[LOL! <<Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday said that the ***jawans (ordinary soldiers) will decide what punishment has to be dealt to the perpetrators of the Pulwama attack*** [emphasis added] in which 40 CRPF jawans lost their lives.>> (Excerpted from sl. no. I. below.)
Instead of such empty and hollow, and yet capable of triggering catastrophic consequences even if unwittingly, posturings, a far more sensible way of dealing with the things would be to make an honest move to engage with all the stakeholders. (Pls. ref. to, especially, sl. no. III & IV below.) Inviting the UNSC Secy. Genl. to mediate may not be too bad an idea given the persistent failure of the two concerned state actors to sort out their differences all by themsleves. The voices of the different sections of people of Kashmir, on both sides of the LoC, must be given a proper and respectful hearing, in the process. Gandhi's dictum that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is just not an empty precept; more so, when the two states involved are armed with nuclear weapons and all the three types of delivery platforms. <<Armed with what they believe is reasonable intelligence about the locations of Pakistan’s strategic forces, highly accurate missiles and MIRVs to target them, and a missile defense that has a shot at cleaning up any Pakistani missiles that survived the first strike, Indian leaders might be tempted to launch a counterforce first strike. With the world’s attention firmly fixated on North Korea, the greatest possibility of nuclear war is in fact on the other side of Asia. (This first appeared back in 2017.)>> (Excerpted from sl. no. II. below.) <<Even as we cope with what is said to be one of the most deadly attacks on security personnel in Kashmir in the last few decades, PUCL would like to point out that decades of violence in the valley, and especially the spiraling violence in the last three years have not led to any solution; we therefore urge all parties concerned to immediately cease violence as a means of finding a solution and instead initiate and engage in open and meaningful dialogue involving all the different stake holders in order to end State and non-state violence and move forward towards a democratic resolution of the Kashmir conflict.>> (Excerpted from sl. no. III. below.) <<PIPFPD calls for major steps to ensure end to violence in Kashmir and the sub-continent. We recommend: 1. Apart from fighting militants militarily, Indian government must open channels of negotiation with the people of Kashmir and introduce genuine confidence building measures to pave way for a more structured dialogue. 2. New Delhi and Islamabad must resume composite and unconditional dialogue between India and Pakistan and make people of Jammu and Kashmir an inclusive part of the dialogue.>> (Excerpted from sl. no. III. below.)] I/IV. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/soldiers-will-decide-punishment-for-pulwama-perpetrators-says-pm-modi/story-6q8DCP9VH9RIeS7FfV425J.html?fbclid=IwAR1dg5Whooh-lZEFc3Pip_S0WlcMo2lo1xdvKjW09qgjryelk78XSGGcV94 Soldiers will decide punishment for Pulwama perpetrators, says PM Modi Referring to Pakistan, PM Modi said that the country that was formed after India’s partition has now become a synonym for terrorism. INDIA Updated: Feb 16, 2019 15:55 IST HT Correspondent Hindustan Times, New Delhi Prime Minister Narendra Modi.(PTI file photo) Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday said that the jawans will decide what punishment has to be dealt to the perpetrators of the Pulwama attack in which 40 CRPF jawans lost their lives. He also launched a scathing attack at Pakistan without naming it and said that it had become a synonym for terrorism. “A country that was formed after India’s partition, which gives shelter to terrorism and which is on the verge of bankruptcy has today become a synonym for terrorism,” the PM said at a public event at Yavatmal in Maharashtra. He was speaking in reference to Thursday’s suicide bombing at Pulwama in which 40 CRPF jawans were killed. Saying that the sacrifices of the jawans will not be in vain, the PM said that no matter where the leaders of terror organisations hide, they will have to pay for their sins. Also read: Pulwama attack: What has this bloodshed got to do with Kartarpur corridor, asks Navjot Singh Sidhu “Our jawans will decide what, where, when and how the perpetrators of the Pulwama attack will be punished,” PM Modi said. Responding to the sentiment of anger that has spread across the country after the Pulwama attack, the PM called for patience. “Have patience and faith in our soldiers. The nation understands the anger in the armed forces and the CRPF. We have given them a free hand to decide the punishment for those who carried out the Pulwama attack,” the PM said. First Published: Feb 16, 2019 12:18 IST II/IV. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/billions-dead-thats-what-could-happen-if-india-and-pakistan-wage-nuclear-war-44682?fbclid=IwAR0GN1pf8g1gFgpkYuxzocq99GfaIrDO4oo0ygycdo07z7EqayrVKfLoEvE February 15, 2019 Billions Dead: That's What Could Happen if India and Pakistan Wage a Nuclear War This is the real nuclear crisis the world is missing. by Zachary Keck Armed with what they believe is reasonable intelligence about the locations of Pakistan’s strategic forces, highly accurate missiles and MIRVs to target them, and a missile defense that has a shot at cleaning up any Pakistani missiles that survived the first strike, Indian leaders might be tempted to launch a counterforce first strike. With the world’s attention firmly fixated on North Korea, the greatest possibility of nuclear war is in fact on the other side of Asia. (This first appeared back in 2017.) That place is what could be called the nuclear triangle of Pakistan, India and China. Although Chinese and Indian forces are currently engaged in a standoff, traditionally the most dangerous flashpoint along the triangle has been the Indo-Pakistani border. The two countries fought three major wars before acquiring nuclear weapons, and one minor one afterwards. And this doesn’t even include the countless other armed skirmishes and other incidents that are a regular occurrence. At the heart of this conflict, of course, is the territorial dispute over the northern Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, the latter part of which Pakistan lays claim to. Also key to the nuclear dimension of the conflict is the fact that India’s conventional capabilities are vastly superior to Pakistan’s. Consequently, Islamabad has adopted a nuclear doctrine of using tactical nuclear weapons against Indian forces to offset the latter’s conventional superiority. If this situation sounds similar, that is because this is the same strategy the U.S.