Monsoon Journal

Queen Elizabeth II has switched bearskin hats for turbans outside Buckingham Palace, where Sikh soldiers have begun guarding the monarch and her treasures, Britain’s defense ministry said Friday. Signaler Simranjit Singh and Lance Cpl. Sarvjit Singh are the first Sikhs to take part in patrols outside the queen’s residence and to stand watch over the Crown jewels at the Tower of London across town. Guard duties are usually carried out by the Guards of Household Division, famed for their bearskin hats and crimson coats that attract picture-taking tourists in their thousands. The ministry said the Sikh soldiers instead wore turbans and blue uniforms. Other army regiments often help carry out guard duties at Britain’s Buckingham Palace when the Household Division is on operations. The ministry said the two soldiers are the first of the 90 Sikhs in Britain’s army to be handed the task. “It’s purely a coincidence that this has happened now,” said a defense ministry spokeswoman, on condition of anonymity in line with policy. “Regiments take it in turn to stand in for the Household Division and it just happens that two of the soldiers this time round are Sikh.” Sarvjit Singh, who was born in India and is a member of 3 Regiment Army Air Corps, said he was thrilled to have had the opportunity to guard the queen. “My experience being a Sikh on the queen’s guard is beyond words,” said the 28-year-old. “It is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I feel privileged to have this honor.” “Being in London and parading in front of hundreds of people has been brilliant. Being Sikh hasn’t made any difference,” said Simranjit Singh, 26, from Coventry in central England, who is attached to the 21 Signal Regiment (Air Support). “It’s been hard work, but definitely worth it,” he said. He said the toughest part of the role is keeping perfectly still when on sentry duty outside the queen’s home. Sikhs routinely guarded Queen Victoria - a colonial ruler of India. At the time of World War I, Sikhs formed about 20 percent of the British army, but numbers dwindled following India’s independence. Courtesy: OyeTimes.com

Amid tight security, a bronze statue of Tamil saint-poet Thiruvalluvar was finally unveiled here on Sunday by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, ending an 18-year standoff on the issue following opposition from pro-Kannada groups. Barring a minor protest by Karnataka Rakshana Vedike activists at Malleswara, about 10 km from the main function venue, the ceremony passed off without any trouble with about 3,000 security personnel maintaining a tight vigil. Police had rounded up over 1,000 activists of pro-Kannada organisations since August 7 to thwart pro-Kannada outfits from disrupting the event. The 83-yearold DMK leader unveiled the statue by pressing a remote control button at RBANM grounds in the presence of Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa, as part of statue-diplomacy between the two states which is expected to turn a new leaf in the strained relations over the Cauvery river water sharing issue.

By Riyaz Wani Local elections in the restive Indian state have reshaped Kashmir’s landscape of conflict In the summer of 2008, Indian Kashmir reverberated with the groundswell of protest. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets, heeding the call of the separatist conglomerate, the Hurriyat Conference. This was the first time after the initial years of two decades of armed conflict that Kashmiris reverted to the method of peaceful political agitation, loudly turning their backs on the gun. (The immediate provocation for the protest was the transfer of state land to a Hindu trust which facilitates the annual pilgrimage to the ancient shrine of Shri Amarnath in the Himalayas. The decision stirred the deep local suspicion of a larger design to undermine the Islamic character of the troubled, Muslim-majority Valley of Kashmir.) To handle the protests, the state government took recourse to curfews and stringent security measures, which shut the Valley down for almost three months. Yet the most effective way of dealing with the protests - and the underlying mistrust of New Delhi that they stemmed from - was not through the baton but the ballot. Elections for the state assembly in December 2008 were revelatory. Initially, observers feared the worst for the polls. Major regional pro-New Delhi parties like National Conference (NC - the opposition party at the time), People’s Democratic Party (PDP - the then ruling party) and the Congress itself (India’s ruling party) squared up for a tough electoral battle. But the seething “separatist” summer seemed to have driven these establishment and more conciliatory parties to the fringes of the Valley’s political landscape. Hurriyat, which saw the state polls as designed to strengthen India’s “occupation” of Kashmir, called for the boycott of the exercise. In the lead up to the vote on 17 November, it seemed that the force of recent popular protest would leave the polling booths relatively empty. Instead, turnout shocked everybody. Booth after booth, long waving queues of people waited for hours in the winter chill to cast their votes. An estimated 63 per cent of voters (around three million out of the 4.8 million eligible voters) cast their votes, which was by far the highest turnout recorded in