SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Conflicts -- Current & Future > Other, By Region > South Asia

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-22-2014   #61
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,822
Default More police, less soldiers

Within an article on scaling down the military presence in Kashmir and placing the emphasis on the police are several facts, here are some:
Quote:
The principal reason to consider scaling back the Army’s counter-insurgency presence in Kashmir is simple: there isn’t an insurgency to be fought. Ever since the 2001-2002 near-war between India and Pakistan, levels of violence in the State have fallen steadily. In 2001, as many as 1,067 civilians, 590 security forces personnel, and 2,850 terrorists were killed in fighting. The numbers fell in 2003 to 658 civilians, 338 security forces and 1,546 terrorists. Last year’s numbers, the authoritative South Asia Terrorism Portal records, were 20 civilians, 61 security forces and 100 terrorists.

In population-adjusted terms, the insurgency in J&K cost 1.51 lives per 100,000 persons of its population, lower than the homicide rate in Delhi or Haryana. The State’s total firearms fatalities were well below those in Uttar Pradesh (1,575 in 2012) or Bihar (681) or even West Bengal (269).
Link:http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead...le5597916.ece?
__________________
davidbfpo

Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-24-2014 at 04:42 PM. Reason: copied to preventing aq expansion thread for context
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014   #62
MoorthyM
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 21
Default Calm Before Storm?

The author of this article, Praveen Swami, has overlooked the strategic aims of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia backed Islamists in South Asia.

These Islamists, such as Pakistani intelligence backed Lashkar-e-Taiba want to “recapture” India for Islam. Under this vision, a radicalized Kashmir is to be used as a base for escalating radicalization of India’s Muslim minorities and formation of jihadist groups in the Indian heartland. The Islamists have made great strides in this direction. It has just been noted that a group modeled after (Pakistan-based) Tahreek-e-Taliban has now taken root in the central Indian city of Aurangabad.

Strategically, from an Islamist view, there is little to be gained by intensifying jihad in Kashmir at this time as it would invite retaliation by the Indian army, bring hardships to the local (Muslim) population, and make them reluctant to help the Islamist cause. Fundamentally, India (like every other nation) has failed to understand why the locals have been drawn to radical ideologies and how to extricate them. That’s the bottom line.

In my 2009 book, Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War, an entire section titled, “Siege of India (pp: 81-133)” is devoted to a discussion of the ongoing multi-front jihadist assault on India.

This may be one of those situations where a storm is waiting in the wings of the calm.

Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-24-2014 at 04:42 PM. Reason: copied to preventing aq expansion thread for context
MoorthyM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014   #63
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Moorthy: Welcome

There are a number of threads here at SWC to which you could contribute.

For the benefit of other members/viewers, I don't know Moorthy (his first name, BTW); but I've just looked up his book, Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War (2009). Here's the Amazon pitch:

Quote:
Al Qaeda and its sympathizers are often viewed as isolated fanatics outside of the mainstream Muslim population—outlaws not only in the West but also in respectable Muslim nations. This book argues just the opposite: that in fact terrorism is the logical outgrowth of an international Islamic political agenda that is endorsed and funded by Islam’s major players—Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. Author Moorthy S. Muthuswamy labels these nations the "Axis of Jihad". For decades, he says, they have been devoted to extending their spheres of influence in the name of religion.

Utilizing a recent groundbreaking statistical analysis of Islamic doctrines and an analysis based upon the outlook of Muslims, he discusses the possibility that Islam is less a religion and more an ideology of conquest.

Muthuswamy urges US policymakers to rethink the War on Terror along the lines of the successfully waged Cold War against communism. The nuclear physicist-author makes the following main point:

Like the Cold War, this war is more a contest of ideas than armed conflict. Rather than placing the emphasis on military might and costly wars abroad, the West should invest the bulk of its effort in a science-based ideological war, one that is directed at discrediting the simplistic, conquest-oriented theological roots of Islamist indoctrination and jihadist politics.

Muthuswamy also emphasizes the importance of a largely non-Muslim India in the War on Terror, in view of its location and size. The India-born author gives a fascinating description of modern Islamic conquest in South Asia. His insights into the Islamist siege and subversion of Indian democracy should be revealing for the citizens of western democracies.

The author asserts that the West needs India in dealing with the conundrum that is Pakistan, as they both share language, culture, and more with each other.

