India&#39;s foreign secretary S. Jaishankar<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/terrorism-anywhere-can-threaten-societies-anywhere-sushma-swaraj-at-raisina-dialogue-29822"> speaking at the Raisina Dialogue</a> stated that the rise of China, choices, postures, behaviour of the United States, the challenge of terrorism especially from ungoverned spaces and the rise of &quot;non-market economics&quot; would be the &quot;four big disruptions&quot; in times ahead.

While emphasizing that China<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/need-to-identify-nations-who-are-sponsors-of-terrorists-army-chief-at-raisina-dialogue-29797"> had &quot;opened up the international order&quot;,</a> the foreign secretary said: &quot;We need to have a balanced view. Certainly, for India, in some ways, China has been a motivator and an example.&quot;

&quot;Let&#39;s take the rise of China. Clearly what we are seeing is not just rise of global power but the rise of a very different power. And also whether that power will be a model to other countries or not, I think is an open question,&quot; Jaishankar said.

Jaishankar who is set to retire on January 28th said, &quot;Iraq was a disruption, in a sense Pakistan has, was, is, will be a disruptor. The Obama administration&#39;s choices on Russia were disruptions to international politics.&quot;

Expanding on the practice of &quot;non-market economics&quot; a term which means countries who seek to follow central planning, India&#39;s foreign secretary said: &quot;A lot of market economies are also practising non-market economics,&quot; while also pointing out that barriers in the trade and services were coming down.

India's foreign secretary said for India, China has been a motivator and an example.

India's foreign secretary S. Jaishankar speaking at the Raisina Dialogue stated that the rise of China, choices, postures, behaviour of the United States, the challenge of terrorism especially from ungoverned spaces and the rise of "non-market economics" would be the "four big disruptions" in times ahead. While emphasizing that China had "opened up the international order", the foreign secretary said: "We need to have a balanced view. Certainly, for India, in some ways, China has been a motivator and an example." "Let's take the rise of China. Clearly what we are seeing is not just rise of global power but the rise of a very different power. And also whether that power will be a model to other countries or not, I think is an open question," Jaishankar said. Jaishankar who is set to retire on January 28th said, "Iraq was a disruption, in a sense Pakistan has, was, is, will be a disruptor. The Obama administration's choices on Russia were disruptions to international politics." Expanding on the practice of "non-market economics" a term which means countries who seek to follow central planning, India's foreign secretary said: "A lot of market economies are also practising non-market economics," while also pointing out that barriers in the trade and services were coming down.

India's foreign secretary Jaishankar picks 'four big disruptions' at Raisina Dialogue

In the month of July 2017, A piece of news got published in different newspapers on the same day. Both India and Pakistan were covering a single incident of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. The sequence of events, as reported, was the same and the narrative was same too. The only difference was the outlook of the media of the two countries towards this news.

&nbsp;

The news pieces were related to a dreaded terrorist called Burhan Wani, who got killed in an encounter with security forces in Kokernag area of Kashmir valley.&nbsp; Burhan Wani was wanted for abetment of war against the Indian government and was known for his aggressive social media updates. While the Indian TV channels described it as a victory of Indian Forces over terrorism, nearly all the Pakistani newspapers, as well as media channels, described it as an act of barbarism from the Indian Security forces.

&nbsp;

While Indian channels termed Burhan Wani as a terrorist, Pakistani media referred him as a freedom fighter and an epitome of Kashmiri struggle. One of the Pakistani newspaper even compared him with Che Guevara, a legendary freedom fighter. Not only this, after nearly a month of his death on the Independence Day of Pakistan, the government ran a special train called Azadi Train where they featured the national heroes of Pakistan and Burhan Wani was reflected as one of the national heroes of the country.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Another interesting update is that one of the directors of Lollywood is making a movie on him which is, reportedly, funded by the government of Pakistan. The people who are wanted in serious acts of barbaric terrorism in India are termed as heroes in the neighbouring country.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The question is very simple, should a country support the acts of terror and glorify these terrorists as freedom fighters? India had been a victim of this state-sponsored terrorism for long and suffered the worst. More than 1.3 lakh people were killed in Kashmir because of terrorism. But this is just not a struggle. It is a clear case of state-sponsored terrorism.

&nbsp;

We must explore the role of media in the country. As we know, media is the fourth pillar of democracy and in any sensible country, media plays a vital role in criticising the policies of the government. In India, there have been instances where governments were forced to change their stance because of media criticism. The tougher laws for rape were made possible only after Nirbhaya gangrape case which was highlighted by the Indian media.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

But in Pakistan things are different. National media is under control of the government and anyone who tries to go against the government or Army is severely punished. The telecast of international channels is curbed from time to time and if the government thinks that any channel is not towing its line, it is prohibited in the country outrighted.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The attacks on media persons are a daily routine. In last 20 years itself, more than 70 senior national level media personals have been killed and more than 100 grievously injured. Most of them are kidnapped, beaten and threatened over the gunpoint by the government agencies so that their voice can be suppressed. Sabeen Mehmood, Aftab Alam, Abdul Shinwari, Haroon Khan, Hamid Mir and, more recently, Taha Siddiqui are the live example of this.

&nbsp;

Imagine a scenario where the leaders of the country are supporting the terrorism and the media has no say. This is the reason why Pakistan is unabatedly enhancing its support to terrorism and celebrating violence perpetrated by these so-called freedom fighters.

&nbsp;

What our neighbour is not able to understand is that terrorism cannot lead any country to a secure place. There have been many instances in the past where countries indulged in state-sponsored terrorism and ultimately suffered the worst. The examples of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Sudan and Uganda are visible to everyone. Initially, the countries were isolated internationally, followed by sanctions and then by either a military action or an economic breakdown. In case of Pakistan, the first step of isolating it has started already.

&nbsp;

So, what should our neighbour do? First, the government of Pakistan should understand that there is never good terrorism. All types of terror acts are bad and all of them should be dealt with a firm hand. A terrorist is always an enemy of humanity and any support to them is directly against the humanity. They must understand that unless a country has complete media freedom, it would always be like a table without a leg which cannot stand on its own.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

While Indian channels termed Burhan Wani as a terrorist, Pakistani media referred him as a freedom fighter and an epitome of Kashmiri struggle.

In the month of July 2017, A piece of news got published in different newspapers on the same day. Both India and Pakistan were covering a single incident of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. The sequence of events, as reported, was the same and the narrative was same too. The only difference was the outlook of the media of the two countries towards this news. The news pieces were related to a dreaded terrorist called Burhan Wani, who got killed in an encounter with security forces in Kokernag area of Kashmir valley. Burhan Wani was wanted for abetment of war against the Indian government and was known for his aggressive social media updates. While the Indian TV channels described it as a victory of Indian Forces over terrorism, nearly all the Pakistani newspapers, as well as media channels, described it as an act of barbarism from the Indian Security forces. While Indian channels termed Burhan Wani as a terrorist, Pakistani media referred him as a freedom fighter and an epitome of Kashmiri struggle. One of the Pakistani newspaper even compared him with Che Guevara, a legendary freedom fighter. Not only this, after nearly a month of his death on the Independence Day of Pakistan, the government ran a special train called Azadi Train where they featured the national heroes of Pakistan and Burhan Wani was reflected as one of the national heroes of the country. Another interesting update is that one of the directors of Lollywood is making a movie on him which is, reportedly, funded by the government of Pakistan. The people who are wanted in serious acts of barbaric terrorism in India are termed as heroes in the neighbouring country. The question is very simple, should a country support the acts of terror and glorify these terrorists as freedom fighters? India had been a victim of this state-sponsored terrorism for long and suffered the worst. More than 1.3 lakh people were killed in Kashmir because of terrorism. But this is just not a struggle. It is a clear case of state-sponsored terrorism. We must explore the role of media in the country. As we know, media is the fourth pillar of democracy and in any sensible country, media plays a vital role in criticising the policies of the government. In India, there have been instances where governments were forced to change their stance because of media criticism. The tougher laws for rape were made possible only after Nirbhaya gangrape case which was highlighted by the Indian media. But in Pakistan things are different. National media is under control of the government and anyone who tries to go against the government or Army is severely punished. The telecast of international channels is curbed from time to time and if the government thinks that any channel is not towing its line, it is prohibited in the country outrighted. The attacks on media persons are a daily routine. In last 20 years itself, more than 70 senior national level media personals have been killed and more than 100 grievously injured. Most of them are kidnapped, beaten and threatened over the gunpoint by the government agencies so that their voice can be suppressed. Sabeen Mehmood, Aftab Alam, Abdul Shinwari, Haroon Khan, Hamid Mir and, more recently, Taha Siddiqui are the live example of this. Imagine a scenario where the leaders of the country are supporting the terrorism and the media has no say. This is the reason why Pakistan is unabatedly enhancing its support to terrorism and celebrating violence perpetrated by these so-called freedom fighters. What our neighbour is not able to understand is that terrorism cannot lead any country to a secure place. There have been many instances in the past where countries indulged in state-sponsored terrorism and ultimately suffered the worst. The examples of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Sudan and Uganda are visible to everyone. Initially, the countries were isolated internationally, followed by sanctions and then by either a military action or an economic breakdown. In case of Pakistan, the first step of isolating it has started already. So, what should our neighbour do? First, the government of Pakistan should understand that there is never good terrorism. All types of terror acts are bad and all of them should be dealt with a firm hand. A terrorist is always an enemy of humanity and any support to them is directly against the humanity. They must understand that unless a country has complete media freedom, it would always be like a table without a leg which cannot stand on its own. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why media shouldn't eulogise terrorists as heroes

Israel&#39;s visiting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday night stressed the need to strengthen the political alliances to take on &quot;Islamic radicalisation which is a threat to the international systems&quot;. &nbsp;

Netanyahu was delivering the inaugural address at the Raisina Dialogue 2018, organised by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Observer Research Foundation here today. &nbsp;

The Israeli Prime Minister said his country is trying to strengthen political alliances with like-minded countries across the world, from America, Latin America, Africa, Australia and Asia, especially with democracies. &nbsp;

He emphasised that Israel&#39;s relationship with India is very special and praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for taking it to a new level. Netanyahu&#39;s address was listened to by Prime Minister Modi who sat along with EAM Sushma Swaraj in the special front row. &nbsp;

Saying the weak do not survive, but only the strong, and only the strong are respected, Netanyahu said strong territorial power is very important and for that, the country needs to develop a strong economy. &nbsp;

He said without a strong economy, it is difficult to have territorial strength. Netanyahu noted that under Modi&#39;s leadership, the government has improved the ease of doing business index by 42 steps, which is important to strengthen the economy. &nbsp;

The Israeli Prime Minister said the government should &quot;cut the bureaucracy&quot; to make doing business easier and move up the free market. Though Modi was present at the inaugural address as a rare gesture, he did not speak. &nbsp;

And this was mentioned by Swaraj as a rare occasion when she delivered the vote of thanks. She also mentioned that India&#39;s strengthening relations with Israel and improving cooperation especially in the field of agriculture and water. &nbsp;

Earlier, welcoming the Prime Ministers of two countries and Swaraj, ORF Chairman Sunjoy Joshi said it was two years ago under the initiative of Prime Minister Modi&#39;s government that this Dialogue was curated as a platform where the old and the new, the traditional and the modern, could discover their interdependence in forging a common, shared future for the world. &nbsp;

He said the pace of change induced by technological innovation is unprecedented. It is even transforming the way humans interact, and the way businesses and communities are organised, affecting the responses of societies and nations in unpredictable ways. Joshi said Prime Minister Netanyahu leads a nation that is no stranger to volatility. &nbsp;

Yet has successfully managed to provide growth, prosperity, and security to its people in a turbulent region. From technological innovations that have ensured food and water security in a parched environment, to creating one of the most vibrant start-up eco-systems nurtured by a world-class defence and technology industry, the prowess of Israel has made light of the greatest challenges to the security and well-being of its people. &nbsp;

&quot;We indeed find ourselves in a world which promises exponential jumps in knowledge systems, possible through previously unimaginable collaborative networks across diverse cultures, societies and nations, intelligent collaborative networks that link man and machine. Sometimes, these can be a source of disruption, but managed well they can be a source of exponential growth,&quot; Joshi said. &nbsp;

&quot;And at the Raisina Dialogue we celebrate this diversity,&quot; he added. Ministerial delegations from many countries like Australia, Russia, Singapore, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, and Poland are attending this year&#39;s conference.&nbsp;

Former President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, former Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harder and former Prime Minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, were among more than 150 speakers and over 550 delegates from around 90 countries who are participating in the Dialogue.

Saying the weak do not survive and only the strong are respected, Netanyahu said strong territorial power is very important and for that

Israel's visiting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday night stressed the need to strengthen the political alliances to take on "Islamic radicalisation which is a threat to the international systems". Netanyahu was delivering the inaugural address at the Raisina Dialogue 2018, organised by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Observer Research Foundation here today. The Israeli Prime Minister said his country is trying to strengthen political alliances with like-minded countries across the world, from America, Latin America, Africa, Australia and Asia, especially with democracies. He emphasised that Israel's relationship with India is very special and praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for taking it to a new level. Netanyahu's address was listened to by Prime Minister Modi who sat along with EAM Sushma Swaraj in the special front row. Saying the weak do not survive, but only the strong, and only the strong are respected, Netanyahu said strong territorial power is very important and for that, the country needs to develop a strong economy. He said without a strong economy, it is difficult to have territorial strength. Netanyahu noted that under Modi's leadership, the government has improved the ease of doing business index by 42 steps, which is important to strengthen the economy. The Israeli Prime Minister said the government should "cut the bureaucracy" to make doing business easier and move up the free market. Though Modi was present at the inaugural address as a rare gesture, he did not speak. And this was mentioned by Swaraj as a rare occasion when she delivered the vote of thanks. She also mentioned that India's strengthening relations with Israel and improving cooperation especially in the field of agriculture and water. Earlier, welcoming the Prime Ministers of two countries and Swaraj, ORF Chairman Sunjoy Joshi said it was two years ago under the initiative of Prime Minister Modi's government that this Dialogue was curated as a platform where the old and the new, the traditional and the modern, could discover their interdependence in forging a common, shared future for the world. He said the pace of change induced by technological innovation is unprecedented. It is even transforming the way humans interact, and the way businesses and communities are organised, affecting the responses of societies and nations in unpredictable ways. Joshi said Prime Minister Netanyahu leads a nation that is no stranger to volatility. Yet has successfully managed to provide growth, prosperity, and security to its people in a turbulent region. From technological innovations that have ensured food and water security in a parched environment, to creating one of the most vibrant start-up eco-systems nurtured by a world-class defence and technology industry, the prowess of Israel has made light of the greatest challenges to the security and well-being of its people. "We indeed find ourselves in a world which promises exponential jumps in knowledge systems, possible through previously unimaginable collaborative networks across diverse cultures, societies and nations, intelligent collaborative networks that link man and machine. Sometimes, these can be a source of disruption, but managed well they can be a source of exponential growth," Joshi said. "And at the Raisina Dialogue we celebrate this diversity," he added. Ministerial delegations from many countries like Australia, Russia, Singapore, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, and Poland are attending this year's conference. Former President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, former Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harder and former Prime Minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, were among more than 150 speakers and over 550 delegates from around 90 countries who are participating in the Dialogue.

Israeli PM calls for stronger political alliance to combat Islamic radicalization

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu&rsquo;s India visit which comes within months after Prime Minister Narendra Modi&rsquo;s path-breaking visit to Israel marks an interesting template for the bilateral relations. If the July visit set the political tone, this visit adds substance for the future. The second prime ministerial visit to India comes nearly 15 years after Atal Behari Vajpayee rolled out red carpet welcome to Ariel Sharon.&nbsp;

While strategic and economic relations have flourished since the establishment of diplomatic relations in January 1992, Indo-Israeli political engagements have been minimal and often happened when NDA government was in power. Until Modi&rsquo;s election, for example, only two External Affairs Ministers visited Israel, Jaswant Singh in July 2000 and S M Krishna in January 2012. Reciprocal visits from India did not materialise after the visits of President Ezer Weizman in 1996-97 and of Sharon in 2003.&nbsp;

For over two decades, the bilateral relations flourished or were allowed to flourish with little political exchanges between the two countries. Coalition compulsions under the UPA government and the geostrategic situation in the Middle East limited cabinet level exchanges between the two countries. During this phase much of the relations thrived because of various state governments&mdash;ruled by Congress, BJP and others, including the communist parties, who stepped and sought economic cooperation with the Jewish State.

Things changed dramatically since Modi became the prime minister. In tune with his more active engagement with foreign leaders, both bilaterally and multilaterally, Indo-Israeli engagements also expanded considerably. Since May 2014, there were two presidential visits, two prime ministerial visits and visits by External Affairs Minister, Defense Minister and Home Minister.

There were scores of other exchanges, meetings and social media exchanges and interactions between the two political leadership.

These interactions with Israel should not be seen in isolation but viewed within the larger context of Modi&rsquo;s extensive interactions with other Middle East countries.&nbsp;

Since 2014, Indian leaders --president, vice-president, prime minister or external affairs minister&mdash;have visited most of the countries. War-torn countries like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon saw the visit by MoS M J Akbar. Indeed, violence-torn Libya is the only country which did not see a political visit from India since 2014. Moreover, Prime Minister Modi had met a number of Arab-Islamic leaders during multilateral forums and he met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas twice, including hosting him in May last year.

Another interesting pattern is emerging in the Indo-Israel relations. For long military-security consideration has dominated the bilateral relations and is often seen as the core component. Important as they are, the relations are getting diversified and encompass soft, less hyper and even unattractive areas, such as agriculture and water management. The joint statement issued on Monday between the two countries, for example, talks of &ldquo;strategic cooperation in Agriculture and Water.&rdquo; Until now these issues would never make it to the front pages of the media or would have escaped popular attention.&nbsp;

This in practical terms means that Indo-Israeli relations are no longer elite issues to be confined to the national capitals or urban centers but are pushed to rural India. This decentralisation has been taking place for over two decades but now they have assumed the center stage of the bilateral relations.&nbsp;

In short, security would continue to play an important role in the Indo-Israeli relations but its meaning and scope have changed. It is no longer confined to military security and fighting terrorism but also encompasses, food security, water security, environmental security and above energy security. This transformation of the Indo-Israeli ties would play a key role in the coming years.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Indo-Israeli relations are no longer elite issues to be confined to the national capitals or urban centers but are pushed to rural India.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s India visit which comes within months after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s path-breaking visit to Israel marks an interesting template for the bilateral relations. If the July visit set the political tone, this visit adds substance for the future. The second prime ministerial visit to India comes nearly 15 years after Atal Behari Vajpayee rolled out red carpet welcome to Ariel Sharon. While strategic and economic relations have flourished since the establishment of diplomatic relations in January 1992, Indo-Israeli political engagements have been minimal and often happened when NDA government was in power. Until Modi’s election, for example, only two External Affairs Ministers visited Israel, Jaswant Singh in July 2000 and S M Krishna in January 2012. Reciprocal visits from India did not materialise after the visits of President Ezer Weizman in 1996-97 and of Sharon in 2003. For over two decades, the bilateral relations flourished or were allowed to flourish with little political exchanges between the two countries. Coalition compulsions under the UPA government and the geostrategic situation in the Middle East limited cabinet level exchanges between the two countries. During this phase much of the relations thrived because of various state governments—ruled by Congress, BJP and others, including the communist parties, who stepped and sought economic cooperation with the Jewish State. Things changed dramatically since Modi became the prime minister. In tune with his more active engagement with foreign leaders, both bilaterally and multilaterally, Indo-Israeli engagements also expanded considerably. Since May 2014, there were two presidential visits, two prime ministerial visits and visits by External Affairs Minister, Defense Minister and Home Minister. There were scores of other exchanges, meetings and social media exchanges and interactions between the two political leadership. These interactions with Israel should not be seen in isolation but viewed within the larger context of Modi’s extensive interactions with other Middle East countries. Since 2014, Indian leaders --president, vice-president, prime minister or external affairs minister—have visited most of the countries. War-torn countries like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon saw the visit by MoS M J Akbar. Indeed, violence-torn Libya is the only country which did not see a political visit from India since 2014. Moreover, Prime Minister Modi had met a number of Arab-Islamic leaders during multilateral forums and he met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas twice, including hosting him in May last year. Another interesting pattern is emerging in the Indo-Israel relations. For long military-security consideration has dominated the bilateral relations and is often seen as the core component. Important as they are, the relations are getting diversified and encompass soft, less hyper and even unattractive areas, such as agriculture and water management. The joint statement issued on Monday between the two countries, for example, talks of “strategic cooperation in Agriculture and Water.” Until now these issues would never make it to the front pages of the media or would have escaped popular attention. This in practical terms means that Indo-Israeli relations are no longer elite issues to be confined to the national capitals or urban centers but are pushed to rural India. This decentralisation has been taking place for over two decades but now they have assumed the center stage of the bilateral relations. In short, security would continue to play an important role in the Indo-Israeli relations but its meaning and scope have changed. It is no longer confined to military security and fighting terrorism but also encompasses, food security, water security, environmental security and above energy security. This transformation of the Indo-Israeli ties would play a key role in the coming years. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: India-Israel relation takes a new turn beyond terrorism

Indonesian President Joko Widodo will be attending the Republic Day parade in New Delhi on January 26 along with nine other heads of state&nbsp;from the ASEAN region.

WION spoke with Indonesia&rsquo;s ambassador to India, Sidharto Suryodipuro, who said he would not be surprised if the bonds between India and Indonesia go as far back as before the second century AD -- the two countries share the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.

Apart from culture and history, Suryodipuro spoke about tourism, how the two countries are talking about martime security, and pushing up trade and investment in each others economies.&nbsp;

He also reminded us that Indonesia&#39;s first president Sukarno had been a guest at India&#39;s first Republic Day parade.&nbsp;

Q: Both India and Indonesia have strong cultural and economic ties which go back to ancient times. How have the ties evolved in last three years?

A: I would not be surprised to find that the ties may even go back before 2nd century AD because we share Mahabharata and Ramayana. We have both culture and history to build upon. In the last three years, we have worked on all sectors. We welcome Indian tourists; the political relationship has been very strong. Now we are talking about maritime security. Economically, we are working to increase trade and investments. Both in Delhi and Jakarta, we have been very upbeat about the prospect of this relationship.

How do you see the presence of heads of states from 10 ASEAN countries present during the Republic Day parade?

It would be unprecedented and first for India. For Indonesia, it would be first for our President. I also recall that the first Republic Day parade was attended by President Sukarno in Delhi. We go back a long way. So, this time when the President of Indonesia comes, it would be the third time.

How do you see India&rsquo;s commitment towards ASEAN economies and its &#39;Look East&#39;&nbsp;policy?

We want to work with India to support the &#39;Act East&#39;&nbsp;policy so that it can substantiate itself. We want physical and other forms of connectivity to increase. We don&rsquo;t say that we have too much of India in South East Asia, it&rsquo;s just that we don&rsquo;t have enough of India.

What are those areas where Indian and Indonesian interests can converge?

Currently I&rsquo;m focusing on air and maritime connectivity. We are building another layer of relationships while we talk at the political level. We are also talking about security but it is the people-to-people relationship that creates a balance in a relationship. It will enrich the relationship at the&nbsp;socio-cultural and educational level. Maritime connectivity existed in past. The Eastern side of India was directly connected with Java and Sumatra. We were connected to Kalinga but all that has gone and it needs to be rebuilt.

Apart from the economy, India&rsquo;s concern is also terrorism. India is a victim of terrorism which flows from across the border. What is Indonesia&rsquo;s position on it?

It is a problem which we are all facing. Terrorism and radicalism is a problem we all share. We are in talks with our counterparts for preparing for events and countering terrorism, radicalization and violent extremism. India and Indonesia can draw from the depth of tradition to fight extremism and terrorism. We have a tradition to fall back upon to fight against such trends.

So, we have a civilizational connect?

Absolutely. These are societies which have been tolerant and multicultural and accepted various teachings.

Lot of artists are coming in from various ASEAN countries. Tell us about those coming from your country?

There will be a Ramayana troupe coming from the island of Bali. The story remains the same but there will be modifications and some figures which don&rsquo;t exist in original Ramayana in India. Our troupe will be on the classical side. The Balinese Ramayana and dresses are very elaborate. That is for the Indian audience to tell us. I have seen Indian Ramayana in Delhi. It is very dynamic and performed within 2.5 hours.

How is the Balinese Ramayana different?

Very different in presentation. The&nbsp;Indian side is very fast and energetic but the Balinese side is focused on movement. Slow movements require patience and stamina.

What steps should be taken by both countries to forge more intimate bonds?

