| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Will India's Military Revolt? |
| 2010-09-12 |
| Dispirited by a government that seems soft on the intifada in Kashmir, Madhav Nalapat says trouble is brewing in the military. During the 63 years that India has been a free country, only once has an army chief ever veered close to planning a coup along the lines of the Pakistan model. That was Joyanto Nath Choudhuri, who was better at writing than at war, having conceded a stalemate to a vastly inferior Pakistan force in 1965. Before him and since, the military has remained loyal to its civilian masters, even during the many periods when they’ve indulged in favouritism or in procurement scams. But there are signs now that a revolt may be brewing within the uniformed services over what they see as the United Progressive Front government's unwillingness to back them in their often bloody battle against Maoists, insurgents and jihadists across the country. The resentment is greatest in Kashmir, a consequence of Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi's ‘Look the other way’ policy towards the well-organized intifada now taking place in that state. The movement is designed to attract international intervention in the state—preferably of a military nature—similar to that which occurred in Kosovo. This might seem like an outlandish idea, but the separatist leaders in Kashmir (who preach their venom openly while living in opulence) have been made to believe by their handlers in Pakistan that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and CIA chief Leon Panetta are in favour of robust US mediation in Kashmir. Such intervention, they believe, would ultimately ensure that the state would, in effect, become independent from India. They claim that Pakistan's army chief of staff, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, has made it clear to the US trio that his military's support for NATO operations in the Af-Pak Pashtun belt is conditional on such an outcome in Kashmir. Certainly, US and other Western diplomats have ensured there’s a steady diet of reports on the intifada in Western media, almost none of which point out that the movement is confined to just a section of the Sunni population in the Kashmir Valley and is opposed by the majority of the population in the region comprising Shias, Gujjars, Bakkerwals, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. Indeed, the Western media reports also ignore the reality that what the Valley Sunni separatists seek is a religious state where the Saudi version of Sharia law would form the basis of jurisprudence. Whatever the compulsions of Clinton, Gates and Panetta, the fact remains that the Sonia-led UPA has followed the Western press and diplomatic corps in ignoring the ‘silent majority’ in Kashmir, refusing to factor in the views of the non-Valley Sunni elements in the state. What has infuriated the military is the parroting of the Valley Sunni line by Home Minister P Chidambaram (ever-focused on winning brownie points with the United States) and the silence of Defense Minister A K Antony over the frequent criticisms of the military and the uniformed services generally—this at a time when more than 700 members of these services have been hospitalized for serious injuries sustained during the intifada. There’s also anger that thus far, no VIP has bothered even to enquire properly about these men, much less visit them in hospital. The present chief minister of Kashmir, the youthful Omar Abdullah, was chosen for his proximity to the heir of the Congress Party, Rahul Gandhi. But in this first test of a Rahul brigade member in the field of fire, Abdullah has failed miserably, apparently seeking to curry favour with the instigators of the intifada even while doing nothing to stop the widespread corruption that has made Kashmir (together with the Northeast) the most administratively crooked part of India. Sadly, each eruption of violence is followed by an increase in the volume of Delhi's largesse to the state, almost all of which gets used in the Valley and seems to end up in the pockets of the very Valley Sunnis who fan the flames. Kashmir for them has become a cornucopia, sustained by constant agitations that lead to fresh transfusions of cash, a part of which get used to initiate more trouble. Those on the field say that it’s only a matter of time before a revolt takes place within the uniformed services—not just in Kashmir, but in other parts of India, where the present government is adopting a policy of hunting with the hounds and running with the hares. But given the multiple arrests and other disciplinary action against uniformed personnel (which they contrast with the kid-glove treatment meted out to the intifada leadership), the time may be approaching when the hounds refuse to hunt. Instead, they may decide to step back to let Kashmir's political leadership and its Delhi backers face the consequences of a policy of winks and nods to pro-Pakistan elements seeking to prise Kashmir loose from India through international intervention. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #15 Paul D, IMHO, India wouldn't win a war with Pakistan. And if they did, what would they do with it? Occupy it? The Pak government doesn't appear able to occupy all of Pakistan; why should India expect to do it any better? |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2010-09-12 23:07 |
| #14 Both Radical Islam's + China's strategic focii 2010-2020/2025 is on ASIA-MAJOR = EAST-SOUTH ASIA + PERIPHERALS, aka RUSS-CHINA-INDIA sub-aka WHERE THE POST-COLD WAR "FREE/CHEAP NUKES" ARE. THe other World regions are SIDESHOWS = "SECOND/TERTIARY FRONTS" FOR NOW. The Militants will be A'COMIN, SOON ENOUGH, SAVE WILL BE NUCLEAR [Nukes-WMDS] when they're ready. * AUGUST 2010 > US VOTER-POLL SUPPORT FOR WOT > = Still comes down to "BETTER OVER THERE, NOT OVER HERE". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-09-12 19:14 |
| #13 Living in the UK i find the indians harworking decent people who cannot believe why USA have any relationship with two faced victimhood muslims who hate everything the West stand for. They believe that India could do the World a favour and crush Pakistan if the USA allowed them to! |
| Posted by: Paul D 2010-09-12 16:41 |
| #12 Which I guess is why North Korea and Zimbabwe are both so successful. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-09-12 15:42 |
| #11 A cynical person might argue that the success of a nation is inversely proportional to the percentage of Muslims in the population. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2010-09-12 15:05 |
| #10 So, you agree that's not the British Institutional Heritage but the paucity of Muslims that made India work? p.s. Re British Institutional Heritage, a large part of Africa was British. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-09-12 13:50 |
| #9 Separation or "aparthied" is sometimes necessary. Living in Georgia, I annually treat the exterior perimeter of my house, out to about 3-5 meters from the foundation. Cost me about $ 65. per year. It keeps the BUGS OUT! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-09-12 12:02 |
| #8 g(r)omgoru: If the Muslim parts of India had remained with India, I don't think India could have survived this long. They were never really part of India, which became evident after the Sepoy Mutiny. By 1930, in addition to everyone being tired of the British, the Hindus and Muslims were vigorously abrading on each other, with the British trying to keep from becoming too great a bloodbath. So when the British finally left, the two choices were either bloodbath or division. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-09-12 11:34 |
| #7 I know people (the term used solely for the purposes of reference) who been waiting for millitary coup in Israel for 60 years. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-09-12 11:09 |
| #6 Moose, your thesis is contradicted by Pakistan. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-09-12 11:07 |
| #5 ... is there a good reason that we do not have a robust, full-blown alliance with India? Historically, India didn't want to play ball with the USA in its cold war policies against the Soviet Union. The ball has always been in in India's court. India can have better relations with the USA if it wants them. |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2010-09-12 10:32 |
| #4 Indian democracy is bizarre to say the least. That it has survived this long is truly a credit to the British, without whom India could have devolved to Afghanistan writ large. Only recently, since just before the time of George W. Bush, did India finally get a president and foreign secretary with their heads on straight. They brought more quiet, good change to India than had been seen in 50 years or more. To his credit, George W. realized this, though no one else in Washington did, and helped it considerably. While it couldn't last for long, it at least gave one generation the idea of how things might be, if the Indian government gets its act together. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-09-12 10:24 |
| #3 Aside from our desire to appease the crooks who run the BS non-nation called P.A.K.I.stan, is there a good reason that we do not have a robust, full-blown alliance with India? |
| Posted by: lex 2010-09-12 10:23 |
| #2 Democracies don't throwout the institutions; they throwout the bums instead. Look for a change at the polls. |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2010-09-12 10:03 |
| #1 Fallout from the Afghanistan disaster. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2010-09-12 09:29 |