Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts

Sunday, September 8, 2019

‘West’s leading role is ending’: G7’s no good without India and China, Putin says



By RT

September 07, 2019 "Information Clearing House" -  Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the leading role of the West is coming to an end, and no serious international group makes much sense anymore without economic juggernauts like China and India.

Putin shared his thoughts on the Group of Seven (G7) during the Eastern Economic Forum, held outside Vladivostok in Russia’s Far East on Thursday. He was asked whether he would attend the group’s meeting in the US next year if invited. US President Donald Trump said last month he will “certainly” invite Putin.

The Russian president hinted that G7 leaders should instead travel to Russia where the last G8 event was due to take place, in 2014, prior to Moscow’s expulsion from the group.
“We’re open [for contacts], and if our partners want to travel here, we’ll be happy [to host them],” he said.
Putin added, however, that the G7, in its current composition, is not up for the task of solving global issues.

Last week, after the G7 meeting in France, Macron admitted that “Western hegemony” is ending and urged a rethink of the West’s approach towards Moscow.I think it’s clear to everyone now – and [French] President [Emmanuel] Macron has recently said so publicly – that the leading role of the West is ending. I cannot imagine an effective international organization without India and China.
The Group of Seven comprises the US, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. Moscow joined in the late-1990s, but was expelled in 2014 after Crimea’s reunification with Russia.
The importance of the G7 on the world stage has been called into question, as China is now the world’s second largest economy, and India is on course to becoming the third.
This article was originally published by "RT" - -  

==See Also==


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52219.htm

JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Friday, August 30, 2019

Are Russia and India Global Partners? The Brahmos Supersonic Missiles, The Russia-China Relationship



Global Research, August 30, 2019

The announcement that the Brahmos supersonic missiles jointly produced by Russia and India will soon be exported to third countries that are on friendly relations with both increases the odds that their historic Vietnamese partners might receive these game-changing weapons.
***
New Delhi’s Man In Moscow Is Right, Russia & India Are Global Partners“, and no sooner had the Indian Ambassador to Russia said that in a recent interview earlier this week than the announcement was made that the Brahmos supersonic missiles that they jointly produced will be exported to third countries that are on friendly relations with both of them. Although Sputnik reported at the beginning of the month that Thailand would probably be the first country apart from those two to take possession of these weapons, the outlet also reported a few months back that Southeast Asian nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore were interested in them too, as well as the Gulf countries (in clear reference to the GCC). There wouldn’t be anything controversial about any of those aforementioned nations receiving these game-changing arms, except perhaps the GCC ones that would obviously intend to use them against Iran in the event of a conflict (per Russia’s strategy of “balancing” the Islamic Republic all throughout the region), but it would be extremely significant if Moscow and New Delhi’s historic Vietnamese partners were to one day receive them as well.
