The threat of chemical weapons is back today. The difference however is that chemical weapons have now reached the violent non-state actors. The willingness of the state and non-state actors to use the chemical weapons keeps growing with the increasing threats surfacing from different corners of the world. In order to prevent the threat of chemical weapons and the predictable future of the proliferation of the deadly weapons international community took up the initiative to stop the spread of chemical weapons. The only international convention for the purpose of eliminating chemical weapons is the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997. It works against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and employs a strong verification system for its signatories, although only four countries in the world haven’t ratified it. CWC aims at eliminating the weapons by destroying the stockpiles and a set of binding is designed to which the signatory parties must adhere. In the present world with modern technology easily accessible, the threat of a chemical warfare remains undestroyed even after its first use almost 106 years ago in 1915 by the Germans and French. Today the leaders, especially those who are engaged in a war in Syria pay little regard to the consequences that the use of chemical weapons can result into. Killing of innocent civilians, unmindful of age and gender is abominable, yet leaders have made decisions to use chemical weapons on the humans, which after attack keeps intact the infrastructure in the surroundings but annihilates all the breathing creatures that are present in the radius of chemical weapon’s target. Such a brutal use of chemical weapons, is crime against humanity and the world leaders must never normalize its use. In this regard, the efforts of Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) must be appreciated, which has brought more than 90 countries on the same platform working together for disabling the use of chemical weapons, curbing its production and applying rigid international system of checks and balances. OPCW offers opportunities for those who are able to recognize those responsible for the use of chemical weapon. Moreover, OPCW offers investigation reports regarding the chemical weapon analysis, and has associated itself with worldwide laboratories where they work jointly for curbing the production of materials can that can used for a chemical weapon attack. To prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons certain measures must be undertaken by the states, as already laid in the charter of OPCW and CWC. Few of the preventive measures are as following:

• Verification: the toxic chemicals have many legitimate uses, such as they used in industrial processes but at the same time often these chemicals are used for the purposes which have been forbidden by the CWC. Thus the parties to CWC guarantee and verify that toxic chemicals are only being used for purposes that are not illegal under the CWC rules and regulations. A further step to this commitment is allowing the OPCW inspectors to visit the facilities where the chemicals and their precursors are produced. The inspection by the inspectors involves the verification process.

• Managing the International Transfer of Chemicals: The parties to CWC adhere to the rules and obligations for transferring i.e. import and export of the chemical weapons. The two elements of this obligation are: monitoring the transfer of chemicals between States and secondly, restraining the transfer of toxic chemical weapons to non-state actors. The weapons can only be transferred to a non-state party under the condition that latter provides the certificate for its end use and pledges not to transfer it to any other party.

• Developing the Capacity of State against Chemical Weapons: It is significant that the states are able to defend their population against the chemical weapons, for this purpose the parties to OPCW must develop programmes for national protection. OPCW has given specific programmes for this purpose such as detection and alarm system, developing decontamination equipment, enhancing medical capabilities etc. this means improving the military, civilian and also involves international capacity building and cooperation against the possible danger of a chemical weapon attack.

The threat of a threat of a chemical warfare is very much existential and have grown over the years as more and more bloodthirsty and power hungry non state actors are emerging on the chessboard of international politics. The focus of the use of chemical weapons has shifted from being used by a state’s military to the use of chemical weapons by an unknown violent actor, that has no home address to be held responsible and acts through strong network that can be transnational in nature. International peace, stability, and cooperation has become increasingly vulnerable to a terrorism through the use of chemical weapons. Many have been victim of its use in the modern world, especially the population of Syria who have experienced the horrors of the use of chemical weapons. The chemical attacks has no short term consequence, rather they are experienced by the victims for a long term. For example, it can result in eye damage which the victim will experience for a life time. The chemical weapon damages crops, which has a negative impact of national agricultural sector as well as the consumers. The water is also contaminated by the use of chemical weapons which can disturb the supply of clean drinking water to the population. Considering all the impacts it has become of prime importance for the world leaders and organizations like OPCW and CWC to continue their efforts in preventing the proliferation of chemical weapons.