Air connectivity is a must. There are 28 flights from Indonesia to India but Indian carriers do not fly to Indonesia. Another area would be movies -- Indian movies are wildly popular in Indonesia. My wife just watched Jodha Akbar. My mother-in-law also watches Indian movies and recently watched Dangal and PK. Making of movies in both Indonesia and India would be an avenue to enhance awareness about what is India and Indonesia. 
&nbsp;

Indonesia's President Joko Widodo, along with nine other heads of state from the ASEAN region, will be attending India's Republic Day parade in New Delhi on January 26

Indonesian President Joko Widodo will be attending the Republic Day parade in New Delhi on January 26 along with nine other heads of state from the ASEAN region. WION spoke with Indonesia’s ambassador to India, Sidharto Suryodipuro, who said he would not be surprised if the bonds between India and Indonesia go as far back as before the second century AD -- the two countries share the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Apart from culture and history, Suryodipuro spoke about tourism, how the two countries are talking about martime security, and pushing up trade and investment in each others economies. He also reminded us that Indonesia's first president Sukarno had been a guest at India's first Republic Day parade. Q: Both India and Indonesia have strong cultural and economic ties which go back to ancient times. How have the ties evolved in last three years? A: I would not be surprised to find that the ties may even go back before 2nd century AD because we share Mahabharata and Ramayana. We have both culture and history to build upon. In the last three years, we have worked on all sectors. We welcome Indian tourists; the political relationship has been very strong. Now we are talking about maritime security. Economically, we are working to increase trade and investments. Both in Delhi and Jakarta, we have been very upbeat about the prospect of this relationship. How do you see the presence of heads of states from 10 ASEAN countries present during the Republic Day parade? It would be unprecedented and first for India. For Indonesia, it would be first for our President. I also recall that the first Republic Day parade was attended by President Sukarno in Delhi. We go back a long way. So, this time when the President of Indonesia comes, it would be the third time. How do you see India’s commitment towards ASEAN economies and its 'Look East' policy? We want to work with India to support the 'Act East' policy so that it can substantiate itself. We want physical and other forms of connectivity to increase. We don’t say that we have too much of India in South East Asia, it’s just that we don’t have enough of India. What are those areas where Indian and Indonesian interests can converge? Currently I’m focusing on air and maritime connectivity. We are building another layer of relationships while we talk at the political level. We are also talking about security but it is the people-to-people relationship that creates a balance in a relationship. It will enrich the relationship at the socio-cultural and educational level. Maritime connectivity existed in past. The Eastern side of India was directly connected with Java and Sumatra. We were connected to Kalinga but all that has gone and it needs to be rebuilt. Apart from the economy, India’s concern is also terrorism. India is a victim of terrorism which flows from across the border. What is Indonesia’s position on it? It is a problem which we are all facing. Terrorism and radicalism is a problem we all share. We are in talks with our counterparts for preparing for events and countering terrorism, radicalization and violent extremism. India and Indonesia can draw from the depth of tradition to fight extremism and terrorism. We have a tradition to fall back upon to fight against such trends. So, we have a civilizational connect? Absolutely. These are societies which have been tolerant and multicultural and accepted various teachings. Lot of artists are coming in from various ASEAN countries. Tell us about those coming from your country? There will be a Ramayana troupe coming from the island of Bali. The story remains the same but there will be modifications and some figures which don’t exist in original Ramayana in India. Our troupe will be on the classical side. The Balinese Ramayana and dresses are very elaborate. That is for the Indian audience to tell us. I have seen Indian Ramayana in Delhi. It is very dynamic and performed within 2.5 hours. How is the Balinese Ramayana different? Very different in presentation. The Indian side is very fast and energetic but the Balinese side is focused on movement. Slow movements require patience and stamina. What steps should be taken by both countries to forge more intimate bonds? Air connectivity is a must. There are 28 flights from Indonesia to India but Indian carriers do not fly to Indonesia. Another area would be movies -- Indian movies are wildly popular in Indonesia. My wife just watched Jodha Akbar. My mother-in-law also watches Indian movies and recently watched Dangal and PK. Making of movies in both Indonesia and India would be an avenue to enhance awareness about what is India and Indonesia.

'Terrorism is a problem we all share,' Indonesia's ambassador to India tells WION

Around 17 militants affiliated with the Islamic State have been killed in a drone strike carried out in eastern Nangarhar province of Afghanistan&nbsp; on Sunday.

The latest airstrike was conducted by the United States forces in two districts using an unnamed aerial vehicle.&nbsp;

Officials have informed that 14 militants were killed in Haska Mina district while the rest three were killed in Achin district.

According to reports, foreign fighters were are also among those killed in the airstrikes. The coalition sent an Afghan militia leader, a USA service member, and an interpreter.&nbsp;

Reports further say that a compound of terror group was also targeted and taken during the air strike.&nbsp;

There have been no comments from the militant group as yet.&nbsp;

According to the report, US warplanes have carried out hundreds of airstrikes, while its special forces conducted ground operations in the province.

As per the new Afghan strategy of the US administration, which President Donald Trump announced in August, the forces have intensified the attacks against Taliban and the number of soldiers has gone up as well.

Presently, there are about 14,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

According to the report, US warplanes have carried out hundreds of airstrikes, while its special forces conducted ground operations in the province.

Around 17 militants affiliated with the Islamic State have been killed in a drone strike carried out in eastern Nangarhar province of Afghanistan on Sunday. The latest airstrike was conducted by the United States forces in two districts using an unnamed aerial vehicle. Officials have informed that 14 militants were killed in Haska Mina district while the rest three were killed in Achin district. According to reports, foreign fighters were are also among those killed in the airstrikes. The coalition sent an Afghan militia leader, a USA service member, and an interpreter. Reports further say that a compound of terror group was also targeted and taken during the air strike. There have been no comments from the militant group as yet. According to the report, US warplanes have carried out hundreds of airstrikes, while its special forces conducted ground operations in the province. As per the new Afghan strategy of the US administration, which President Donald Trump announced in August, the forces have intensified the attacks against Taliban and the number of soldiers has gone up as well. Presently, there are about 14,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan.

17 IS militants killed in airstrike in Afghanistan

The US State Departement today issued travel advisory for its citzens placing India in Level 2 and Pakistan on Level 3 in the &lsquo;reconsider travel&rsquo; category.

The US government issued four new levels of threat assessments for its citizens - from &quot;normal precautions&quot; to &quot;no travel&quot;, every country has a travel advisory and is placed in one of these four categories.

India has been ranked Level 2 (exercise increased caution). The advisory on Pakistan said that terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in Pakistan and may attack with little or no warning.

&ldquo;They target tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, military and government installations, airports, universities, ... schools, hospitals, places of worship, and local government facilities,&rdquo; the advisory said on Pakistan.

&quot;These improvements will provide US citizens with clear, timely, and reliable safety and security information worldwide,&quot; the State Department said in a statement.&nbsp;

On India, the State Department identified &quot;crime and terrorism&quot; for Americans to exercise increased caution.

It asked Americans not to travel to Jammu and Kashmir, except eastern Ladakh and Leh and not to venture within 10 miles of the India-Pak border.

The State Department&#39;s highest &quot;do not travel&quot; advisory placed Colima, Michoacan, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas and Guerrero at the same warning level as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

&quot;Armed groups operate independently of the government in many areas of Guerrero. Members of these groups frequently maintain roadblocks and may use violence towards travellers,&quot; said the State Department.

Mexico also found mention in the advisory, the State Department said: &quot;Exercise increased caution in Mexico due to crime ... violent crime, such as homicide, kidnapping, carjacking, and robbery, is widespread.&quot;

The US government issued four new levels of threat assessments for its citizens

The US State Departement today issued travel advisory for its citzens placing India in Level 2 and Pakistan on Level 3 in the ‘reconsider travel’ category. The US government issued four new levels of threat assessments for its citizens - from "normal precautions" to "no travel", every country has a travel advisory and is placed in one of these four categories. India has been ranked Level 2 (exercise increased caution). The advisory on Pakistan said that terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in Pakistan and may attack with little or no warning. “They target tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, military and government installations, airports, universities, ... schools, hospitals, places of worship, and local government facilities,” the advisory said on Pakistan. "These improvements will provide US citizens with clear, timely, and reliable safety and security information worldwide," the State Department said in a statement. On India, the State Department identified "crime and terrorism" for Americans to exercise increased caution. It asked Americans not to travel to Jammu and Kashmir, except eastern Ladakh and Leh and not to venture within 10 miles of the India-Pak border. The State Department's highest "do not travel" advisory placed Colima, Michoacan, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas and Guerrero at the same warning level as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. "Armed groups operate independently of the government in many areas of Guerrero. Members of these groups frequently maintain roadblocks and may use violence towards travellers," said the State Department. Mexico also found mention in the advisory, the State Department said: "Exercise increased caution in Mexico due to crime ... violent crime, such as homicide, kidnapping, carjacking, and robbery, is widespread."

US travel advisory: 'Exercise caution' while visiting India; reconsider travel to Pak

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Thursday said National Security Advisor Ajit Doval met his Pakistani counterpart Lt Gen Nasser Khan Janjua (retd) in Thailand last month.

During the NSA-level talks, India reiterated its stand to Pakistan that terrorism and talks cannot go together and raised the issue of cross-border firing, the MEA said.

Addressing a press conference in New Delhi on Thursday, MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said the focus of talks between India and Pakistan was on cross-border terror.&nbsp;

&quot;India and Pakistan have a dialogue process and we have said terror and talks cannot go together. However, there are other dialogue mechanisms like at the DGMO level or between the BSF and Pakistan Rangers.

&quot;Similarly, the NSA-level engagement is part of operational-level talks. We have said terror and talks cannot go together, but talks on terror can definitely go ahead,&quot; Kumar said.

India today made it clear that for talks with Pakistan to go ahead, there has to be a conducive environment and atmosphere free of terror.

MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said the focus of talks between India and Pakistan was on cross-border terror

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Thursday said National Security Advisor Ajit Doval met his Pakistani counterpart Lt Gen Nasser Khan Janjua (retd) in Thailand last month. During the NSA-level talks, India reiterated its stand to Pakistan that terrorism and talks cannot go together and raised the issue of cross-border firing, the MEA said. Addressing a press conference in New Delhi on Thursday, MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said the focus of talks between India and Pakistan was on cross-border terror. "India and Pakistan have a dialogue process and we have said terror and talks cannot go together. However, there are other dialogue mechanisms like at the DGMO level or between the BSF and Pakistan Rangers. "Similarly, the NSA-level engagement is part of operational-level talks. We have said terror and talks cannot go together, but talks on terror can definitely go ahead," Kumar said. India today made it clear that for talks with Pakistan to go ahead, there has to be a conducive environment and atmosphere free of terror.

Talks on terror can go ahead: India told Pakistan in NSA-level talks

On Tuesday 9th January 2018, the Army and Kashmir Police received an input about 3-4 terrorists lodged in a village in Anantnag. Immediately, the army moved for an operation. As a procedure, the terrorists were told to surrender and given adequate time.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

However, when they started firing over the security forces, they retaliated which resulted in the killing of one of the terrorists named Farhan Wani. The boy was just 18-year-old at the time of his death.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Farhan Wani came from a peaceful village of Khudgami in Kulgam District of Kashmir. The 18-year old represents the new breed of Kashmiri militants who are not very experienced or mature. They are young immature boys who are brainwashed and lured into the deep gorges of terrorism on the pretext of Islamic Jihad or Freedom of Kashmir.

&nbsp;

Over last three decades, the militancy in Kashmir has taken many turns. In the earlier times, we saw the mercenaries from Pakistan, Afghanistan and even from other countries coming to Kashmir to participate in the so-called Jihad. Pakistan soon realised that it is being branded as a perpetrator of terrorism in the global community. So, the strategy changed once again.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

This time, Pakistan recruited the poor, unemployed and distressed youth of the valley after radicalising and brainwashing them through false propaganda. The goal was to claim state-sponsored terrorism as a people&rsquo;s movement.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Farhan Wani was one of the many victims of this dirty game of Pakistan. He was a student of class XI when he left one day in June 2017 and never returned.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

On a sunny afternoon, Farhan Wani, apparently, left for Physics tuition but joined the ranks of Hijbul Mujahidin, a terrorist group supported and nurtured by Pakistan. Son of a school Teacher, Mr Ghulam Mohammad Wani, Farhan was a very bright student and got a CGPA of 9.6 on his 10th Board exam.

&nbsp;

There are many Farhan Wani in the ranks and cadres of these groups. Some have joined Lashkar-e Taiyyaba, Some Jaish-e-Muhammad and some Hijbul Mujahidin. But one thing is common among all of them. These young terrorists, barely in their late teens,&nbsp; are radicalised by Pakistan-sponsored religious teachers and recruiters who are working in the disguise of common Kashmiri citizens.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Who is responsible for the death of this young soul? Is it the Armed Forces? No.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;It is the duty of the Indian military forces to fight the armed mercenaries. They tried their best to get him back. Defence sources even confirm that it was assured to the father of Farhan that if he comes back, no cases will be registered against him since he is not involved in any of the criminal activity and Army will provide the best of its help to settle him down.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The social leaders and his father urged him to come back. The emotional post on his Facebook profile is very touching. Mr Ghulam Mohammad thought that, like Majid, who returned last year from Lashkar-e-Taiyyaba, his son will also return some day.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Ghulam Mohammad was only partially right. Farhan returned but in the form of a lifeless body.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Every time I see a death in Kashmir, there is a very pertinent question that knocks in my mind. Among all the Kashmiri boys who turned militant, I always see a pattern. Having spent a considerable time in Kashmir, I have failed to see even a single militant from the influential families of the so-called Hurriyat leaders or religious teachers who are, otherwise, radicalising these innocent youths and luring them into the trap of Death. Most of the young men who turned into terrorists are people are from local communities. Sons of common people, such as teachers, farmers or even daily workers.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Just check where the families of these leaders reside? They are enjoying in some foreign country or Delhi or in some other metro at the cost of the lives of poor innocent Kashmiri boys.

These so-called leaders of Kashmiri People who are not even thinking twice before sending these innocent boys to a never-ending death trap of terrorism are the real conspirators of Farhan&rsquo;s Death and every Kashmiri should understand that.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

I heard today that at the time when Farhan was being cremated, Syed Ali Shah Geelani addressed the public through phone and said that the uprising in Kashmir will not die. Many Farhan will now take up arms to fight the Forces and the fire of this struggle will not die.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

My suggestion to Mr Geelani is simple, why don&rsquo;t you send your own family members to join these groups. Your grandson Izhaar is a&nbsp; pilot with a known private airlines. Another grandson Anees is working with J&amp;K State government in a senior position, there are other grandsons who are studying in various schools of India and are of the same age as Farhan was. Why don&rsquo;t you tell them to join these terrorist groups? they can lead the struggle of your so-called Kashmiri Jihad. They can effectively replace him in the group. Instead of making so much of fuss in front of the public, call them and let them join.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

By the way, is there even a single person from your own family who joined this so-called Jihad? The answer is a clear no.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Not only Geelani, if I ask how many family members of the so-called religious teachers, who are busy radicalising the many Farhan&rsquo;s of the Kashmir valley, have joined the ranks of the Mujahidin&rsquo;s? The answer is NIL. Actually, they are only bidding to the dictate of their masters who are sitting abroad and paying them huge sums of money to lure innocent youth into the trap of terrorism.

&nbsp;

It is high time for the common people of Kashmir to realise what they want? Do they want the leaders like Geelani and Yasin Malik and Mirvaiz Umar Farooq who want to use the common Kashmiri in the name of aazadi or do they want a prosperous atmosphere where every Kashmiri is able to grow and live without fear?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

I think any wise Kashmiri will be able to make a choice.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Having spent a considerable time in Kashmir, I have failed to see even a single militant from the influential families of the so-called Hurriyat leaders or religious teachers who are, otherwise, radicalising these innocent youths and luring them into the trap of death.

On Tuesday 9th January 2018, the Army and Kashmir Police received an input about 3-4 terrorists lodged in a village in Anantnag. Immediately, the army moved for an operation. As a procedure, the terrorists were told to surrender and given adequate time. However, when they started firing over the security forces, they retaliated which resulted in the killing of one of the terrorists named Farhan Wani. The boy was just 18-year-old at the time of his death. Farhan Wani came from a peaceful village of Khudgami in Kulgam District of Kashmir. The 18-year old represents the new breed of Kashmiri militants who are not very experienced or mature. They are young immature boys who are brainwashed and lured into the deep gorges of terrorism on the pretext of Islamic Jihad or Freedom of Kashmir. Over last three decades, the militancy in Kashmir has taken many turns. In the earlier times, we saw the mercenaries from Pakistan, Afghanistan and even from other countries coming to Kashmir to participate in the so-called Jihad. Pakistan soon realised that it is being branded as a perpetrator of terrorism in the global community. So, the strategy changed once again. This time, Pakistan recruited the poor, unemployed and distressed youth of the valley after radicalising and brainwashing them through false propaganda. The goal was to claim state-sponsored terrorism as a people’s movement. Farhan Wani was one of the many victims of this dirty game of Pakistan. He was a student of class XI when he left one day in June 2017 and never returned. On a sunny afternoon, Farhan Wani, apparently, left for Physics tuition but joined the ranks of Hijbul Mujahidin, a terrorist group supported and nurtured by Pakistan. Son of a school Teacher, Mr Ghulam Mohammad Wani, Farhan was a very bright student and got a CGPA of 9.6 on his 10th Board exam. There are many Farhan Wani in the ranks and cadres of these groups. Some have joined Lashkar-e Taiyyaba, Some Jaish-e-Muhammad and some Hijbul Mujahidin. But one thing is common among all of them. These young terrorists, barely in their late teens, are radicalised by Pakistan-sponsored religious teachers and recruiters who are working in the disguise of common Kashmiri citizens. Who is responsible for the death of this young soul? Is it the Armed Forces? No. It is the duty of the Indian military forces to fight the armed mercenaries. They tried their best to get him back. Defence sources even confirm that it was assured to the father of Farhan that if he comes back, no cases will be registered against him since he is not involved in any of the criminal activity and Army will provide the best of its help to settle him down. The social leaders and his father urged him to come back. The emotional post on his Facebook profile is very touching. Mr Ghulam Mohammad thought that, like Majid, who returned last year from Lashkar-e-Taiyyaba, his son will also return some day. Ghulam Mohammad was only partially right. Farhan returned but in the form of a lifeless body. Every time I see a death in Kashmir, there is a very pertinent question that knocks in my mind. Among all the Kashmiri boys who turned militant, I always see a pattern. Having spent a considerable time in Kashmir, I have failed to see even a single militant from the influential families of the so-called Hurriyat leaders or religious teachers who are, otherwise, radicalising these innocent youths and luring them into the trap of Death. Most of the young men who turned into terrorists are people are from local communities. Sons of common people, such as teachers, farmers or even daily workers. Just check where the families of these leaders reside? They are enjoying in some foreign country or Delhi or in some other metro at the cost of the lives of poor innocent Kashmiri boys. These so-called leaders of Kashmiri People who are not even thinking twice before sending these innocent boys to a never-ending death trap of terrorism are the real conspirators of Farhan’s Death and every Kashmiri should understand that. I heard today that at the time when Farhan was being cremated, Syed Ali Shah Geelani addressed the public through phone and said that the uprising in Kashmir will not die. Many Farhan will now take up arms to fight the Forces and the fire of this struggle will not die. My suggestion to Mr Geelani is simple, why don’t you send your own family members to join these groups. Your grandson Izhaar is a pilot with a known private airlines. Another grandson Anees is working with J&K State government in a senior position, there are other grandsons who are studying in various schools of India and are of the same age as Farhan was. Why don’t you tell them to join these terrorist groups? they can lead the struggle of your so-called Kashmiri Jihad. They can effectively replace him in the group. Instead of making so much of fuss in front of the public, call them and let them join. By the way, is there even a single person from your own family who joined this so-called Jihad? The answer is a clear no. Not only Geelani, if I ask how many family members of the so-called religious teachers, who are busy radicalising the many Farhan’s of the Kashmir valley, have joined the ranks of the Mujahidin’s? The answer is NIL. Actually, they are only bidding to the dictate of their masters who are sitting abroad and paying them huge sums of money to lure innocent youth into the trap of terrorism. It is high time for the common people of Kashmir to realise what they want? Do they want the leaders like Geelani and Yasin Malik and Mirvaiz Umar Farooq who want to use the common Kashmiri in the name of aazadi or do they want a prosperous atmosphere where every Kashmiri is able to grow and live without fear? I think any wise Kashmiri will be able to make a choice. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: The story of many Farhan Wani's of Kashmir

United States Ambassador to India Kenneth Juster met the Foreign Secretary S&nbsp;Jaishankar on Friday to discuss the bilateral issues between two countries.

The discussion comes amid&nbsp;Trump&#39;s decision to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-blocks-usd-255-million-military-aid-to-pakistan-28291">block military aid</a> to Pakistan, saying that they have not taken the required steps to fight terrorism.&nbsp;

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Tuesday also said that the country has played a &quot;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/pakistan-has-played-a-double-game-with-us-for-years-nikki-haley-28383">double game</a>&quot; with the United States for years.

State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert on Thursday announced that this decision would not change unless Pakistan gears up and takes necessary action against the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network.

&quot;No country has suffered more from terrorism than Pakistan. They understand that, but they still haven&#39;t taken the necessary steps,&quot; she said.&nbsp;

The United States earlier suspended its $255 million military aid to Pakistan for now, the White House had&nbsp;confirmed, saying the fate of such assistance will depend on Islamabad&#39;s response to terrorism on its soil.

The confirmation comes on the same day when US President Donald Trump accused Pakistan of giving nothing to the US but &quot;lies and deceit&quot; and providing &quot;safe haven&quot; to terrorists in return for $33 billion aid over the last 15 years.

However, the US is only stopping the security aid, the humanitarian assistance to Pakistan will continue.&nbsp;

(With inputs from ANI)

The discussion comes amid Trump's decision to block military aid to Pakistan, saying that they have not taken the required steps to fight terrorism

United States Ambassador to India Kenneth Juster met the Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar on Friday to discuss the bilateral issues between two countries. The discussion comes amid Trump's decision to block military aid to Pakistan, saying that they have not taken the required steps to fight terrorism. US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Tuesday also said that the country has played a "double game" with the United States for years. State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert on Thursday announced that this decision would not change unless Pakistan gears up and takes necessary action against the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network. "No country has suffered more from terrorism than Pakistan. They understand that, but they still haven't taken the necessary steps," she said. The United States earlier suspended its $255 million military aid to Pakistan for now, the White House had confirmed, saying the fate of such assistance will depend on Islamabad's response to terrorism on its soil. The confirmation comes on the same day when US President Donald Trump accused Pakistan of giving nothing to the US but "lies and deceit" and providing "safe haven" to terrorists in return for $33 billion aid over the last 15 years. However, the US is only stopping the security aid, the humanitarian assistance to Pakistan will continue. (With inputs from ANI)

US, India discuss bilateral issues amid military aid cut-off to Pakistan

It had to happen one day. Pakistan&rsquo;s predicament reminds one of the famous statement of Abraham Lincoln: &ldquo;You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.&rdquo;

And it took 15 years for a US President to realise that his country was being taken for a royal ride by none other than its strategic ally in the name of the so-called fight against terrorism.

&#39;&#39;The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies &amp; deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!,&#39;&#39; President Donald Trump tweeted, rattling Pakistan on the New Year day.&nbsp;

The tweet sent shivers down the spine of Pakistan&rsquo;s civilian and military leadership as they huddled to grasp its impact. Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi was forced to advance a meeting of the National Security Committee by a day which was attended by top cabinet ministers and military chiefs. In all likelihood, the National Security Committee met at the instance of the army chief as army generals had met separately before the all-powerful meeting. At the end of the three-hour-long meeting, the committee came out with a terse statement shying away from commenting on Trump&rsquo;s tweet. The statement released by the prime minister&rsquo;s office expressed &ldquo;deep disappointment&rdquo; at comments made by US officials over the past few months.

&ldquo;Recent statements and articulation by the American leadership were completely incomprehensible as they contradicted facts manifestly, struck with great insensitivity at the trust between two nations built over generations, and negated the decades of sacrifices made by the Pakistani nation,&rdquo; it said.

Earlier, Pakistan foreign office summoned U.S. ambassador David Hale and sought his explanation behind Trump&rsquo;s angry tweet.

Pakistan has been on the boil since the storm caused by Trump tweet battered the country. Anti-Trump protests have engulfed almost the entire Pakistan with several political religious groups taking out rallies. Cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan too joined the issue by saying that Pakistan lost 70,000 lives and $100,000 billion due to the US war on terror. Khan, who once tormented the best of the batsmen in the world during his playing days, seems pretty weak on mathematics as the figure of monetary loss quoted by him is beyond the realms of possibility.

The US put the screws on Pakistan by announcing the next day of Trump tweet that it would continue to withhold military aid worth $255 million to its former strategic ally. The statement from the National Security Council spokesman was equally lethal. &quot;The President has made clear that the United States expects Pakistan to take decisive action against terrorists and militants on its soil, and that Pakistan&#39;s actions in support of the South Asia strategy will ultimately determine the trajectory of our relationship, including future security assistance.&quot;

It appears that the Trump tweet storm is unlikely to die down soon and more is in the offing for Pakistan. The statements from US officials are self-explanatory.&nbsp; Following up on Trump&rsquo;s tweet, the White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders accused Pakistan of playing a &ldquo;double game&rdquo; on fighting terrorism and said: &ldquo;They can do more to stop terrorism and we want them to do that.&rdquo; Earlier, the U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said at the United Nations that &ldquo;They work with us at times, and they also harbor the terrorists that attack our troops in Afghanistan.&rdquo; At the State Department on Tuesday, spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Pakistan knew what it needed to do, including taking action against the Haqqani network and other militants. Pakistan needs to &ldquo;earn, essentially, the money that we have provided in the past in foreign military assistance,&rdquo; she said.

The writing on the wall was clear since Trump assumed the presidency of the United States in January last. Even before becoming the president, Trump had been dropping enough hints, but Pakistan failed to read the messages which were not only explosive by explicit as well. The rhetoric was soon replaced with stern warnings after Trump assumed power. But Pakistan continued to live in a fool&rsquo;s paradise that the US could not bypass it as long as its forces remained engaged in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

Afghanistan is proving to be a political liability for the US. If it stays longer, it faces strong backlash back home and if it withdraws, the country will fall to the Taliban.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s a classical case of entering a blind alley but not knowing how to come out of it. Whatever may be its political designs, the US has been sucked badly into a country where exit routes are not easy and not too many. Already the US has lost 2,300 of its men. And it has cost the US more than 110 billion dollars since its forces first landed in Afghanistan in October 2001. The US has been fuming over Pakistan&rsquo;s alleged support for Haqqani network militants, who are allied with the Afghan Taliban. Afghanistan has time and again resented the presence of Afghan Taliban fighters in Pakistan who carry out deadly attacks in the war-torn country and return to the safe sanctuaries there. Whatever may be the political compulsions in the past, the new administration has realized that the Afghanistan war can&rsquo;t be won as long as Pakistan continues with its support to the Taliban and Haqqani groups.

In fact, the US patience had started thinning since it found that the most-wanted terrorist and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was being provided a safe sanctuary by Pakistan in the garrison town of Abbottabad. Pakistan should have smelt a rat when the US special commandos smoked out Laden in 2011 in an operation kept secret from the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif government.&nbsp; To add insult to injury, the then-Taliban leader Mullah Mansour was killed by a U.S. drone strike inside Pakistan five years later. No self-respecting nation can allow its territory to be breached in a manner as the US did. But Pakistan was forced to digest this humiliation, not once, but twice. But the lure of dollars far outweighed the heap of ignominy.

It remains to be seen whether the Trump tweet will bully Pakistan into changing its policy and withdraw support to the militant groups. Otherwise, as things stand today, the honeymoon between the US and Pakistan seems all over and it is a matter of time when the divorce will be formalised.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

It remains to be seen whether the Trump tweet will bully Pakistan into changing its policy and withdraw support to the militant groups. Otherwise, divorce is imminent.