the Valley in the past 20 years. The separatists were stunned, as were most observers of the crisis in Kashmir, a state in the throes of secessionist violence since 1989. The same people who fought the system in the summer voted for it in the winter. The struggle against Indian rule had gone hand-in-hand with participation in democratic elections, even though the former and the latter apparently stood in opposition to each other. The assembly elections had a significant discourse-changing effect within Kashmiri politics. Suddenly, separatist figures who rode high on the long summer of discontent were pushed to the margins of the state’s political life and the pro-India mainstream parties like NC and PDP hurtled back to centre-stage (the NC won the plurality of seats, and formed a coalition government with the Congress). It goes without saying that a free and fair election can usher in profound political transformation in any society. What’s more remarkable is that the democratic electoral process within the long-running conflict situation in Kashmir has proven therapeutic too. The election in December 2008 isn’t the only one that nudged Kashmir along a different track. In 2002, Kashmir assembly polls were held in a situation of unremitting militant violence. The state was still reeling from the destabilizing consequences of the short India-Pakistan war in 1999 over the Kargil heights. The continuing insurgency inside Kashmir intensified with fidayeen attacks and suicide bombs becoming routine. But the election in 2002 - which was the first cleanly-held exercise in the state’s entire democratic history - made a significant, redeeming difference. In a spectacular change in its Kashmir strategy, New Delhi finally agreed to hold a free and fair election in the state as an effort to both clear its name of past wrong-doing and to undermine the ideology and popularity of the separatists. Democratic processes in Kashmir at the time lacked all credibility. Successive elections in the state had been rigged to suit New Delhi’s chosen allies and political outfits. In 1987, the ruling NC was allowed to manipulate the election in its favour when all indications pointed towards the triumph of Muslim United Front, an alliance of largely religious parties led by the Jamaat-i-Islami. The same practice was followed in 1996, when the Indian army coerced people to vote to boost the turnout in what remained a mostly boycotted election, with less than 20 percent of eligible Kashmiris voting. All the polls from 1953 through 1975 also share in this history of manipulation, with local governments being imposed and dismissed at the will of the Indian government. Such a rich tradition of orchestrating from New Delhi sparked the outrage that fed into a violent secessionist movement in 1989 (which was only abetted and transformed into a more Islamist insurgency later in the 1990s with the spill-over of Afghanistanhardened mujahideen fighters after the triumph of the Taliban). Yet the effect of the 2002 polls was striking. The election for the first time dislodged the NC and ended its fifty year-old monopoly over Kashmir. And the beneficiary of this urge for change was the PDP - then just six years old - led by a former home minister of India, Mufti Muhammad Sayeed. The result was cathartic for the long pent up democratic aspirations in Valley. The realization that Kashmiris could actually change governments through the ballot gave the otherwise alienated people a fresh stake in the system. Everybody in the Valley expected the NC to ride back to power on New Delhi’s support. But relatively high turnout (44 percent) set in motion a sea change in Kashmiri politics. While the verdict of the election came as a relief to Kashmiris, it was something of the opposite for many politicians. Realizing that political power in Kashmir was now flowing from the people rather than from the will of New Delhi, politicians had to become more responsive to local issues and aspirations. Political parties which until now exclusively represented New Delhi ’s interests in Kashmir began to better accommodate the Valley’s grassroots discourse. The PDP, which was part of a six year rotational coalition government with Congress, focused on improving governance and security while deftly straddling the Valley’s mainstreamseparatist political divide. The separatist strand, as embodied by the likes of the pro- Pakistan Hurriyat Conference, remained important within Kashmir’s political landscape. But pro-India mainstream parties, particularly PDP, made deep inroads for the first time into undermining the political appeal of the separatists. They incorporated much of the agenda of the separatists, but stopped well short of the conventional rhetoric that calls for independence from India. PDP was in the forefront of this new politics, criticising the much-loathed Armed Forces Special Powers Act, seeking a reduction in the security presence of the state and demanding an acceptable settlement between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. The reconfigured platforms found resonance with Kashmiris, and helped consolidated a mainstream mass base in the state. PDP rule resulted in the rise of a representative political mainstream with strong indigenous moorings, that responded to local discussion and debate and helped dissipate the accumulated public