That’s not too far-fetched of a prediction to make either after rumors have been floating around for the past couple of years that Hanoi is in the market for these missiles in order to defend its claims in the disputed waters of the South China Sea from Beijing. There’s a solid reasoning behind this possibility too, and it’s that a subsidiary of Russian state-owned oil company Rosneft is drilling in the Lan Do oilfield that narrowly sits within the southwestern border of China’s nine-dash line but is apparently regarded by the company as being under Vietnam’s de-facto sovereignty, which thus gives Russia a natural interest in arming Vietnam in order to secure this “national champion’s” energy deposits by proxy. The precedent established by Russian Ambassador to India Nikolai Kudashev’s claim earlier this week that India’s unilateral moves in disputed Kashmir are an “internal matter” suggests that it would also regard Vietnam’s sale of oil blocks in the disputed waters of the South China Sea as similarly being an “internal matter” in the interests of consistency.
It’s important to point out that Russia’s stalwart defense of India’s actions in Kashmir represented the first time that it openly contradicted China’s official position on a significant international issue since the end of the Old Cold War and showed the world that Moscow will at the very least diplomatically “balance” Beijing in South Asia in the New Cold War in order to defend its national interests in the region.
Russia’s lucrative (but declining) arms trade and nuclear energy cooperation with India greatly help support the state budget during this difficult period of international sanctions and the two systemic transitions that the country is currently undergoing in the political and economic spheres, so it would have been unthinkable for Moscow to take Beijing’s side over New Delhi’s on that issue. Furthermore, Russia has a grand strategic interest in positioning itself as the leader of a new Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM) that presents a much-needed “third way” between China and the West like Valdai Club programme director Oleg Barabanov proposed earlier this year in his policy paper about “China’s Road to Global Leadership: Prospects and Challenges for Russia“.
It’s with this “balancing” intent in mind, coupled with the possibility that Russia’s Western partners might even tacitly encourage its leadership of the Neo-NAM as part of a “New Detente” between the two, that it wouldn’t be unexpected at all if Moscow agreed to sell Brahmos missiles to Hanoi in order to safeguard Rosneft’s investments in the disputed waters of the South China Sea de-facto controlled by Vietnam. Not only would the arms sales and energy extraction themselves be profitable enough (with the latter’s exports likely going to India to further reinforce their strategic partnership and the developing trilateral arrangement between them and Vietnam), but it would be a massively strategic move for “balancing” China in the region due to the game-changing effect that these weapons’ deployment could have for boosting Vietnam’s naval defenses. Consequently, that development could improve Russia’s relevance in the Southeast Asian region by serving as proof that it can indeed function as a credible “third way” between the West and China for the countries caught in their competition, thus inspiring them to prioritize the comprehensive betterment and diversification of ties.
Russia has successfully returned to the Mideast ever since its 2015 anti-terrorist operation in Syria, and it’s presently in the process of following in its Soviet predecessor’s footsteps in Africa after the recent completion of its “African Transversal” slicing through the continent, thus making Southeast Asia the only remaining part of the hemisphere that Moscow has yet to regain its former influence in. The pattern tying the Mideast, Africa, and possibly soon even Southeast Asia together is that Moscow is using its “military diplomacy” in creative ways to “balance” these regions via a formal intervention, the use of private military contractors, and the speculative sale of strategic weaponry, respectively. It therefore follows that selling Brahmos missiles to Vietnam would be a logical extension of this low-cost but highly effective strategy of restoring Russia’s regional influence, with the added benefit of also “balancing” China in the South China Sea, which could then make Moscow a stakeholder in any forthcoming diplomatic solution there and thus give it a prospective role in that process. There are veritably some risks to this strategy, but it nevertheless seems to be the one guiding Russia’s recent actions.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from OneWorld