It had to happen one day. Pakistan’s predicament reminds one of the famous statement of Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” And it took 15 years for a US President to realise that his country was being taken for a royal ride by none other than its strategic ally in the name of the so-called fight against terrorism. ''The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!,'' President Donald Trump tweeted, rattling Pakistan on the New Year day. The tweet sent shivers down the spine of Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership as they huddled to grasp its impact. Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi was forced to advance a meeting of the National Security Committee by a day which was attended by top cabinet ministers and military chiefs. In all likelihood, the National Security Committee met at the instance of the army chief as army generals had met separately before the all-powerful meeting. At the end of the three-hour-long meeting, the committee came out with a terse statement shying away from commenting on Trump’s tweet. The statement released by the prime minister’s office expressed “deep disappointment” at comments made by US officials over the past few months. “Recent statements and articulation by the American leadership were completely incomprehensible as they contradicted facts manifestly, struck with great insensitivity at the trust between two nations built over generations, and negated the decades of sacrifices made by the Pakistani nation,” it said. Earlier, Pakistan foreign office summoned U.S. ambassador David Hale and sought his explanation behind Trump’s angry tweet. Pakistan has been on the boil since the storm caused by Trump tweet battered the country. Anti-Trump protests have engulfed almost the entire Pakistan with several political religious groups taking out rallies. Cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan too joined the issue by saying that Pakistan lost 70,000 lives and $100,000 billion due to the US war on terror. Khan, who once tormented the best of the batsmen in the world during his playing days, seems pretty weak on mathematics as the figure of monetary loss quoted by him is beyond the realms of possibility. The US put the screws on Pakistan by announcing the next day of Trump tweet that it would continue to withhold military aid worth $255 million to its former strategic ally. The statement from the National Security Council spokesman was equally lethal. "The President has made clear that the United States expects Pakistan to take decisive action against terrorists and militants on its soil, and that Pakistan's actions in support of the South Asia strategy will ultimately determine the trajectory of our relationship, including future security assistance." It appears that the Trump tweet storm is unlikely to die down soon and more is in the offing for Pakistan. The statements from US officials are self-explanatory. Following up on Trump’s tweet, the White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders accused Pakistan of playing a “double game” on fighting terrorism and said: “They can do more to stop terrorism and we want them to do that.” Earlier, the U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said at the United Nations that “They work with us at times, and they also harbor the terrorists that attack our troops in Afghanistan.” At the State Department on Tuesday, spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Pakistan knew what it needed to do, including taking action against the Haqqani network and other militants. Pakistan needs to “earn, essentially, the money that we have provided in the past in foreign military assistance,” she said. The writing on the wall was clear since Trump assumed the presidency of the United States in January last. Even before becoming the president, Trump had been dropping enough hints, but Pakistan failed to read the messages which were not only explosive by explicit as well. The rhetoric was soon replaced with stern warnings after Trump assumed power. But Pakistan continued to live in a fool’s paradise that the US could not bypass it as long as its forces remained engaged in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is proving to be a political liability for the US. If it stays longer, it faces strong backlash back home and if it withdraws, the country will fall to the Taliban. It’s a classical case of entering a blind alley but not knowing how to come out of it. Whatever may be its political designs, the US has been sucked badly into a country where exit routes are not easy and not too many. Already the US has lost 2,300 of its men. And it has cost the US more than 110 billion dollars since its forces first landed in Afghanistan in October 2001. The US has been fuming over Pakistan’s alleged support for Haqqani network militants, who are allied with the Afghan Taliban. Afghanistan has time and again resented the presence of Afghan Taliban fighters in Pakistan who carry out deadly attacks in the war-torn country and return to the safe sanctuaries there. Whatever may be the political compulsions in the past, the new administration has realized that the Afghanistan war can’t be won as long as Pakistan continues with its support to the Taliban and Haqqani groups. In fact, the US patience had started thinning since it found that the most-wanted terrorist and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was being provided a safe sanctuary by Pakistan in the garrison town of Abbottabad. Pakistan should have smelt a rat when the US special commandos smoked out Laden in 2011 in an operation kept secret from the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif government. To add insult to injury, the then-Taliban leader Mullah Mansour was killed by a U.S. drone strike inside Pakistan five years later. No self-respecting nation can allow its territory to be breached in a manner as the US did. But Pakistan was forced to digest this humiliation, not once, but twice. But the lure of dollars far outweighed the heap of ignominy. It remains to be seen whether the Trump tweet will bully Pakistan into changing its policy and withdraw support to the militant groups. Otherwise, as things stand today, the honeymoon between the US and Pakistan seems all over and it is a matter of time when the divorce will be formalised. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Is the honeymoon between Pakistan and the US coming to an end?

&nbsp;

Reports are pouring in of the Indian force destroying two Pakistani posts in retaliation for the killing of its jawan in unprovoked firing. The BSF spokesperson said that two Pakistani mortar positions were &quot;located, targeted and destroyed by BSF troopers yesterday night only. The coordinated precision fire of BSF troopers silenced Pakistani guns.&quot;&nbsp;

Prior to this, only weeks ago, Indian security forces in retaliatory action against Pakistan, killed three Pakistani soldiers across the LoC and injured one as per media reports. The backdrop of this action was unprovoked ceasefire violation by Pakistan along the LoC on Saturday, wherein three jawans and one Major of India were martyred. It is obvious that to avoid embarrassment to the Pakistani Army, Pakistan would avoid commenting that the Indian soldiers crossed the LoC.

The ceasefire violations by Pakistan and retaliatory actions by India has been a common feature ever since the truce between both the neighbours along the International Border (IB), Line of Control and the Actual Ground Position Line in Jammu and Kashmir came into force in November 2003.&nbsp;

The violations are mainly concentrated in Jammu and Kashmir which accounts for 221 km of the IB and 740 km of the LoC. The pattern of these violations has some serious strategic indicators.&nbsp;

Earlier, Pakistan used to start the firing along LoC to help the militants to infiltrate, which used to be responded appropriately by Indians. After innocent civilians suffered many casualties, they started preparing bunkers or redesigning their houses to minimise casualties along LoC, and the Indian security forces helped them to do so. Once Pakistanis realised the effect of firing across the LoC, they started firing along IB also, as the Indian population there was less used to firing in that area, the chances of getting casualties of innocent civilians were, therefore, higher.&nbsp;

Pakistan opts to target civilians to achieve greater impact because of sensitivities involved, and blames India to have started the firing first. It knows well that India will respond and the damages done due to response can be highlighted to the world. It will help to claim the status of a helpless country deterred by India, as Pakistan Prime Minister Abbasi, in New York, called India as &ldquo;Existential threat&rdquo;. Indians are not involved in a proxy war, hence, it cannot have any interest to start any cross-border firing. This pattern is continuing for many years now.

Having exhausted all kinds of peace initiatives in past, India tried some innovative ideas to send stronger messages to Pakistan. India decided and carried out surgical strikes on terrorist camps, well inside the Pakistani territory, to stop terrorist activities and proxy war. This was a daring act, which was required, but it has certain implications.&nbsp;

No defence analyst would expect that militancy will end by one such action, hence some militant attacks even after the surgical strikes were expected. It was, therefore, understandable that some more actions like this will be required at various intervals, whenever Pakistan hikes up its militant activities. The action of Indian Security Forces on Monday night needs to be read in that context.

In 2017, over 200 militants have been killed in Kashmir, which is an unprecedented number, indicating Pakistan that their proxy war may not work due to the synergised action of all Indian security forces, NIA, and the government agencies. The only option left for Pakistani Army now is to increase cross-border firing in softer areas (449 in 2016 to 881 in 2017), and increase Border Action Team ( BAT) actions along with militants to cause casualties to security forces and innocent civilians.&nbsp;

In future Indian security forces, as well as, civil population along IB/LoC have to be even more careful to beat Pakistan&rsquo;s design of proxy war and cross-border firing. India will have to be ready for all eventualities within its own comprehensive national power.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

In 2017, over 200 militants have been killed in Kashmir, which is an unprecedented number, indicating Pakistan that their proxy war may not work due to the synergised action of all Indian security forces, NIA, and the government agencies.

Reports are pouring in of the Indian force destroying two Pakistani posts in retaliation for the killing of its jawan in unprovoked firing. The BSF spokesperson said that two Pakistani mortar positions were "located, targeted and destroyed by BSF troopers yesterday night only. The coordinated precision fire of BSF troopers silenced Pakistani guns." Prior to this, only weeks ago, Indian security forces in retaliatory action against Pakistan, killed three Pakistani soldiers across the LoC and injured one as per media reports. The backdrop of this action was unprovoked ceasefire violation by Pakistan along the LoC on Saturday, wherein three jawans and one Major of India were martyred. It is obvious that to avoid embarrassment to the Pakistani Army, Pakistan would avoid commenting that the Indian soldiers crossed the LoC. The ceasefire violations by Pakistan and retaliatory actions by India has been a common feature ever since the truce between both the neighbours along the International Border (IB), Line of Control and the Actual Ground Position Line in Jammu and Kashmir came into force in November 2003. The violations are mainly concentrated in Jammu and Kashmir which accounts for 221 km of the IB and 740 km of the LoC. The pattern of these violations has some serious strategic indicators. Earlier, Pakistan used to start the firing along LoC to help the militants to infiltrate, which used to be responded appropriately by Indians. After innocent civilians suffered many casualties, they started preparing bunkers or redesigning their houses to minimise casualties along LoC, and the Indian security forces helped them to do so. Once Pakistanis realised the effect of firing across the LoC, they started firing along IB also, as the Indian population there was less used to firing in that area, the chances of getting casualties of innocent civilians were, therefore, higher. Pakistan opts to target civilians to achieve greater impact because of sensitivities involved, and blames India to have started the firing first. It knows well that India will respond and the damages done due to response can be highlighted to the world. It will help to claim the status of a helpless country deterred by India, as Pakistan Prime Minister Abbasi, in New York, called India as “Existential threat”. Indians are not involved in a proxy war, hence, it cannot have any interest to start any cross-border firing. This pattern is continuing for many years now. Having exhausted all kinds of peace initiatives in past, India tried some innovative ideas to send stronger messages to Pakistan. India decided and carried out surgical strikes on terrorist camps, well inside the Pakistani territory, to stop terrorist activities and proxy war. This was a daring act, which was required, but it has certain implications. No defence analyst would expect that militancy will end by one such action, hence some militant attacks even after the surgical strikes were expected. It was, therefore, understandable that some more actions like this will be required at various intervals, whenever Pakistan hikes up its militant activities. The action of Indian Security Forces on Monday night needs to be read in that context. In 2017, over 200 militants have been killed in Kashmir, which is an unprecedented number, indicating Pakistan that their proxy war may not work due to the synergised action of all Indian security forces, NIA, and the government agencies. The only option left for Pakistani Army now is to increase cross-border firing in softer areas (449 in 2016 to 881 in 2017), and increase Border Action Team ( BAT) actions along with militants to cause casualties to security forces and innocent civilians. In future Indian security forces, as well as, civil population along IB/LoC have to be even more careful to beat Pakistan’s design of proxy war and cross-border firing. India will have to be ready for all eventualities within its own comprehensive national power. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: India's tough strike against Pakistan continues

The international terrorist Hafiz Saeed has been repeatedly thumbing his nose at the Pakistani establishment as well as at the United States, but Islamabad remains obdurate in not taking any action against him and several other terrorists. On several occasions, the US expressed its displeasure and concern, and nudged Pakistan to arrest and charge Saeed for his crimes. But Pakistan has always looked the other way around. What is that which is preventing Pakistan from booking Saeed at the expense of its fragile ties with the US?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

There can be only two plausible reasons. Either Pakistan is impotent and afraid of the might of Saeed or it is a well-thought-out plan of action to get even with its now estranged ally. Saeed, who carries a $10 million American bounty on his head for terror activities, is a U.N. and United States designated terrorist. Moreover, India has blamed Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) chief for the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Pakistan has been at the receiving end ever since the Donald Trump administration took over in January last year. President Trump has been particularly hard on Pakistan since he was on his campaign trail. There is no doubt that there has been a tectonic shift in American policy of late as the US desperation grows because of Pakistan&rsquo;s failure to rein in militants ensconced in its backyard.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The ties between Pakistan and the US had started straining during the Barack Obama administration.&nbsp; It all began with the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by US special forces in May 2011 on Pakistani soil in an operation kept secret from the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif government. The US, which had launched a massive manhunt for Laden, mastermind of the deadly September 11 attacks, was shocked that he was being provided a safe sanctuary by Pakistan whom it considered a strategic ally in its fight against terrorism. Even though, the US chose to maintain a fa&ccedil;ade of relationship with Pakistan because of its interests in Afghanistan.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;But all that seems to be over now! &quot;We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism when I&rsquo;m president. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with India in sharing intelligence and keeping our people safe mutually,&quot; Trump had said during electioneering. And true to his words, one can notice a paradigm shift in the new US dispensation as far as the battle against Islamic militants is concerned. From here onwards, one can expect a no-nonsense US policy on terrorism which should be a major cause of worry for Pakistan, which continues to host several militant groups hostile to both India and the US.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Unlike his predecessors, there is an increasing likelihood of Trump seeking to reshape the decades-old policy towards Pakistan by linking US aid to its commitment against terrorism. Today the US administration has announced withholding $255 million in aid to Pakistan.&nbsp; Though a pittance, the message is loud and clear that the US is dissatisfied with the obstinacy shown by Pakistan in not taking substantive action against terrorist networks that continue to flourish there with the full support of the administration.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Pakistan has been the recipient of more than $33 billion in aid since 2002. And it has done precious little to rein in militants. The US frustration seems to have reached the point of no return as President Trump in his August address said:&nbsp; &quot;We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting.&quot;&nbsp; Since then he has dispatched his top diplomatic and military advisors to Pakistan -- Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis &ndash; who read out the riot act to senior officials of Pakistan. But thus far, Pakistan does not seem to have been rattled by such warnings.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;On the contrary, not only did it free Saeed from the so-called &ldquo;house arrest&rdquo; with the lame excuse that the Lahore court did not merit his detention, it went on to justify his release. To rub salt into the wound, its foreign office spokesperson Mohammad Faisal said that Islamabad was committed to the implementation of United Nations Security Council 1267 sanctions regime on terrorists and had taken several steps in this regard.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;If that was not enough, Pakistan allowed Saeed to open the first office of his political group Milli Muslim League (MML) in Lahore. Saeed has also declared his political ambitions by announcing that his organisation JuD would contest the 2018 general elections under the banner of the MML. Ironically, according to Pakistani government records, the MML is the offshoot of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and JuD. In fact, Saeed was showered with flower petals as he openly toured several areas in full public glare.

&nbsp;

Can it happen in any civilised country that a UN-designated terrorist is allowed to roam free? But anything can happen in a rogue country like Pakistan which even allows a terrorist group to launch its political party and let it contest the elections. The MML-backed candidate had secured the fourth position with 6,000 votes, double than that of Pakistan People&rsquo;s Party (PPP) and Jamaat- i-Islami combined in a by-election in Lahore&#39;s NA-120 constituency last September. The seat had fallen vacant when the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had to resign, following his disqualification by Pakistan&#39;s Supreme Court.

&nbsp;

It is hard to digest that Saeed would have been allowed to open the office of MML without the consent of the government of the day and that too when the US had expressed its strong concerns and said in a statement that it hopes Pakistan &quot;does the right thing&quot; in not allowing that to happen and added that it &quot;want(s) to make...clear so that everybody knows&quot;, that the US has put a bounty of $10 million on Saeed, the founder of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT).&nbsp; It is an open secret that Saeed has the full backing of Pakistani army which has been at loggerheads with the government.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;The question then arises whether Saeed has the tacit support of the Pakistani establishment or it is too afraid to take action against him as he is being backed by the army. Pakistan Army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa came in full support of the Mumbai terror attack mastermind when he appeared before a parliament forum last month and said that Saeed, like every other Pakistani, had the right to raise the Kashmir issue. It is a known fact that the army enjoys far greater power than the elected government in Pakistan and no government can afford to go against the wishes of the army. Whatever may be Pakistan&rsquo;s reason to prop up Saeed, but one thing is certain. Pakistan is in for a rude shock in the coming months.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Either Pakistan is impotent and afraid of the might of Saeed or it is a well-thought-out plan of action to get even with its now estranged ally, the US.

The international terrorist Hafiz Saeed has been repeatedly thumbing his nose at the Pakistani establishment as well as at the United States, but Islamabad remains obdurate in not taking any action against him and several other terrorists. On several occasions, the US expressed its displeasure and concern, and nudged Pakistan to arrest and charge Saeed for his crimes. But Pakistan has always looked the other way around. What is that which is preventing Pakistan from booking Saeed at the expense of its fragile ties with the US? There can be only two plausible reasons. Either Pakistan is impotent and afraid of the might of Saeed or it is a well-thought-out plan of action to get even with its now estranged ally. Saeed, who carries a $10 million American bounty on his head for terror activities, is a U.N. and United States designated terrorist. Moreover, India has blamed Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) chief for the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans. Pakistan has been at the receiving end ever since the Donald Trump administration took over in January last year. President Trump has been particularly hard on Pakistan since he was on his campaign trail. There is no doubt that there has been a tectonic shift in American policy of late as the US desperation grows because of Pakistan’s failure to rein in militants ensconced in its backyard. The ties between Pakistan and the US had started straining during the Barack Obama administration. It all began with the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by US special forces in May 2011 on Pakistani soil in an operation kept secret from the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif government. The US, which had launched a massive manhunt for Laden, mastermind of the deadly September 11 attacks, was shocked that he was being provided a safe sanctuary by Pakistan whom it considered a strategic ally in its fight against terrorism. Even though, the US chose to maintain a façade of relationship with Pakistan because of its interests in Afghanistan. But all that seems to be over now! "We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism when I’m president. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with India in sharing intelligence and keeping our people safe mutually," Trump had said during electioneering. And true to his words, one can notice a paradigm shift in the new US dispensation as far as the battle against Islamic militants is concerned. From here onwards, one can expect a no-nonsense US policy on terrorism which should be a major cause of worry for Pakistan, which continues to host several militant groups hostile to both India and the US. Unlike his predecessors, there is an increasing likelihood of Trump seeking to reshape the decades-old policy towards Pakistan by linking US aid to its commitment against terrorism. Today the US administration has announced withholding $255 million in aid to Pakistan. Though a pittance, the message is loud and clear that the US is dissatisfied with the obstinacy shown by Pakistan in not taking substantive action against terrorist networks that continue to flourish there with the full support of the administration. Pakistan has been the recipient of more than $33 billion in aid since 2002. And it has done precious little to rein in militants. The US frustration seems to have reached the point of no return as President Trump in his August address said: "We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting." Since then he has dispatched his top diplomatic and military advisors to Pakistan -- Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis – who read out the riot act to senior officials of Pakistan. But thus far, Pakistan does not seem to have been rattled by such warnings. On the contrary, not only did it free Saeed from the so-called “house arrest” with the lame excuse that the Lahore court did not merit his detention, it went on to justify his release. To rub salt into the wound, its foreign office spokesperson Mohammad Faisal said that Islamabad was committed to the implementation of United Nations Security Council 1267 sanctions regime on terrorists and had taken several steps in this regard. If that was not enough, Pakistan allowed Saeed to open the first office of his political group Milli Muslim League (MML) in Lahore. Saeed has also declared his political ambitions by announcing that his organisation JuD would contest the 2018 general elections under the banner of the MML. Ironically, according to Pakistani government records, the MML is the offshoot of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and JuD. In fact, Saeed was showered with flower petals as he openly toured several areas in full public glare. Can it happen in any civilised country that a UN-designated terrorist is allowed to roam free? But anything can happen in a rogue country like Pakistan which even allows a terrorist group to launch its political party and let it contest the elections. The MML-backed candidate had secured the fourth position with 6,000 votes, double than that of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Jamaat- i-Islami combined in a by-election in Lahore's NA-120 constituency last September. The seat had fallen vacant when the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had to resign, following his disqualification by Pakistan's Supreme Court. It is hard to digest that Saeed would have been allowed to open the office of MML without the consent of the government of the day and that too when the US had expressed its strong concerns and said in a statement that it hopes Pakistan "does the right thing" in not allowing that to happen and added that it "want(s) to make...clear so that everybody knows", that the US has put a bounty of $10 million on Saeed, the founder of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). It is an open secret that Saeed has the full backing of Pakistani army which has been at loggerheads with the government. The question then arises whether Saeed has the tacit support of the Pakistani establishment or it is too afraid to take action against him as he is being backed by the army. Pakistan Army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa came in full support of the Mumbai terror attack mastermind when he appeared before a parliament forum last month and said that Saeed, like every other Pakistani, had the right to raise the Kashmir issue. It is a known fact that the army enjoys far greater power than the elected government in Pakistan and no government can afford to go against the wishes of the army. Whatever may be Pakistan’s reason to prop up Saeed, but one thing is certain. Pakistan is in for a rude shock in the coming months. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: US blocks aid but Pakistan still backs Hafiz Saeed. Why?

Responding to US President Donald Trump&#39;s allegation that Pakistan was providing safe haven to terrorists, India has said that its stand has been vindicated.&nbsp;

&quot;The Trump administration`s decision today has abundantly vindicated India`s stand as far as terror is concerned and as far as Pakistan`s role in perpetrating terror is concerned,&quot; ANI quoted Minister of State Jitender Singh as saying.&nbsp;

Singh added that the US was now understanding that there can be no differentiating between good and bad terrorism.&nbsp;

&quot;They are also understanding Prime Minister Narendra Modi`s reiteration that the war against terrorism has to be fought collectively. There can`t be good terror or bad terror, there can`t be a distinction in terrorism happening, terrorism is terrorism,&quot; Singh said.

Trump had on Monday tweeted that Pakistan had given the US nothing but &quot;lies and deceit&quot; in return for $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies &amp; deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/947802588174577664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

It was his first tweet of the year.&nbsp;

Pakistan reacted quickly, saying the US should not blame them for their failures in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting has said that the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/UnitedStates?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#UnitedStates</a> should not put blames for its failure in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Afghanistan?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Afghanistan</a> on Pakistan. 
She further said that <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Pakistan?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Pakistan</a> has rendered unmatched sacrifices in the war against# terrorism and there is no ambiguity about it <a href="https://t.co/u76OBadmtJ">pic.twitter.com/u76OBadmtJ</a>
&mdash; Govt of Pakistan (@pid_gov) <a href="https://twitter.com/pid_gov/status/947858274724012034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

It also <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-summons-us-ambassador-after-trump-criticism-28272" target="_blank">summoned the US ambassador</a> to Pakistan, asking him to explain Trump&#39;s tweets.&nbsp;

The US has since announced that it will be <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-summons-us-ambassador-after-trump-criticism-28272" target="_blank">cutting $255 million in military aid</a> to Pakistan.&nbsp;

'The Trump administration`s decision today has abundantly vindicated India`s stand as far as terror is concerned and as far as Pakistan`s role in perpetrating terror is concerned,' MoS Jitendra Singh said

Responding to US President Donald Trump's allegation that Pakistan was providing safe haven to terrorists, India has said that its stand has been vindicated. "The Trump administration`s decision today has abundantly vindicated India`s stand as far as terror is concerned and as far as Pakistan`s role in perpetrating terror is concerned," ANI quoted Minister of State Jitender Singh as saying. Singh added that the US was now understanding that there can be no differentiating between good and bad terrorism. "They are also understanding Prime Minister Narendra Modi`s reiteration that the war against terrorism has to be fought collectively. There can`t be good terror or bad terror, there can`t be a distinction in terrorism happening, terrorism is terrorism," Singh said. Trump had on Monday tweeted that Pakistan had given the US nothing but "lies and deceit" in return for $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years. The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 1, 2018 × It was his first tweet of the year. Pakistan reacted quickly, saying the US should not blame them for their failures in Afghanistan. Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting has said that the #UnitedStates should not put blames for its failure in #Afghanistan on Pakistan. She further said that #Pakistan has rendered unmatched sacrifices in the war against# terrorism and there is no ambiguity about it pic.twitter.com/u76OBadmtJ — Govt of Pakistan (@pid_gov) January 1, 2018 × It also summoned the US ambassador to Pakistan, asking him to explain Trump's tweets. The US has since announced that it will be cutting $255 million in military aid to Pakistan.

Our stand vindicated, says India after Trump slams Pakistan on terrorism

Around 202 BC in China, a Han dynasty general had flown kites to scare the enemy with the sound of it. In the seventeenth century in India,&nbsp; Shivaji used kites to scale the walls of an enemy fortress. In 1855, a Russian admiral Sir Arthur Cochrane used 12 feet long heavy kites to tow the torpedoes to the enemy boats. Later in the US, Russia and Europe, kites were used to lift humans, deliver messages, drop bombs and explosives over the enemy.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Since then, things have not changed much except that the kites of those times have been replaced by technically advanced drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or, we can also call them, Flying War Robots. The ultra-expensive, man-dependent, heavy military aircrafts have a cheaper, reliable and much more effective replacement available now.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Lightweight drones can now easily defy the territorial boundaries to conduct intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance missions.&nbsp; They can perform artillery observations, delivery of material and even precision attacks. Their technical advances in terms of greater autonomy, use of Artificial Intelligence and swarming capabilities make the scenario much more threatening. The global forces are operating these machines which are as small as 16gm Black Hornet Nano (a US made UAV) to a massive 40 feet Wingspan Global Hawk UAV which is even bigger than most commercial airliners.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In the last decade, we saw extensive use of drones by America for the bombing operations in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan and they proved to be damn effective. With the least possibility of being detected as they fly at very high altitudes, these steel birds can attack their target with ultra-precision and achieve desired results.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In such a scenario, the million-dollar question is: do these birds really have a strategic implication? The answer is a clear yes. They are just not an example of technical innovation, they are an offensive alternative in the form of cheap, precision-guided vehicle capable of passing any security parameter and attacking nearly any military asset. They are today&rsquo;s Kamikaze Pilots who can attack anywhere.

&nbsp;

However, there is a serious concern. Its ok for us if they are being operated by good guys, but what if they fall into hands of Bad Guys?

