Christine Fair on Developments in Kashmir
<music> the indians have been very worried. That trump is going to cut a deal in afghanistan coniston that puts the taliban back in power in some way or another. This is very likely to happen. The indians no from the nineteen nineties when the taliban were empower groups that attack india were co located with the taliban the trained they were resourced and there were i._s._i. Which pakistani intelligence officers co located skated with this cluster of militants so the indians know that what happens in afghanistan doesn't stay in afghanistan and india more so than than other neighbors has paid indirect price so there was talk about doing this as early as february within the pulwama crisis happened than the elections occurred in it and it got kicked so many people in india i think is you know i was in india. When when this was going down well placed indians who are well connected to the government what they felt was as the immediate trigger was not only the peace negotiations and the looming certainty of a bad deal coming but it was actually what happened opened with president trump and imran khan here in dc. I'm michaela fogel and this is the law fair podcast august twenty seventh two two thousand nineteen on august fifth. The indian government announced that it was revoking the special status for the states of jammu and kashmir enshrined in article three seventy of its constitution since then the government has instituted a lockdown on the kashmir valley. Hundreds of people have been detained. There have been mass protests and tens of thousands of indian troops deployed to the region professor christine fair of georgetown university security studies program sat down with benjamin witness to discuss article article three seventy. It's history and the current state of play in the region. It's the law fair podcast episode four hundred forty seven christine fair on developments mentz in kashmir so walk us through the last couple of weeks in kashmir what precipitated this whole the latest round of controversy and and difficulty and what steps has the indian government taken in in response to the controversies that that it generated so on august fifth monday the government announced that it was essentially legal revoking article three seventy in substance the article three seventy remains on the books because it used article three seventy to hollow out article three seventy and in advance of that people were growing suspicious that something was like what's going to happen of this nature because over the course of <unk> several days preceding this even weeks they were airlifting total of some forty thousand troops they had on the night of sunday august fourth they put mainstream politicians under house arrest and they declared a communications blackout so by monday morning everyone knew something was coming and that's what they did at the highest level of altitude what does gutting article three seventy due to government in kashmir like what's different rafter this action than before it so it's not only gutting article three seventy is also the way in which they did it that needs to be understood getting rid of article three seventy itself simply says that kashmir is going to be subject to the indian constitution that there's not going to be separate parallel legal legal regimes right so as of august fifth in of course will be contested in the courts kashmir is going to be like any other territory in india. It's gonna be subject to the to the constitution as opposed to its own state constitution that it had prior to august fifth but the additional things at the state eight did have a particular flavor that has caused some rancor among many india so the first thing that they did was instead of just letting jammu kashmir remain a state and that has all the indian laws applicable. They actually <music> bifurcated the area so lay in the dock is a dock is going to become a separate union territory number explained that in a minute and in kashmir are going to become a separate union territory so this is actually the thing has been. I think even more problematic for many people. They didn't just revoke self-governance they he actually broke up the territory burke territory in the downgraded the status from state to union territory now. We don't have anything like this in the u._s. System and the the two territories have different kinds of union territory ness so the doc is gonna be like the vast majority of union territories in india and there's actually actually a large number of them. It is going to be directly governed from the center. It will have political representation in the lower house the lok saba but for every every other purpose is going to be governed from the center. It will not have the equivalent of a state assembly. Jim mulan cashmere is still going to be a union. Territory is going to be governed from the center but at some point with no timelines specified it will be like delhi or pondicherry and that it will we'll have an assembly right so it's gonna be it a look much more like deli and governance or pondicherry <hes> jammu and kashmir this. This move is actually clever from a security point of view because of the corruption in the police forces and the corruption of the police forces that were tied to corrupt politicians so overnight politics is completely redone. These parties are gonna have to seriously rethink their strategy to remain viable also also they were dynastic parties and b._j._p. Tends to dislike the dynamic parties also overnight now. The police forces are now answerable to the center and so the state hopes that this is going to give them a better handle on law and order issues so the next question that naturally arises is why now in why did did they do this and this unfortunately is tied to geopolitics in the region. The indians have been very worried that trump if is going to cut a deal in afghanistan the puts the taliban back in power in some way or another. This is very likely to happen. The indians no from the nineteen nineties that when the taliban power groups that attack india were co located with the taliban they trained. They were resourced and there were i._s._i. Which is pakistani intelligence. Dilligence officers co located with this cluster of militants so the indians know that what happens in afghanistan doesn't stay in afghanistan and india more so oh than than other neighbors has paid a direct price so there was talk about doing this as early as february but then the poem crisis happened than the elections occurred in it and it got kicked so many people in india i think is you know i was in india. When when this was going down well placed indians who are well connected to the government what what they felt was the immediate trigger was not only the peace negotiations and the the looming certainty of a bad deal coming coming but it was actually what happened with president trump and imran