-led NATO forces adopted against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the face of a numerically superior Soviet military, the United States, starting with the Eisenhower administration, turned to nuclear weapons to defend Western Europe from a Soviet attack. Although nearly every U.S. president, as well as countless European leaders, were uncomfortable with this escalatory strategy, they were unable to escape the military realities undergirding it until at least the Reagan administration. At an event at the Stimson Center in Washington this week, Feroz Khan, a former brigadier in the Pakistan Army and author of one of the best books on the country’s nuclear program, said that Pakistani military leaders explicitly based their nuclear doctrine on NATO’s Cold War strategy. But as Vipin Narang, a newly tenured MIT professor who was on the same panel, pointed out, an important difference between NATO and Pakistan’s strategies is that the latter has used its nuclear shield as a cover to support countless terrorist attacks inside India. Among the most audacious were the 2001 attacks on India’s parliament and the 2008 siege of Mumbai, which killed over 150 people. Had such an attack occurred in the United States, Narang said, America would have ended a nation-state. The reason why India didn’t respond to force, according to Narang, is that—despite its alleged Cold Start doctrine—Indian leaders were unsure exactly where Pakistan’s nuclear threshold stood. That is, even if Indian leaders believed they were launching a limited attack, they couldn’t be sure that Pakistani leaders wouldn’t view it as expansive enough to justify using nuclear weapons. This is no accident: as Khan said, Pakistani leaders intentionally leave their nuclear threshold ambiguous. Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that India’s restraint will continue in the future. Indeed, as Michael Krepon quipped, “Miscalculation is South Asia’s middle name.” Much of the panel’s discussion was focused on technological changes that might exacerbate this already-combustible situation. Narang took the lead in describing how India was acquiring the capabilities to pursue counterforce strikes (i.e., take out Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in a preventive or more likely preemptive strike). These included advances in information, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to be able to track and target Islamabad’s strategic forces, as well as a missile-defense system that could take care of any missiles the first strike didn’t destroy. He also noted that India is pursuing a number of missile capabilities highly suited for counterforce missions, such as Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs), Maneuverable Reentry Vehicles (MARVs) and the highly accurate BrahMos missiles that Dehli developed jointly with Russia. “BrahMos is one hell of a counterforce weapon,” even without nuclear warheads, Narang contended. As Narang himself admitted, there’s little reason to believe that India is abandoning its no-first-use nuclear doctrine in favor of a first-strike one. Still, keeping in mind Krepon’s point about miscalculation, that doesn’t mean that these technological changes don’t increase the potential for a nuclear war. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where the two sides stumble into a nuclear war that neither side wants. Perhaps the most plausible scenario would start with a Mumbai-style attack that Indian leaders decide they must respond to. In hopes of keeping the conflict limited to conventional weapons, Delhi might authorize limited punitive raids inside Pakistan, perhaps targeting some of the terrorist camps near the border. These attacks might be misinterpreted by Pakistani leaders, or else unintentionally cross Islamabad’s nuclear thresholds. In an attempt to deescalate by escalating, or else to halt what they believe is an Indian invasion, Pakistani leaders could use tactical nuclear weapons against the Indian troops inside Pakistan. With nuclear weapons introduced, Delhi’s no-first-use doctrine no longer applies. Indian leaders, knowing they’d face incredible domestic pressure to respond, would also have no guarantee that Pakistani leaders didn’t intend to follow the tactical use of nuclear weapons with strategic strikes against Indian cities. Armed with what they believe is reasonable intelligence about the locations of Pakistan’s strategic forces, highly accurate missiles and MIRVs to target them, and a missile defense that has a shot at cleaning up any Pakistani missiles that survived the first strike, Indian leaders might be tempted to launch a counterforce first strike. As former Indian National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon wrote in his memoirs (which Narang first drew people’s attention to at the Carnegie Nuclear Policy Conference in March): “India would hardly risk giving Pakistan the chance to carry out a massive nuclear strike after the Indian response to Pakistan using tactical nuclear weapons. In other words, Pakistani tactical nuclear weapon use would effectively free India to undertake a comprehensive first strike against Pakistan.” One factor Indian leaders would be forced to consider is how the other third of Asian nuclear triangle, China, would react. Although the Stimson Center event focused primarily on India and Pakistan, China has always been the