&nbsp;

In October 2016, coalition forces in Mosul found ISIS using drones in large number to drop grenades and explosives over Kurdish Forces as well as the coalition army. Sometimes, they were flying over a dozen missions at the same time. And the threat was so severe that the Mosul offensive was to be stalled for many days. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Since the markets are swarmed with cheap Chinese toys, terror attacks using these small birds cannot be ruled out even in India. A lone wolf can now effectively target even civilian assets like schools, hospitals and public gatherings to cause damage and spread terror.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In Indian scenario, we have a lot to worry. Some of the vehicles openly available in the market are for as low as 8000-10,000 Rupees. It can carry loads of a few kilograms. They can pack a lethal punch in themselves with a little improvisation. Moreover, there is no foolproof detection measure and at times, they are detected once they are within few meters of the target. Terrorists can effectively target our military establishments, parked aircrafts, ammunition and fuel dumps, strategic command centres, inflicting severe damage.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Imagine a 10,000 Rupees drone destroying Rupees 12 billion aircraft with precision.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

They cause serious economic concerns too. In January 2017, the US Forces had to shoot down an ISIS drone by using their $3 Million Patriot Missile. What a joke? What if such drones swarm the sky in a large number? Will any anti-missile defence withstand this? The answer is a clear no.

&nbsp;

Several countries have started developing their own counter-measures against these machines. These range from Laser Shooting, Jamming Rifles, Electronic Counter Measures, Electro-Magnetic Pulse weapons and even live Eagles trained to take out smaller drones.&nbsp;

No matter whatsoever are the technological advances but still, we are far off from an effective countermeasure against these rogue birds, and we have no option but to find a solution at the earliest.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Imagine a 10,000 Rupees drone destroying Rupees 12 billion aircraft with precision.

Around 202 BC in China, a Han dynasty general had flown kites to scare the enemy with the sound of it. In the seventeenth century in India, Shivaji used kites to scale the walls of an enemy fortress. In 1855, a Russian admiral Sir Arthur Cochrane used 12 feet long heavy kites to tow the torpedoes to the enemy boats. Later in the US, Russia and Europe, kites were used to lift humans, deliver messages, drop bombs and explosives over the enemy. Since then, things have not changed much except that the kites of those times have been replaced by technically advanced drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or, we can also call them, Flying War Robots. The ultra-expensive, man-dependent, heavy military aircrafts have a cheaper, reliable and much more effective replacement available now. Lightweight drones can now easily defy the territorial boundaries to conduct intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance missions. They can perform artillery observations, delivery of material and even precision attacks. Their technical advances in terms of greater autonomy, use of Artificial Intelligence and swarming capabilities make the scenario much more threatening. The global forces are operating these machines which are as small as 16gm Black Hornet Nano (a US made UAV) to a massive 40 feet Wingspan Global Hawk UAV which is even bigger than most commercial airliners. In the last decade, we saw extensive use of drones by America for the bombing operations in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan and they proved to be damn effective. With the least possibility of being detected as they fly at very high altitudes, these steel birds can attack their target with ultra-precision and achieve desired results. In such a scenario, the million-dollar question is: do these birds really have a strategic implication? The answer is a clear yes. They are just not an example of technical innovation, they are an offensive alternative in the form of cheap, precision-guided vehicle capable of passing any security parameter and attacking nearly any military asset. They are today’s Kamikaze Pilots who can attack anywhere. However, there is a serious concern. Its ok for us if they are being operated by good guys, but what if they fall into hands of Bad Guys? In October 2016, coalition forces in Mosul found ISIS using drones in large number to drop grenades and explosives over Kurdish Forces as well as the coalition army. Sometimes, they were flying over a dozen missions at the same time. And the threat was so severe that the Mosul offensive was to be stalled for many days. Since the markets are swarmed with cheap Chinese toys, terror attacks using these small birds cannot be ruled out even in India. A lone wolf can now effectively target even civilian assets like schools, hospitals and public gatherings to cause damage and spread terror. In Indian scenario, we have a lot to worry. Some of the vehicles openly available in the market are for as low as 8000-10,000 Rupees. It can carry loads of a few kilograms. They can pack a lethal punch in themselves with a little improvisation. Moreover, there is no foolproof detection measure and at times, they are detected once they are within few meters of the target. Terrorists can effectively target our military establishments, parked aircrafts, ammunition and fuel dumps, strategic command centres, inflicting severe damage. Imagine a 10,000 Rupees drone destroying Rupees 12 billion aircraft with precision. They cause serious economic concerns too. In January 2017, the US Forces had to shoot down an ISIS drone by using their $3 Million Patriot Missile. What a joke? What if such drones swarm the sky in a large number? Will any anti-missile defence withstand this? The answer is a clear no. Several countries have started developing their own counter-measures against these machines. These range from Laser Shooting, Jamming Rifles, Electronic Counter Measures, Electro-Magnetic Pulse weapons and even live Eagles trained to take out smaller drones. No matter whatsoever are the technological advances but still, we are far off from an effective countermeasure against these rogue birds, and we have no option but to find a solution at the earliest. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: How dangerous are drones in terrorist hands

India today strongly condemned the &quot;cowardly&quot; suicide terror attack at a cultural centre in Kabul and said it is committed to extending all possible support to Afghanistan in its fight against terrorism.

More than 40 people were killed in the terror strike at the Shiite cultural centre near a media outlet in the Afghanistan capital yesterday.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said in a statement that India backs all efforts to bring stability and security to Afghanistan and remains steadfast in its solidarity with the government and the people of Afghanistan at this difficult time.

India strongly condemned the &quot;cowardly suicide terror attack&quot; at a media news agency and the cultural centre in which more than 40 innocent lives were lost and many injured, it said.

India is committed to extending all possible support in their fight against the menace of terrorism and efforts to bring peace, stability and security in the country,&nbsp;it added.

The ministry also extended condolences to the families of the victims of the dastardly attack.&nbsp;

India said it is committed to extending all possible support to Afghanistan in its fight against terrorism

India today strongly condemned the "cowardly" suicide terror attack at a cultural centre in Kabul and said it is committed to extending all possible support to Afghanistan in its fight against terrorism. More than 40 people were killed in the terror strike at the Shiite cultural centre near a media outlet in the Afghanistan capital yesterday. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said in a statement that India backs all efforts to bring stability and security to Afghanistan and remains steadfast in its solidarity with the government and the people of Afghanistan at this difficult time. India strongly condemned the "cowardly suicide terror attack" at a media news agency and the cultural centre in which more than 40 innocent lives were lost and many injured, it said. India is committed to extending all possible support in their fight against the menace of terrorism and efforts to bring peace, stability and security in the country, it added. The ministry also extended condolences to the families of the victims of the dastardly attack.

India condemns 'cowardly' Kabul terror attack

The proxy war of &#39;Terroristan&#39; snowballed from the year 2016; with India implicitly ruling out formal talks with Pakistan till Islamabad brought the perpetrators of Uri and Pathankot airbase attack to justice.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The year 2017 started on a hopeless note, without much improvement in the proxy war. Firing on the Line of Control (LC), extended further to the international border (IB). Pakistan&rsquo;s relation with the US deteriorated for the want of credible action against the Haqqani network and other terrorist groups. As the infirm stand of Pakistan against terrorism affected US security, it appeared that Pakistan may be forced to reduce its state support to terrorists.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Apparently, erstwhile Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif tried convincing the military and the ISI to let their strategic assets (Jihadis) lie low to avoid international isolation. Despite UN terrorist tag and $10 Mn bounty on Hafiz Sayed, there was little done beyond his symbolic arrest, followed by his release and attempt to get into mainstream politics.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

For attempting to interfere in the Pakistan Army&rsquo;s power-play, Nawaz Sharif found himself ousted from power on corruption charges. 2017 is about to end without a Pakistani leader worth talking, as Prime Minister Abbasi is not effective due to the uncertainty of forthcoming elections. As the main player, the Pakistani Army will not let the relations improve because their influence and relevance are due to &ldquo;Indian threat&rdquo; and Kashmir issue.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Can the bilateral relations really improve?

Unfortunately, The India- Pakistan relations are marred with an inseparable historic baggage of animosity, military coups and resultant instability which continues even now. The 1971 war, besides dividing Pakistan (and creation of Bangladesh), resulted in 90,000 Prisoners of War for the victorious Indian Army. Pakistan Army could never forget it and kept trying to wipe this scar. Today the same generation of military is not in power, but the thought to avenge professional shame is alive with their military.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

President Zia&rsquo;s &lsquo;Islamic Republic of Pakistan&rsquo; became breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. With Taliban and Wahhabism in the rise, Pakistan witnessed a change in psyche and ideology. Kashmir remains an obvious target to avenge. The forced occupation of Baluchistan and ill-treatment of its population makes Pakistan further unstable. Due to internal instability, Pakistan Army could project itself as the only option available to bind and protect the country against India; hence they justify holding the reins of power.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

President Musharraf further nurtured militants, used them in proxy wars, as &lsquo;strategic assets&rsquo; and this reality has not changed to date. In this backdrop, every effort by each of the successive Indian leaders to improve relations was destined to fail, and the situation today is no different. &nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Events severely challenging India-Pakistan relations in 2017

&nbsp;

Sino-Pak nexus grew stronger and Chinese refusal to support a UN ban on Jaish-i-Mohammad leader Masood Azhar continues. The rolling out of CPEC despite India&#39;s opposition and the reported presence of the PLA and developments in Gwadar port further added to Indian security concerns.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The other spoiler was Pakistan&rsquo;s claim to be a victim of Indian &ldquo;state-sponsored terrorism&rdquo;, by wrongly citing Kulbhushan Yadav&rsquo;s case.&nbsp; No one, including the UN is convinced by his unfair trial by Pakistan Army Courts violating some basic tenets of justice.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Silver lining!

&nbsp;

Indian efforts to expose Pakistan as a state that is sponsoring terror in every international forum have resulted in more voices against terrorist groups having safe sanctuaries and training camps in Pakistani territory, duly supported by Pakistan Army and ISI. Almost all South Asian countries pulled out of SAARC meet in Pakistan for this reason.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Trump Administration&rsquo;s &lsquo;New South Asia Policy&rsquo; of putting Pakistan on notice, and inviting India to join their fight against terrorism in Afghanistan in a &ldquo;Trilateral Security Arrangement&rdquo; was a positive development. This, however, did not show much of results, except one more round of sham arrest and release of Hafiz Sayeed, and the inclusion of LeT, and HM in global terror list. India can smile about the outcome of BRICS, where even China reluctantly agreed to name LeT and JeM as terror groups.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Indian Response to changing realities

&nbsp;

Having tried all kinds of peace initiatives in past, India did try some innovative ideas to send stronger messages to Pakistan to stop terrorist activities and proxy war. India has expressed moral support to the innocent population of Baluchistan who are suffering atrocities under Pakistani Army.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;I do not believe that India has any intention to destabilise Pakistan because a destabilised Pakistan under Jihadi influence is not in the Indian security interest.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The surgical strikes by Indian Army on terrorist camps, well inside Pakistani territory were daring measures. There have been some militant attacks even after the surgical strikes, but its significance is more in the context of nuclear blackmailing by Pakistan. Pakistan has been openly threatening that if India crosses LC or international border, it will use tactical nukes against Indian Forces.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Pakistan Prime Minister Abbasi, in New York, called&nbsp;India as &ldquo;Existential threat&rdquo; and openly highlighted Pakistan&rsquo;s possession of tactical nuclear weapons. This myth was adequately broken by the surgical strikes, wherein LC was physically crossed and Pakistan could do nothing except making feeble attempts to deny it.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

With over 200 militants killed in Kashmir, India is making remarkable progress in pulling innocent Kashmiris out of the fear of Pakistani militants. Pakistan is strategically important for China and US, hence some sustenance to keep it afloat will be there from either of them. India will have to be ready for all eventualities within its own comprehensive national power. Talks without any credible action against militants, and before next Pakistani elections are meaningless. &nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

&nbsp;

Unfortunately, The India- Pakistan relations are marred with an inseparable historic baggage of animosity, military coups and resultant instability which continues even now.

The proxy war of 'Terroristan' snowballed from the year 2016; with India implicitly ruling out formal talks with Pakistan till Islamabad brought the perpetrators of Uri and Pathankot airbase attack to justice. The year 2017 started on a hopeless note, without much improvement in the proxy war. Firing on the Line of Control (LC), extended further to the international border (IB). Pakistan’s relation with the US deteriorated for the want of credible action against the Haqqani network and other terrorist groups. As the infirm stand of Pakistan against terrorism affected US security, it appeared that Pakistan may be forced to reduce its state support to terrorists. Apparently, erstwhile Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif tried convincing the military and the ISI to let their strategic assets (Jihadis) lie low to avoid international isolation. Despite UN terrorist tag and $10 Mn bounty on Hafiz Sayed, there was little done beyond his symbolic arrest, followed by his release and attempt to get into mainstream politics. For attempting to interfere in the Pakistan Army’s power-play, Nawaz Sharif found himself ousted from power on corruption charges. 2017 is about to end without a Pakistani leader worth talking, as Prime Minister Abbasi is not effective due to the uncertainty of forthcoming elections. As the main player, the Pakistani Army will not let the relations improve because their influence and relevance are due to “Indian threat” and Kashmir issue. Can the bilateral relations really improve? Unfortunately, The India- Pakistan relations are marred with an inseparable historic baggage of animosity, military coups and resultant instability which continues even now. The 1971 war, besides dividing Pakistan (and creation of Bangladesh), resulted in 90,000 Prisoners of War for the victorious Indian Army. Pakistan Army could never forget it and kept trying to wipe this scar. Today the same generation of military is not in power, but the thought to avenge professional shame is alive with their military. President Zia’s ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ became breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. With Taliban and Wahhabism in the rise, Pakistan witnessed a change in psyche and ideology. Kashmir remains an obvious target to avenge. The forced occupation of Baluchistan and ill-treatment of its population makes Pakistan further unstable. Due to internal instability, Pakistan Army could project itself as the only option available to bind and protect the country against India; hence they justify holding the reins of power. President Musharraf further nurtured militants, used them in proxy wars, as ‘strategic assets’ and this reality has not changed to date. In this backdrop, every effort by each of the successive Indian leaders to improve relations was destined to fail, and the situation today is no different. Events severely challenging India-Pakistan relations in 2017 Sino-Pak nexus grew stronger and Chinese refusal to support a UN ban on Jaish-i-Mohammad leader Masood Azhar continues. The rolling out of CPEC despite India's opposition and the reported presence of the PLA and developments in Gwadar port further added to Indian security concerns. The other spoiler was Pakistan’s claim to be a victim of Indian “state-sponsored terrorism”, by wrongly citing Kulbhushan Yadav’s case. No one, including the UN is convinced by his unfair trial by Pakistan Army Courts violating some basic tenets of justice. The Silver lining! Indian efforts to expose Pakistan as a state that is sponsoring terror in every international forum have resulted in more voices against terrorist groups having safe sanctuaries and training camps in Pakistani territory, duly supported by Pakistan Army and ISI. Almost all South Asian countries pulled out of SAARC meet in Pakistan for this reason. Trump Administration’s ‘New South Asia Policy’ of putting Pakistan on notice, and inviting India to join their fight against terrorism in Afghanistan in a “Trilateral Security Arrangement” was a positive development. This, however, did not show much of results, except one more round of sham arrest and release of Hafiz Sayeed, and the inclusion of LeT, and HM in global terror list. India can smile about the outcome of BRICS, where even China reluctantly agreed to name LeT and JeM as terror groups. Indian Response to changing realities Having tried all kinds of peace initiatives in past, India did try some innovative ideas to send stronger messages to Pakistan to stop terrorist activities and proxy war. India has expressed moral support to the innocent population of Baluchistan who are suffering atrocities under Pakistani Army. I do not believe that India has any intention to destabilise Pakistan because a destabilised Pakistan under Jihadi influence is not in the Indian security interest. The surgical strikes by Indian Army on terrorist camps, well inside Pakistani territory were daring measures. There have been some militant attacks even after the surgical strikes, but its significance is more in the context of nuclear blackmailing by Pakistan. Pakistan has been openly threatening that if India crosses LC or international border, it will use tactical nukes against Indian Forces. Pakistan Prime Minister Abbasi, in New York, called India as “Existential threat” and openly highlighted Pakistan’s possession of tactical nuclear weapons. This myth was adequately broken by the surgical strikes, wherein LC was physically crossed and Pakistan could do nothing except making feeble attempts to deny it. With over 200 militants killed in Kashmir, India is making remarkable progress in pulling innocent Kashmiris out of the fear of Pakistani militants. Pakistan is strategically important for China and US, hence some sustenance to keep it afloat will be there from either of them. India will have to be ready for all eventualities within its own comprehensive national power. Talks without any credible action against militants, and before next Pakistani elections are meaningless. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Indo-Pak relationship reached real low points in 2017

The foreign policy of India has taken many leaps in the last couple of decades, especially in the case of Israel-Palestine conflict. As a responsible country, it is essential that India must keep its stand clear.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

As External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said during the Non-Alignment Movement&rsquo;s Ministerial meeting, &ldquo;The path to Israel-Jerusalem peace clearly lay in an early negotiated solution between Israel and Palestine based on mutual recognition and security arrangements&rdquo;

&nbsp;

The message is clear, we must steer clear out of this issue. And, thus, without making much fuss or openly criticising the US and Israel, India silently voted against the US proposal to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel. The move of the US was purely driven by the policy of forceful expansion and, in my view, had no merit either.

&nbsp;

First of all, we must understand, Jerusalem had been a Holy City of the Jews, Christians as well as Muslims. It is considered as one of the holiest cities in the world. Its appeal is spiritual, cultural and historical. Not necessarily political or administrative.

&nbsp;

However, making Jerusalem the capital would invariably shift all elements of state politics to a city considered sacred. This is something like shifting India&rsquo;s capital to Haridwar or Varanasi and Saudi Arabia&rsquo;s capital from Riyadh to Mecca or Medina. Such decisions don&rsquo;t have good implications in the long term.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Secondly, we already know that the town of Jerusalem had been a bone of contention between the three religious communities. Till date, we have a rather stable and acceptable solution to the Israel-Palestine problem, it is not advised to disturb the status-quo. The same is applicable in the case of the Kashmir problem, and the international community accepts that. Till date not a single country has said that the entire Kashmir belongs to India.

&nbsp;

Thirdly, we must understand that the US himself had been sidelined much before the resolution was tabled itself. The two countries which presented the resolution were Yemen and Turkey. The involvement of Turkey makes it clear the anguish that has been created by the decision of the US on the matter. Historically, Turkey had been a trusted ally of the US and a NATO member. It receives billions of US Dollars in aid every year.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan in his recent speech at Ankara said, &ldquo;Mr. Trump, you cannot buy Turkey&#39;s democratic will with your dollars&quot;.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Now that&rsquo;s quite a bit for the US ego.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Fourthly, the UN resolution has nothing to say about the US. It talks generally about the Jerusalem and says, &quot;Any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void&nbsp;and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard, calls upon all States to&nbsp;refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the holy city of Jerusalem pursuant to Security Council resolution 478 (1980); It also demands that&nbsp;all states comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem and not recognise any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions&rdquo;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

My first point is mentioned by UN in its statement, and that too very loud and clear. Maintain the sanctity of a Holy City. In the large gathering of states, India knew that this resolution will win and, hence, it was a right decision to support it.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

While few of the people take it as India&rsquo;s support to Palestine, I think it is not the case. Being a responsible member of the UN, India must respect the sanctity of the UN resolution 478.

&nbsp;

India accepts Palestine as a country and the ties between the two countries have been old. In the times when the US was actively supporting Pakistan, Palestine was standing with India. We must respect this aspect too. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Moreover, India should act as a responsible leader of the world. Being a future superpower of the world, India must balance out its foreign relations and policies which is not possible by taking sides of one group or the another. India&rsquo;s views about Palestine have always been independent and consistent, and were not driven by the influence or pressure of any third country.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

At last, I would like to say that our relationship with the US and Israel has a different dimension which cannot be altered by such minor actions. India-Israel-US constitutes a bulwark against terrorism and, we shall continue to fight the menace till it is wiped off the face of this planet.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

&nbsp;

India?s views about Palestine have always been independent and consistent, and were not driven by the influence or pressure of any third country.

The foreign policy of India has taken many leaps in the last couple of decades, especially in the case of Israel-Palestine conflict. As a responsible country, it is essential that India must keep its stand clear. As External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said during the Non-Alignment Movement’s Ministerial meeting, “The path to Israel-Jerusalem peace clearly lay in an early negotiated solution between Israel and Palestine based on mutual recognition and security arrangements” The message is clear, we must steer clear out of this issue. And, thus, without making much fuss or openly criticising the US and Israel, India silently voted against the US proposal to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel. The move of the US was purely driven by the policy of forceful expansion and, in my view, had no merit either. First of all, we must understand, Jerusalem had been a Holy City of the Jews, Christians as well as Muslims. It is considered as one of the holiest cities in the world. Its appeal is spiritual, cultural and historical. Not necessarily political or administrative. However, making Jerusalem the capital would invariably shift all elements of state politics to a city considered sacred. This is something like shifting India’s capital to Haridwar or Varanasi and Saudi Arabia’s capital from Riyadh to Mecca or Medina. Such decisions don’t have good implications in the long term. Secondly, we already know that the town of Jerusalem had been a bone of contention between the three religious communities. Till date, we have a rather stable and acceptable solution to the Israel-Palestine problem, it is not advised to disturb the status-quo. The same is applicable in the case of the Kashmir problem, and the international community accepts that. Till date not a single country has said that the entire Kashmir belongs to India. Thirdly, we must understand that the US himself had been sidelined much before the resolution was tabled itself. The two countries which presented the resolution were Yemen and Turkey. The involvement of Turkey makes it clear the anguish that has been created by the decision of the US on the matter. Historically, Turkey had been a trusted ally of the US and a NATO member. It receives billions of US Dollars in aid every year. The Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan in his recent speech at Ankara said, “Mr. Trump, you cannot buy Turkey's democratic will with your dollars". Now that’s quite a bit for the US ego. Fourthly, the UN resolution has nothing to say about the US. It talks generally about the Jerusalem and says, "Any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard, calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the holy city of Jerusalem pursuant to Security Council resolution 478 (1980); It also demands that all states comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem and not recognise any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions” My first point is mentioned by UN in its statement, and that too very loud and clear. Maintain the sanctity of a Holy City. In the large gathering of states, India knew that this resolution will win and, hence, it was a right decision to support it. While few of the people take it as India’s support to Palestine, I think it is not the case. Being a responsible member of the UN, India must respect the sanctity of the UN resolution 478. India accepts Palestine as a country and the ties between the two countries have been old. In the times when the US was actively supporting Pakistan, Palestine was standing with India. We must respect this aspect too. Moreover, India should act as a responsible leader of the world. Being a future superpower of the world, India must balance out its foreign relations and policies which is not possible by taking sides of one group or the another. India’s views about Palestine have always been independent and consistent, and were not driven by the influence or pressure of any third country. At last, I would like to say that our relationship with the US and Israel has a different dimension which cannot be altered by such minor actions. India-Israel-US constitutes a bulwark against terrorism and, we shall continue to fight the menace till it is wiped off the face of this planet. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: India and the curious case of the UN Resolution on Jerusalem

The Chief Minister of Jharkhand, Mr Raghubar Das and his counterpart in Bihar, Mr Nitish Kumar were confident that the Maoist movement in Bihar has been brought under control. However, both have been proven to be wrong. Just after midnight today, a group of armed Moist insurgents killed one deputy head of village committee and abducted two staff of the Indian Railways, including an ASM. The irony is that this incident happened at Masudan Railway station which is just 164kms away from the heart of Bihar&#39;s capital city, Patna.

&nbsp;

There is a purpose in selecting the place and the action. They want to convey the message that they can reach anywhere, anytime and even in the proximity of the capital, spreading terror and insecurity in the minds of people.

&nbsp;

It is a matter of concern. Indeed, it is a matter of serious concern.

&nbsp;

Bihar and Jharkhand are important transit points for Maoists. It connects two important strongholds of the red corridor, the Dandakaranya in Chhattisgarh and Junglemahal in West Bengal and, hence, carries very high value for the Maoist movement. The entire leadership of the Maoist movement emphasises on controlling this corridor at all costs or else their movement will split and die.

&nbsp;

But what compelled Maoist to kill innocent civilians, burn the railway station and abduct the staff?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The answer lies in the recent developments in Bihar, Dandakaranya (Chhattisgarh) and Jharkhand. Over last three years, Bihar and Jharkhand Police have been cracking down on the Maoists in the bordering areas of the two states. So far, they have recovered a huge quantity of arms, ammunition and incendiary literature.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Also, their ideologue and member of Polit Bureau, Kobad Ghandy was re-arrested by Police. As the Central Police Forces are cracking down on the Maoist leadership and their ideology, while the civil administration is making inroads in the rural and underdeveloped areas, they are constantly losing moral ground among the local population. The poor tribal and villagers who used to help Maoist movement selflessly, are now getting away from them because they have understood the reality of the movement.

&nbsp;

A few years back, any shutdown declared by the Maoists used to be totally successful because of a whole-hearted local support. But things have changed now, and Maoists have no option but to undertake forceful measures to make their shutdown successful.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The recent incident of Lakhisarai reflects the highest level of frustration among the Maoist leadership. They demanded that the railway traffic on this route would be stopped till their shutdown is over. In his letter issued to the common public, some Suraj who claimed to be the secretary of Bihar-Jharkhand Special Area Committee says, &quot;Join for protests on 18th and 19th December and follow the total Shutdown on 20th December 2017.&quot;

&nbsp;

The message is clear. The movement which earlier claimed to be the movement of public has already turned into a terrorist movement. Not for the people but for their own prestige, money and power.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

In choosing soft targets, the Maoists are showing vulnerability in their once stronghold.

The Chief Minister of Jharkhand, Mr Raghubar Das and his counterpart in Bihar, Mr Nitish Kumar were confident that the Maoist movement in Bihar has been brought under control. However, both have been proven to be wrong. Just after midnight today, a group of armed Moist insurgents killed one deputy head of village committee and abducted two staff of the Indian Railways, including an ASM. The irony is that this incident happened at Masudan Railway station which is just 164kms away from the heart of Bihar's capital city, Patna. There is a purpose in selecting the place and the action. They want to convey the message that they can reach anywhere, anytime and even in the proximity of the capital, spreading terror and insecurity in the minds of people. It is a matter of concern. Indeed, it is a matter of serious concern. Bihar and Jharkhand are important transit points for Maoists. It connects two important strongholds of the red corridor, the Dandakaranya in Chhattisgarh and Junglemahal in West Bengal and, hence, carries very high value for the Maoist movement. The entire leadership of the Maoist movement emphasises on controlling this corridor at all costs or else their movement will split and die. But what compelled Maoist to kill innocent civilians, burn the railway station and abduct the staff? The answer lies in the recent developments in Bihar, Dandakaranya (Chhattisgarh) and Jharkhand. Over last three years, Bihar and Jharkhand Police have been cracking down on the Maoists in the bordering areas of the two states. So far, they have recovered a huge quantity of arms, ammunition and incendiary literature. Also, their ideologue and member of Polit Bureau, Kobad Ghandy was re-arrested by Police. As the Central Police Forces are cracking down on the Maoist leadership and their ideology, while the civil administration is making inroads in the rural and underdeveloped areas, they are constantly losing moral ground among the local population. The poor tribal and villagers who used to help Maoist movement selflessly, are now getting away from them because they have understood the reality of the movement. A few years back, any shutdown declared by the Maoists used to be totally successful because of a whole-hearted local support. But things have changed now, and Maoists have no option but to undertake forceful measures to make their shutdown successful. The recent incident of Lakhisarai reflects the highest level of frustration among the Maoist leadership. They demanded that the railway traffic on this route would be stopped till their shutdown is over. In his letter issued to the common public, some Suraj who claimed to be the secretary of Bihar-Jharkhand Special Area Committee says, "Join for protests on 18th and 19th December and follow the total Shutdown on 20th December 2017." The message is clear. The movement which earlier claimed to be the movement of public has already turned into a terrorist movement. Not for the people but for their own prestige, money and power. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Why Maoists chose soft targets to prove their dominance

The meeting of US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis with the leaders of Pakistan during his visit to Islamabad early this week was to find common ground in the fight against terrorism, the Pentagon said today.

&quot;The Secretary had very fruitful conversations about where we can find common ground,&quot; Pentagon chief spokesperson Dana White told reporters at her weekly news conference.

She said the effort was to broaden the relationship between the two countries.

&quot;As he said, no one has lost more troops and lives to terrorism than the Pakistanis. So again, this is about broadening our relationship and looking for opportunities. I think there are opportunities. I think his trip showed that&quot; White said.

She was responding to a question on Mattis conversation with Pakistani leaders in Islamabad on Monday.

&quot;Terrorism. I mean, the threat of terrorism, I mean everyone has, Pakistan has an interest in ensuring that terrorism is defeated. They&#39;ve lost thousands of troops, and they&#39;ve lost thousands of innocents as well,&quot; White said.

The Pentagon chief spokesperson said it was in the interest of Pakistan and the US to find a lasting solution to the Afghanistan problem.

&quot;It is in the interests of Pakistan, the US, the region to ensure that we can encourage that Afghanistan has a political reconciliation. So we&#39;ll look for ways to work with Pakistanis to find that common ground and move forward,&quot; White said.

Mattis had on Monday asked Pakistan to &quot;redouble&quot; efforts to confront militants operating from its soil.

"The Secretary had very fruitful conversations about where we can find common ground," Pentagon chief spokesperson Dana White said.

The meeting of US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis with the leaders of Pakistan during his visit to Islamabad early this week was to find common ground in the fight against terrorism, the Pentagon said today. "The Secretary had very fruitful conversations about where we can find common ground," Pentagon chief spokesperson Dana White told reporters at her weekly news conference. She said the effort was to broaden the relationship between the two countries. "As he said, no one has lost more troops and lives to terrorism than the Pakistanis. So again, this is about broadening our relationship and looking for opportunities. I think there are opportunities. I think his trip showed that" White said. She was responding to a question on Mattis conversation with Pakistani leaders in Islamabad on Monday. "Terrorism. I mean, the threat of terrorism, I mean everyone has, Pakistan has an interest in ensuring that terrorism is defeated. They've lost thousands of troops, and they've lost thousands of innocents as well," White said. The Pentagon chief spokesperson said it was in the interest of Pakistan and the US to find a lasting solution to the Afghanistan problem. "It is in the interests of Pakistan, the US, the region to ensure that we can encourage that Afghanistan has a political reconciliation. So we'll look for ways to work with Pakistanis to find that common ground and move forward," White said. Mattis had on Monday asked Pakistan to "redouble" efforts to confront militants operating from its soil.

Mattis meeting with Pakistan leaders was to find common ground in fight against terror: Pentagon

Every year, at the very end of Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year, and at the end of the Passover Seder, Jews all over the world recite, &ldquo;Next year in Jerusalem.&rdquo; The City, older than Bible, is at the heart and mind of all practising Jews. Jerusalem, more than any other city, stands as the symbol of the &#39;Promised Land&#39; as the Jews survived expulsion by the Romans, slavery in the land of the Pharaohs and the Holocaust in Europe. At the end of the Second World War, many Jewish survivors of Hitler&#39;s concentration camps came back to settle in and around Jerusalem.&nbsp;

For long, the Jewish stakeholders around the world had been trying very hard to gain a recognition for the Holy City as Israel&#39;s capital. But they have faced tough luck so far. Even Israel&#39;s closest ally, the US had been refusing to grant capital status to Jerusalem primarily because of the sensitivity of the matter.&nbsp;

Battle for Jerusalem

Palestinians and Israelis have been fighting over Jerusalem ever since the state of Israel has been established. Israel&rsquo;s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has himself asserted that Israel is in the midst of a &ldquo;battle for Jerusalem&rdquo;. While political and religious acrimony over the city has caused much bloodshed among members of both the communities, the lives of the Jerusalem&#39;s citizens have been almost inextricably intertwined.&nbsp;

The primary flashpoint in Jerusalem is the sacred compound in the Old City, known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif and to Jews as the Temple Mount. The religious topography there is meaningful for the current conflict. Islamic structures stand on the Haram today and are used on a daily basis. The Jewish holy places exist primarily in archaeology and memory. Worship focuses on a remaining fragment of the Second, or Herod&rsquo;s, Temple, known as the Western Wall. A fragile modus vivendi has existed since 1967 that enables Jews to pray below at the Wall and Muslims above on the esplanade.&nbsp;

Such entwined existence is ubiquitous because the two communities, over the ages, have lived there in harmony as well as in discord. So much so that when violence breaks out it has become impossible to spare anyone community from sufferings such attacks entail. In 2014, for instance, when an attack took place in West Jerusalem at a synagogue, killing four Jewish worshippers, it also resulted in the death of Israeli Druze Zidan Saif.&nbsp;

Saif, incidentally, was not an Israeli Jew.&nbsp; He belonged to a distinct branch of Islam whose members often serve in Israel&rsquo;s police or armed forces. Saif&#39;s funeral was attended by the President of Israel and a large number of ultra-orthodox Jews.&nbsp;

My city, your city, our city

President Trump&#39;s announcement in support of making Jerusalem the capital city of Israel will further weaken the fragile balance on which Jerusalem sustains itself. The decision has the potential to embroil the different religious communities in bloody violence. Particularly because just like the Israeli state, in May 2017, the Palestinian group Hamas presented a document that proposed the formation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.&nbsp;

Giving to the demand of one community over the other, particularly when one-third of the population of Jerusalem is actually Muslim, and with a large number of Christians living in the area too, tantamounts to playing with fire. But Trump to fulfill his election promises and to pacify a large number of his orthodox influential voters is ready to let an already volatile region go further the extremist way.&nbsp;

But as Trump does not seem to care, it seems similar dogged determination has taken over supporters of the Zionist cause living in Israel too.&nbsp;Shumel Rosner, an expert in the Israeli politics and Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance, writes in the New York Times that the Israelis will not be deterred by threats of violence or by actual violence itself. Indeed as per the words of Rosner, the US declaration in support of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel is a truly Trumansque moment. The author is here referring back to President Truman&#39;s decision to support the partition of Palestine, though the C.I.A. warned the President that &ldquo;armed hostilities between Jews and Arabs will break out if the U.N. General Assembly accepts the plan to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.&rdquo;&nbsp;

Whose city is it anyway?

Jews, Muslims and Christians all the three communities have very long and intimate association with Jerusalem. For historical reasons, one community might have come before the other, but their histories overlap for a significant stretch of time.

Jews had been praying facing Jerusalem for time immemorial.&nbsp;

It is Jerusalem that matter most to the Christians, more than Bethlehem and Nazareth. This was where Christ preached, ate the Last Supper with his disciples before his death, where he was arrested, put on trial, condemned to death, crucified, and died, a man mocked and tortured by the occupying Romans. It is where, Christians believe, his tomb was found empty and he rose from the dead. Jerusalem, they say, is the &#39;sacred heart&#39; of the Christian story.

Jerusalem&#39;s pivotal place in the religious and political history of Islam is equally undeniable. According to Islamic tradition, the prophet travelled miraculously from Mecca to Jerusalem and then upwards through the seven heavens, culminating in a direct conversation with, and/or vision of, God. Before his ascension, he led all the previous prophets of God, including all the Biblical and Israelite prophets, in prayer. Islamic rule over Jerusalem lasted for 12 centuries, longer than any other rule, whether Israelite, Roman, Persian or Christian.

President Trump should have shown better judgement on the matter. He needed to have shown more nuanced appreciation towards the shared history of the region. But characteristically to his rash and provocative nature, Trump went ahead without heeding the advice of the world community.&nbsp;

We can just hope that Jerusalem in spite of its newfound recognition will continue to be a place of harmony for all peoples. And, instead of being the political capital of nation-state, it will be the emotional center of a multicultural universe. After all, the root meaning of Jerusalem is shalom- a city of peace. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

To fulfill his election promises and to pacify a large number of his orthodox influential voters, Trump is ready to let an already volatile region go further down the extremist way.?

Every year, at the very end of Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year, and at the end of the Passover Seder, Jews all over the world recite, “Next year in Jerusalem.” The City, older than Bible, is at the heart and mind of all practising Jews. Jerusalem, more than any other city, stands as the symbol of the 'Promised Land' as the Jews survived expulsion by the Romans, slavery in the land of the Pharaohs and the Holocaust in Europe. At the end of the Second World War, many Jewish survivors of Hitler's concentration camps came back to settle in and around Jerusalem. For long, the Jewish stakeholders around the world had been trying very hard to gain a recognition for the Holy City as Israel's capital. But they have faced tough luck so far. Even Israel's closest ally, the US had been refusing to grant capital status to Jerusalem primarily because of the sensitivity of the matter. Battle for Jerusalem Palestinians and Israelis have been fighting over Jerusalem ever since the state of Israel has been established. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has himself asserted that Israel is in the midst of a “battle for Jerusalem”. While political and religious acrimony over the city has caused much bloodshed among members of both the communities, the lives of the Jerusalem's citizens have been almost inextricably intertwined. The primary flashpoint in Jerusalem is the sacred compound in the Old City, known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif and to Jews as the Temple Mount. The religious topography there is meaningful for the current conflict. Islamic structures stand on the Haram today and are used on a daily basis. The Jewish holy places exist primarily in archaeology and memory. Worship focuses on a remaining fragment of the Second, or Herod’s, Temple, known as the Western Wall. A fragile modus vivendi has existed since 1967 that enables Jews to pray below at the Wall and Muslims above on the esplanade. Such entwined existence is ubiquitous because the two communities, over the ages, have lived there in harmony as well as in discord. So much so that when violence breaks out it has become impossible to spare anyone community from sufferings such attacks entail. In 2014, for instance, when an attack took place in West Jerusalem at a synagogue, killing four Jewish worshippers, it also resulted in the death of Israeli Druze Zidan Saif. Saif, incidentally, was not an Israeli Jew. He belonged to a distinct branch of Islam whose members often serve in Israel’s police or armed forces. Saif's funeral was attended by the President of Israel and a large number of ultra-orthodox Jews. My city, your city, our city President Trump's announcement in support of making Jerusalem the capital city of Israel will further weaken the fragile balance on which Jerusalem sustains itself. The decision has the potential to embroil the different religious communities in bloody violence. Particularly because just like the Israeli state, in May 2017, the Palestinian group Hamas presented a document that proposed the formation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Giving to the demand of one community over the other, particularly when one-third of the population of Jerusalem is actually Muslim, and with a large number of Christians living in the area too, tantamounts to playing with fire. But Trump to fulfill his election promises and to pacify a large number of his orthodox influential voters is ready to let an already volatile region go further the extremist way. But as Trump does not seem to care, it seems similar dogged determination has taken over supporters of the Zionist cause living in Israel too. Shumel Rosner, an expert in the Israeli politics and Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance, writes in the New York Times that the Israelis will not be deterred by threats of violence or by actual violence itself. Indeed as per the words of Rosner, the US declaration in support of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel is a truly Trumansque moment. The author is here referring back to President Truman's decision to support the partition of Palestine, though the C.I.A. warned the President that “armed hostilities between Jews and Arabs will break out if the U.N. General Assembly accepts the plan to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.” Whose city is it anyway? Jews, Muslims and Christians all the three communities have very long and intimate association with Jerusalem. For historical reasons, one community might have come before the other, but their histories overlap for a significant stretch of time. Jews had been praying facing Jerusalem for time immemorial. It is Jerusalem that matter most to the Christians, more than Bethlehem and Nazareth. This was where Christ preached, ate the Last Supper with his disciples before his death, where he was arrested, put on trial, condemned to death, crucified, and died, a man mocked and tortured by the occupying Romans. It is where, Christians believe, his tomb was found empty and he rose from the dead. Jerusalem, they say, is the 'sacred heart' of the Christian story. Jerusalem's pivotal place in the religious and political history of Islam is equally undeniable. According to Islamic tradition, the prophet travelled miraculously from Mecca to Jerusalem and then upwards through the seven heavens, culminating in a direct conversation with, and/or vision of, God. Before his ascension, he led all the previous prophets of God, including all the Biblical and Israelite prophets, in prayer. Islamic rule over Jerusalem lasted for 12 centuries, longer than any other rule, whether Israelite, Roman, Persian or Christian. President Trump should have shown better judgement on the matter. He needed to have shown more nuanced appreciation towards the shared history of the region. But characteristically to his rash and provocative nature, Trump went ahead without heeding the advice of the world community. We can just hope that Jerusalem in spite of its newfound recognition will continue to be a place of harmony for all peoples. And, instead of being the political capital of nation-state, it will be the emotional center of a multicultural universe. After all, the root meaning of Jerusalem is shalom- a city of peace. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Trump is wrong; Israel alone can't claim Jerusalem

Pervez Musharraf has said that he is banned terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba&#39;s (LeT) &quot;biggest supporter&quot; and that he is aware that they &quot;like&quot; him too.&nbsp;

In an interview with Pakistan&#39;s ARY News, Musharraf said that he is similarly appreciative of&nbsp;LeT co-founder and the man thought to be the&nbsp;mastermind of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks Hafiz Saeed.

Musharraf was quoted as saying <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/hafiz-saeed-walks-free-vows-to-fight-for-kashmir-cause-24988" target="_blank">Saeed &quot;is involved in Kashmir&quot;</a> and that he &quot;supports&quot; that involvement.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/hafiz-saeed-files-petition-in-un-to-remove-terrorist-tag-25302" target="_blank">Hafiz Saeed files petition in UN to get terrorist tag removed</a>

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-should-ensure-hafiz-saeed-is-arrested-us-25045" target="_blank">Pakistan should ensure Hafiz Saeed is </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-should-ensure-hafiz-saeed-is-arrested-us-25045" target="_blank">arrestedl</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-should-ensure-hafiz-saeed-is-arrested-us-25045" target="_blank">, says </a><a class="gr-progress" href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-should-ensure-hafiz-saeed-is-arrested-us-25045" target="_blank">US</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I am the biggest supporter of LeT and I know they like me &amp; JuD also likes me: Pervez Musharraf to Pakistan&#39;s ARY News, also said &#39;yes&#39; on being asked if he likes Hafiz Saeed, added that, &#39;I have met him (Hafiz Saeed)&#39; <a href="https://t.co/txxT58oPoU">pic.twitter.com/txxT58oPoU</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/935710968058822656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 29, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Was always in favor of action in Kashmir &amp; of suppressing Indian Army in Kashmir &amp; they are the biggest force (LeT), India got them declared as terrorists by partnering with US. Yes they (LeT) are involved in Kashmir &amp; in Kashmir it is b/w we &amp; India: Musharraf to ARY News <a href="https://t.co/b1fOAyreKl">pic.twitter.com/b1fOAyreKl</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/935712835278999557?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 29, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Hafiz Saeed is a&nbsp;United Nations-designated terrorist who was freed from house arrest last week on an order of Lahore high court.

The US also branded Saeed a terrorist and put a $10 million bounty on Saeed&#39;s head after the 2008 Mumbai terror attack. Musharraf claimed Saeed was not involved in the Mumbai terror attack in 2008 because Saeed &quot;himself denied the charges&quot; of being the attacks&#39; mastermind.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/opinion-if-pakistan-army-wants-nothing-can-stop-hafiz-saeed-from-being-a-free-man-24881" target="_blank">Opinion: If Pakistan Army wants, Hafiz Saeed will be a free man</a>

Musharraf was declared a fugitive from justice by Pakistan in August this year.

 
&nbsp;

Musharraf also said he was appreciative of the man thought to be the mastermind of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks -- LeT co-founder Hafeez Saeed

Pervez Musharraf has said that he is banned terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba's (LeT) "biggest supporter" and that he is aware that they "like" him too. In an interview with Pakistan's ARY News, Musharraf said that he is similarly appreciative of LeT co-founder and the man thought to be the mastermind of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks Hafiz Saeed. Musharraf was quoted as saying Saeed "is involved in Kashmir" and that he "supports" that involvement. Also read: Hafiz Saeed files petition in UN to get terrorist tag removed Also read: Pakistan should ensure Hafiz Saeed is arrestedl, says US I am the biggest supporter of LeT and I know they like me & JuD also likes me: Pervez Musharraf to Pakistan's ARY News, also said 'yes' on being asked if he likes Hafiz Saeed, added that, 'I have met him (Hafiz Saeed)' pic.twitter.com/txxT58oPoU — ANI (@ANI) November 29, 2017 × Was always in favor of action in Kashmir & of suppressing Indian Army in Kashmir & they are the biggest force (LeT), India got them declared as terrorists by partnering with US. Yes they (LeT) are involved in Kashmir & in Kashmir it is b/w we & India: Musharraf to ARY News pic.twitter.com/b1fOAyreKl — ANI (@ANI) November 29, 2017 × Hafiz Saeed is a United Nations-designated terrorist who was freed from house arrest last week on an order of Lahore high court. The US also branded Saeed a terrorist and put a $10 million bounty on Saeed's head after the 2008 Mumbai terror attack. Musharraf claimed Saeed was not involved in the Mumbai terror attack in 2008 because Saeed "himself denied the charges" of being the attacks' mastermind. Opinion: If Pakistan Army wants, Hafiz Saeed will be a free man Musharraf was declared a fugitive from justice by Pakistan in August this year.

I am Lashkar's biggest supporter, I know they like me: Pervez Musharraf

Pakistan has been a reluctant player in the global war against terrorism. This is not something which is not known to the world. But the frequent flip-flops by world powers have only emboldened Pakistan to carry out with its state policy of sponsoring terrorism with impunity.

With unflinching support from its all-weather ally China, which has often misused its position of veto power at the Security Council, Pakistan does not give two hoots to reported threats or warnings. Pakistan has, once again, thumbed its nose at India and the United States by releasing terror mastermind Hafiz Saeed from house arrest.

<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>Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government.</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=Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government. But it surely cannot escape blame for not presenting its case properly in the court, facilitating Saeed&rsquo;s release from house arrest. &nbsp;In fact, India has presented voluminous evidence to Pakistan for his role in the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks. Pakistan&rsquo;s feeble defence that Saeed&rsquo;s release could invite economic sanctions did not cut ice with the court. 
&nbsp; 
Hafiz Saeed&rsquo;s release is no doubt a setback for India, but it also sets Pakistan on a collision course with the United States which has announced a $10 million bounty on his head over the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans. It should be recalled that the United States Department of the Treasury had designated Saeed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under executive order 13224 in May 2008 before the Mumbai attacks happened.

And a month later, November 26, 2008, Mumbai attacks, Saeed was also individually designated by the United Nations under UNSCR 1267. Ironically, Saeed had been moving freely in Pakistan, ranting against India and the United States for more than eight years before his so-called house arrest in January this year. That Pakistan has allowed him to carry on with his anti-Kashmir agenda speaks volumes about its so-called seriousness as far as the war against terrorism is concerned. 
&nbsp; 
Had the US been really serious about Saeed, it could have easily put pressure on Pakistan to act. But Saeed is a lesser threat to the US in comparison to India. That explains the reason why the US is not matching its words with action. The case in point is al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden who was smoked out from his safe compound of Abbottabad in Pakistan&#39;s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in May 2011 by the US elite forces. The US had named Laden as the chief conspirator of the deadly September 11, 2001, attacks.

<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>Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed.</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=Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The US announced the bounty on Saeed in 2012 for information leading to his arrest and conviction four years after he was designated as a global terrorist. But the leader of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), which has been a front for the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant group, had been roaming free and giving hate speeches against India and the US.

While it took nearly 10 years for the United States to locate and kill Laden, Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed. Who is playing the joke as far as the bounty on Saeed is concerned? Pakistan or the United States, or both!

The US reacted to Saeed&rsquo;s release by making a supine statement. &ldquo;The Pakistani government should make sure that he is arrested and charged with his crimes,&rdquo; U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said. 
&nbsp; 
It was only after India launched a major diplomatic drive against Pakistan for allowing the release of Sayeed that the US tempered its language the next day. A White House statement warned of repercussions for US-Pakistan relations and for Pakistan&rsquo;s global reputation unless it took action to detain and charge Sayeed.

<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>President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries.</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=President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Unlike the US State Department, the White House statement was very critical of Pakistan and warned that the relations between the two countries depended largely on the latter&rsquo;s conduct. The White House said Pakistan&rsquo;s failure to charge Saeed sent &ldquo;a deeply troubling message about Pakistan&rsquo;s commitment to (combating) international terrorism,&rdquo; adding that it also was counter to Pakistan&rsquo;s claim that it did not provide sanctuary to militants. 
&nbsp; 
Unlike his predecessor Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries. &ldquo;We can no longer be silent about Pakistan&rsquo;s safe havens for terrorist organisations,&rdquo; Trump said while unveiling his administration&rsquo;s policy for South Asia in August, adding that Pakistan would have &ldquo;much to lose&rdquo; if it did not comply. But such warnings have had little effect on Pakistan. 
&nbsp; 
There is no doubt that Pakistan has, of late, fallen out of favour of the United States which accuses it of pocketing billions of dollars meant for anti-militant operations against Afghanistan. The US is fighting a war in Afghanistan against the very militants who have been trained and financed by Pakistan, and who continue to find safe sanctuary in Pakistan after carrying out attacks in Afghanistan.

The ties between the US and Pakistan have worsened further after the later moved closer to China in the last few years. 
&nbsp; 
If President Trump really wants to live up to his image and his words, then he should decide once and for all whether to continue ties with a country which has been playing a double game as far as the war against terrorism is concerned or to amend his administration&rsquo;s decades-long carrot and stick approach.

<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>Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.</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=Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

To begin with, Trump can revoke Pakistan&rsquo;s non-NATO ally status. Though symbolic, it will deal a big reputational blow to Pakistan. Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The then George Bush administration had designated the non-NATO ally status to Pakistan in 2004 for helping the US in its fight against al Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan. If Pakistan is still unmoved by this action, then President Trump will have to take a final call what Mr Bush famously used the phrase after the 9/11 attacks that &ldquo;Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.&rdquo;

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Donald Trump should decide whether to continue ties with Pakistan or revoke Pakistan?s non-NATO ally status

Pakistan has been a reluctant player in the global war against terrorism. This is not something which is not known to the world. But the frequent flip-flops by world powers have only emboldened Pakistan to carry out with its state policy of sponsoring terrorism with impunity. With unflinching support from its all-weather ally China, which has often misused its position of veto power at the Security Council, Pakistan does not give two hoots to reported threats or warnings. Pakistan has, once again, thumbed its nose at India and the United States by releasing terror mastermind Hafiz Saeed from house arrest. Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government. × Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government. But it surely cannot escape blame for not presenting its case properly in the court, facilitating Saeed’s release from house arrest. In fact, India has presented voluminous evidence to Pakistan for his role in the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks. Pakistan’s feeble defence that Saeed’s release could invite economic sanctions did not cut ice with the court. Hafiz Saeed’s release is no doubt a setback for India, but it also sets Pakistan on a collision course with the United States which has announced a $10 million bounty on his head over the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans. It should be recalled that the United States Department of the Treasury had designated Saeed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under executive order 13224 in May 2008 before the Mumbai attacks happened. And a month later, November 26, 2008, Mumbai attacks, Saeed was also individually designated by the United Nations under UNSCR 1267. Ironically, Saeed had been moving freely in Pakistan, ranting against India and the United States for more than eight years before his so-called house arrest in January this year. That Pakistan has allowed him to carry on with his anti-Kashmir agenda speaks volumes about its so-called seriousness as far as the war against terrorism is concerned. Had the US been really serious about Saeed, it could have easily put pressure on Pakistan to act. But Saeed is a lesser threat to the US in comparison to India. That explains the reason why the US is not matching its words with action. The case in point is al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden who was smoked out from his safe compound of Abbottabad in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in May 2011 by the US elite forces. The US had named Laden as the chief conspirator of the deadly September 11, 2001, attacks. Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed. × The US announced the bounty on Saeed in 2012 for information leading to his arrest and conviction four years after he was designated as a global terrorist. But the leader of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), which has been a front for the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant group, had been roaming free and giving hate speeches against India and the US. While it took nearly 10 years for the United States to locate and kill Laden, Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed. Who is playing the joke as far as the bounty on Saeed is concerned? Pakistan or the United States, or both! The US reacted to Saeed’s release by making a supine statement. “The Pakistani government should make sure that he is arrested and charged with his crimes,” U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said. It was only after India launched a major diplomatic drive against Pakistan for allowing the release of Sayeed that the US tempered its language the next day. A White House statement warned of repercussions for US-Pakistan relations and for Pakistan’s global reputation unless it took action to detain and charge Sayeed. President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries. × Unlike the US State Department, the White House statement was very critical of Pakistan and warned that the relations between the two countries depended largely on the latter’s conduct. The White House said Pakistan’s failure to charge Saeed sent “a deeply troubling message about Pakistan’s commitment to (combating) international terrorism,” adding that it also was counter to Pakistan’s claim that it did not provide sanctuary to militants. Unlike his predecessor Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries. “We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organisations,” Trump said while unveiling his administration’s policy for South Asia in August, adding that Pakistan would have “much to lose” if it did not comply. But such warnings have had little effect on Pakistan. There is no doubt that Pakistan has, of late, fallen out of favour of the United States which accuses it of pocketing billions of dollars meant for anti-militant operations against Afghanistan. The US is fighting a war in Afghanistan against the very militants who have been trained and financed by Pakistan, and who continue to find safe sanctuary in Pakistan after carrying out attacks in Afghanistan. The ties between the US and Pakistan have worsened further after the later moved closer to China in the last few years. If President Trump really wants to live up to his image and his words, then he should decide once and for all whether to continue ties with a country which has been playing a double game as far as the war against terrorism is concerned or to amend his administration’s decades-long carrot and stick approach. Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. × To begin with, Trump can revoke Pakistan’s non-NATO ally status. Though symbolic, it will deal a big reputational blow to Pakistan. Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The then George Bush administration had designated the non-NATO ally status to Pakistan in 2004 for helping the US in its fight against al Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan. If Pakistan is still unmoved by this action, then President Trump will have to take a final call what Mr Bush famously used the phrase after the 9/11 attacks that “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: In releasing Hafiz Saeed, Pakistan challenges India and US

Over 200 people were killed and many more injured in an attack on a Sufi mosque in Egypt&rsquo;s North Sinai region on Friday. The assault began with a bomb exploding as people were finishing their Friday prayers. As people fled and ambulances arrived, militants opened gunfire on them. It is the deadliest ever attack on civilians in Egypt&rsquo;s modern history.