khan here in dc imran khan being the pakistani prime minister. Yes trump literally took the third rail of indian politics and wacked india with it. When trump offered natalie offered intervene in kashmir he actually lied and inside the prime minister modi had asked him to intervene and prime minister imran khan made a massive score when he tied the security in kashmir to afghanistan so the indians or ballistic and and of course trump is continued along these lines even after mo the indian indian minister of external affairs absolutely did not happen so indians think this was the immediate trigger that said no no no we we've. We've got to do this do this now or we're going to dive deep back in time in kashmir but before we do what's the current state of play so the current state of play is that they still have the the mainstream politicians under house arrest. They've released. Some of the telecommunications shutdown and we are seeing quite a bit of protests in kashmir but you know what i think. The most disturbing part about this is how this move has been seen by hindu nationalists or hindutva the eh proponents. We're seeing some really disturbing things coming out of popular culture you know there's always been this fetish ization of kashmiri women. They're always talked about as being very fair. They're talked about as being excessively beautiful and both culturally and geographically out of reach so we are seeing pop music. We're we're seeing random obnoxious tweets from b._j._p. Supporters b._j._p. Politicians saying that now is the time to go and mary a kashmiri bride. It doesn't matter that she's a muslim so in some sense this is like an inversion of some of the claims that hindu denationalised of made about muslims waging love jihad whereby they claim that muslim men are trying to seduce hindu women as part of a demographic jihad haad advocacy of that this is the advocacy of its obverse and so that's actually really quite appalling in there have been raped jokes made about of you know i'm gonna go get myself kashmiri girl raper and put on the internet so this kind of stuff is going to confirm some of the worst fears amongst liberals in india who are very concerned about the communalization what could have been seen as a straightforward constitutional issue so let's go from on their back to the constitutional issue. How did this latest episode start so. It's probably useful to say what this thing is right. What i am very puzzled by as a liberal who tends to be very wary of nationalism in general religious nationalism in particular is is how article three seventy came to be associated with muslim kashmiri nationalism in the first place when the british divided up the subcontinent and into india and pakistan maharajah hari singh. He was a a hindu sovereign over a largely muslim area. It's also important to note that this territory that we're talking about never had an integral or organic geopolitical history is actually a combination of you've sick rule dobra rule which is a particular community of of hindus in this area and the british basically through time in this area largely for administrative reasons dot club together so this is why you how these very natural sub communities that are that are inscribed so maharaja hari singh he he wanted to remain independent pakistan invaded despite a commitment not to do so this resulted in maharaja hari singh asking for india to help him out and india says i'll do it as long as you sign. An instrument of session and an instrument of session means later become effectively part of the exact right. I mean india's argument was we're not going to airlift troops to defend territory. That's not our own so if you become our territory we'll send troops will naturally defined what is in effect our sovereign territory and just to be clear about that when most people think of the partition of british india into india and pakistan they think of a division into two pieces but was hundreds but yeah. It's actually a lot more than that and so do you know cashmere is the one whose status was kind of never entirely resolved but there are actually actually a bunch of places that aren't obviously part of either india or pakistan in nineteen forty seven in fact there were over five hundred freight freight and so on the the last vice way <hes> lord mountbatten was actually able to get some five hundred twenty princes to agree not to join one of the dominions all but three held out and the three holdouts were hyderabad. It was a largely hindu population ruled. Oh by muslim sovereign he wanted to remain independent. India actually staged a very aggressive military campaign to seize that territory the other there was junior guard. It had a muslim sovereign over hindu population that sovereign signed an instrument of accession to join pakistan india said no way because at territory detroit was also well within india of the three cashmere was the only one that had territory and lines of control and rivers abutting both so win win hari singh sinus ins moves session. This is the curious thing that as a liberal i find so puzzling remember hardy sing was a hindu and as soon as he signs his instrument of a session within a few years and by the time india signs its constitution so article three seventy is the ah constitutional version of the tax of the instrument of a session the whole point of article three seventy was to protect the interests interest of hindu dobris who were very angry that their sovereign maharajah hari singh had actually been displaced and politics were essentially taken over by abdulah abdulah of the national congress who was a muslim so here's the irony historically right article three seventy seventy was actually intended to protect the equities of hindu togas today. It's become this signifier fire of trampled muslim kush. Mary tawny and i think the reason for this is that indians like americans. Don't know history to me is it's. It's <hes> someone who who traffics and history. I find it quite sonic. How is article three seventy understood and today why do the hindu nationalists hate it and why is it seen as protective of of muslim rights in kashmir so part of it goes back to abdulah lula. He was a muslim leader of kashmir but he was also a freedom fighter and at one point he was a close ally of nehru from boola boola point of view he paid a high cost for align with neighbor in stating his preferences to join india and so by the time we get to the nineteen fifties we already already see kashmiri independence being seen acquire known for kashmiri muslim politics so it's it's very quick that the forgetting the origins of three seventy actually happens and so he views retaining this independent nece which article three seventy allowed it included kashmir having his own constitution having its own flag so in other words. It's like a state within a state. This for him was an important way in which he sold his support for joining india and