Morocco and Israel to normalize their relations

Morocco is a country that has a long Jewish history. It has long been expected that Morocco will eventually normalize relations with Israel because before the formation of Israel in 1948, Morocco was home to Jewish people. Several thousand Jewish populations have been settled in Morocco for decades and Jewish trace their legacy back to Morocco. Israel and Morocco
developed diplomatic ties on a very basic level during the 1990s but those relations were halted by
the outbreak of a second uprising of Palestinians in 2000. The diplomatic ties were never ended
entirely because till this day about 50,000 Jews travel to Morocco every year to learn and connect
with their history there.
Recently on Thursday, Morocco and Israel have agreed to fully normalize diplomatic and official
ties with Israel. In a US brokered deal, Morocco is the fourth Arab country to normalize ties with
Israel along with United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Bahrain by setting the conflicts aside in past
four months. In order to acquire a firm deal between Morocco and Israel, US will recognize
Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara where Morocco is facing a decade long territorial
conflict with Algeria-backed Polisario Front, a movement to establish an independent country in
a territory. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu encouraged and appreciated the Morocco
for reaching a deal and called it another ray of light and peace. He further announced that there
will be direct flights between Morocco and Israel along with great diplomatic missions.
US has been trying to entice Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel but Saudi Foreign Minister Prince
Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud replied that Riyadh will only consider recognizing Israel if peace deal
will peace deal will “delivers a Palestinian state with dignity and with a workable sovereignty that
Palestinians can accept”.
Palestinians are feeling abandoned by the peace deal made by multiple Arab States and calling it
a betrayal against them. Palestinians believe that the peace deal will affect the status of their long
standing demand of Israel leaving the territory that rightfully belongs to Palestinians before
receiving any recognitions. Bassam as-Salhi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s
Executive Committee reacted belligerently and condemned deals made by Arab countries saying
that it is a retreat from Arab Peace Initiative (2002) that Israel must end its unlawful occupation of
Palestinian lands. Moroccan King Mohammed told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a
phone call on Thursday that negotiations between Israel and Palestine is the only way to resolve
the conflict and that he stands by the idea of Two-State solution.

U.S to Impose Sanctions on Turkey for Purchasing Russian S-400

The Trump administration is set to impose sanctions on Turkey for acquiring Russian S-400 missile defense system. The US House of Representatives adopted the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for passing sanctions against Turkey. The bill was passed with a vote of 355 in favor while 70 votes against it. Since 2019, when Turkey received the S-400 Russian air defense system worth
$2.5 billion, Capitol Hill has been pushing Trump to impose mandatory sanctions on her NATO
ally. As an immediate response to this purchase, the US quickly expelled Turkey out of the F-35
fighter jet program. But President Donald Trump who spent much time in office improving
relations with Turkey, stalled the imposition of the penalties. The Pentagon has been warning that
the S-400 could likely jeopardize the F-35, if its radar is used to scan the jet passively. This would
allow the Russian system to easily identify the target and destroy its combat. Through the NDAA,
the US is to impose sanctions against the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline and Turkish Stream
pipeline. The sanctions would also include blocking US exports to Turkey, banning the officials
from making US transactions, or barring the US banks or other international monetary institutions
from making loans to Turkey. Such a move could be detrimental for the future Turkish economy.
Another response that is being considered by the lawmakers in the US is to further arms sales to
Ukraine. Two experts familiar with the issue said that the Trump administration would impose
sanctions “as mild as possible”. This would placate the Congress without causing damage to the
US extensive US-Turkey military partnership. In response to this pressure on Trump to impose
sanctions, he wrote on Twitter, “I hope House Republicans will vote against the very weak
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which I will veto.” But if the US Senate accepts
the bill, which it is likely to, the President will have no more authority to stall the sanctions any
further. This time the situation is tough for President Trump, who has only a few weeks left in the
office, because if the bill is passed and signed, it gives the President only 30 days to impose the
sanctions. However, if Donald Trump fails to impose penalties against Turkey, the new Presidentelect Biden would be obligated to enforce them as soon as he takes the office. Biden might go
ahead imposing the new sanctions but how harsh or mild they will be, depends on the nature of
the relationship between two countries. Relations with Turkey are a concern for the Biden
administration. This is the case due to the location, economic and military strength of Turkey,
which makes it a valuable ally for the US, especially against Russian threat. The US Congress
perceives close ties between Turkey and Russia as a political issue, which could also be detrimental
to the NATO operations.

Nuclear Escalation between Pakistan and India: Where It Could Lead?

Nuclear tension is increasing between India and Pakistan after the incident of the Pulwama attack on February 14, 2019. The two superpowers of South Asia are steps away from nuclear war, things got worse
when Pakistan Air Force (PAF) shot down an Indian fighter jet on 26th Feb 2019 in Balakot. Indian defense minister announces that India may revoke its existing commitment to only use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear attack known as ‘no first use’, that means India could Strike Nuclear weapon at any point.
Many analysts Expressed their views by saying both the countries became more aggressive
towards each other after 1998 when both became a nuclear power. Mr. Imran Khan mentioned the
risks of nuclear war between two countries on different occasions, on the other hand, Satinder
Kumar Sikka who was the part of Indian Nuclear program in 1998 argues that India should be able
to use nuclear weapons if there is an increased risk that Pakistan would do so first. “If we are
threatened by Pakistan, we have every right to retaliate”.
India tested its first nuclear weapon in 1974 and the government committed to no first use in 2003,
China is also in the list of No first use of Nuclear weapons but now Indian stance has been changed
& using the nuclear weapons at first. If India firms up the change in its no first use policy, Pakistan
might take this as a signal that India could strike at Pakistani nuclear installations. And that might
in turn, ready Pakistan to use up all its nuclear weapons first. “And so, you get this destabilizing
dynamic where as soon as the crisis becomes nuclearized, there is a reason for both sides to go
first for their upper hand.
The increasing tension between both the countries will further increase if any incident happens
again within the territory of India, without any investigation India is going to blame Pakistan and
could respond with force. In response to that Pakistan Military will retaliate and hence the conflict
will be promoted in this scenario, one party needs to be calm to avoid such conflict that could lead
to nuclear war. There is a lot of expansion in the nuclear stockpile from both the sides till 2025
both the countries will have 400-500 nuclear weapons. Increasing this much nuclear weapons is
an alarming situation for the region.

Pakistan House organized a one-day International Conference on 2nd December 2019 in Islamabad on Water Crisis: An Imminent Danger to Pakistan Stability. Ms Sana Maqbool, News Anchor at PTV World, was the Master of the Ceremony. Read More…

The Pakistan-Iran relations have been progressing with the passage of time. Relations between the two States have been shaped bilaterally on the basis of security concerns that shadowed the economic and political engagement. Pakistan having strong ties with Saudi Arabia and Iran’s tilted loyalties towards India only made the bad situation worse. Iran has World’s fourth largest oil and second largest gas reserves, it is the second largest economy in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region and the 18th largest in the world, only if Pakistan and Iran pursue to have stable ties this immense potential can be utilized for the development of the region. In Pakistan, there is averseness to augment political ties with countries that have strategic and defense partnerships with India because of its national security concerns. Recently, leadership on both sides have shown interest in increasing border security cooperation to maintain peace and possible escalations.

In May 2019 Pakistan Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, explained that he had four meeting with Iranian leadership and discussed the situation between the two States. Pakistan premier Imran Khan’s visit to Iran broke the ice between two countries and that’s when they set-off to lay better ties with a clean slate. Both PM Khan and President Rauhani agreed to set up Joint Rapid Reaction Force to deal with terrorism and smuggling in order to promote bilateral relationship and economic activities. The meeting between Khan and Rauhani brought out some fundamental pronouncements; MoU signed for health sector cooperation, Railway line to connect Gwadar and Chabahar ports, Completion of gas pipeline to Pakistan and Iran showed willingness to tenfold electricity export to Pakistan. Leaving all the grumbles and grouses aside, leadership on both sides have decided to make efforts to look ahead for the sake of economic stability.

Pakistan and Iran agreed to promote barter trade at the concluding session of the eighth Iran-Pakistan Trade Committee under the delegation led by Adviser to the Prime Minister for Commerce Abdul Razzak Dawood while the Iranian side was led by Industries Minister Reza Rahmani. Barter trade can help Pakistan to enhance the export of wheat, sugar, rice and fruit to Iran. The entire banking sector is under sanctions, it is not possible to open branches of Iranian banks in Pakistan for which the establishing a mechanism for barter trade will help do the business. Pakistan proposed the removal of various taxation measures such as road and freight taxes on vehicles/trucks crossing the borders to facilitate trade by establishing an exclusive desk at the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan in Islamabad, whereas, Iran showed interest in importing 500,000 tons of rice from Pakistan and to remove potential bottlenecks so that the trade volume can be enhanced.

Pakistan and Iran talked about opening a “Free Economic Zone” under Iranian Consul General Muhammad Rafiei at Mir Jawa to sell fuel to Pakistan on relatively lower prices. Both the countries have cultural, social and political relations for years and opening a tax-free border markets in Pakistan and Iran will boost political and economic ties. In today’s world, trade is the most pivotal in strengthening and boosting the bilateral relations. Pakistan and Iran agreed to resolve issues including removing barriers which have made Pak-Iran Preferential Trade Agreement (2006) ineffective. States that have rivalry with another also shares a common interest as well. Pakistan and Iran have realized that economic ties and developments will bring prosperity to their own countries and this interest should be harbored to its best. To convert the negative public sentiment towards each other, trade can be the most appropriate way ahead and it will also overcome the communication barrier.

BY ZARA QURBAN 

Half of the Saudi’s crude oil production was attacked on September 14th, when a drone hit the Aramco facility. The Houthi’s accepted the responsibility of the attack but Iran is blamed for the drone attack by the United States as well as Saudi Arabia. The war in Yemen poses a serious threat to the regional security, as it can lead to a full scale war which will destabilize the region and eventually have dire consequences for the global economy. After the attacks, the risk is very much real that Yemen can be a participant in a full scale full between states, which is obviously not going to be proxy war, as it is now. Almost every family in Yemen has lost someone to the war, they have seen their relatives and friends dying due to the bombing.

In the future, if the anti-Houthi bloc, led by a Saudi coalition, which is composed of Sunni Islamists win the war and achieve its objective of capturing the northern territory, it will only result in a protracted conflict, resulting in more bloodshed and chaos in a situation of an already complex civil war. The prospects of peace are very bleak because the structure of talks is problematic as both parties are seeking to gain militarily thus unwilling to talk. The war has devastated the infrastructure in Yemen, that’s why country needs not only a huge time to recover but also strong political arrangements and resources in order to prevent any conflict in future. But if the war doesn’t come to a halt, the sectarian violence will intensify fragmenting the population which eventually can result into a territorial disintegration. In such a scenario, there will be a rise in new refugee crisis in Middle East which definitely undermine the security of Gulf States and other neighboring countries in the region. This will be an opportunity for the violent terrorist’s forces to benefit from the situation, which will exacerbate the crisis and make it difficult to reach to a solution.

The future of Yemen is very gloomy and unpredictable, as since the very beginning Yemen was a poor country depending on its neighbors for support and there are many players involved in the conflict which makes it very complicated. Yemen is an example of world’s worst humanitarian crisis and if the war doesn’t reach an end, thousands of people will die from inadequate health facilities, unavailability of clean water can worsen the diseases and most of all malnutrition. The cost of proxy war in Yemen is being paid by the men, women and children. According to the UN stats the death toll in Yemen is 7,000. If the crisis prevail this can increase much more, and this will only lead to complex sectarian tensions. It is still unclear, whether at the end of crisis, if there will be any, Yemen will emerge as one country or divided into two territories. But what must be realized is that the government led by Hadi will have no future in the times of peace, as it is becoming increasingly unpopular. The only solution to achieve a peaceful and stable Yemen lies in negotiating a political settlement between the parties to the conflict.

BY HIRA SHAKEEL

From the past years, China and India are engaged into various conflicts and an example of tensions between them was seen on 21^st October 2017 when both the Asian giants were face to face. The tensions escalated to a level where they were in a state of war. The Sino-Indian War of 1962, border conflict, is also an example of the bitter past between China and India. Despite the rivalry the bilateral trade between China and India in post-1962 saw a rapid growth. In 2018, the trade between them touched $87.6 Billion.

If we talk about 2019, the world’s two largest developing economies China and India are negotiating on different dimensions that promote free trade between both the courtiers. China and India both are the competitors in the race of growing economies. A partial equilibrium approach based on highly disaggregated trade data shows that in a scenario where China and India are completely holding the markets, there would be a huge potential to create an impact on trade and welfare in their specific areas, where they enjoy a comparative advantage. Especially, with their annual GDP growth rates standing respectively at 6.2% and 6.1% for 2019, China and India have since come to be recognized as the fastest-growing economies. According to the World Bank estimates and assessments based on purchasing power, China and India have already become the second and fourth-largest economies of the world respectively, surpassing developed countries. Some economists predict that this century will be Asia’s Century.

According to the reports India is thinking to cut or eliminate tariffs up to 80% on Chinese products that will be imported in the future, 16 countries are negotiating on a free trade agreement in Vietnam in which China and India are the main players. India plans to cut duties on 86% of imports from Australia and New Zealand, and 90% for products coming in from ASEAN, Japan, and South Korea. India would immediately eliminate customs duties on 28% of goods, while tariffs on other imports from China would be reduced or eliminated over a period of 10-20 years. The trade deficit with China in 2018-19 was a whopping $53.6 billion.

Recently Xi Jinxing visited India and the visit was dominated by trade matters. Mr. Modi wanted to reduce its huge trade deficit with China. The two leaders are concerned about their economies and thus want focus on trade. China and India share major contention even today due to their border issues yet both rivals have found a common ground, where their mutual interest is to strength their respective economies and utilize the economic potentials that this region offers. The relations between China and India are in the process, in terms of strengthening their economic ties. According to Indians, bilateral trade has been increased with China but so has the deficit and this is a serious matter. Indians appreciate the steps that were taken by the Chinese to improve imports from India. These efforts could be the reason for more success of Indian pharmaceutical and IT products in the Chinese market. Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi appreciated Indian concern over the imbalance of trade. He further said that we stand ready to continue providing facilities to Indian exports to China. He further emphasized on expanding cooperation in industrial production, tourism, border trade, and other areas so that we can achieve overall balance in Indo-China Trade relations. This year the bilateral trade will touch $100 Billion and that is a historic trade figure between two countries. In the financial year that ended in March, Sino-Indian trade stood at $87 billion, down 3% from a year ago. Indian exports rose by 26% and imports fell by 8%, shrinking the deficit by $10 billion.

India and China are showing a huge interest in trade agreements not for the sake of other interests, both countries are self-centric, making their position stronger in the region. China is a big economic threat to the U.S and India is one of the closest allies of the U.S.

The Indian Occupied Kashmir is under siege since August 5^th, 2019 when Indian government stripped the people of Kashmir off their special status by revoking Article 370 and 35A. Most of the Kashmiri leadership is either locked away in jails or have no access to the valley due to strict curfew. As PM Imran Khan met with President Donald Trump on Monday, the points under discussion were mainly regarding Kashmir issue and President Trump offered to mediate between Pakistan and India once again because he insisted that he wants every Kashmiri to be treated well. President Trump and PM Imran Khan also exchanged views on how to de-escalate the conflicting situation due to its drastic implications.

President Trump expressed the desire to mediate if leadership on both sides is willing to come on diplomatic terms. He also said that PM Modi’s statements while addressing the public rally of Indian-Americans in Huston regarding Pakistan were very aggressive, PM Modi also denied first offer of mediation straight away claiming that Pakistan is a base for terrorists. Mr. Trump appreciated the diplomatic efforts being made by Imran Khan to put the flames out with the help of USA. This was the second meeting between PM Imran Khan and President Trump in the search of solution for Kashmir issue. The crisis of Kashmir can escalate between Pakistan and India even further if not addressed timely.

Following his diplomatic efforts trail, PM Imran Khan met with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and discussed of New Zealand in New York and discussed about the anti-Muslim sentiments and Islamophobia among the people and appreciated her efforts for reaching out to Muslims globally. PM Khan briefed PM Ardern about the atrocities of Indian government in Kashmir and that they are being kept in “an open jail” with total communication blackout. PM Khan also showed his concern that once the curfew is lifted in the valley of Kashmir, there is a chance of massacre of the residents just as it happened in Gujarat. Kashmir issue needs to be highlighted in World’s parliaments to stop the Indians from oppressing unarmed innocent Kashmiri.

Turkish President, Tayyip Erdogan expressed his apprehensions after witnessing ongoing Indian atrocities in Kashmir and urged Pakistan and India to tackle the Kashmir issue through dialogues, during his address at the UN General Assembly session in New York. President Erdogan said that international community has been failing to pay attention and resolve the Kashmir issue for past 72 years, ignoring the fact that the development and prosperity of South Asia cannot be separated from Kashmir. The issue needs to be resolved on the basis of equity and justice because the lives and wellness of more than eight million people is highly on stake.

PM Khan shared his views during a press conference in New York that the brutal treatment of Indian government towards Kashmir is unprecedented in this day and age. Moreover, 11 UN Security Council resolutions recognize Kashmir as disputed which gives the right of self-determination to the people of Kashmir through a plebiscite but India is still content that Kashmir is an internal and that they are the ones to decide the fate of Kashmir. PM showed his disappointment that Kashmiris are being treated worse than animals and majority of the international community is silent and that UN was established to eliminate radicalization against weaker parties to the conflict.

There is a dire need to handle and suppress the radical ideology of Hindutva that is being followed by PM Modi and his political party BJP to maintain peace in the region. Long term deterrence has only two implications that either the crisis de-escalates or escalates more severely than it initially was. In case of Pakistan and India the issue is continuously escalating and there have been talks of both the states going on war, most probably nuclear war. To deter and discourage the risk of war between two nuclear states there are not many options that having proper dialogues by keeping all the grievesnces aside and diplomacy via engaging the world to reach a long lasting and sustainable solution to the Kashmir Issue.

India in South Asia has been the center stage for using religion for political gains, by exploiting the caste, and religion of people through a huge propaganda which has been carried out by its proponents since the British colonial time.  Hindu Nationalism is not a new phenomenon in India’s political culture. The ideological foundations of Hindu nationalism were elaborated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his book, “Essentials of Hindutva”. Though it began as a social and religious movement, but soon the Hindu nationalists transformed this movement into a political force. This was done in opposition to Congress party and Muslim League.

A 16^th century mosque, Babri Masjid, built in Ayodhya by Mughal Emperor Babur was reduced to rubble by group of Hindu extremists, who wore saffron bandanas, within six hours. They believed that this mosque was built on the birthplace of Lord Rama, a deity. The destruction of Babri Masjid was the beginning of one of secular India’s biggest problem that it was going to face in coming years. Hindu majoritarianism lied under the debris of Babri Masjid, one approach to use religion for the political benefits. This also signified that Muslims were going to be alienated consciously from the country’s social and political sphere.

Since the past two decades, such ideas and agendas had been rising and falling under India’s multiparty democracy, but whenever these ideas started gaining prominence, they were checked by the strains imposed by secularism. The people of India voted for a radical regime change in May and two dominant factors appear for triggering this transition. Firstly, record of Congress’s inefficiency, corruption frustrated the Indian electorate and secondly the dysfunctional electoral alliances entrenched with hereditary rule was looking for some new experience. An extravagantly funded campaign began in India under popular Narendra Modi, and BJP seizing the moment promised to bring economic growth and “good days”.

The campaign led by BJP showcased Modi as a successful leader who had been able to deliver good governance and high growth as a Chief Minister of Gujarat from 2001-2014. A large section of middle-class Indians was appealed to this especially the ones that belonged to a new or aspiring middle class. The second group which favored Modi was the NRIs, the successful non-resident Indians. The campaign also got full support from elites of corporate and business sector. BJP was successful to gather support of the low caste, poor voters who had little know how of economic and social program or the agenda of Hindutva.

Indian nationalism is so much influenced by religion that one can clearly see the overlapping symbols between Hindu communalism and Indian nationalism. The colonial India under British, fundamentally Christian, not secular or neutral, recognized a close affiliation of nationalism with aggressive Hinduism. Indian nationalism coupled with the religious movements, rejected Congress’ appeal of non-violence and understood that Hindu civilization was under threat by British colonialism. Several Hindu leaders, during the Indian nationalist movement, made emotional speeches, literature, music, dramas and other forms of art were produced which has religious connotations.

The Hindu revivalist movements were a part of nationalist movements, which promoted the idea of threat from others i.e. religions other than Hinduism and British Raj. Though their influence was limited but when Hindu Mahsabha was formed in 1915, the idea of “majority religion and dominant caste” flourished and the idea spread to most parts of India. Hindu Mahasabha, at this time was a sub-group of Congress and not a party of its own. It worked as a lobby within Indian National Congress until 1930s when it became a full-fledge party, under the leadership of Savarkar. He was the one to turn Hindu nationalism so radical, that many saw it as communal and fundamentalist.  This was for the first time Hindu nationalism appeared in India’s political arena, which soon required to be systematized and to be formed into an organizational structure. Keshab Baliram Hedgewar, took up this task and founded Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1925, in Nagpur. The ideological position of RSS was known as “Hindutva”.

Before becoming prime minister, Modi’s election manifesto emphasized on the assurance to development, vikaas; instead of his hidden motives of Hindu Nationalism. However, this was changed when Modi came to power as prime minister of world’s largest democracy and he openly pursued two objects, one that of vikaas and the other one of accomplishment of the Hindu State – the Hindu Rashtra. Kanchan Chandran argued, “Modi has always been both a reformer and a Hindu nationalist, and this two-dimensional package is the essence of his appeal.”

The history of Modi’s rule, whether as a chief minister of Gujrat or as a Prime Minister of India, shows that minorities are under constant fear of losing their homes or becoming a victim of marginalization or oppression carried out by Hindu fanatics.

Before going into depths it’s important to mention that can a religious party like BJP, that is committed to promoting Hindutva, govern a secular and democratic country like India and does it wish to give all citizens of India, without marginalizing them, equal share of rights? This question becomes significant when BJP’s mother organization RSS’s founding father Savarkar and Golwalkar did not favour Indian secularism or even giving equal citizenship rights to religious minorities, who were considered alien. They envisioned a Hindu nation which would be homogenized, which they defined in terms of holy land, religion, race and language. BJP and RSS, both have been in opposition to India’s secularism and profound ambiguity about democracy is visible in the ideologues of Hindutva.

Their ideal has been to preserve the organic solidarity among the social groups in a manner that ideal caste system would have done in Hindu golden age, avoiding social conflicts, Major attraction of democracy among these ideologues was the idea of one person one vote, which would guarantee Hindu majority. Hindu nationalists have deployed the idea of equality under the law as a useful instrument to oppose special provisions for minority rights.

As BJP came to power, other Hindu nationalist groups (the saffron brigade) took initiatives to launch their agenda of Hindutva.  These militants and nationalists were supported by Sangh Parivar’s leading activists and ministers from Modi’s cabinet. They were openly engaged in delivering hate filled speeches against the country’s religious minorities. This went to the extent that a recommendation of forced sterilization was passed to control population growth and campaigns such as “Ghar wapsi” which means returning home were organized and aim was reconversion.

India’s notion of secularism is seen under threat. A question that most probably comes to mind is that though India claims to be secular and democratic nation which entertains diverse religions, cultures, languages and religions. But do people, other than Hindus really feel safe in India, and does the lower caste of Hindus feel the same? What kind of secular state it is, where people are killed for eating beef or seen as a threat if they practice a religion other than Hinduism. A secular state according to a common man’s understanding is the one where religion is a private matter, while politics is a public matter, and both operate in separate spheres. Whether BJP has been in power or Congress, such events where religious minorities especially Muslims are targeted can be seen throughout the history of India.

Identity in idea is shaped on the boundary of us i.e. Hindus, vs them i.e. religious minorities. This idea of others being the enemy has been central to Indian politics now, which is the core agenda of BJP’s Hindutva ideology. Caste and religion play a decisive role in the Indian politics and political success of parties depends on these two factors. Since independence 1947, caste dominated the political arena, but after 2014 elections the trends seem to change as religion is now playing a major role in influencing the politics. BJP will keep winning elections, if Hindus keep voting for it. BJP pushes the propaganda of making Hindu India, which is accepted by a larger number of people. BJP mobilizes people against religious minorities through flaming communal and religious riots, such as slaughter of Muslims for eating beef.

One important question about the rise of Hindu nationalism in India is why the idea laid down by the founders of country, Gandhi and Nehru of secular and civic nationalism collapsed and transformed to ethnic nationalism of Hindutva ideology? Two reasons are at the surface for this radicalization of the society. One, in the late 1980s, the Indian National Congress gradually faced its decline, two the erosion of democratic structures. Both of these reasons explain the rise and ascendance of power of BJP.

Evidence and studies show that, both religion and caste play a very significant role in mobilizing the people and India’s nationalism can be expressed through Hindu symbolism. The success and growing popularity of Modi amongst the Indians highlights that Hindu nationalism has not died, and it’s becoming stronger than before under BJP.BY HIRA SHAKEEL 

Pakistan is one of those countries which are most vulnerable to terror financing and money laundering that is emerging from different terrorist groups operating in country. The Asia Pacific Group APG presented the final Mutual Evaluation Report after which Pakistan’s chances of being retained in grey list are quite high. In its National Risk Assessment report Pakistan has been denying the fact that money laundering and terror finances is a high-risk issue and considers it a medium risk. On the other hand, Pakistan has been under the continuous threat of terror financing from its porous borders, DNFBPs (Designated non-Financial Businesses and Professions). Out of 40 recommendations Pakistan was fully compliant only on one, mainly compliant on 9, no-compliant on four and partially compliant on 26 recommendations of FATF. Pakistan’s performance was considered effective only on one benchmark that led APG to place Pakistan on Enhanced Follow up list.

The Pakistani delegation left for Bangkok to meet the Financial Action Task Force officials from September 8 to 10. Pakistan had to face FATF as a part of efforts to exclude its name from “grey list” and which will scrutinize the country’s performance before the final review meeting. Pakistan is under great pressure to ensure compliance before October 2019 as the final deadline was September 2019. Failure to do so might cripple the economic condition of the country.

Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an international task force that is created for the government, by the government in order to fight the undesirable consequences of money laundering. FATF born in 1989 was created in response to the difficulties of money laundering and was initiated by G7 countries including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  These countries felt the need for international cooperation. FATF started with 16 members and the number rose to 35 members. Among these 35 members, 8 are regional bodies which mean that 180 jurisdictions are a part of the FATF family. The rules and conducts set by FATF have to be followed by the member countries

Pakistan has failed to implement the UNSC resolutions against 26/11 mastermind Hafiz Saeed and other terrorists associated with terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jamat-ud-Dawa. The resolutions are related to curbing money laundering and terror financing in Pakistan. The FATF report came a week before when the agency had to decide whether to retain Pakistan in a “grey list”. Pakistan was placed on the grey list in June 2018 and was given a chance to complete the action by Oct 2019 or to get ready to face the risk of being placed on the blacklist with North Korea and Iran. Whereas on the other hand, Pakistan’s government is trying to follow the FATF recommendations. So, Pakistan certainly is not a part of the non-complaint category. Partial compliance in 26 areas is technical compliance. Pakistan has gained some confidence after being supported by China, Turkey and Malaysia but India with the support of the United States emphasized on Pakistan’s blacklisting.

Pakistan is well aware of the fact that the presence of US and India on FATF forum is an obstacle for its case as both the countries are trying to isolate Islamabad on International level. Whereas, China’s position on FATF can be beneficial for Pakistan to implement its policies according to the forum. Pakistan is faced with the challenge to do more against terrorism because of the ambiguity in legislation which needs clarification. The US and India came up with evidence against Pakistan therefore Islamabad need to do something to strengthen its case because Pakistan is not in a condition to bear the shock of blacklisting. The way forward Pakistan could be politicizing the case with the support of China and showing commitment towards addressing the gaps in legislation.

BY AQSA MUNIR KHAN 

The history of wars between Pakistan and India demonstrates that due to close proximity of borders and militarily active Line of Control (LOC), any attack or violation of Pakistan’s airspace and territory has met the very serious military response from Pakistan. Therefore, it is very complex to deconstruct the idea of a full-fledge Indian invasion. However, the current military buildup in IOK has presented serious threats to Kashmiri people and Pakistan’s territorial integrity, hence the risk of a war is real.

A country can attack its rival but the major concern is what it can accomplish and is it ready to withstand a counterattack? In the case of India, its supe

riority in conventional weaponry makes sense that it could sustain offensive for a longer period of time. But Pakistan’s posture is primarily defensive. Despite its lesser manpower and resources in a counterattack, it will remain fierce in its defensive offense. Indians will have to pull a lot of effort to penetrate into Pakistani territory.

If India attacks Pakistan unprovoked, it will cost its goodwill at the world stage. One of the technical points for India to attack Pakistan is to lift its curfew from IOK.  People will come out to protest against the Indian government. India will target those innocent Kashmiri protestors. There will be a massacre in Kashmir which will create unrest in the region. India will allegedly blame Pakistan just like Pulwama attack. Unfortunately, Pakistan will be left with no choice but to retaliate.

India cannot penetrate through the international borders unless there is a major violation from the Pakistani side. India will have to make a choice to attack the Line of Control (LoC). If India attacks LOC terming it as a surgical strike, Pakistan would definitely retaliate by using all means at its disposal.

Despite the fact that Prime Minister Imran Khan made all kind of overtures, opened the Kartarpur corridor but India using rhetoric to negatively engage Pakistan at diplomatic and military fronts. Pakistan should avoid and avert all Indian traps that may lead to a larger conflict in South Asia. It is assessed that India will escalate the ladder, in order to push Pakistan to a limited war where Pakistan has a disadvantage in terms of the number of forces and conventional weaponry. Conversely, Pakistan has a subtle policy of nuclear threshold and thus India will continue to guess about retaliatory strategy and operationalization of strategic resources by Pakistan. On the other hand, India may also not risk a nuclear confrontation because this scenario will take India back to the stone age, meaning by, losing most of it if not all the industrial progress that she made in the past four decades. Considering the risks of a nuclear war, China, Russia and most importantly the United States supporting a peaceful bilateral dialogue between Pakistan and India.

To conclude, if the UN fails to prevent Indian brutalities against Kashmiri people, a false flag operation in IOK and subsequently a scenario such as 26 Feb, can occur in which India violated Pakistan’s airspace, which culminated in destruction of three Indian fighter jets and capturing of a pilot. The question that what if India attacks again can be answered in a simple expression, i.e. Pakistan will respond in coins and the confrontation may expand. It is contented that strategic sense will prevail and India will release 8 million Kashmiris and provide them with the basic human rights and protection of life.

BY AQSA MUNIR KHAN