anger which decades of political stonewalling had created. The party worked to make the security forces more accountable for their treatment of civilians. It also reined in the dreaded “Special Operation Group” of the Kashmir police which was responsible for gross human rights violations in the state. It released a number of detained separatists as part of its “Healing Touch” policy. Under the weight of increasing democratization within Kashmir, the hardline positions of several separatist parties began to crumble. Unnerved by the resurrected relevance of the mainstream parties, separatists have steadily moved towards a more pragmatic articulation of their demands. It has become increasingly common to hear talk of flexible solutions to the Kashmir crisis, which accommodate changing global realities (including India’s rise on the international stage and Islamabad’s growing willingness to compromise on Kashmir). And one major separatist Sajjad Lone, hoping to remain relevant, controversially decided to enter electoral politics, unsuccessfully contesting in the recent national parliamentary election. The past seven years of the democratic experience in Kashmir - albeit still flawed in many respects - encourages the belief that an environment of conflict and division can be improved if a democratic outlet is made available. Democratic processes may not overhaul the fundamental crisis or counter the daily motions of insurgency and repression, but they have more subtly softened the sources of discord, tempering their intensity. In India’s case, Kashmir may not be the only example of the utility of democracy within conflict. Seventeen years ago, an election in Punjab - the western Indian state that endured an armed, separatist Sikh campaign through the 1980s - made a substantial difference to the affairs of the troubled state. This change was duly noted in the contemporary readings of the poll, and a parallel was forged. As Sumeet Ganguly writes in Crisis in Kashmir, “The (Punjab) state elections of 1992, which followed five years of insurgency and direct rule from New Delhi, resulted in extremely low voter turnout but did bring to power a legally constituted government. The subsequent local elections produced extra-ordinarily high turnouts - more than 80 per cent of the eligible voters”. This is a trajectory that emerged in Kashmir too, with the middling turnout in 2002 polls leading to more than 60 per cent polling in the 2008 assembly polls. A democratic process that has generally made right and responsive noises, delivered on broad parameters of governance - no doubt with some glaring failures now and then - has simultaneously engaged and battled the separatist discourse. This has even caused the separatists to begin to find their own democratic moorings and appreciate the new ground realities. Now it is incumbent upon India and Pakistan, the state stakeholders in the conflict, to build on these developments and pursue a meaningful settlement. [open democracy] Riyaz Wani is a Kashmir based Indian Journalist and reporter for India’s prestigious National daily The Indian Express.

stronghold in South Asia, China seems to have been working consistently over the last four decades to strengthen its south Asian presence and fulfil its ‘String of Pearls’ policy, and that has many in India worried, writes Raashi Bhatia in a recent Reuters article. His full write up as follows: Many in India believe that Beijing is building special relationships with India’s old foe Pakistan and Sri Lanka and is extending its reach down the Indian Ocean. China’s ‘String of Pearls’ strategy seems to be surrounding India and has given food for thought to many in New Delhi for quite some time now. At the G8 summit in L’Aquila recently, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a bid in front of the international community to include India in the United Nations Security Council, which would put it on par with China, which is one of the five permanent members. Christopher J. Pehrson, author of the book “String of Pearls: Meeting the challenge of china’s rising power across the Asian littoral”, says the ‘String of Pearls’ describes the manifestation of China’s rising geopolitical influence through efforts to increase access to ports and airfields, develop special diplomatic relationships and modernize military forces that extend from the South China Sea through the Strait of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean, and on to the Arabian Gulf. Though India is trying to make a stronghold in South Asia, China seems to have been working consistently over the last four decades to strengthen its south Asian presence and fulfil its ‘String of Pearls’ policy, and that has many in India worried. Alka Acharya, head of East Asian studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, says that China’s ’string of pearls’ policy started in the 1980s and its basic aim was to give China increased energy security with refueling stations throughout the world. But it has helped China project its political and military influence further. Some in India think China’s latest addition to its string of pearls is the Hambantota port in southern Sri Lanka. Construction on the first phase began last year with Chinese funding, and the whole $1 billion project is expected to finish by 2023. B. Raman, a retired senior government