https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-use-brahmos-missiles-balance-china-south-china-sea/5687582

JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

New Delhi’s Man in Moscow Is Right, Russia and India Are Global Partners



Global Research, August 28, 2019

The Indian Ambassador to Russia was right when he said that his host nation increasingly views his homeland as a global player, an observation that’s becoming all the more significant after Moscow has shown that it’s willing to contradict China on key international issues and possibly even “balance” it abroad.
The Indian Ambassador to Russia said in a recent interview that “Russia increasingly looks at India as a partner not just in regional context but also as a global player”, and he’s certainly right. Moscow has been making every effort possible to take relations with New Delhi to the next level, which involves diversifying their existing dependence in the military-technical & nuclear spheres and expanding their ties across the world.
This can only happen through real-sector economic cooperation, which is sorely lacking and has been for decades since the end of the Old Cold War, but which might receive a tangible boost after Modi’s trip to Vladivostok next week to attend the Eastern Economic Forum as President Putin’s guest of honor. Reliable access to Russian resources is crucial for India’s continued economic growth, but Moscow must do more than just play the role of a raw materials supplier to New Delhi if it aspires to gain anything of tangible strategic significance out of this relationship.
The author gave a speech at a Duma roundtable discussion last year about how “Russia Must Bring The ‘Asia-Africa Growth Corridor’ To The Far East“, with this policy recommendation now appearing to enter into practice given the high expectations surrounding Modi’s upcoming visit to the region. Russia’s 21st-century grand strategy is to becoming the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia, which naturally implies that it will have to “balance” between the hemisphere’s new Chinese hegemon and its rising one of India. All three countries are BRICS and SCO members, but this Great Power triangle is becoming increasingly complex after Russia openly contradicted the Chinese position on Kashmir earlier this month and proved that it’s at the very least interested in diplomatically “balancing” the People’s Republic on this significant international issue. That development caught both critics and supporters alike off guard because the Mainstream and Alternative Media narrative had hitherto been that Russia and China didn’t have any serious disagreements whatsoever.
Moscow therefore sent an unprecedented signal that it’s serious about “balancing” hemispheric affairs, especially between Beijing and New Delhi, a role that might only take on more prominence in the coming future if Russia clinches a “New Detente” with the West and is encouraged by its new partners to become the leader of a new Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM) for managing Afro-Eurasian affairs per the vision suggested by Valdai Club programme director Oleg Barabanov in his policy paper a few months ago titled “China’s Road to Global Leadership: Prospects and Challenges for Russia“. Russia cannot pioneer a “third way” between the West and China without cooperating real closely with India in spite of the latter essentially being a Western proxy in this sense for “containing” China, which is why Moscow is working so hard to diversify its relations with New Delhi into the real-sector economic sphere via the country’s possible incorporation into the “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” (AAGC) and its consequent “co-opting” of the “Indo-Pacific” strategy.
Russian-Indian relations therefore are about a lot more than just the European part of the first-mentioned where the majority of the population lives and the subcontinent where the second is located but are now about to expand to the Russian Far East along the Chinese border, not in any aggressive military-like sense (though they might sign a LEMOA-like agreement), but in an economically and symbolically significant one that will send an unmistakable message to Beijing about Moscow’s “balancing” intentions. The goal to is to make India a stakeholder in this far-flung but resource-rich corner of the Eurasian Great Power so that the South Asian state expands its influence in Northeast Asia, thus geographically diversifying their bilateral relations and improving the likelihood that Russia’s “Asian Sea Arc” from Vladivostok to Vietnam (and naturally now to India as well) that the author proposed four years ago will enter into practice as the first “proof of concept” of Moscow’s successful integration into the AAGC (especially if it links Russia with the project’s Japanese co-founder too).
It should also be pointed out that Russia will assume the rotating presidency of the UNSC next month and promised to focus on African issues during the next year, a continent where both it and India have a lot of interests lately. Importantly, the Black Sea city of Sochi will host the first-ever Russia-Africa Summit in October, which will formalize Russia’s return to Africa and likely be accompanied by many economic deals as well. Bearing in mind the increasingly global nature of the Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership, especially if Modi’s upcoming trip to Vladivostok results in Moscow formally or informally joining the AAGC, it can be expected that Russia will then seek to expand its partnership with India to Africa too. Remembering that the two are also cooperating on the North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) through Iran and Azerbaijan, these three strategic vectors — Northeast Asia, Mideast, Africa — would complement each Great Power’s respective host region of Europe and South Asia to truly make their partnership global just like the Indian Ambassador said it’s becoming.
Although there isn’t any military component to this grand strategic plan, China can’t help but feel concerned at Russia facilitating its Indian rival’s access to new regions in a manner that perfectly pairs with the West’s attempts to use the South Asian state to “contain” the People’s Republic, albeit in different ways of course.
Russia is driven by financial and strategic motivations related to profitable dealmaking and its “balancing” vision, respectively, both of which come together to improve the prospects of Moscow becoming the leader of a Neo-NAM. None of this implies that Russia is “against” China or that another “Sino-Russo Split” is imminent, but just that the emerging Multipolar World Order is becoming much more complex than it was at its onset as it progressively matures and returns the world to the “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard” after a prolonged period of bipolarity and a brief moment of unipolarity. Instead of “The End Of History”, the world is now experiencing “The Return Of History”, which will make International Relations much more unpredictable but which is also why Russia’s envisioned “balancing” role of leading the Neo-NAM is all the more indispensable.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.



https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-india-global-partners/5687420

JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Thursday, August 22, 2019

Russia’s UNSC Kashmir Stance Wasn’t Influenced by India or Pakistan, but by China



Global Research, August 22, 2019

Russia didn’t want the issue of Kashmir to be brought before the UNSC at all, though it allowed China to go forward with the meeting out of respect for their strategic partnership but then remained conspicuously silent about India’s threats against it in order to convey its disapproval towards Beijing.
***
Background Briefings
Russia’s UNSC stance towards Kashmir has generated a lot of discussion due to how differently it’s been interpreted, with some saying that Moscow sided with Islamabad by allowing the Beijing-initiated meeting to take place while others claim that it reaffirmed its support of New Delhi’s position by twice saying that it regards the issue as a bilateral one. The author takes the latter approach and extensively explained his views in the following analyses about the topic that were published within the last week:
Silence As A Statement
It’s the last one of the six aforementioned articles that’s the most revealing about what really influenced Russia’s position towards Kashmir. It wasn’t its relations with India or even Pakistan, but China, because Beijing brought the issue before the UNSC out of solidarity with Islamabad and due to its own national security stakes in the conflict even though Moscow would have preferred for this not to have been discussed at all in that format.
Russia allowed the meeting to go forward out of respect for its strategic partnership with China, but then remained deafeningly silent in response to India’s anti-Chinese threats, specifically the one made by Home Minister Amit Shah about how people “can die” over his country’s claims to Chinese-administered Aksai Chin and the overall concern that the Chinese Foreign Ministry officially expressed for its territorial sovereignty after India’s “Israeli”-like unilateral move in Kashmir earlier this month.
It’s very rare that the Russian Foreign Ministry misses an opportunity to opine about international matters, yet it chose not to make any comment whatsoever in response to a leading official in one of the world’s few nuclear-armed states threatening to kill people in its similarly nuclear-armed neighbor after his government made a move that infringed on their territorial sovereignty. This absence of action can be interpreted as an action in and of itself, namely one that conveyed the message that Russia is displeased with China.
The Limits Of The Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership
At the very least, Russia is showing the world that it and China aren’t “allies” like many in the Mainstream and Alternative Media portray the two as being for their own separate reasons since it would have otherwise said something in Beijing’s defense had their relationship really been on that speculative level. Instead, Russia knew that saying the wrong word would ruin one of its two most important strategic partnerships, hence why it chose to stay silent and let India’s warmongering go unaddressed.
To be clear, it’s inconceivable that Russia endorses Shah’s statement or would in any way encourage Indian aggression against China’s territorial sovereignty so its silence shouldn’t be interpreted as support, the same way as its passive acceptance of China’s move to take Kashmir up with the UNSC shouldn’t be interpreted as support for the multilateralization of this issue either. Rather, Russia was forced into an unenviable strategic position due to events outside of its control and therefore sought to “balance” between all partners.
This, naturally, includes the global pivot state of Pakistan as well, with which Russia is currently engaged in a rapidly moving rapprochement that recently turned into a strategic partnership in its own right last year. That’s why Foreign Minister Lavrov accepted his counterpart’s invitation to talk about Kashmir last week and these two countries’ increasingly close military ties remain completely unaffected by Moscow’s UNSC stance towards the issue.
Triangulation
From the Russian perspective, each of the three states that are party to the Kashmir Conflict have their own roles in its grand strategy, which is why Moscow doesn’t want to offend any of them if it can help it. China is pioneering the Belt & Road Initiative(BRI) with which President Putin announced his plans to integrate the Eurasian Union, and it’s also a major customer for Russia’s resources. India, for its part, is a huge (but quickly declining) arms market, as well as a profitable partner when it comes to nuclear energy cooperation.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s importance derives from Russia’s diplomatic and military-intelligence cooperation with it mostly stemming from their shared interests in bringing peace to Afghanistan, as well as the fact that Islamabad is Beijing’s top international partner. Nevertheless, Russia does attempt to “triangulate” between the three in order to promote the regional “balancing” act that it’s practicing through its “Return to South Asia“. For instance, China and Pakistan help Russia hedge against the implications of India’s pro-American pivot.
Likewise, the Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership could serve to “balance” China all across the Eastern Hemisphere if taken to its maximum extent in the long-term future and especially if Moscow clinches a “New Detente” with Washington that ends up indirectly involving the US in this relationship to that end. As for the Russian-Pakistani relations, Moscow can learn a lot from Islamabad’s experience being a key transit state for BRI via CPEC, which could in turn help it take better advantage of its role in the Eurasian Land Bridge.
Concluding Thoughts
Considering all of this, Russia would have preferred not to have been placed in a position where it’s forced to choose between its partners, but this was impossible after India’s “Israeli”-like unilateral move infringed on China’s territorial sovereignty and triggered Beijing into bringing up Kashmir at the UNSC, something that it didn’t necessarily have to do but did so anyway partly on behalf of its “iron brother” in Islamabad. The complicated strategic triangle of the Kashmir Conflict therefore put Russia in a very tricky position.
Unlike how it’s widely seen by both friends and foes alike (again, each for their own reasons), Russia wasn’t calling the shots at all this time, but merely reacting to them, and in a purely defensive way at that with the utmost care to avoid offending its three partners’ sensitivities through any unexpected moves that would contradict their expectations. Pakistan was unable to bring Kashmir up at the UNSC, nor was India able to prevent China from doing so, which is why Russia’s response was influenced by its relations with China.
Not wanting to actively disrespect China in front of the rest of the world, Russia passively allowed the meeting to take place, though it also remained passive in the face of India’s threats against its partner too in order to signal its disapproval of Beijing bringing Kashmir to the UNSC. If Russia had the choice, it would have rather that Kashmir not been discussed at the global body, but there’s no changing the fact that it was, though this means that Russia’s “balancing” act between China, India, and Pakistan just got all the more difficult because of it.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-unsc-kashmir-stance-india-pakistan-china/5686831


JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Indian Assault on Kashmir in Third Week, Thousands Arrested


Global Research, August 22, 2019

World Socialist Web Site 21 August 2019

The state of siege that India’s Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government has imposed on Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is now well into its third week.
Cell phone and internet access continue to be denied to many of the region’s 13 million residents; and tens of thousands of Indian Army troops and paramilitaries remain deployed in J&K’s cities, towns and villages to intimidate the population and brutally suppress any and all signs of opposition to New Delhi’s August 5 constitutional coup.
On that day, the BJP government illegally stripped India’s only Muslim-majority state of its unique, semi-autonomous constitutional status by executive fiat, bifurcated it and downgraded the severed parts into two Union Territories, thus placing them under permanent trusteeship of the central government.
Despite New Delhi’s efforts to black out what is happening in Kashmir and silence all government opponents, information is leaking out that points to both the scale of the state repression and the strength and resilience of popular opposition.
It is now known that the Indian government has arbitrarily detained at least 4,000 people under a draconian, anti-democratic law that allows the state to imprison people it deems a threat to “public security” for up to two years without charge.
The detainees include “potential stone-pelters,” i.e., students and other young people previously active in anti-government protests, academics, lawyers and journalists. They also include—in an implicit admission of the lack of any support for New Delhi’s actions in the Kashmir Valley and among the Muslim population of Jammu—the top leadership and numerous cadre of the pro-Indian parties formed or traditionally supported by J&K’s Muslim elite.
Indian authorities have refused to reveal the names of those who have been detained or tell their relatives where they are being held. State-owned All-India Radio said last week that government officials had placed the number of detained at around 500.
This has now been exposed as disinformation.
A J&K magistrate has determined that at least 4,000 people have been detained, with most sent by military aircraft to jails outside J&K, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported Sunday. The magistrate had covertly collected information on the number of detainees from colleagues using a special cell phone that had been given him because of his senior government post. His account, said AFP, has been corroborated by other government sources, including a police official who said that upwards of 6,000 people have been arrested.
Since then there have been further arrests. Thirty youth who clashed with police overnight were seized and transported to jails elsewhere in India, reported Reuters Tuesday.
Reporters from the Kolkata-based daily Telegraph who visited three villages in south Kashmir, Shaar, Khrew, and Mandankpal, said residents told them that hundreds of security personnel had been deployed there and that they had rounded up dozens of “potential stone-throwers.” The report, which was published Monday under the headline “‘Iron fist’ in rural Kashmir,” said Indian forces had frequently held hostage the fathers and brothers of those targeted for detention so as to force them to surrender. This, it went on to note, is “an aspect of the crackdown that has passed largely under the radar thanks to the information blackout.”
A relative of one young man, Sameer Ahmad, who surrendered to authorities to secure the release of his father, told the Telegraph, “For six days, we had no information about him. Yesterday, we found him at the central jail, booked under the PSA (Public Security Act). He told us he was thrashed and that there were hundreds of prisoners in the jail.”
Another establishment publication, the Quint, noting that many of the detained Kashmiri youth have been transported to jails in BJP-administered Uttar Pradesh pointed to a sinister purpose. “That (criminal gangs) have immense influence in these jails is hidden from no one,” said the Quint. “People have been murdered and assaults are commonplace. This would mean that Kashmiris are likely to have a tough time in these jails. The government’s strategy (is) to instill this fear into the stone-pelters.”
A report published Monday by the Indian Express lists the names of the most high-profile of the scores of mainstream political leaders and officials who have been detained and are now being held incommunicado. On the list are three former J&K Chief Ministers—Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah of the J&K National Conference, and People’s Democratic Party head Mehbooha Mufti; former J&K cabinet minister and People’s Conference head Sajad Lone; six other former J&K ministers; other legislators; and the mayor and deputy mayor of J&K’s largest city, Srinagar.
