiris yield a positive outcome internally, talks with Pakistan still remain on the agenda as the next necessary step. Several bilateral and diplomatic channels already exist between the two countries and yet the conflict remains unresolved with both states unwilling to compromise their respective territorial positions on Kashmir. For India, Kashmir is deeply embedded in its idea of territorial integrity and sovereignty which has not been up for debate until now and is unlikely to change even with the appointment of an interlocutor.</p>

<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/reality-bites-centre-appoints-an-interlocutor-for-kashmir-talks-22768">Reality bites: Centre appoints an interlocutor for Kashmir talks</a></strong></p>

<p>Second, the highly communal and polarised nature of the conflict will make it harder for the interlocutor to maintain a fair balance between opposing religious groups. Kashmiri Muslims are increasingly aware of the Modi government&rsquo;s Hindu nationalist and majoritarian anti-Muslim, anti-minority rhetoric and will view any attempt at negotiations suspiciously. Kashmiri Hindus, on the other hand, will seek to aggressively push their interests having been purged from the Kashmir valley at the height of the Islamist insurgency in the 1990s. How successfully will Sharma be able to navigate these two opposing movements?&nbsp;</p>

<p>Third, the appointment raises the issue of whether it signals a gradual shift in India&rsquo;s Kashmir strategy from that which has predominantly relied on military solutions to one that actively pursues diplomacy over the use of force. The current government in New Delhi has mostly been interested in maintaining the status quo and no one has articulated a clear political strategy. Sharma&rsquo;s appointment also comes at a time when al-Qaeda and IS groups have made deep inroads into Kashmir, further damaging and undermining Indian security.</p>

<p>In July 2017, Zakir Musa, local commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen militant group, was appointed the head of al-Qaeda&rsquo;s unit in Kashmir, leaving a major al-Qaeda footprint in Kashmir. As of today, in an alarming new development, IS has released a video announcing that Kashmiri fighters are ready to pledge their allegiance to the Islamic State.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Indian government needs a strategy to prevent local Kashmiris from becoming further radicalised by militant groups.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Indian government needs a strategy to prevent local Kashmiris from becoming further radicalised by militant groups." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>At a time when the forces of Islamist extremism are deeply entrenched in Kashmir, the Indian government needs a strategy to prevent local Kashmiris from becoming further radicalised by militant groups. As a facilitator of dialogue, will Sharma seek to address de-radicalisation efforts and develop a series of counter-terrorism measures? Doing this, though, could introduce a contradiction in means and ends.</p>

<p>Faced with mounting threats and infiltration, it will be next to impossible for the Indian government to relinquish its military option. The next terrorist attack, the next border crisis with Pakistan, and the slightest provocation will stall or completely derail chances for dialogue. Again, external circumstances place severe limits on Sharma&rsquo;s ability to facilitate peace.</p>

<p>Much of the success of the interlocutor will depend then on how the Kashmir issue is framed. A clear strategy with well-articulated goals and objectives will be a start and we need more information on what these strategies will be. Until then, creating such appointments will serve little purpose.</p>


The success of the interlocutor depends on clear strategy with well-articulated goals and objectives on Kashmir issues

In an important step forward to initiate dialogue with the Kashmiris, the Modi government has appointed former Director of Intelligence Bureau, Dineshwar Sharma, to facilitate talks on behalf of the government with various representatives of Kashmir. Sharma comes armed with experience and insight having served previously as an interlocutor for peace talks with Assam’s insurgent group, the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). While the appointment is promising, it is unclear if it merely represents a symbolic gesture or if New Delhi is seriously intent on engaging with the Kashmiris. While it is premature to assess Sharma’s ability to bring contesting parties to the negotiating table, there are several reasons why the job will be a highly challenging one and is unlikely to improve relations between the central government and Kashmiris. A question most Indian administrations are reticent to discuss (including this one) is whether New Delhi is ultimately interested in seeking a political settlement to the Kashmir conflict. This means for a negotiated settlement to work, the facilitator of peace talks will need to address the political aspirations of those who seek an independent Kashmir. Kashmir is deeply embedded in its idea of territorial integrity and sovereignty which has not been up for debate until now and is unlikely to change even with the appointment of an interlocutor. × This includes a variety of pro-secessionist groups, including the Hurriyat and the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). If Sharma comes to the negotiating table representing the primary political interests of the BJP and the Indian state, then a long-term settlement is unlikely to succeed. If, however, Sharma intends to exercise his agency independent of New Delhi and be willing to address the grievances of a variety of Kashmiri groups, he could be in a stronger position to influence change. Note, this is not the first attempt to manage the conflict diplomatically. Even if efforts to influence Kashmiris yield a positive outcome internally, talks with Pakistan still remain on the agenda as the next necessary step. Several bilateral and diplomatic channels already exist between the two countries and yet the conflict remains unresolved with both states unwilling to compromise their respective territorial positions on Kashmir. For India, Kashmir is deeply embedded in its idea of territorial integrity and sovereignty which has not been up for debate until now and is unlikely to change even with the appointment of an interlocutor. Also Read: Reality bites: Centre appoints an interlocutor for Kashmir talks Second, the highly communal and polarised nature of the conflict will make it harder for the interlocutor to maintain a fair balance between opposing religious groups. Kashmiri Muslims are increasingly aware of the Modi government’s Hindu nationalist and majoritarian anti-Muslim, anti-minority rhetoric and will view any attempt at negotiations suspiciously. Kashmiri Hindus, on the other hand, will seek to aggressively push their interests having been purged from the Kashmir valley at the height of the Islamist insurgency in the 1990s. How successfully will Sharma be able to navigate these two opposing movements? Third, the appointment raises the issue of whether it signals a gradual shift in India’s Kashmir strategy from that which has predominantly relied on military solutions to one that actively pursues diplomacy over the use of force. The current government in New Delhi has mostly been interested in maintaining the status quo and no one has articulated a clear political strategy. Sharma’s appointment also comes at a time when al-Qaeda and IS groups have made deep inroads into Kashmir, further damaging and undermining Indian security. In July 2017, Zakir Musa, local commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen militant group, was appointed the head of al-Qaeda’s unit in Kashmir, leaving a major al-Qaeda footprint in Kashmir. As of today, in an alarming new development, IS has released a video announcing that Kashmiri fighters are ready to pledge their allegiance to the Islamic State. The Indian government needs a strategy to prevent local Kashmiris from becoming further radicalised by militant groups. × At a time when the forces of Islamist extremism are deeply entrenched in Kashmir, the Indian government needs a strategy to prevent local Kashmiris from becoming further radicalised by militant groups. As a facilitator of dialogue, will Sharma seek to address de-radicalisation efforts and develop a series of counter-terrorism measures? Doing this, though, could introduce a contradiction in means and ends. Faced with mounting threats and infiltration, it will be next to impossible for the Indian government to relinquish its military option. The next terrorist attack, the next border crisis with Pakistan, and the slightest provocation will stall or completely derail chances for dialogue. Again, external circumstances place severe limits on Sharma’s ability to facilitate peace. Much of the success of the interlocutor will depend then on how the Kashmir issue is framed. A clear strategy with well-articulated goals and objectives will be a start and we need more information on what these strategies will be. Until then, creating such appointments will serve little purpose.

Kashmir: Will the appointment of interlocutor change anything?

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Ayesha Ray

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.