official, has written a paper on the project of Hambantota port in which he mentions that “the Chinese interest is more strategic than purely commercial. It is very unlikely that Sri Lanka would allow the Chinese Navy to use Hambantota against India. But a Chinese naval presence in Hambantota would add to the concerns of the Indian Navy by increasing the vulnerability of the South to pressures from the Chinese Navy.” Raman also mentions in his paper that China had helped Pakistan with a similar project in Gwadar on the Mekran coast in Balochistan. The first phase of construction has already been completed and the port was given a nod when Pervez Musharraf was the president. When it is done, Hambantota is likely to have an aviation fuel storage facility and a liquefied natural gas refinery. The first phase will have bunkering facilities to refuel ships that pass the nearby shipping lanes, among the world’s busiest. Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa says India has nothing to worry about because the project is strictly a commercial venture. India though is taking no chances and is increasing its troops along the northeastern border so as to prevent any further infiltration of Chinese soldiers, who had illegally entered Indian territory last year. A retired intelligence officer who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity said China had begun building a road in Pakistanoccupied Kashmir in the early 1970s. “We had got hold of a source who told us that China was building a road from China- Gilgit- Neelam Valley, they had also planned a number of tunnels and bridges in places where roads couldn’t be constructed,” the officer said. The status of the road is not known, some say it is still under construction. The Karakoram Highway, which connects China’s Xinjiang region with Pakistan’s north, can also be seen as one of China’s pearls. The highway, called the ninth wonder of the world by some because of its altitude, was completed in 1986 after 20 years of construction. The road opened up China- Pakistan trade and gave both of India’s rivals a fast route through the mountains, not far from the Line of Control in Kashmir. Should India be worried about China’s String of Pearls, and will the Chinese strategy dampen India’s plans to be the dominant power in South Asia?

By Steve Herman India’s Prime Minister says Pakistan’s pledge to fight terrorism should be trusted, but its actions need to be verified. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh notes some cooperation with Islamabad on the investigation into last year’s terror attack on Mumbai, but says it has not gone far enough. The Indian leader finds himself on the political defensive, resulting from his recent engagement with Pakistan’s leaders. Mr. Singh says unless his country wants to go to war again, it has no option but to engage its neighbor and long-time rival in dialog. Speaking to his Parliament, Manmohan Singh said it is in India’s interest to directly talk with Pakistan, rather than going through third parties. “I hope and pray that the leadership in Pakistan will have the strength and the courage to defeat those who want to destroy, not just peace between India and Pakistan, but the future of South Asia,” he said. The remarks were part of a rebuttal to criticism here of a joint statement with Pakistan issued two weeks ago on the sidelines of an international summit in Egypt. There has also been a perceived lack of enthusiasm for the document among members of Mr. Singh’s Congress Party. The joint statement said India and Pakistan would battle terrorism without linking such efforts to peace talks concerning the disputed Kashmir region. That has prompted a personal attack on Mr. Singh by opposition parties. A senior leader of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, Yashwant Sinha, who spoke in Parliament before Mr. Singh, termed the declaration in Egypt a “surrender” and said the Indian prime minister has “walked into the Pakistani camp.” “All the waters of Neptune will not wash away the shame of [the joint statement in] Sharm-el- Sheikh,” he said. The document was also interpreted by some as an acknowledgment by India of meddling in Pakistan’s Balochistan Province. The Pakistani government has long accused India of financing Baloch nationalists and encouraging them to create trouble in the large, but mostly undeveloped province. India’s government denies such activities. In his remarks to Parliament, Mr. Singh said he is willing to discuss Balochistan and any other concern Islamabad has, because, as he told Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, India has nothing to hide. “I told him that we have no interest whatsoever in destabilizing Pakistan nor do we harbor any ill intent toward Pakistan,” added Mr. Singh. The prime minister added that a stable, peaceful and prosperous Pakistan, living in peace with its neighbor, is in India’s own interest. The peace process between New Delhi and Islamabad has been on hold since last November’s terrorist attack on the Indian commercial capital, Mumbai. A group of well-trained and heavily armed militants from Pakistan are blamed for the assault in which more than 160 people died. India and Pakistan have been rivals, and have fought several wars against each other, since Britain ended its rule and partitioned the subcontinent in 1947.