This is not the first time a cherished Sufi site and Sufi worshipers have been the target of extremists. Earlier this year, in February, a bomb exploded at the tomb of a Sufi saint, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, in southeastern Pakistan. In 2016, combatants of the so-called Islamic State distributed images of the supposed execution of a Sufi teacher. The same year, the Pakistani Taliban murdered a popular Sufi singer of Pakistan, Amjad Sabri. In 2010 the tomb of another Sufi saint Data Ganj Bakhsh was bombed in Pakistan.

In the past, IS has claimed responsibility for some attacks against Sufis and their institutions, although no one so far has claimed responsibility for Friday&rsquo;s murderous assault.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/image-20170224-22986-oo6je8-20171127090855.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
A devotee prays at the tomb of Sufi saint Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in Pakistan. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

As a scholar of Muslim and Hindu traditions, I&rsquo;ve long appreciated the various and influential roles that Sufis and their tombs play in South Asian communities and many communities elsewhere in the world. From my perspective, the repercussions of the deplorable violence in Egypt and elsewhere go far beyond the scores of bodies strewn around the damaged shrine and the devastated families.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims around the globe celebrate Sufi saints and gather together for worship in their shrines. Such practices, however, do not conform to the Islamic ideologies of intolerant revivalist groups such as Islamic State. On the contrary, IS finds these practices threatening. Here&rsquo;s why.

Who are the Sufis?

The origins of the word &ldquo;Sufi&rdquo; come from an Arabic term for wool (suf). It references the unrefined wool clothes long worn by ancient west Asian ascetics and points to a common quality ascribed to Sufis &ndash; austerity.

Commonly Muslims viewed this austerity as stemming from a sincere religious devotion that compelled the Sufi into a close, personal relationship with God, modelled on aspects of the Prophet Muhammad&rsquo;s life. This often involved a more inward, contemplative focus than many other forms of Islamic practice.

In some instances, Sufis challenged contemporary norms in order to shock their Muslim neighbours into more religiously intentional lives. For example, an eighth-century female Sufi saint, known popularly as Rabia al-Adawiyya, is said to have walked through her hometown of Basra, in modern-day Iraq, with a lit torch in one hand and a bucket of water in another. When asked why she replied that she hoped to burn down heaven and douse hell&rsquo;s fire so people would &ndash; without concern for reward or punishment &ndash; love God.

Others used poetry in order to express their devotion. For example, the famous 13th-century Persian poet and Sufi leader Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi relied upon themes of love and desire to communicate the yearning for a heartfelt relationship with God. Yet others, such as such as Data Ganj Bakhsh, an 11th-century Sufi, wrote dense philosophical tracts that used complicated theological arguments to explain Sufi concepts to Islamic scholars.

Sufi veneration

Many Sufis are trained in &ldquo;tariqas&rdquo; (brotherhoods) in which teachers carefully shape students.

Rumi, for example, founded the famous &ldquo;Mevlevi&rdquo; order best known as &ldquo;whirling dervishes&rdquo; for their signature performance.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/luDklth_mbM" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

This is a ritual in which practitioners deepen their relationship with God through a twirling dance intended to evoke a religious experience.

Some Sufis &ndash; men and, sometimes, women &ndash; came to gain such a reputation for their insight and miracles that they were seen to be guides and healers for the community. The miracles associated with them may have been performed in life or after death.

When some of these Sufis died, common folk came to view their tombs as places emanating &ldquo;baraka,&rdquo; a term connoting &ldquo;blessing,&rdquo; &ldquo;power&rdquo; and &ldquo;presence.&rdquo; Some devotees considered the baraka as boosting their prayers, while others considered it a miraculous energy that could be absorbed from proximity with the shrine.

For the devotees, the tombs-turned-shrines are places where God gives special attention to prayers. However, some devotees go so far as to pray for the deceased Sufi&rsquo;s personal intercession.

A place of interfaith worship?

So, why do some groups like the so-called Islamic State violently oppose them?

I argue, there are two reasons: First, some Sufis &ndash; as illustrated by Rabia, the Sufi from Basra &ndash; deliberately flout the Islamic conventions of their peers, which causes many in their communities to condemn their unorthodox views and practices.

Second, many Muslims, not just militants, consider shrine devotion as superstitious and idolatrous. The popularity among Muslims and non-Muslims of tomb veneration alarms many conservative Muslims.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/image-20170224-22978-y1qit7-20171127091002.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Devotees light oil lamps at the shrine of Muslim saint Data Ganj Bakhsh in Lahore, Pakistan. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

When a Sufi tomb grows in reputation for its miraculous powers, then an increasing number of people begin to frequent it to seek blessings. The tombs often become a gathering place for Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and people from other faiths.

In South Asia, special songs of praise &ndash; &ldquo;qawwali&rdquo; &ndash; are sung at these shrines that express Islamic values using the imagery of love and devotion. In other regions, other traditions of devotion have emerged, while zikr (&ldquo;litany recitation&rdquo;) is widely popular.

However, despite the divergent ideologies and goals that differentiate them from one another, intolerant Islamist groups such as the Taliban and the so-called Islamic State reject shrine worship as well as dancing and singing as un-Islamic (hence the Pakistani Taliban&rsquo;s assassination of the world-famous qawwali singer Amjad Sabri). In their view, prayers to Sufis are idolatrous.

Success of Sufi traditions

Sufi customs reflect a vastly underreported quality about Islamic traditions in general. While some revivalist Muslim movements such as the Wahhabis and other Salafis see only one way of being Muslim, there are others who embrace the diversity of Islamic traditions.

Many Muslims proudly defend Sufi customs such as shrine devotions because they are so integral to Muslim and non-Muslim communities, not only in South Asia but in various regions of the world. Today, about 15 percent of Egypt&rsquo;s population belong to Sufi orders or practice Sufi traditions. They play crucial roles in their locale and region. For many, Sufi sites offer an Islamic expression of what it means to love God.

In fact, historically, in many regions of the world Sufis have been highly successful in adapting Islamic theologies and practices to local customs for non-Muslims. For this reason, Sufi traditions have been credited for the majority of conversions to Islam in South Asia.

It is only with the global expansion of Islamist revivalist groups in the last century that the urge to absolute conformity has become so strong and pervasive. Even so, a majority of Muslims continues to accept a diversity of Islamic practices.

Given the popularity of Sufis, it&rsquo;s no wonder the so-called Islamic State objects to such models of Islamic pluralism. The ferocity of the recent attack in Egypt and the possible involvement of a suicide bomber demonstrate not only the strength of beliefs in this regard but also how influential IS and other extremists judge both the prominence and the popularity of Sufi traditions.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-are-the-sufis-and-why-does-is-see-them-as-threatening-73431" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

A new attack on a Sufi mosque in Egypt drives home the hatred of Islamic State and other some other Muslim groups for the Sufi traditions of inclusiveness and mystical worship

Over 200 people were killed and many more injured in an attack on a Sufi mosque in Egypt’s North Sinai region on Friday. The assault began with a bomb exploding as people were finishing their Friday prayers. As people fled and ambulances arrived, militants opened gunfire on them. It is the deadliest ever attack on civilians in Egypt’s modern history. This is not the first time a cherished Sufi site and Sufi worshipers have been the target of extremists. Earlier this year, in February, a bomb exploded at the tomb of a Sufi saint, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, in southeastern Pakistan. In 2016, combatants of the so-called Islamic State distributed images of the supposed execution of a Sufi teacher. The same year, the Pakistani Taliban murdered a popular Sufi singer of Pakistan, Amjad Sabri. In 2010 the tomb of another Sufi saint Data Ganj Bakhsh was bombed in Pakistan. In the past, IS has claimed responsibility for some attacks against Sufis and their institutions, although no one so far has claimed responsibility for Friday’s murderous assault. A devotee prays at the tomb of Sufi saint Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in Pakistan. (Reuters) × As a scholar of Muslim and Hindu traditions, I’ve long appreciated the various and influential roles that Sufis and their tombs play in South Asian communities and many communities elsewhere in the world. From my perspective, the repercussions of the deplorable violence in Egypt and elsewhere go far beyond the scores of bodies strewn around the damaged shrine and the devastated families. Many Muslims and non-Muslims around the globe celebrate Sufi saints and gather together for worship in their shrines. Such practices, however, do not conform to the Islamic ideologies of intolerant revivalist groups such as Islamic State. On the contrary, IS finds these practices threatening. Here’s why. Who are the Sufis? The origins of the word “Sufi” come from an Arabic term for wool (suf). It references the unrefined wool clothes long worn by ancient west Asian ascetics and points to a common quality ascribed to Sufis – austerity. Commonly Muslims viewed this austerity as stemming from a sincere religious devotion that compelled the Sufi into a close, personal relationship with God, modelled on aspects of the Prophet Muhammad’s life. This often involved a more inward, contemplative focus than many other forms of Islamic practice. In some instances, Sufis challenged contemporary norms in order to shock their Muslim neighbours into more religiously intentional lives. For example, an eighth-century female Sufi saint, known popularly as Rabia al-Adawiyya, is said to have walked through her hometown of Basra, in modern-day Iraq, with a lit torch in one hand and a bucket of water in another. When asked why she replied that she hoped to burn down heaven and douse hell’s fire so people would – without concern for reward or punishment – love God. Others used poetry in order to express their devotion. For example, the famous 13th-century Persian poet and Sufi leader Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi relied upon themes of love and desire to communicate the yearning for a heartfelt relationship with God. Yet others, such as such as Data Ganj Bakhsh, an 11th-century Sufi, wrote dense philosophical tracts that used complicated theological arguments to explain Sufi concepts to Islamic scholars. Sufi veneration Many Sufis are trained in “tariqas” (brotherhoods) in which teachers carefully shape students. Rumi, for example, founded the famous “Mevlevi” order best known as “whirling dervishes” for their signature performance. × This is a ritual in which practitioners deepen their relationship with God through a twirling dance intended to evoke a religious experience. Some Sufis – men and, sometimes, women – came to gain such a reputation for their insight and miracles that they were seen to be guides and healers for the community. The miracles associated with them may have been performed in life or after death. When some of these Sufis died, common folk came to view their tombs as places emanating “baraka,” a term connoting “blessing,” “power” and “presence.” Some devotees considered the baraka as boosting their prayers, while others considered it a miraculous energy that could be absorbed from proximity with the shrine. For the devotees, the tombs-turned-shrines are places where God gives special attention to prayers. However, some devotees go so far as to pray for the deceased Sufi’s personal intercession. A place of interfaith worship? So, why do some groups like the so-called Islamic State violently oppose them? I argue, there are two reasons: First, some Sufis – as illustrated by Rabia, the Sufi from Basra – deliberately flout the Islamic conventions of their peers, which causes many in their communities to condemn their unorthodox views and practices. Second, many Muslims, not just militants, consider shrine devotion as superstitious and idolatrous. The popularity among Muslims and non-Muslims of tomb veneration alarms many conservative Muslims. Devotees light oil lamps at the shrine of Muslim saint Data Ganj Bakhsh in Lahore, Pakistan. (Reuters) × When a Sufi tomb grows in reputation for its miraculous powers, then an increasing number of people begin to frequent it to seek blessings. The tombs often become a gathering place for Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and people from other faiths. In South Asia, special songs of praise – “qawwali” – are sung at these shrines that express Islamic values using the imagery of love and devotion. In other regions, other traditions of devotion have emerged, while zikr (“litany recitation”) is widely popular. However, despite the divergent ideologies and goals that differentiate them from one another, intolerant Islamist groups such as the Taliban and the so-called Islamic State reject shrine worship as well as dancing and singing as un-Islamic (hence the Pakistani Taliban’s assassination of the world-famous qawwali singer Amjad Sabri). In their view, prayers to Sufis are idolatrous. Success of Sufi traditions Sufi customs reflect a vastly underreported quality about Islamic traditions in general. While some revivalist Muslim movements such as the Wahhabis and other Salafis see only one way of being Muslim, there are others who embrace the diversity of Islamic traditions. Many Muslims proudly defend Sufi customs such as shrine devotions because they are so integral to Muslim and non-Muslim communities, not only in South Asia but in various regions of the world. Today, about 15 percent of Egypt’s population belong to Sufi orders or practice Sufi traditions. They play crucial roles in their locale and region. For many, Sufi sites offer an Islamic expression of what it means to love God. In fact, historically, in many regions of the world Sufis have been highly successful in adapting Islamic theologies and practices to local customs for non-Muslims. For this reason, Sufi traditions have been credited for the majority of conversions to Islam in South Asia. It is only with the global expansion of Islamist revivalist groups in the last century that the urge to absolute conformity has become so strong and pervasive. Even so, a majority of Muslims continues to accept a diversity of Islamic practices. Given the popularity of Sufis, it’s no wonder the so-called Islamic State objects to such models of Islamic pluralism. The ferocity of the recent attack in Egypt and the possible involvement of a suicide bomber demonstrate not only the strength of beliefs in this regard but also how influential IS and other extremists judge both the prominence and the popularity of Sufi traditions. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Terrified of Sufis, the IS attacked mosque in Egypt

Authors:&nbsp;Daniel Wagner and&nbsp;Giuseppe Del Vecchio*

Cyberspace is the ideal platform for terrorists because, unlike conventional warfare, barriers to entry into cyberspace are much lower. The price of entry is an internet connection. The surreptitious use of the internet to advance terrorist group objectives has created a new brand of Holy War &mdash; &ldquo;virtual jihad&rdquo;&mdash; that gains thousands of new adherents each day. Long after the current terrorist groups have ceased to be a major threat from a physical perspective, they will remain omnipresent in cyberspace, promoting a virtual caliphate from their safe haven behind computer keyboards around the world. Islamic extremists are natural candidates to transition to a virtual world that offers them automatic citizenship beyond the nation-state.

Since the Islamic State (IS) was founded, its leaders have deftly and continually rewritten the narrative to claim that the group&rsquo;s desired caliphate exists, has a specific location and maintains a defined group of adherents. Unconstrained by the absence of a definitive Quranic guideline for what constitutes a caliphate, IS created its own self-promoting doctrine. The group expanded its caliphate narrative to include a wide range of options for participation: Membership included everyone from the passive observer reading a blog or curiously following a Twitter feed to the keyboard jihadist editing Rumiyah or hacking a website to the real-world operators attacking a nightclub or running down holiday celebrants with a delivery truck.

IS has successfully exploited the sociopolitical environment and young adults&rsquo; obsession with technology to establish a growing community of devotees in the ungoverned territory of cyberspace, ensuring its ability to continue to coordinate and inspire violence well into the future. IS has found its own salvation via the internet, particularly since it has already passed the peak of its real-world power.

The Islamic State has also capitalised on the world&rsquo;s evolving propensity to integrate online activities with real-world activities. Social media has had an incredible multiplying effect on radical messaging and IS has had great success publishing online, which has resonated particularly well with disenfranchised Muslims and youths, causing some to act on inspiration and guidance received online. IS has exploited their search for meaningful identity by promising to restore their dignity so that they may find personal fulfilment and purpose.

Virtual world

The virtual world is in some ways more compelling than the real world because storylines can be artfully crafted for maximum appeal while omitting anything that may be perceived as negative. A promise is much easier to make online, as is the vision of fulfilling aspirations. IS has created virtual messaging that is wildly at odds with the reality of life as an IS fighter on the ground. Cyberspace has enabled the group to turn tactical defeats on the battlefield into glorious martyrdom operations that highlight the bravery and commitment of its fighters. The loss of territory and the deaths of key leaders have served to feed propaganda efforts that are used to prove the resiliency of the caliphate.

Since all that is required to be a virtual planner is an internet connection and good encryption, they can operate from anywhere, although being geographically dispersed carries the heightened risk of detection in some nations. The virtual planner model has revolutionised jihadist external operations. IS has taken advantage of recent advances in online communications and encryption so that the group&rsquo;s top operatives can directly guide lone attackers, playing a central role in the conceptualisation, target selection, timing and execution of future attacks. Virtual planners offer operatives the same services once provided by strictly physical networks. They seamlessly execute the group&rsquo;s guiding strategy and maximize the impact and propaganda value of attacks waged in its name, while avoiding many of the risks typically associated with physical training operatives, such as being tailed or getting caught returning to a home country.

Integrated into the group&rsquo;s geographical command structure, virtual planners function much like theatre commanders, but in the cyber realm. IS virtual planners are also assigned areas of responsibility according to their nationality and linguistic skills and are tasked with actively recruiting and handling attackers from these areas.

Global brand

The advancement of internet-based communication and the explosion of social media have enabled the planner to reach a larger audience than ever before. By building an &ldquo;intimate&rdquo; relationship with a potential attacker, the virtual planner provides encouragement and validation, addressing the individual&rsquo;s doubts and hesitations while generating confidence and a strong desire to carry out an attack. Virtual planners can replicate the same social pressures that exist with in-person cells. Individuals can simply wander into searchable online networks rather than identify with and be socialised by covert in-person networks. Unlike with physical networks, the virtual planner model does not risk the capture or punishment of the network&rsquo;s key operatives.

Individuals inspired by IS can directly reach out to virtual planners for guidance and assistance in carrying out attacks. In addition to recruitment and operational guidance, virtual planners can bring disparate individuals and cells together to form larger attack networks. IS virtual planners allow the group to effectively seize ownership over what would previously have been considered lone-wolf attacks. Virtual planners transform these individuals into ambassadors for the IS global brand at relatively low cost. Virtual planners help maximize the psychological and reputational impact of violence committed in the IS name, further enticing other potential devotees to join its cause.

The success of the virtual-planner model underscores the ongoing process of organisational learning by jihadist groups. But the model also has disadvantages, such as the inability to provide in-person training or be optimally nimble during an attack to modify plans as circumstances change. Cells directed by virtual planners are also at greater risk of being detected by signals intelligence, despite advances in end-to-end encryption. Nonetheless, the virtual planner approach is a low-cost, high-reward strategy with enormous destructive potential, especially as IS and other terrorist groups continue to refine the model.

Adaptations to jihadists&rsquo; modes of operation have continually outpaced states&rsquo; ability to effectively counter them, and will likely continue to do so. Virtual jihad has not only gained prominence and credibility as an alternative to traditional conceptions of jihad but has also progressively outpaced physical jihad. Although physical jihad continues to appeal to a great many actors, its virtual incarnation has supplanted traditional notions of jihad for a new generation of adherents who are either unwilling or unable to engage in physical violence themselves. The rise of the virtual jihadist has assumed an important (perhaps irreplaceable) role in rejuvenating the concept of jihad and facilitating the dissemination of its &ldquo;counterculture&rdquo; narrative to new audiences for many years to come.

This <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/islamic-state-caliphate-jihad-online-world-news-headlines-today-17655/" rel="nofollow">article</a> has been originally published in <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/" rel="nofollow">Fair Observer</a>.

*Giuseppe Del Vecchio is a research analyst at Country Risk Solutions.

(Disclaimer: Both authors write here in a personal capacity).

The Islamic State is increasingly going online to ensure its survival

Authors: Daniel Wagner and Giuseppe Del Vecchio* Cyberspace is the ideal platform for terrorists because, unlike conventional warfare, barriers to entry into cyberspace are much lower. The price of entry is an internet connection. The surreptitious use of the internet to advance terrorist group objectives has created a new brand of Holy War — “virtual jihad”— that gains thousands of new adherents each day. Long after the current terrorist groups have ceased to be a major threat from a physical perspective, they will remain omnipresent in cyberspace, promoting a virtual caliphate from their safe haven behind computer keyboards around the world. Islamic extremists are natural candidates to transition to a virtual world that offers them automatic citizenship beyond the nation-state. Since the Islamic State (IS) was founded, its leaders have deftly and continually rewritten the narrative to claim that the group’s desired caliphate exists, has a specific location and maintains a defined group of adherents. Unconstrained by the absence of a definitive Quranic guideline for what constitutes a caliphate, IS created its own self-promoting doctrine. The group expanded its caliphate narrative to include a wide range of options for participation: Membership included everyone from the passive observer reading a blog or curiously following a Twitter feed to the keyboard jihadist editing Rumiyah or hacking a website to the real-world operators attacking a nightclub or running down holiday celebrants with a delivery truck. IS has successfully exploited the sociopolitical environment and young adults’ obsession with technology to establish a growing community of devotees in the ungoverned territory of cyberspace, ensuring its ability to continue to coordinate and inspire violence well into the future. IS has found its own salvation via the internet, particularly since it has already passed the peak of its real-world power. The Islamic State has also capitalised on the world’s evolving propensity to integrate online activities with real-world activities. Social media has had an incredible multiplying effect on radical messaging and IS has had great success publishing online, which has resonated particularly well with disenfranchised Muslims and youths, causing some to act on inspiration and guidance received online. IS has exploited their search for meaningful identity by promising to restore their dignity so that they may find personal fulfilment and purpose. Virtual world The virtual world is in some ways more compelling than the real world because storylines can be artfully crafted for maximum appeal while omitting anything that may be perceived as negative. A promise is much easier to make online, as is the vision of fulfilling aspirations. IS has created virtual messaging that is wildly at odds with the reality of life as an IS fighter on the ground. Cyberspace has enabled the group to turn tactical defeats on the battlefield into glorious martyrdom operations that highlight the bravery and commitment of its fighters. The loss of territory and the deaths of key leaders have served to feed propaganda efforts that are used to prove the resiliency of the caliphate. Since all that is required to be a virtual planner is an internet connection and good encryption, they can operate from anywhere, although being geographically dispersed carries the heightened risk of detection in some nations. The virtual planner model has revolutionised jihadist external operations. IS has taken advantage of recent advances in online communications and encryption so that the group’s top operatives can directly guide lone attackers, playing a central role in the conceptualisation, target selection, timing and execution of future attacks. Virtual planners offer operatives the same services once provided by strictly physical networks. They seamlessly execute the group’s guiding strategy and maximize the impact and propaganda value of attacks waged in its name, while avoiding many of the risks typically associated with physical training operatives, such as being tailed or getting caught returning to a home country. Integrated into the group’s geographical command structure, virtual planners function much like theatre commanders, but in the cyber realm. IS virtual planners are also assigned areas of responsibility according to their nationality and linguistic skills and are tasked with actively recruiting and handling attackers from these areas. Global brand The advancement of internet-based communication and the explosion of social media have enabled the planner to reach a larger audience than ever before. By building an “intimate” relationship with a potential attacker, the virtual planner provides encouragement and validation, addressing the individual’s doubts and hesitations while generating confidence and a strong desire to carry out an attack. Virtual planners can replicate the same social pressures that exist with in-person cells. Individuals can simply wander into searchable online networks rather than identify with and be socialised by covert in-person networks. Unlike with physical networks, the virtual planner model does not risk the capture or punishment of the network’s key operatives. Individuals inspired by IS can directly reach out to virtual planners for guidance and assistance in carrying out attacks. In addition to recruitment and operational guidance, virtual planners can bring disparate individuals and cells together to form larger attack networks. IS virtual planners allow the group to effectively seize ownership over what would previously have been considered lone-wolf attacks. Virtual planners transform these individuals into ambassadors for the IS global brand at relatively low cost. Virtual planners help maximize the psychological and reputational impact of violence committed in the IS name, further enticing other potential devotees to join its cause. The success of the virtual-planner model underscores the ongoing process of organisational learning by jihadist groups. But the model also has disadvantages, such as the inability to provide in-person training or be optimally nimble during an attack to modify plans as circumstances change. Cells directed by virtual planners are also at greater risk of being detected by signals intelligence, despite advances in end-to-end encryption. Nonetheless, the virtual planner approach is a low-cost, high-reward strategy with enormous destructive potential, especially as IS and other terrorist groups continue to refine the model. Adaptations to jihadists’ modes of operation have continually outpaced states’ ability to effectively counter them, and will likely continue to do so. Virtual jihad has not only gained prominence and credibility as an alternative to traditional conceptions of jihad but has also progressively outpaced physical jihad. Although physical jihad continues to appeal to a great many actors, its virtual incarnation has supplanted traditional notions of jihad for a new generation of adherents who are either unwilling or unable to engage in physical violence themselves. The rise of the virtual jihadist has assumed an important (perhaps irreplaceable) role in rejuvenating the concept of jihad and facilitating the dissemination of its “counterculture” narrative to new audiences for many years to come. This article has been originally published in Fair Observer. *Giuseppe Del Vecchio is a research analyst at Country Risk Solutions. (Disclaimer: Both authors write here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: The Islamic State is ready to wage 'virtual jihad'

China on Wednesday rejected new United States sanctions targeting Chinese traders doing business with North Korea as &quot;wrong&quot;, stressing that it has enforced UN sanctions over Pyongyang&#39;s nuclear provocations.