The Narendra Modi-led BJP, with the unabashed support of most of the corporate media, is trying to give the impression that normalcy is being gradually restored to J&K. But this is belied by its actions, which betray an enormous fear of popular opposition.
Since last Friday, the authorities have repeatedly announced that they were scaling back the blanket restrictions on people’s movements only to have to re-impose them after protests erupted.
Yesterday, Rohit Kansal, the principal spokesman for J&K’s New Delhi-imposed government, cited as proof that life is returning to “normalcy,” that “of 197 police stations across J&K, 136 stations have no daytime restrictions”—i.e., are not imposing daytime curfews. What he omitted to mention is that every inhabited part of the Kashmir Valley and much of Jammu are thick with security checkpoints, where residents must submit to questions and show identity papers, and that on a daily basis security forces are violently suppressing protests with tear gas, chili grenades and pellet-gun fire.
Some schools have been ordered reopened after a two-week government-imposed shutdown, but in Srinagar and much of J&K they are not functioning due to the absence of students. On Tuesday, Reuters correspondents visited three schools in Srinagar and found no students present. Nair Mir, an engineer in Srinagar told Al Jazeera,
“The government wants children in uniforms to be vidoegraphed for the media and sell it as normalcy in Kashmir.”
Safiya Tajamul also condemned the government’s actions.
“There is still 99 percent communications blockade in the region,” said the mother of two. “What if there are clashes” on children’s way to school? “Who will inform us and who will take responsibility for their safety?”
The BJP government’s assault on Kashmir—its illegal rewriting of the constitution and its imposition of an unprecedented security lockdown and information blackout on a region roughly equivalent in population to a mid-sized European country or a US state like Michigan—has huge domestic and geopolitical implications.
It is meant to initiate an all-out push to bring a quick and bloody end to the three-decade long, Pakistan-backed anti-Indian insurgency in J-K and force the Kashmiri population and elite to accept New Delhi’s unfettered domination. It is aimed at strengthening India’s hand against Pakistan and China, whose autonomous Tibet and Xinjiang regions border J&K to the east. Last but not least, it is aimed at shifting Indian politics sharply further to the right, by arrogating greater power for the Modi-led central government and whipping up bellicose nationalism and Hindu communalism.
Abrogation of J&K’s autonomy has been a key demand of the Hindu right since the early 1950s and is a key element of their agenda to transform India into a Hindu Rashtra, or state.
While India’s corporate media concedes the Modi government’s assault on Kashmir is a high-risk gamble that is further alienating the people of J&K and exacerbating tensions with Pakistan, it and the rest of India’s establishment have thrown their support behind it.
Twice last week, India’s Supreme Court curtly dismissed calls for it to at least curtail the security clampdown in J&K. On Friday, India’s highest court admonished the executive editor of the Kashmir Times and other complaints, saying they should have more confidence in the BJP government and security forces’ claims that the restrictions will ultimately be withdrawn.
Yesterday, India and Pakistan exchanged bellicose threats and artillery-fire across the Line of Control that divides Indian and Pakistan-held Kashmir, as they have every day since Aug. 5. As is the norm, the Indian and Pakistani militaries accused each other of initiating the artillery barrages and made conflicting casualty claims. New Delhi said one of its soldiers had been killed, but that in response it had inflicted “heavy” damage and casualties on Pakistan. Islamabad said three civilians had been killed by Indian fire, but that in a “befitting response” for India’s ceasefire violations it had killed six Indian soldiers.
Meanwhile, in what was clearly meant to be read as a threat, Indian Army Chief General Bipin Rawat boasted that he had informed the BJP government last February, when it was preparing an illegal military strike on Pakistan to “punish” it for a terrorist strike in J&K, that his forces were primed to repel any Pakistani counterattack “and take the battle into the enemy territory.”
India’s February 25 airstrike deep inside Pakistan prompted a Pakistani counterattack that resulted in a dogfight over disputed Kashmir and brought South Asia’s nuclear-armed rivals the closest to all-out war since the Indo-Pakistan war of December, 1971.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Cafe Dissensus Everyday blog



https://www.globalresearch.ca/indian-assault-kashmir-third-week-thousands-arrested/5686873

JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.