primary focus of India’s nuclear program. Beijing is also a staunch if informal ally of Pakistan, with a growing economic stake in the country. It is this multipolarity that is the hallmark of the second nuclear age. Zachary Keck is the former managing editor of the National Interest. You can find him on Twitter: @ZacharyKeck. Image: Reuters. III/IV. http://www.pucl.org/press-statements/pucl-statement-condemning-bombing-and-killing-crpf-personnel-kashmir PUCL Statement Condemning bombing and killing of CRPF Personnel in Kashmir February 15, 2019 The PUCL strongly condemns the attack on Indian Army personnel in Pulwama, Kashmir, which led to the killing of about 40 CRPF personnel. The killings happened in the most brutal and dehumanised way, with a RDX filled SUV ramming into the Bus which was part of a convoy carrying the army personnel on the Jammu Srinagar highway. The resulting blast led to the mutilation, maiming and splintering of bodies, causing further disrespect to the dead. We express our condolences to the families of the army personnel who have lost their family members. At this moment of grief and mourning, PUCL calls upon the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, the Union Home Minister, Shri Rajnath Singh, the Army Chief, and all other leaders of political parties, as also the, media and others to respond to the situation with sensitivity and calmness and not to, in any way, aggravate the situation by giving calls to revenge, reprisals and retribution. Even as we cope with what is said to be one of the most deadly attacks on security personnel in Kashmir in the last few decades, PUCL would like to point out that decades of violence in the valley, and especially the spiraling violence in the last three years have not led to any solution; we therefore urge all parties concerned to immediately cease violence as a means of finding a solution and instead initiate and engage in open and meaningful dialogue involving all the different stake holders in order to end State and non-state violence and move forward towards a democratic resolution of the Kashmir conflict. IV. https://countercurrents.org/2019/02/16/pulwama-attack-pakistan-india-peoples-forum-for-peace-democracy-calls-for-peace/ Pulwama Attack: Pakistan India Peoples’ Forum for Peace & Democracy Calls For Peace in South Asia — by Press Release — February 16, 2019 ‘How many Deaths will it take till we know That too many people have died?’ PIPFPD is shocked and saddened by the loss of lives of 44 CRPF personnel in a militant attack in Lethapora, Pulwama, Jammu & Kashmir. The gruesome manner in which an explosives laden vehicle, driven by a suicide bomber, rammed into a CRPF convoy and the scale of the operation is horrifying. Loss of precious lives is tragic and painful. While investigations are underway, it is alleged that Jaish-e-Muhammed (JeM) orchestrated this dastardly attack. All civilized societies must prevent bloodshed and condemn, mourn killings. It is equally important to understand the genesis of the attack and find ways to ensure that such incidents do not happen in future. It is also important to make sure that violence and war are not irresponsibly perpetuated in the name of avenging the blood of the deceased. The incident raises several pertinent questions that must be addressed. According to some reports intelligence inputs about an impending attack were available with the security agencies. Also, the entire highway where the attack took place, is heavily sanitized. The militant who carried out the attack released his video talking about a fidayeen strike before the attack. All these reports suggest a possible security lapse that must be probed along with questions of how such a huge quantity of explosives was piled up and stored. It must also be investigated as to why such a large convoy of military personnel was moving together, in a conflict zone like Kashmir. PIPFPD unequivocally condemns this and all acts of terror—whether perpetrated by state or non-state actors. While India and Pakistan must conduct investigations into this attack, the attack is a clear outcome of flawed Kashmir-centric policies of the Indian government and the misplaced claims of wiping out militancy from Kashmir. The rigid muscular policy pursued by the Government of India, without any attempts for a political outreach, have created conditions that are conducive for militancy. Excessive repression in the Kashmir valley, particularly since 2016, with men, women and children being killed and maimed with bullets and pellets, highly disproportionate scale of crackdowns and arrests and increasing graph of human rights violations often pushes young men to pick up the gun against the state. It is not out of place to mention that militancy is an off-shoot of a deeper malaise including an unaddressed political dispute, subversion of democracy and democratic rights of people and neglect of human rights violations. PIPFPD, among many other organisations and people, have raised these issues consistently. Two reports (‘Blood Censored’ & ‘Why are People Protesting in Kashmir’), authored by members of PIPFPD in 2017 and 2018 respectively, had gone on to warn about the worsening situation and the failure of state policies. Sadly, except for further war mongering, these killings are never used by the two governments to brainstorm towards conflict transformation. PIPFPD calls for major steps to ensure end to violence in Kashmir and the sub-continent. We recommend: 1. Apart from fighting militants militarily, Indian government must open channels of negotiation with the people of Kashmir and introduce genuine confidence building measures to pave way for a more structured dialogue. 2. New Delhi and Islamabad must resume composite and unconditional dialogue between India and Pakistan and make people of Jammu and Kashmir an inclusive part of the dialogue. (Tapan Bose, Syeda Hameed & Vijayan MJ) On Behalf of Pakistan India People’s Forum for Peace & Democracy -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send an email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