The Chinese companies were hit by punitive measures along with North Korean shipping interests after US President Donald Trump put Pyongyang back on a list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Trump warned this week that the sanctions announcement would be the first in a series of moves over the next two weeks that would reinforce his &quot;maximum pressure campaign&quot; against Kim Jong-Un&#39;s regime.

As had been expected, the US Treasury Department&#39;s measures unveiled on Tuesday make use of existing US directives against North Korean trade but expand their scope to take in more companies and individuals.

Most importantly, they expand the list of Chinese firms accused of doing business with the North despite promises from Beijing that it will honour UN-backed punitive measures.

&quot;We consistently oppose any country adopting unilateral sanctions based on its own domestic laws and regulations and the wrong method of exercising long-arm jurisdiction,&quot; foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a regular news briefing.

Trump met China&#39;s President Xi Jinping earlier this month and is bullish about the US-China relationship, but concerns remain that Beijing is not ready to take tough measures against Kim.

&quot;China has been comprehensively respecting and strictly implementing (UN) Security Council resolutions and our efforts in this regard are witnessed by all,&quot; Lu said.

The spokesman called on Washington to provide &quot;any solid evidence&quot; that Chinese companies have violated the UN sanctions.

He said that if any companies or individuals have violated domestic laws, &quot;we will severely deal with that in accordance with our laws and regulations&quot;.

&nbsp;&#39;More should be done&#39;

While China has backed the UN measures, it has been reluctant to take the more drastic step of cutting off oil supplies through a pipeline to North Korea&#39;s lone refinery, fearing that regime collapse could lead to chaos on their common border.

And, according to US officials, some Chinese-based banks and trading firms continue to do business with the North in defiance of UN sanctions and US threats of unilateral measures.

China has pressed for dialogue, saying this week that &quot;more should be done&quot; to hold talks to resolve the crisis.

A Chinese special envoy also wrapped up a four-day trip to the North on Monday, during which the two sides discussed regional concerns but made no direct statements about the nuclear standoff.

Beijing has pushed for a &quot;dual-track approach&quot; which would see the United States freeze its military drills in South Korea while North Korea would halt its weapons programs.

Washington has rejected that approach.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the sanctions would not only increase Pyongyang&#39;s isolation but also expose &quot;its evasive tactics.&quot;

&quot;These designations include companies that have engaged in trade with North Korea cumulatively worth hundreds of millions of dollars,&quot; Mnuchin said.

&quot;We are also sanctioning the shipping and transportation companies, and their vessels, that facilitate North Korea&#39;s trade and its deceptive manoeuvres.&quot;

In all, the new measures add one individual, 13 trading entities and 20 ships to US sanctions lists.

Any property or assets of the firms involved found to be in areas under US jurisdiction are to be frozen, and Americans are banned from trading with them.

Three Chinese firms -&nbsp;Dandong Kehua Economy and Trade, Dandong Xianghe Trading Company and Dandong Hongda Trade -&nbsp;are said to have sold computers, minerals and ore to North Korea.

Chinese businessman Sun Sidong and his company Dandong Dongyuan Industrial are accused of exporting vehicles, machinery, radio navigation and &quot;items associated with nuclear reactors.&quot;

&nbsp;&#39;We suspended trading&#39;&nbsp;

A woman who answered the phone at the company said it was not doing business with North Korea and suggested that the firm had halted its operations.

&quot;We are not operating,&quot; she said.

Another woman at Dandong Kehua Economy and Trade denied knowing about the sanctions.

&quot;We have temporarily suspended (trading),&quot; she said.

The Chinese companies were hit by punitive measures along with North Korean shipping interests after US President Donald Trump put Pyongyang back on a list of state sponsors of terrorism

China on Wednesday rejected new United States sanctions targeting Chinese traders doing business with North Korea as "wrong", stressing that it has enforced UN sanctions over Pyongyang's nuclear provocations. The Chinese companies were hit by punitive measures along with North Korean shipping interests after US President Donald Trump put Pyongyang back on a list of state sponsors of terrorism. Trump warned this week that the sanctions announcement would be the first in a series of moves over the next two weeks that would reinforce his "maximum pressure campaign" against Kim Jong-Un's regime. As had been expected, the US Treasury Department's measures unveiled on Tuesday make use of existing US directives against North Korean trade but expand their scope to take in more companies and individuals. Most importantly, they expand the list of Chinese firms accused of doing business with the North despite promises from Beijing that it will honour UN-backed punitive measures. "We consistently oppose any country adopting unilateral sanctions based on its own domestic laws and regulations and the wrong method of exercising long-arm jurisdiction," foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a regular news briefing. Trump met China's President Xi Jinping earlier this month and is bullish about the US-China relationship, but concerns remain that Beijing is not ready to take tough measures against Kim. "China has been comprehensively respecting and strictly implementing (UN) Security Council resolutions and our efforts in this regard are witnessed by all," Lu said. The spokesman called on Washington to provide "any solid evidence" that Chinese companies have violated the UN sanctions. He said that if any companies or individuals have violated domestic laws, "we will severely deal with that in accordance with our laws and regulations". 'More should be done' While China has backed the UN measures, it has been reluctant to take the more drastic step of cutting off oil supplies through a pipeline to North Korea's lone refinery, fearing that regime collapse could lead to chaos on their common border. And, according to US officials, some Chinese-based banks and trading firms continue to do business with the North in defiance of UN sanctions and US threats of unilateral measures. China has pressed for dialogue, saying this week that "more should be done" to hold talks to resolve the crisis. A Chinese special envoy also wrapped up a four-day trip to the North on Monday, during which the two sides discussed regional concerns but made no direct statements about the nuclear standoff. Beijing has pushed for a "dual-track approach" which would see the United States freeze its military drills in South Korea while North Korea would halt its weapons programs. Washington has rejected that approach. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the sanctions would not only increase Pyongyang's isolation but also expose "its evasive tactics." "These designations include companies that have engaged in trade with North Korea cumulatively worth hundreds of millions of dollars," Mnuchin said. "We are also sanctioning the shipping and transportation companies, and their vessels, that facilitate North Korea's trade and its deceptive manoeuvres." In all, the new measures add one individual, 13 trading entities and 20 ships to US sanctions lists. Any property or assets of the firms involved found to be in areas under US jurisdiction are to be frozen, and Americans are banned from trading with them. Three Chinese firms - Dandong Kehua Economy and Trade, Dandong Xianghe Trading Company and Dandong Hongda Trade - are said to have sold computers, minerals and ore to North Korea. Chinese businessman Sun Sidong and his company Dandong Dongyuan Industrial are accused of exporting vehicles, machinery, radio navigation and "items associated with nuclear reactors." 'We suspended trading' A woman who answered the phone at the company said it was not doing business with North Korea and suggested that the firm had halted its operations. "We are not operating," she said. Another woman at Dandong Kehua Economy and Trade denied knowing about the sanctions. "We have temporarily suspended (trading)," she said.

China slams 'wrong' US sanctions on North Korea-tied Chinese firms

The use of nuclear capability as insurance for its defence was cited as the main reason by every country, which added nuclear weapons to its armoury, ever since it was invented. It spiralled into a competition, which came under some control after the realisation of its devastation in Japan, and potentials of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

When Israel went nuclear, it developed a survival capability to dissuade all hostile neighbouring Arab countries. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) required checking proliferation of nuclear weapon technology was selectively leaked by some irresponsible countries, leading to a situation where humanity suffers from a threat of nuclear blackmailing by states, as well as militants if tactical nukes accidentally fall into their hand. Interestingly, both countries accused of nuclear blackmailing happen to be Frontline states of China.

North Korea

When President Trump started his visit to Asia, after a series of provocative statements by the US and North Korea, it was being speculated that some concrete action plan will emerge in his handling of North Korea. During this marathon visit, as President Trump came closer to reality, it is quite clear now that it will end with no worthwhile option on the table, except the efforts to outsource the problem to China again, (which is also part of the problem) despite being disappointed earlier, with reasonable suspicion that it will not work.

North Korea has its own point of view for all its missiles/nuclear tests/ misadventures so far, which revolves around its own security concerns and survival of regime of Kim. It justifies it as a defensive measure against the backdrop of US threat of past regime changes efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and other countries not following its dictate, as they happened to be Non-nuclear/incapable of threatening some part/colony of US.

<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>North Korea has been able to create a capability which dissuades the strongest military power US (having all instruments of military deterrence) to take any military action.</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=North Korea has been able to create a capability which dissuades the strongest military power US (having all instruments of military deterrence) to take any military action." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The threat from US regional allies has also been given as an excuse. The Korean War is also an unforgettable historical event when the US might be used against them. The blackmailing part is that their leadership is ready to endanger lives of its own people, by continuing with nuclear tests, despite mountain collapsing, to save the current autocratic regime, using &lsquo;Hate America&rsquo; theme as the rallying point.

By doing so they expect that the world should behave on their terms to save lives of people of other countries, despite the risk of suicidal destruction of their own country, like in case of fidayeen attacks. Sanctions had little effect to the extent that North Korea is now signalling to be ready to talk to the US, but without preconditions.

The reality, therefore, is that by getting the missile and nuclear technology from some country/countries who would have obviously violated NPT, North Korea has been able to create a capability which dissuades the strongest military power US (having all instruments of military deterrence) to take any military action.&nbsp;It is also using its nuclear capability claims, to threaten Japan and South Korea and blackmail the US to talk without preconditions.

Pakistan

Pakistan has also been using this Nuclear Blackmailing/Dissuasion Theory against India for quite some time. It acquired nuclear and missile capability from some country/countries, which must have violated NPT at that time, and the world community ignored it. Today, Pakistan is hosting and training a maximum number of terrorist organisations in the world. It blatantly launches the proxy war against India through militants and has been able to dissuade India to use its conventional capability to prevent it, by nuclear blackmail/ threat to use nukes.

It has thus been able to prevent full use of hard power by India, against the inhuman use of proxy war by militants on innocent people; hence this theory seems to be working.

<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 danger of this technology passing into the hand of terrorists to share the technology and steal some fissile material, sufficient for mini nuke/ dirty bomb is not impossible in future.</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 danger of this technology passing into the hand of terrorists to share the technology and steal some fissile material, sufficient for mini nuke/ dirty bomb is not impossible in future." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

It is surprising that the whole world rightly criticises North Korea, but not many are talking of Pakistani tactical nukes, despite the fact that the risk of tactical nuclear/dirty bomb sneaking to militants is much more from Pakistan. The stage is slowly setting in Pakistan, for the next level of terrorism with tactical nukes/dirty bombs.

The danger of this technology passing into the hand of terrorists by coercion of scientists/security personals/handlers, to share the technology and steal some fissile material, sufficient for mini nuke/ dirty bomb is not impossible in future.

The Nuclear Security Summit held in the US on 02 Apr 2016, exhibited grave concern of global powers, about the danger of mini-nukes falling in hands of terrorist organisations. A possibility of Pakistan covertly passing the tactical nuclear technology/ dirty bomb to terrorists to explode it in India, as part of a proxy war, and later deny it, is an option which cannot be ruled out, as its overt use by their Army may be difficult to be justified to the world community.

Implications

Despite best efforts a worthwhile solution to control unilateral missile and nuclear tests by North Korea has been found by World community, as the sanctions alone are unlikely to yield results, may be due to selective leakages.

A status quo in this regard will render world helpless, and it will become a new normal. Surprisingly, when newly elected Pakistani Prime Minister is talking of use of tactical nuclear weapons against India, not much criticism appeared on world media (perhaps many countries still feel that it is a local affair). Let me enumerate some of the implications of silent acceptance by the global community of this &lsquo;Nuclear Blackmailing Theory&rsquo;.

<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>There is a need to collectively have some global mechanism in place to prevent miniaturisation of nukes/tactical nukes/dirty bombs over and above the existing UN conventions.</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=There is a need to collectively have some global mechanism in place to prevent miniaturisation of nukes/tactical nukes/dirty bombs over and above the existing UN conventions." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Iran may be encouraged to go nuclear looking at the fate of Iraq, and over arming of Saudi Arabia.

Japan may go in for creating its own military capabilities and later go nuclear.

South Korea may ask for tactical nukes from the US to protect itself from North Korea if China and Russia are not able to push North Korea to negations table.

Vietnam may also get an idea to request for nuclear technology.

India may have to speed up enlarging stockpile of existing nukes, not to suffer disadvantage on the deterrence capability, despite being well placed to respond to any tactical nukes threat of Pakistan. There is a need to collectively have some global mechanism in place to prevent miniaturisation of nukes/tactical nukes/dirty bombs over and above the existing UN conventions.

There is a need to implement some mechanism towards safety and security of nukes and accountability of fissile material. While a large number of analysts may be convinced that North Korea is the biggest challenge in terms of nuclear blackmailing, but in my opinion, the bigger global challenge is yet to come in the form of tactical nukes/dirty bombs/biological and chemical weapons being acquired by terrorists.

No country should assume that it&rsquo;s safe forever from blackmailing by terrorists having acquired such capability, even if it appears fiction today.

No doubt North Korea is the challenge in terms of nuclear blackmailing but the bigger global challenge is yet to come in the form of nuclear weapons possessed by terrorists.

The use of nuclear capability as insurance for its defence was cited as the main reason by every country, which added nuclear weapons to its armoury, ever since it was invented. It spiralled into a competition, which came under some control after the realisation of its devastation in Japan, and potentials of mutually assured destruction (MAD). When Israel went nuclear, it developed a survival capability to dissuade all hostile neighbouring Arab countries. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) required checking proliferation of nuclear weapon technology was selectively leaked by some irresponsible countries, leading to a situation where humanity suffers from a threat of nuclear blackmailing by states, as well as militants if tactical nukes accidentally fall into their hand. Interestingly, both countries accused of nuclear blackmailing happen to be Frontline states of China. North Korea When President Trump started his visit to Asia, after a series of provocative statements by the US and North Korea, it was being speculated that some concrete action plan will emerge in his handling of North Korea. During this marathon visit, as President Trump came closer to reality, it is quite clear now that it will end with no worthwhile option on the table, except the efforts to outsource the problem to China again, (which is also part of the problem) despite being disappointed earlier, with reasonable suspicion that it will not work. North Korea has its own point of view for all its missiles/nuclear tests/ misadventures so far, which revolves around its own security concerns and survival of regime of Kim. It justifies it as a defensive measure against the backdrop of US threat of past regime changes efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and other countries not following its dictate, as they happened to be Non-nuclear/incapable of threatening some part/colony of US. North Korea has been able to create a capability which dissuades the strongest military power US (having all instruments of military deterrence) to take any military action. × The threat from US regional allies has also been given as an excuse. The Korean War is also an unforgettable historical event when the US might be used against them. The blackmailing part is that their leadership is ready to endanger lives of its own people, by continuing with nuclear tests, despite mountain collapsing, to save the current autocratic regime, using ‘Hate America’ theme as the rallying point. By doing so they expect that the world should behave on their terms to save lives of people of other countries, despite the risk of suicidal destruction of their own country, like in case of fidayeen attacks. Sanctions had little effect to the extent that North Korea is now signalling to be ready to talk to the US, but without preconditions. The reality, therefore, is that by getting the missile and nuclear technology from some country/countries who would have obviously violated NPT, North Korea has been able to create a capability which dissuades the strongest military power US (having all instruments of military deterrence) to take any military action. It is also using its nuclear capability claims, to threaten Japan and South Korea and blackmail the US to talk without preconditions. Pakistan Pakistan has also been using this Nuclear Blackmailing/Dissuasion Theory against India for quite some time. It acquired nuclear and missile capability from some country/countries, which must have violated NPT at that time, and the world community ignored it. Today, Pakistan is hosting and training a maximum number of terrorist organisations in the world. It blatantly launches the proxy war against India through militants and has been able to dissuade India to use its conventional capability to prevent it, by nuclear blackmail/ threat to use nukes. It has thus been able to prevent full use of hard power by India, against the inhuman use of proxy war by militants on innocent people; hence this theory seems to be working. The danger of this technology passing into the hand of terrorists to share the technology and steal some fissile material, sufficient for mini nuke/ dirty bomb is not impossible in future. × It is surprising that the whole world rightly criticises North Korea, but not many are talking of Pakistani tactical nukes, despite the fact that the risk of tactical nuclear/dirty bomb sneaking to militants is much more from Pakistan. The stage is slowly setting in Pakistan, for the next level of terrorism with tactical nukes/dirty bombs. The danger of this technology passing into the hand of terrorists by coercion of scientists/security personals/handlers, to share the technology and steal some fissile material, sufficient for mini nuke/ dirty bomb is not impossible in future. The Nuclear Security Summit held in the US on 02 Apr 2016, exhibited grave concern of global powers, about the danger of mini-nukes falling in hands of terrorist organisations. A possibility of Pakistan covertly passing the tactical nuclear technology/ dirty bomb to terrorists to explode it in India, as part of a proxy war, and later deny it, is an option which cannot be ruled out, as its overt use by their Army may be difficult to be justified to the world community. Implications Despite best efforts a worthwhile solution to control unilateral missile and nuclear tests by North Korea has been found by World community, as the sanctions alone are unlikely to yield results, may be due to selective leakages. A status quo in this regard will render world helpless, and it will become a new normal. Surprisingly, when newly elected Pakistani Prime Minister is talking of use of tactical nuclear weapons against India, not much criticism appeared on world media (perhaps many countries still feel that it is a local affair). Let me enumerate some of the implications of silent acceptance by the global community of this ‘Nuclear Blackmailing Theory’. There is a need to collectively have some global mechanism in place to prevent miniaturisation of nukes/tactical nukes/dirty bombs over and above the existing UN conventions. × Iran may be encouraged to go nuclear looking at the fate of Iraq, and over arming of Saudi Arabia. Japan may go in for creating its own military capabilities and later go nuclear. South Korea may ask for tactical nukes from the US to protect itself from North Korea if China and Russia are not able to push North Korea to negations table. Vietnam may also get an idea to request for nuclear technology. India may have to speed up enlarging stockpile of existing nukes, not to suffer disadvantage on the deterrence capability, despite being well placed to respond to any tactical nukes threat of Pakistan. There is a need to collectively have some global mechanism in place to prevent miniaturisation of nukes/tactical nukes/dirty bombs over and above the existing UN conventions. There is a need to implement some mechanism towards safety and security of nukes and accountability of fissile material. While a large number of analysts may be convinced that North Korea is the biggest challenge in terms of nuclear blackmailing, but in my opinion, the bigger global challenge is yet to come in the form of tactical nukes/dirty bombs/biological and chemical weapons being acquired by terrorists. No country should assume that it’s safe forever from blackmailing by terrorists having acquired such capability, even if it appears fiction today.

Is nuclear blackmailing going to be a new normal?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi today called for intensifying regional cooperation to effectively deal with terrorism and pitched for a rules-based security architecture for the resource-rich region, seen as a veiled reference to China&#39;s expansionist posturing in the Indo- Pacific.

In an address at the ASEAN-India summit here, Modi identified terrorism and extremism as the major challenges facing the region and said the time has come for the countries of the region to join hands to collectively deal with it.

&quot;We have individually strived very hard to fight terrorism and violent extremism. It is time that we jointly address this challenge by intensifying cooperation in this crucial area,&quot; he said.

The 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is considered one of the most influential groupings in the region and India and several other countries including the US, China, Japan and Australia are its dialogue partners.

In a clear reference to the South China Sea (SCS) dispute which has cast a shadow over the summit talks, Modi said India will continue its support to the ASEAN for establishing a rules-based security architecture in the region.

&quot;India assures the ASEAN of its steady support towards achieving a rules-based regional security architecture that best attests to the region&#39;s interests and its peaceful development,&quot; he said.

China&#39;s aggressive military build up in the SCS was one of the focus areas of the deliberations at the ASEAN summit. China claims sovereignty over all of the SCS, a huge source of hydrocarbons.

However, several ASEAN member countries including Vietnam, the Philippines, and Brunei have counter claims.

India has been supporting freedom of navigation and access to resources in the SCS in accordance with principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The ASEAN has been pushing for a legally binding code of conduct for all stakeholders in the SCS but Beijing has been opposing such a framework asserting that it will resolve the dispute with respective countries under the bilateral mechanism.

Prime Minister Modi also talked about shared values and common destiny between India and ASEAN, adding 1.25 billion people in India were eagerly waiting to receive leaders of the ASEAN at the Republic Day celebrations in January next year.

He said India is also holding a commemorative summit with ASEAN on January 25 next year. The ties between India and ASEAN have been on an upswing.

The ASEAN region along with India together comprises a combined population of 1.85 billion people, which is one-fourth of the global population and their combined GDP has been estimated at over USD 3.8 trillion.

Investment from ASEAN to India has been over USD 70 billion in the last 17 years accounting for more than 17 percent of India&#39;s total FDI. India&#39;s investment in ASEAN during the same period has been more than USD 40 billion.

Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and Brunei are the members of the ASEAN.

Prime Minister Modi also participated at a meeting of leaders of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

The RCEP, comprising 10-member ASEAN bloc and six other countries -- India, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, is engaged in negotiations for a free trade pact.

'India assures the ASEAN of its steady support towards achieving a rules-based regional security architecture that best attests to the region's interests and its peaceful development,' Modi said

Prime Minister Narendra Modi today called for intensifying regional cooperation to effectively deal with terrorism and pitched for a rules-based security architecture for the resource-rich region, seen as a veiled reference to China's expansionist posturing in the Indo- Pacific. In an address at the ASEAN-India summit here, Modi identified terrorism and extremism as the major challenges facing the region and said the time has come for the countries of the region to join hands to collectively deal with it. "We have individually strived very hard to fight terrorism and violent extremism. It is time that we jointly address this challenge by intensifying cooperation in this crucial area," he said. The 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is considered one of the most influential groupings in the region and India and several other countries including the US, China, Japan and Australia are its dialogue partners. In a clear reference to the South China Sea (SCS) dispute which has cast a shadow over the summit talks, Modi said India will continue its support to the ASEAN for establishing a rules-based security architecture in the region. "India assures the ASEAN of its steady support towards achieving a rules-based regional security architecture that best attests to the region's interests and its peaceful development," he said. China's aggressive military build up in the SCS was one of the focus areas of the deliberations at the ASEAN summit. China claims sovereignty over all of the SCS, a huge source of hydrocarbons. However, several ASEAN member countries including Vietnam, the Philippines, and Brunei have counter claims. India has been supporting freedom of navigation and access to resources in the SCS in accordance with principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The ASEAN has been pushing for a legally binding code of conduct for all stakeholders in the SCS but Beijing has been opposing such a framework asserting that it will resolve the dispute with respective countries under the bilateral mechanism. Prime Minister Modi also talked about shared values and common destiny between India and ASEAN, adding 1.25 billion people in India were eagerly waiting to receive leaders of the ASEAN at the Republic Day celebrations in January next year. He said India is also holding a commemorative summit with ASEAN on January 25 next year. The ties between India and ASEAN have been on an upswing. The ASEAN region along with India together comprises a combined population of 1.85 billion people, which is one-fourth of the global population and their combined GDP has been estimated at over USD 3.8 trillion. Investment from ASEAN to India has been over USD 70 billion in the last 17 years accounting for more than 17 percent of India's total FDI. India's investment in ASEAN during the same period has been more than USD 40 billion. Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and Brunei are the members of the ASEAN. Prime Minister Modi also participated at a meeting of leaders of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The RCEP, comprising 10-member ASEAN bloc and six other countries -- India, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, is engaged in negotiations for a free trade pact.

India supports rules-based security architecture: Modi at ASEAN

China today said President Xi Jinping and his US counterpart Donald Trump have reached a consensus on fighting terrorism and upholding peace and stability in South Asia, amid America ramping up pressure on Pakistan to dismantle terror safe havens.

During their talks, Xi and Trump discussed Afghanistan and committed to working toward a peaceful future for the terrorist haven.

&quot;This morning, the two presidents talked and held joint press meeting. I am not aware of the details of the talks. What I know is that the two sides also discussed anti- terrorism issues and upholding peace and stability in South Asia,&quot; Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told a media briefing.

&quot;They reached consensus in this respect,&quot; she said without elaborating or mentioning whether India&#39;s concerns over terrorism emanating from Pakistan figured in the talks.

To counter terrorism, China and the US as well as other countries share the common interests and the two countries stand ready to work with other parties for stronger anti- terrorism cooperation, she said.

South Asia and Afghanistan figured prominently in today&#39;s talks as both the leaders mentioned it in their briefings.

After the talks, Trump said terrorists are a threat to humanity and that he and Xi will &quot;stop radical Islamic terrorism.&quot;

&quot;In order to create more secure future for all and protect our citizens from extremism and terrorism, President Xi and I also committed to working together for a peaceful future for Afghanistan,&quot; Trump said.

&quot;Terrorists are a threat to all of humanity and we will stop radical Islamic terrorism,&quot; he said.

Trump&#39;s remarks assume significance after he unveiled his new South Asia policy under which the US has warned Pakistan against providing safe harbour to terrorist organisations.

Trump&#39;s South Asia policy giving importance to India and inviting New Delhi to play a bigger role in reconstruction of Afghanistan has also raised eyebrows in Beijing and Islamabad.

Elaborating on the Trump-Xi talks on Afghanistan, Hua said the two sides believe that maintaining the stable and constructive relations between Afghanistan and its neighbouring countries is of great significance to the peace and reconstruction process in Afghanistan.

&quot;They support an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace and reconstruction process, call on relevant parties in Afghanistan to achieve extensive and inclusive national reconciliation through political negotiation at an early date and stand ready to play a positive role through such mechanisms as the Quadrilateral Coordination Group of Afghanistan, China, Pakistan and the US,&quot; Hua said in a written response to news agency PTI.

Ahead of Trump&#39;s visit, China conducted an anti-terrorism trilateral meeting with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Li Hulai conducted the trilateral meeting on November 7 which was attended by top officials of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

China has been trying to bring about peace between Islamabad and Kabul amid scathing criticism from Afghanistan leaders over Pakistan&#39;s support to Taliban by sheltering them.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has made separate visits to the two countries recently and met Pakistan and Afghanistan?s officials after the talks.