This fresh perspective on the ongoing threat from Islamist terrorism offers much to ponder about the future course of US foreign policy initiatives.
I also found two reviews. One (by Diana West in the WT), BOOK REVIEW: Reversing U.S. policy in AfPak, is favorable. The other (by GB Singh in NER), Dangerous Policy, is unfavorable. The latter attacks Moorthy's message, but also attacks the messenger (IMO). I did take Mr Singh's advice on one point: I will read the book !

Moorthy, the concept here at SWC is to attack the message (ruthlessly), but not to attack the messenger. In short, an officer and a gentlemen standard works best in preventing flaming and in keeping learnable conversations going. In that context and in my opinion, Mr Singh should have left out the last half of his last paragraph.

I encourage you to post here, not only in this thread but elsewhere.

Regards

Mike

Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-24-2014 at 04:43 PM. Reason: copied to preventing aq expansion thread for context
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014   #64
carl
Council Member
 
carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 2,448
Default

MoorthyM:

If the 'Preventing AQ expansion' thread gets going you gotta get into the discussion. The US needs some ideas beyond Preds shooting Hellfires.

Moderator adds: new thread created, so please post there and so next two posts have been moved (ends)
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-24-2014 at 04:43 PM. Reason: copied to preventing aq expansion thread for context
carl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2014   #65
blueblood
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 87
Default

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHn7GqH1mk

Nice video tried to cover a lot of subjects like stone pelting, Op Sadbhavna, officer-soldier scuffle etc.
blueblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2014   #66
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,822
Default What does this mean?

I am not sure what the intention of the new Indian central government is here; no doubt it is a mixture of factors:
Quote:
The new government's only planned initiative in the northern region so far is a mass movement of population. Hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits Hindus who had fled the Kashmir valley in the 1990s ....
The author is not impartial and this appears not in the 'news', but in the 'comment' section:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...u-human-rights
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2014   #67
JMA
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 3,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
I am not sure what the intention of the new Indian central government is here; no doubt it is a mixture of factors:

The author is not impartial and this appears not in the 'news', but in the 'comment' section:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...u-human-rights
Can't think of why India wants to hold onto Kashmir which has hisgtorically had 80-90% muslim population.
JMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014   #68
Ray
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calcutta, India
Posts: 1,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Can't think of why India wants to hold onto Kashmir which has hisgtorically had 80-90% muslim population.
Kashmir is NOT one entity.

It has the Valley - predominantly Sunni Muslim.

Leh - Buddhists, who want a separate State.

Kargil - Shias who hate the Sunnis of the Valley.

Jammu - Hindu.

It is a misconception that J&K is a Muslim State.

Historically, the Muslims of Kashmir were the highest caste of Hindus - Brahmins!

They were coerced and tortured by the Afghans and the Chak of Central Asia to become Muslim.

The Sufi Muslim saints quoted Hindu Gods in their scriptures and poems.

Read the book, if you can lay your hands on - The valley of Kashmir (1895), by Lawrence, who was a British administrator in J&K.



https://archive.org/details/valleyofkashmir00lawruoft

The Kashmiri Muslims don't eat beef which is a Hindu religious taboo!

It is just this pan Islamic wave and Saudi money through Pakistan that has incited the people.

Money speaks it appears.

Last edited by Ray; 07-04-2014 at 06:44 PM.
Ray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014   #69
Ray
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calcutta, India
Posts: 1,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
I am not sure what the intention of the new Indian central government is here; no doubt it is a mixture of factors:

The author is not impartial and this appears not in the 'news', but in the 'comment' section:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...u-human-rights
India is a secular country.

If Kashmir goes, thanks to vested interests and not solely Moslem, then there will be a bloodbath in India since none will stomach a Second Partition on religious grounds.

And will Pakistan, which is already tottering with internal confusion and a dead and dying economy, be able to absorb the exodus?

The imbalance will be catastrophic not only to India, but to the world.

All are worried about the same.
Ray is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
india, kashmir, pakistan

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror) Peter Dow OEF - Afghanistan 39 03-21-2014 01:56 PM
Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror davidbfpo Law Enforcement 600 03-03-2014 03:30 PM
War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads) SWJED Middle East 534 09-20-2010 01:18 PM
Disarming the Local Population CSC2005 Doctrine & TTPs 14 08-08-2006 01:10 PM
Training for Small Wars SWJED RFIs & Members' Projects 0 11-02-2005 05:50 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7. ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation