For Pakistan, terrorism is a state-sponsored business

[Double Edge]

Atal Bihari Vajpayee wanted Pakistan Army camp hit after Parliament attack, claims book

India's defence preparedness should be such that the moment we get hit, 5 mins later missiles should start striking their targets.

This makes clear the Americans never had any objections to us joining their operations in Afghanistan or that Pakistan's likely objections would have any bearing, rather it was our defense chiefs that were unwilling.

The Admiral says that Jaswant Singh "waxed eloquent on the need to join this operation as it was part of a global war on terror and could garner international support and so on".

This is a point even Trump would make, talk so much about terrorism but unwilling to take a active role in fighting it abroad even in a region where it matters.

The book says: "The Prime Minister had soon realised that there were sharply divided views. But he had also clearly understood that there could be serious implications of committing the Indian armed forces for Operational Enduring Freedom.

I wonder what the important implications arguments for not getting involved in Afghanistan that the defense chiefs were making. Because they are valid even today given Nirmala's categorical rejection of sending any boots on the ground.

[Oracle]

The US visit - Moeed Yusuf

PRIME MINISTER Imran Khan will soon be heading to Washington. Media punditry is already in overdrive, debating what demands he should put to President Donald Trump. Will Pakistan be able to get a concession on FATF? Will the US agree to tell the IMF to take it easy? What more will Trump want on Afghanistan? No surprises for this is how such visits have been approached in the past. But it’s time to think anew with a new prime minister.

This isn’t a typical head-of-state visit. Usually, such trips mark the culmination of prolonged behind-the-scenes preparation by working-level bureaucracies. Leaders meet with tangible deliverables to offer, most often multiple MOUs/agreements and/or strategic roadmaps for their relationship.

Some of it will be seen in the upcoming trip. But this visit isn’t about that. For starters, I’d be surprised if all this came about due to any bureaucratic push from within the US ‘system’, which has been reluctant to create any such opportunity; top-level engagement was seen as a major concession, only fit for a time when Pakistan delivered big on US asks. And while there has been periodic US acknowledgement of Pakistan’s efforts in Afghanistan, Washington’s overall mindset on Pakistan remains decidedly negative.

The visit is most likely a result of a decision by the US leadership. Trump has repeatedly shown his propensity to engage counterparts on his own initiative. Engagement for him seems to be about exploring possibilities of striking favourable deals. Failing to do so is as okay as succeeding. Such an approach is anathema for foreign policy bureaucracies. The global norm of statecraft is to play safe: be boring, go slow, do not spring surprises, and stick to talking points.

No matter which side of the US-Pakistan relationship you are on, you cannot but agree that playing by the rules hasn’t worked. And it won’t — because divergences in interests on key issues are real and their respective positions on them are too dug in.

Going by ‘the script’, Trump will echo Washington’s negative energy: blame Pakistan for the mess in Afghanistan, talk of sanctuaries, terrorism, the danger of nuclear weapons, and promise to keep the pressure up till Pakistan delivers. Khan will fire away by accusing the US of using Pakistan as a scapegoat, of destabilising South Asia and being in cahoots with India, and ask for support on FATF, IMF, Kashmir, etc.

I have seen this move play out multiple times. Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif visited Washington twice, in 2013 and 2015, reading from the script and receiving equally scripted responses. Hardly surprising, the visits made no dent in the negativity in ties.

The US-Pakistan engagement has long needed a shakeup. Khan and Trump, both of whom pride themselves for going after the seemingly impossible, are the right people to provide it.

For this to work though, bureaucracies on both sides will need to take a deep breath and back off. Let the two leaders be themselves for a bit. Rather than burdening them with lists of the well-known demands of both sides, the respective systems should enable them to move away from guarded positions in the short time they’ll have together. Let both rely on candour and put the deepest issues on the table. Let Trump tell Khan that the Pakistan-China relationship is a problem for him. Let Khan tell Trump that Pakistan thinks the US is wilfully allowing India to get away with efforts to destabilise Pakistan, etc. Then, crucially, let them talk about innovative solutions and win-win transactions.

So what of Afghanistan, FATF, IMF, and other things being planned on the economic side? After all, this is what both systems actually want to make headway on. Of course, these issues will be talked about and promises made — perhaps a couple of agreements concluded. But if that is all the big meeting is going to be about, it’ll be a wasted opportunity.

Instead of trying to get to solid outcomes on all this during the visit itself, a better approach would be to set up working-level groups to unpack these issues in greater detail after the visit. But even this effort will only produce something worthwhile if the two leaders signal their intent to mend fences — and to solve things in atypical ways if needed. This won’t happen if they don’t get a chance to sync up as individuals.

The most important aspect to recognise for now is that these two gents work best when they connect personally with their audience. Allowing them to develop a personal chemistry during the trip will be as important as getting them to talk substance.

Colleagues in the policy business have asked what the appropriate benchmarks to judge Khan’s visit might be. My answer: if the two leaders have each other on speed dial after the trip and get comfortable connecting directly when the bureaucracies hit snags, you’ll know the trip was worth it.

[Oracle]

[Double Edge]

This - Adil Ahmad Dass killing: Did Hizbul Mujahideen and LeT lure Islamic State militants into a trap?

Then, this - PoK-based United Jihad Council breaks silence on killing of Adil Dass due to suspected infighting, calls for unity among militant groups

Now, it is getting interesting, this - In chilling warning to LeT, HM in Kashmir, Islamic State affiliate warns it 'will feel no weakness in slaying these enemies of Islam'

That was about IS being lured by LeT.

Al-Qaida chief threatens India over Kashmir, unveils Pakistan's role in fuelling cross-border terrorism | TOI | Jul 10 2019

Al-Q seems cheesed off over the Paks as well. Have the Paks cut them off some how recently ?

Al Qaeda leader threatens India, criticizes Pakistan in message on Kashmir | LWJ | Jul 09 2019

AGH’s new leader, Abdul Hameed Lelhari (a.k.a. Haroon Abbas), called for the establishment of a new shura council, independent from Pakistani intelligence, to decide on military operations in Kashmir. Lelhari also accused a Pakistani “agency” of trying to rein in the jihad against the Indians by preventing big attacks. And he stressed that the jihad in Kashmir should aim to establish sharia, or Islamic law, to rule over the land.

Oh! Funny how this para is missing from the TOI article.

The al Qaeda leader implicitly concedes that the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment is willing to work with the jihadists, but he casts this support in an entirely negative light.

“All the Pakistani Army and government are interested in is exploiting the mujahideen for specific political objectives, only to dump or persecute them later,” Zawahiri claims. The “beneficiaries” of this policy are nothing more than a “bunch of traitors who fill their pockets with bribes and illegitimate wealth.”

For these reasons, Zawahiri argues, it is “impossible for these [Pakistani] agencies to support the Islamic cause, defend Muslims, or liberate their lands.” Pakistan’s “conflict with India is essentially a secular rivalry over borders managed by the American intelligence.”

The part that is missing is Zawahiri isn't willing to fight the Paks over this betrayal. Well turns out he has in an earlier message from back in 2017

AQIS emphasizes allegiance to Ayman al Zawahiri, Taliban in new ‘code of conduct’ | LWJ | Jun 26 2017

Al Qaeda’s choice of targets is often poorly understood, with some thinking that the group is myopically focused on plotting against the West, avoiding so-called “local” conflicts. This is incorrect for many reasons. And AQIS’s code of conduct shows that al Qaeda’s operations throughout the subcontinent have a broader strategy behind them.

AQIS does say Americans are a priority target in Pakistan. America is “the ringleader of the global system of infidelity” and “the central enemy standing against Islamic and jihadi awakening.”

But the group quickly lists various other prospective targets who prop up the “oppressive British system,” which supposedly stands in the way of creating a puritanical Islamic state. People employed by other “non-Muslim” countries inside Pakistan will be attacked.

Various arms of the Pakistani government are discussed as targets as well. “In the face of the secret machinations and plotting of Pakistani intelligence agencies and the open war being waged by the military, the people of faith have no course left other than fighting,” the code reads.

Of course, it is widely suspected that parts of the Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, which supports the Taliban, is complicit in al Qaeda’s activities. While that is likely true, others within the government and armed forces are also fighting al Qaeda and some of its closest allies. Pakistan’s wheels within wheels environment means that some are opposed to al Qaeda, while others are aligned with it.

AQIS unambiguously calls for attacks on the Pakistani military, prioritizing officers over mere soldiers, as well as anyone else in the military-intelligence establishment who stands in the way of implementing sharia. “All personnel of the military are our targets, whether they be in warzones or in the barracks at their bases,” or even on vacation, AQIS writes.

Similarly, military targets throughout India, Bangladesh and Burma are all deemed appropriate.

The split between the Pak groups & AQ

Still, some points of contention shine through in the text. For instance, AQIS says it “will work with jihadi groups,” which are “independent from intelligence agencies’ influence,” in India, Bangladesh and Burma. Notably absent from this list of countries is Pakistan, where many of jihadi organizations, including the Taliban, have been allied with the military-intelligence establishment. Indeed, Pakistan’s proxy groups have often been al Qaeda’s allies.

“We call on all jihadi groups working under anti-sharia intelligence agencies in any place to end their dependence on them,” AQIS writes. “This is the only way to help the oppressed Muslims, and to make real progress towards implementation of sharia,” because the militaries of corrupt governments “destroy [the] fruits of these mujahideen’s jihad.”

“The Kashmiri Jihad is a clear example of this,” AQIS warns. It is a telling comment, as the Pakistani state has sponsored the leading jihadi groups fighting Indian forces in Kashmir for years. Even though these same outfits share much in common with al Qaeda and the Taliban, al Qaeda doesn’t think they go far enough. In fact, a senior Kashmiri jihadist, Zakir Musa, has recently aligned himself with al Qaeda, rejecting the allegedly nationalist ways of his ideological cousins in the region.

The end result is that while Pakistan’s sponsorship of jihadism has benefited al Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri’s men seek to further cannibalize the movement for their own purposes. And AQIS, with its “code of conduct,” is trying to further that effort.

[Double Edge]

So am curious about Zakir Musa's successor

New head of al Qaeda group in Kashmir calls for independent jihadist council | LWJ | Jul 09 2019

After Zakir Musa’s “martyrdom,” Lelhari alleges, “an agency from Pakistan reached out to us.” The Pakistanis “offered a deal of weapons” in return for AGH meeting “some conditions.”

The “first condition” was that AGH wouldn’t act “without permission from the agency.”

Second, “no action would be big and impactful.”

Of course, FDD’s Long War Journal cannot confirm that the Pakistanis made such an offer. AGH and AQIS have repeatedly accused the Pakistani state of undermining the jihad in Kashmir, and it is possible that Lelhari is embellishing to make this narrative seem more urgent. Still, the Pakistani military and intelligence establishment has a long record of supporting jihadist groups in Kashmir, and it is possible that some branch of the government has sought an accommodation with AGH.

AGH’s new emir continues by claiming that this Pakistani agency must have thought, erroneously, that the group could be turned into a “puppet” of the state after Musa’s death. But the “conditions” offered only show “how enslaved and weak our jihad has been made.”

Therefore, Lelhari argues, the jihadists cannot stay silent, otherwise they won’t “just be responsible for [the] end of this jihad, but will also turn to be its culprits.” He says the “mission should be to keep this jihad firm” by countering the “conspiracy” to end it.

With that goal in mind, Lelhari offers three objectives. First, the mujahideen should “strive purely” and “only to establish Allah’s Law on Allah’s Land.” This has been AGH’s mantra since it was established in 2017. Musa repeatedly employed the slogan “Sharia or martyrdom” to emphasize his commitment to an ideological vision for the Kashmiri struggle.

Second, Lelhari says that all “military operations” should be conducted based on the “decisions” made “by commanders in occupied Kashmir and these decisions would be taken only in interest of jihad and considering ground realities.” This is intended to subvert Pakistan’s authority over the conflict.

Third, the AGH leader calls for unity among the militants’ ranks in Jammu and Kashmir. He says the “interests of jihad should be given priority over organizational and personal interests” and “this jihad should not be allowed to be exploited by any country or agency.”

[Oracle]

250-metre bridge on Pakistan side a sticking point in Kartarpur talks



I was not in favour of this. I am not in favour of this. I will not be in favour of this.

[Oracle]

Army Chief Bipin Rawat warns Pakistan: Misadventure will be repelled with punitive response

Sending out a stern message to Pakistan, Chief of Army Staff General Bipin Rawat on Saturday said there should be no doubt that “any misadventure will be repelled with a punitive response”. The Army chief warned that any future conflicts would prove to be more “violent and unpredictable” and the Army would not take into account the human factor.

Addressing a seminar in New Delhi to mark the 20th year of the Kargil conflict, Rawat said, “Pakistan Army time and again resorts to misadventure, either through flawed proxy wars and state-sponsored terror or intrusions. The Indian Army stands resolute to defend our territory. Let there be no doubt that any misadventure will be repelled with a punitive response.”

“Future conflicts will be more violent and unpredictable where the importance of human factor shall remain undiminished. Our soldiers are and will remain our primary assets,” he added.

The rise of non-state actors and the readiness to use terror and other irregular methods of fighting have become a new norm, he said.

The Army Chief also noted that the addition of cyber and space domain has changed the battlefield scenario.

He asserted that no act of terror will go unpunished. “Surgical strikes post-Uri and Balakot (terror attacks) have amply demonstrated our political and military resolve against terror. Any act of terror will not go unpunished,” he said.

Eight hundred terrorists were killed since 2014, of which 249 were in 2018, the Centre had informed Parliament earlier this month. In a written response to a question in the Lok Sabha, Minister of State in the Defence Ministry Shripad Naik said 104 terrorists were killed in 2014, 97 in 2015, 140 in 2016 and 210 in 2017.

On the eastern front, Rawat said there had been no intrusion by the Chinese in Ladakh’s Demchok sector.

“There is no intrusion,” Rawat said on the sidelines of an event.

The Army Chief’s statement comes amidst reports of Chinese soldiers crossing the Line of Actual Control (LAC) last week after some Tibetans hoisted Tibetan flags on the occasion of Dalai Lama’s birthday on July 6.

“Chinese come and patrol to their perceived Line of Actual Control…we try and prevent them. But at times there are celebrations that take place at the local levels. Celebrations were going on our side by our Tibetans in the Demchok sector. Based on that, some Chinese also came to see what was happening. But there has been no intrusions. Everything is normal,” the Army chief said.

India and China share a disputed border and the armies of the two countries were engaged in a stand-off for 73 days in 2017 in Doklam.

[Double Edge]

From a month ago

There is no news Pak has received the IMF loan. Transfer will occur when Trump is happy, that is Pompeo convinces Trump that Pak is doing something.

SBP receives $991.4 million first IMF tranche | Tribune | Jul 10 2019

so Paks are doing something that pleases Trump. What could it be.

[Oracle]

From a month ago

SBP receives $991.4 million first IMF tranche | Tribune | Jul 10 2019

so Paks are doing something that pleases Trump. What could it be.

And, Pakistan told to pay $5.9bn to mining firm

[Double Edge]

And, Pakistan told to pay $5.9bn to mining firm

Funny how the IMF figure and this award are so close. So releasing the first tranche means the Paks have agreed to pay this award. heh. How are they going to do that. At the same time if they expect to attract investment then not complying means nobody will risk investing anything significant in Pakistan. There are reputational costs that go along with it.

Tethyan board chair William Hayes said in a statement the company was still “willing to strike a deal with Pakistan,” but added that “it would continue protecting its commercial and legal interests until the dispute was over.”

Right, so that must be it. The Paks will agree to go ahead with this project and then there are no damages to pay

The Paks will appeal they say, that will take another two years until which time a deal can be hammered out.

[Double Edge]

250-metre bridge on Pakistan side a sticking point in Kartarpur talks

[ATTACH]47832[/ATTACH]

I was not in favour of this. I am not in favour of this. I will not be in favour of this.

How the hell did Guru Nanak's last shrine end up on their side of the border !!!

[Oracle]

How the hell did Guru Nanak's last shrine end up on their side of the border !!!

Was Indian land prior to partition. Cyril Radcliffe partitioned land between the 2 countries based on demographics. Prior to partition, there were killings on both sides. This was to establish a Muslim or Hindu/Sikh majority in those lands. With all the displacement of people, the rioting, the refugee camps, the bodies on the roads, Kartarpur Sahib fell from the agenda of the politicians of those times.

I would blame the Sikhs (of that time) for it, as also the Hindus (of that time) who did nothing when Hindu majority districts like Khulna were given to east-Pakistan. I mean our forefathers.

[Oracle]

ATC grants pre-arrest bail to JuD chief Hafiz Saeed and 4 others

A pig that has killed 100s of Indians gets pre-arrest bail. Shows the kind of F forces that work in Pakistan. Pakistan will never change.

[Oracle]

Abduct and convert

HR groups estimate 20 or more per month. The miserable state of affairs for minorities in Pakistan.

[Double Edge]

Difficult to argue with a retired RAW chief

India should ignore the USA: For when Trump blows his own trumpet, he is usually out of tune | Daily O | Jul 24 2019

the driving force in Pakistan is their army, this jihad will continue — because the Pakistan army's attitude towards India or their own politicians will not change. They scarcely conceal their disdain for their own politicians but find them useful for international marketing when required. In Pakistan, the Cabinet meets in Rawalpindi not in Islamabad and they all wear the same khaki and sit in the same style — hands clasped in front of them and looking at each other unsmiling.

This overbearing attitude is reflected in their attitude towards India — and worse, 'Hindu' India. Four wars lost and they have not learnt a thing.

For the Pakistan army, Kashmir is not the cause; it is an excuse to retain primacy.

They will never be able to disband their jihadi corps without inviting blowback. Mere opposition to infidel India is thus martyrdom in the name of Islam.

Let us not delude ourselves into assuming that if we can do a deal with Pakistan, the army will lose ground, democracy will flourish in Pakistan and we will have eternal peace. Perish the thought. The Pakistan Army never retreats at home.

In any case, deal for what, on what?

He then concludes with

While Pakistan has followed a consistent policy towards India, in the past we have vacillated between peace moves and angry gestures — it is only now that we have adopted a more realistic policy.

There is no urgency to talk to Pakistan. Our stand that talks under the threat of terrorism are not feasible is perfectly viable.

There is never any urgency to talk to a neighbour who does not believe in behaving like a neighbour.

What does he mean by "only now". This no talks and terrors dates back to 26/11, it was Manmohan's stand.

We have followed up with reprisals but the attitude of managing Pakistan like we do Kashmir instead of tackling Pakistan still persists.

Kashmir, if the home minister gets his way, will be better dealt with than in the past. One way would be gerrymandering. Redistricting etc.

So that is half the problem being addressed.