Pakistan?s Special Secretary Tasnim Aslam and Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Hekmat Karzai who took part in the talks called on Wang.

In the meeting, Wang thanked Pakistan and Afghanistan for their support for China in fighting the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and their contribution to the fight against international counter terrorism especially in South Asian region, Hua said.

ETIM is active in the Muslim Uygur majority province of Xinjiang which shared borders with Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Afghanistan.

Xinjiang had been restive for several years over increasing settlements of majority Hans from other provinces of China.

&quot;China stands ready to work with two parties to strengthen our counter-terrorism cooperation to uphold the regional peace and stability,&quot; she said, adding that Pakistan and Afghanistan stated that they stand ready to strengthen cooperation with China in this regard.

During their talks, Xi and Trump discussed Afghanistan and committed to working toward a peaceful future for the terrorist haven.

China today said President Xi Jinping and his US counterpart Donald Trump have reached a consensus on fighting terrorism and upholding peace and stability in South Asia, amid America ramping up pressure on Pakistan to dismantle terror safe havens. During their talks, Xi and Trump discussed Afghanistan and committed to working toward a peaceful future for the terrorist haven. "This morning, the two presidents talked and held joint press meeting. I am not aware of the details of the talks. What I know is that the two sides also discussed anti- terrorism issues and upholding peace and stability in South Asia," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told a media briefing. "They reached consensus in this respect," she said without elaborating or mentioning whether India's concerns over terrorism emanating from Pakistan figured in the talks. To counter terrorism, China and the US as well as other countries share the common interests and the two countries stand ready to work with other parties for stronger anti- terrorism cooperation, she said. South Asia and Afghanistan figured prominently in today's talks as both the leaders mentioned it in their briefings. After the talks, Trump said terrorists are a threat to humanity and that he and Xi will "stop radical Islamic terrorism." "In order to create more secure future for all and protect our citizens from extremism and terrorism, President Xi and I also committed to working together for a peaceful future for Afghanistan," Trump said. "Terrorists are a threat to all of humanity and we will stop radical Islamic terrorism," he said. Trump's remarks assume significance after he unveiled his new South Asia policy under which the US has warned Pakistan against providing safe harbour to terrorist organisations. Trump's South Asia policy giving importance to India and inviting New Delhi to play a bigger role in reconstruction of Afghanistan has also raised eyebrows in Beijing and Islamabad. Elaborating on the Trump-Xi talks on Afghanistan, Hua said the two sides believe that maintaining the stable and constructive relations between Afghanistan and its neighbouring countries is of great significance to the peace and reconstruction process in Afghanistan. "They support an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace and reconstruction process, call on relevant parties in Afghanistan to achieve extensive and inclusive national reconciliation through political negotiation at an early date and stand ready to play a positive role through such mechanisms as the Quadrilateral Coordination Group of Afghanistan, China, Pakistan and the US," Hua said in a written response to news agency PTI. Ahead of Trump's visit, China conducted an anti-terrorism trilateral meeting with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Li Hulai conducted the trilateral meeting on November 7 which was attended by top officials of Pakistan and Afghanistan. China has been trying to bring about peace between Islamabad and Kabul amid scathing criticism from Afghanistan leaders over Pakistan's support to Taliban by sheltering them. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has made separate visits to the two countries recently and met Pakistan and Afghanistan?s officials after the talks. Pakistan?s Special Secretary Tasnim Aslam and Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Hekmat Karzai who took part in the talks called on Wang. In the meeting, Wang thanked Pakistan and Afghanistan for their support for China in fighting the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and their contribution to the fight against international counter terrorism especially in South Asian region, Hua said. ETIM is active in the Muslim Uygur majority province of Xinjiang which shared borders with Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Afghanistan. Xinjiang had been restive for several years over increasing settlements of majority Hans from other provinces of China. "China stands ready to work with two parties to strengthen our counter-terrorism cooperation to uphold the regional peace and stability," she said, adding that Pakistan and Afghanistan stated that they stand ready to strengthen cooperation with China in this regard.

Trump, Xi reach consensus to curb terrorism in South Asia: China

The Halloween terrorist attack in New York by Sayfullo Saipov has ignited a debate in social media between scholars of Central Asia on why there is an apparently increasing number of such attacks by Uzbeks. The New York atrocity follows similar events in Istanbul, St Petersburg and Stockholm. Four very prominent attacks within ten months give an impression and suggest a trend.

Certain questions naturally arise. Why so many Uzbeks? Does this simply reflect the high number of emigrants, or is it a matter of specific recruitment networks within their migrant communities? Does the combination of a more repressive environment at home with a more open environment in countries of destination matter? Maybe it&rsquo;s specific histories of conflict between certain groups and the government in Tashkent? Or, perhaps, it&rsquo;s a backlash against the foreign allies of Uzbekistan? For most of these questions, only partial answers are available &ndash; but certain things can be said.

The error repeatedly made across the media is to look for explanations in Uzbekistan itself, but this isn&rsquo;t about radicalisation in Uzbekistan. There are very few terrorist attacks in Uzbekistan itself, only ten out of 85,000 global incidents recorded from 2001-2016. The much-cited Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan left the country almost two decades ago, hasn&rsquo;t committed an attack there since 2004, and now fights in remnants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the attackers perpetrating the incidents above left Uzbekistan many years before the attacks and were &ldquo;radicalised&rdquo; after leaving. Clearly, the real explanations lie elsewhere.

Getting out

This is why migration matters, as it does on almost every question with regard to contemporary Central Asia. Uzbekistan has easily the largest population in Central Asia, with more than 30m citizens. Over the last 20 years, several million Uzbeks have left their home country in search of a better life abroad. In this sense, the millions of Uzbeks are part of a wider trend of predominantly young men migrating overseas. For many of them, this is a tremendous opportunity; most are assets to their new home countries. But a tiny minority fall prey to radicalisation and violence.

In a social media debate with other Central Asia specialists, Sarah Kendzior, a journalist and anthropologist of Uzbekistan, argued:&nbsp;

<blockquote>
I think the big error that people are making is that this is an &lsquo;Uzbek problem&rsquo; instead of a &lsquo;alienated man abroad susceptible to the influence of terrorist propaganda and recruitment efforts&rsquo; problem. It makes far more sense to examine the three Uzbek cases within this broader category of men.
</blockquote>

Then there&rsquo;s the question of recruitment mechanisms among migrants. Sergei Abashin, the Russian anthropologist, has drawn attention to how the sheer extent of Uzbek migrant networks makes them an attractive target for militant groups who offer them meaning in militant religion. Uzbek author and journalist Hamid Ismailov concur; in a Facebook response to the Saipov attack, he recalled a passage from his 2014 novel where he linked the emergence of international Uzbek jihadist networks to the battle between two very violent political institutions: the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the government of Uzbekistan.

Also relevant are specific security governance measures and patterns. Kendzior is correct that the things that attract Central Asians to conduct terrorist attacks and mass shootings are the same as those which attract other young men, including Europeans and Americans. This is a global phenomenon &ndash; but it&rsquo;s also true that more perpetrators come from certain places than from others. The question is why.

Hunted abroad

Some countries, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Uzbekistan in particular, have been very good at &ldquo;exporting&rdquo; young men who are susceptible to jihadism due to their experience of repression at home. And this repression can even follow them overseas.

At the University of Exeter, we record Central Asian governments&rsquo; transnational security measures against exiled citizens and opposition groups. Of these states, Uzbekistan is consistently the most likely to pursue its exiles overseas, and particularly its religious exiles. As Alexander Cooley and I discuss in our book Dictators Without Borders, the Uzbek security services informally but extensively collaborate with security services in Russia, where the vast majority of Uzbek migrants are found, and other former Soviet states.

The Uzbek government would say that attacks such as the ones seen this year justify its strategy, but the reverse may be true. Their transnational crackdown on peaceful groups feeds into the jihadist narrative that secularism and Islam are entirely incompatible, as well as subjecting many young men who were not previously attracted to such narratives to harsh, violent repression.

Moreover, despite Uzbekistan&rsquo;s appalling human rights record, some Western democracies continue to provide limited security co-operation, particularly the US. These measures too can help fuel jihadist thinking. Had the US government made an explicit policy decision many years ago not to work with the Karimov government on counter-terrorism because that government was making the situation worse, it would have undercut some of the violent, radical narratives that may draw in a figure such as Saipov.

The Trump administration&rsquo;s knee-jerk anti-immigration response to the Saipov attack risks exacerbating this problem, and once again affirms jihadist images of the West. Migration should be recognised as a given and a good, and not least as part of the foundation of the US itself; simply shutting it down cannot be sound policy, and it won&rsquo;t help to reduce risks elsewhere. Instead, Western governments need to push back against repressive counter-terrorism policies among the states who have &ldquo;exported&rdquo; the perpetrators of violent acts &ndash; and they must be prepared to withdraw their support from those dangerous governments who&rsquo;ve come to depend on it.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/has-uzbekistans-repressive-government-helped-radicalise-its-emigrants-and-exiles-86887" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

Image Credit: EPA

The repressive counter-terrorism policies of states, such as Uzbekistan are pushing many of its emigrants to paths of extremism.

The Halloween terrorist attack in New York by Sayfullo Saipov has ignited a debate in social media between scholars of Central Asia on why there is an apparently increasing number of such attacks by Uzbeks. The New York atrocity follows similar events in Istanbul, St Petersburg and Stockholm. Four very prominent attacks within ten months give an impression and suggest a trend. Certain questions naturally arise. Why so many Uzbeks? Does this simply reflect the high number of emigrants, or is it a matter of specific recruitment networks within their migrant communities? Does the combination of a more repressive environment at home with a more open environment in countries of destination matter? Maybe it’s specific histories of conflict between certain groups and the government in Tashkent? Or, perhaps, it’s a backlash against the foreign allies of Uzbekistan? For most of these questions, only partial answers are available – but certain things can be said. The error repeatedly made across the media is to look for explanations in Uzbekistan itself, but this isn’t about radicalisation in Uzbekistan. There are very few terrorist attacks in Uzbekistan itself, only ten out of 85,000 global incidents recorded from 2001-2016. The much-cited Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan left the country almost two decades ago, hasn’t committed an attack there since 2004, and now fights in remnants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Meanwhile, the attackers perpetrating the incidents above left Uzbekistan many years before the attacks and were “radicalised” after leaving. Clearly, the real explanations lie elsewhere. Getting out This is why migration matters, as it does on almost every question with regard to contemporary Central Asia. Uzbekistan has easily the largest population in Central Asia, with more than 30m citizens. Over the last 20 years, several million Uzbeks have left their home country in search of a better life abroad. In this sense, the millions of Uzbeks are part of a wider trend of predominantly young men migrating overseas. For many of them, this is a tremendous opportunity; most are assets to their new home countries. But a tiny minority fall prey to radicalisation and violence. In a social media debate with other Central Asia specialists, Sarah Kendzior, a journalist and anthropologist of Uzbekistan, argued: I think the big error that people are making is that this is an ‘Uzbek problem’ instead of a ‘alienated man abroad susceptible to the influence of terrorist propaganda and recruitment efforts’ problem. It makes far more sense to examine the three Uzbek cases within this broader category of men. Then there’s the question of recruitment mechanisms among migrants. Sergei Abashin, the Russian anthropologist, has drawn attention to how the sheer extent of Uzbek migrant networks makes them an attractive target for militant groups who offer them meaning in militant religion. Uzbek author and journalist Hamid Ismailov concur; in a Facebook response to the Saipov attack, he recalled a passage from his 2014 novel where he linked the emergence of international Uzbek jihadist networks to the battle between two very violent political institutions: the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the government of Uzbekistan. Also relevant are specific security governance measures and patterns. Kendzior is correct that the things that attract Central Asians to conduct terrorist attacks and mass shootings are the same as those which attract other young men, including Europeans and Americans. This is a global phenomenon – but it’s also true that more perpetrators come from certain places than from others. The question is why. Hunted abroad Some countries, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Uzbekistan in particular, have been very good at “exporting” young men who are susceptible to jihadism due to their experience of repression at home. And this repression can even follow them overseas. At the University of Exeter, we record Central Asian governments’ transnational security measures against exiled citizens and opposition groups. Of these states, Uzbekistan is consistently the most likely to pursue its exiles overseas, and particularly its religious exiles. As Alexander Cooley and I discuss in our book Dictators Without Borders, the Uzbek security services informally but extensively collaborate with security services in Russia, where the vast majority of Uzbek migrants are found, and other former Soviet states. The Uzbek government would say that attacks such as the ones seen this year justify its strategy, but the reverse may be true. Their transnational crackdown on peaceful groups feeds into the jihadist narrative that secularism and Islam are entirely incompatible, as well as subjecting many young men who were not previously attracted to such narratives to harsh, violent repression. Moreover, despite Uzbekistan’s appalling human rights record, some Western democracies continue to provide limited security co-operation, particularly the US. These measures too can help fuel jihadist thinking. Had the US government made an explicit policy decision many years ago not to work with the Karimov government on counter-terrorism because that government was making the situation worse, it would have undercut some of the violent, radical narratives that may draw in a figure such as Saipov. The Trump administration’s knee-jerk anti-immigration response to the Saipov attack risks exacerbating this problem, and once again affirms jihadist images of the West. Migration should be recognised as a given and a good, and not least as part of the foundation of the US itself; simply shutting it down cannot be sound policy, and it won’t help to reduce risks elsewhere. Instead, Western governments need to push back against repressive counter-terrorism policies among the states who have “exported” the perpetrators of violent acts – and they must be prepared to withdraw their support from those dangerous governments who’ve come to depend on it. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. Image Credit: EPA

Why Uzbeks are turning into jihadis

The shooting in Virginia that wounded House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, as well as the shooting in a San Francisco UPS facility that left four dead on the very same day, have generated &ndash; yet again &ndash; the standard set of responses in the wake of a mass shooting in the United States.

The details of any such tragedy often emerge slowly, but a few points can be made. While deaths from mass shootings are a relatively small part of the overall homicidal violence in America, they are particularly wrenching. The problem is worse in the U.S. than in most other industrialised nations. And it is getting worse.

The political overlay of the Virginia shooting also carries a particular social harm. Any thought that guns can play a helpful role in reducing tyranny in a democratic country like the United States should quickly be dispelled. Hopefully, that message will penetrate everyone from the NRA leadership and Sen. Rand Paul to anyone on the opposite end of the political spectrum who doesn&rsquo;t like the current developments of Republican rule.

I&rsquo;ve been researching gun violence &ndash; and what can be done to prevent it &ndash; in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if the NRA claim that guns helped reduce crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialised nations instead of the highest one &ndash; and by a wide margin.

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other &ldquo;advanced countries&rdquo; have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents &ndash; even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

The state of gun control in the US

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow in June 2015 when the U.S. Supreme Court &ndash; over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia &ndash; refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

Statistics show only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007 to 2011, roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year. Yet data from the National Crime Victimisation Survey show that 99.2 percent of victims in these incidents did not protect themselves with a gun &ndash; this in a country with roughly 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a classic study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim&rsquo;s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that those opposing safe storage of guns should heed:

<blockquote>
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
</blockquote>

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95 percent of the time, but has the constant potential &ndash; particularly in the case of handguns which are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime &ndash; to harm someone in the home or be stolen and harm someone else.

More guns won&rsquo;t stop gun violence

For years, the NRA mantra has been that allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns would reduce crime as they fought off or scared of the criminals.

Some early studies even purported to show that so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws did just that, but a 2004 report from the National Research Council refuted that claim, saying it was not supported by &ldquo;the scientific evidence,&rdquo; while remaining uncertain about what the true impact of RTC laws was.

Ten years of additional data have allowed researchers to get a better fix on this question, which is important since the NRA is pushing for a Supreme Court decision that would allow RTC as a matter of constitutional law.

The new research on this issue from my team at Stanford University has given the most compelling evidence to date that RTC laws are associated with significant increases in violent crime. Looking at Uniform Crime Reports data from 1979 to 2014, we find that, on average, the 33 states that adopted RTC laws over this period experienced violent crime rates that are roughly 14 percent higher after 10 years than if they had not adopted these laws.

In the meantime, can anything make American politicians listen to the preferences of the 90 percent on the wisdom of adopting universal background checks for gun purchases?

Gun control around the world

As an academic exercise, one might speculate whether the law could play a constructive role in reducing the number or deadliness of mass shootings.

Most other advanced nations apparently think so, since they make it far harder for someone like your typical American mass killer to get his hands on particularly lethal weapons. Universal background checks are common features of gun regulation in other developed countries, including:

Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation. Presumably, 21-year-old Charleston shooter Dylann Roof would have failed. 
Finland: Handgun license applicants are allowed to purchase firearms only if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview and show they have a proper gun storage unit. 
Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records. 
France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental and health records of the applicant. 
The United Kingdom and Japan: Handguns are illegal for private citizens. 
While mass shootings, as well as gun homicides and suicides, are not unknown in these countries, the overall rates are substantially higher in the United States than in these nations.

While NRA supporters frequently challenge me on these statistics, saying that this is only because American blacks are so violent, pointing to the type of wildly incorrect claims about the percentages of whites killed by blacks that Dylann Roof spouted and Donald Trump tweeted, it is important to note that white murder rates in the U.S. are well over twice as high as the murder rates in any of these other countries.

Australia hasn&rsquo;t had a mass shooting since 1996

The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996 but none in the succeeding 21 years, is worth examining.

The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.

In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the country. A large array of weapons were banned &ndash; including the Glock semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government also imposed a mandatory gun buy-back that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/australia-20171106053635.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
A pile of about 4,500 prohibited firearms in Sydney that have been handed in under the Australian government&rsquo;s buy-back scheme July 28, 1997. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation disallowed self-defense as a legitimate reason to purchase a firearm.

When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters, they insist that crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder rate has fallen to one per 100,000 while the U.S. rate, thankfully lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly 5 per 100,000 &ndash; nearly five times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only about half the rate of the U.S.: 58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000 in the U.S. in 2012.

How did Australia do it? Politically, it took a brave prime minister to face the rage of Australian gun interests.

Prime Minister John Howard wore a bullet-proof vest when he announced the proposed gun restrictions in June 1996. The deputy prime minister was hung in effigy. But Australia did not have a domestic gun industry to oppose the new measures so the will of the people was allowed to emerge. And today, support for the safer, gun-restricted Australia is so strong that going back would not be tolerated by the public.

That Australia hasn&rsquo;t had a mass shooting since 1996 is likely more than merely the result of the considerable reduction in guns &ndash; it&rsquo;s certainly not the case that guns have disappeared altogether.

I suspect that the country has also experienced a cultural shift between the shock of the Port Arthur massacre and the removal of guns from everyday life, as they are no longer available for self-defense and they are simply less present throughout the country. Troubled individuals, in other words, are not constantly being reminded that guns are a means to address their alleged grievances to the extent that they were in the past, or continue to be in the U.S.

Lax gun control in one nation can create problems in another

Of course, strict gun regulations cannot ensure that the danger of mass shootings or killings has been eliminated.

Norway has strong gun control and committed humane values. But that didn&rsquo;t prevent Anders Breivik from opening fire on a youth camp on the island of Utoya in 2011. His clean criminal record and hunting license had allowed him to secure semiautomatic rifles, but Norway restricted his ability to get high-capacity clips for them. In his manifesto, Breivik wrote about his attempts to legally buy weapons, stating, &ldquo;I envy our European American brothers as the gun laws in Europe sucks ass in comparison.&rdquo;

In fact, in the same manifesto, Breivik wrote that it was from a U.S. supplier that he purchased &ndash; and had mailed &ndash; 10 30-round ammunition magazines for the rifle he used in his attack.

In other words, even if a particular nation or state chooses to make it harder for some would-be killers to get their weapons, these efforts can be undercut by the jurisdictions that hold out. In the U.S., of course, state gun control measures are often thwarted by the lax attitude to gun acquisition in other states.

Editor&rsquo;s note: This is an updated version of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-us-gun-control-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world-43590" rel="nofollow" target="blank">an article</a> first published on June 24, 2015.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-us-gun-control-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world-79490" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

In the US, gun control measures are often thwarted by the lax attitude to gun acquisition in pro-gun states

The shooting in Virginia that wounded House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, as well as the shooting in a San Francisco UPS facility that left four dead on the very same day, have generated – yet again – the standard set of responses in the wake of a mass shooting in the United States. The details of any such tragedy often emerge slowly, but a few points can be made. While deaths from mass shootings are a relatively small part of the overall homicidal violence in America, they are particularly wrenching. The problem is worse in the U.S. than in most other industrialised nations. And it is getting worse. The political overlay of the Virginia shooting also carries a particular social harm. Any thought that guns can play a helpful role in reducing tyranny in a democratic country like the United States should quickly be dispelled. Hopefully, that message will penetrate everyone from the NRA leadership and Sen. Rand Paul to anyone on the opposite end of the political spectrum who doesn’t like the current developments of Republican rule. I’ve been researching gun violence – and what can be done to prevent it – in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if the NRA claim that guns helped reduce crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialised nations instead of the highest one – and by a wide margin. The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents – even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens. The state of gun control in the US Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations. The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow in June 2015 when the U.S. Supreme Court – over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia – refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. The dissenters were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack. Statistics show only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007 to 2011, roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year. Yet data from the National Crime Victimisation Survey show that 99.2 percent of victims in these incidents did not protect themselves with a gun – this in a country with roughly 300 million guns in civilian hands. In fact, a classic study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense. The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that those opposing safe storage of guns should heed: On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer. A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95 percent of the time, but has the constant potential – particularly in the case of handguns which are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime – to harm someone in the home or be stolen and harm someone else. More guns won’t stop gun violence For years, the NRA mantra has been that allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns would reduce crime as they fought off or scared of the criminals. Some early studies even purported to show that so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws did just that, but a 2004 report from the National Research Council refuted that claim, saying it was not supported by “the scientific evidence,” while remaining uncertain about what the true impact of RTC laws was. Ten years of additional data have allowed researchers to get a better fix on this question, which is important since the NRA is pushing for a Supreme Court decision that would allow RTC as a matter of constitutional law. The new research on this issue from my team at Stanford University has given the most compelling evidence to date that RTC laws are associated with significant increases in violent crime. Looking at Uniform Crime Reports data from 1979 to 2014, we find that, on average, the 33 states that adopted RTC laws over this period experienced violent crime rates that are roughly 14 percent higher after 10 years than if they had not adopted these laws. In the meantime, can anything make American politicians listen to the preferences of the 90 percent on the wisdom of adopting universal background checks for gun purchases? Gun control around the world As an academic exercise, one might speculate whether the law could play a constructive role in reducing the number or deadliness of mass shootings. Most other advanced nations apparently think so, since they make it far harder for someone like your typical American mass killer to get his hands on particularly lethal weapons. Universal background checks are common features of gun regulation in other developed countries, including: Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation. Presumably, 21-year-old Charleston shooter Dylann Roof would have failed. Finland: Handgun license applicants are allowed to purchase firearms only if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview and show they have a proper gun storage unit. Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records. France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental and health records of the applicant. The United Kingdom and Japan: Handguns are illegal for private citizens. While mass shootings, as well as gun homicides and suicides, are not unknown in these countries, the overall rates are substantially higher in the United States than in these nations. While NRA supporters frequently challenge me on these statistics, saying that this is only because American blacks are so violent, pointing to the type of wildly incorrect claims about the percentages of whites killed by blacks that Dylann Roof spouted and Donald Trump tweeted, it is important to note that white murder rates in the U.S. are well over twice as high as the murder rates in any of these other countries. Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since 1996 The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996 but none in the succeeding 21 years, is worth examining. The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons. In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the country. A large array of weapons were banned – including the Glock semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government also imposed a mandatory gun buy-back that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia. A pile of about 4,500 prohibited firearms in Sydney that have been handed in under the Australian government’s buy-back scheme July 28, 1997. (Reuters) × The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation disallowed self-defense as a legitimate reason to purchase a firearm. When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters, they insist that crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder rate has fallen to one per 100,000 while the U.S. rate, thankfully lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly 5 per 100,000 – nearly five times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only about half the rate of the U.S.: 58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000 in the U.S. in 2012. How did Australia do it? Politically, it took a brave prime minister to face the rage of Australian gun interests. Prime Minister John Howard wore a bullet-proof vest when he announced the proposed gun restrictions in June 1996. The deputy prime minister was hung in effigy. But Australia did not have a domestic gun industry to oppose the new measures so the will of the people was allowed to emerge. And today, support for the safer, gun-restricted Australia is so strong that going back would not be tolerated by the public. That Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since 1996 is likely more than merely the result of the considerable reduction in guns – it’s certainly not the case that guns have disappeared altogether. I suspect that the country has also experienced a cultural shift between the shock of the Port Arthur massacre and the removal of guns from everyday life, as they are no longer available for self-defense and they are simply less present throughout the country. Troubled individuals, in other words, are not constantly being reminded that guns are a means to address their alleged grievances to the extent that they were in the past, or continue to be in the U.S. Lax gun control in one nation can create problems in another Of course, strict gun regulations cannot ensure that the danger of mass shootings or killings has been eliminated. Norway has strong gun control and committed humane values. But that didn’t prevent Anders Breivik from opening fire on a youth camp on the island of Utoya in 2011. His clean criminal record and hunting license had allowed him to secure semiautomatic rifles, but Norway restricted his ability to get high-capacity clips for them. In his manifesto, Breivik wrote about his attempts to legally buy weapons, stating, “I envy our European American brothers as the gun laws in Europe sucks ass in comparison.” In fact, in the same manifesto, Breivik wrote that it was from a U.S. supplier that he purchased – and had mailed – 10 30-round ammunition magazines for the rifle he used in his attack. In other words, even if a particular nation or state chooses to make it harder for some would-be killers to get their weapons, these efforts can be undercut by the jurisdictions that hold out. In the U.S., of course, state gun control measures are often thwarted by the lax attitude to gun acquisition in other states. Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article first published on June 24, 2015. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

How US gun control compares to the rest of the world

terrorism

Terrorism, News on Terrorism, stories on Terrorism, articles on Terrorism, Terrorism stories at Wion, Terrorism news, Terrorism latest news