in abdulah support for joining india was important india will take aac that as you see abdulah agreed to this so we don't this whole issue is settled on so that's how i think it became a scene acqua known of muslim kashmiri independence because that's how it was sold by abdullah abdulah but over time the the center did have ways of imposing some aspects of indian law but on the main people didn't understand how much article three seventy had evolved falls and from my point of view. I think it's really ironic that liberals like myself in fact i find myself being pilloried by by other liberals who were arguing that it is genuinely liberal that people have a right to live under what was essentially the legal regime of despot. It was enabled through colonialism colonialism right. This is where when when a thing becomes an object divorce of its politics it becomes easy to be bandied around in this way so when when moody contends that article three seventy has genuinely limited development in kutch schmierer and it has enshrined poverty and it is kind of created kind of backwards legal culture corrupt. They're all corrupt. How true is it so he's not wrong. I mean these would be things that i would make is a criticism of articles seventy now. Here's the question so to put this unlike an american context american republicans and democrats would agree that we need to have immigration reform right probably the laws they would put forward. Maybe have seventy five five percent or eighty percent in common but democrats will look at a republican bill and they'll be wary of it because it is ethnic. Cleansing republicans will look at the democrat bill. Oh and they will say oh. They're trying to change demography right. It's the politics of the action. That is the problem more than the action itself so he's all right so ever. Since nineteen forty seven money has floated from indian intelligence agencies pakistani intelligence agencies. These politicians are very much on the take. Police officials have complained that when they want to do a raid politicians that are sympathetic to militants will actually tell them about the raid so when you go to the valley you'll see these <unk> wealthy homes that are discordant with legitimate political income so he's not wrong and <hes> there is another problem with investment can't come thirty-five it did not allow people from the outside to buy land so if you're a business person and you wanted to do a large greenfield project. You've got two problems problems when you can't buy that land if you're from the outside because you have. There's no legal mechanism. That allows you to do so unless pretend that you did. Why would you want to invest interstate. Whose legal relationship to the indian state is completely limited. Money goes where money feel safe. I wouldn't want to invest in kashmir if i had money to invest under that regime so do all of those things are not untrue the problem that i think liberals have how in muslims in particular because they do feel under threat by this government is was that his actual intention right and and i have to agree with him there. This has been a longstanding manifesto item. It is right next to the imposition of what's called the uniform civil code which intends to get rid of muslim slim personal law and the third item is rebuilding the ram temple at i o the ah on the site of a mosque that was torn down in nineteen ninety-two december of nineteen ninety-two precipitating massive communal riots so if you're a muslim all of those things that he said could very well be true that you you don't necessarily think that's his motive all right so you've described a genuinely flawed underlying policy in which which there would be decent reasons to wanna revisit the governance arrangement in kashmir but the b._j._p. Doing it it for all the wrong reasons or at least many of the wrong reasons and of course doing it in a way. That's quite oppressive. In the sense that they put a bunch of politicians under house arrest they shut down the internet for a long period of time arrested thousands of youth and you have a protest assed erupting as a result which they clearly tried to suppress so what we know about the actual desires of people living in kashmir about what governance arrangement they should have. I mean how how many of them could be expected to be hal hostile or how sympathetic to some revisitation of the arrangement or this revisitation of the arrangement so let's break it down by territory tori lee doc very very happy with this for very long time they were really it was frustrating for them to be yoked to the politics six of the valley of kashmir jammu. The vast majority of people are going to be very happy with this. There are a few pockets doc. It's of jammu which muslim-dominated there might be objections. So we're we're really talking about is people who live in the valley eh of of jammu which is muslim dominant and as i said for some reason article three seventy became this 'cause celeb- of kashmiri muslim identity entity in an independence so i have always taken umbrage this notion that the entire state is somehow anti india in fact we do have one poll a very good survey that chatham house did in two thousand ten and i wish that they they would be in a position to we do it. They interviewed several thousand people across both sides of the line of control which divides kashmir into the part of nestor by pakistan and india they did not interview those kashmiris in the part that pakistan ceded to china in sixty three. They're excluded so of the results that pertain to the portion portion administered by india most of the moon the dock and even cargo which is muslim majority but they're not sunni majority. They tend to be shia. They wanted to stay with india overwhelmingly kirsch mirror in specifically talking about the valley which is overwhelmingly sunni muslim. They wanted to be independent. There was no support as pakistan claims for joining pakistan in of course the if we were to go back to the choice that was offered tomorrow raja hari singh at the time of a session. The choice wasn't remain independent. So i try to find data that kind of dispel you know some of these claims teams that this is one homogeneous region and their political aspirations of the same so there's a anywhere between six and twelve twelve districts out of twenty two are where we're likely to see the strongest opposition and this is where look the bonuses upon this b._j._p. Government to prove that this wasn't just a communal stunt to appease the hindu nationalist base if they generally mean what what they say and i and i tend to the odds of that being quite low. We're going to need to see some follow through on all of the things they said this move would make possible such as economic development the other important thing that this enables is india has very robust system system of of local governance the pen chhaya system so this is actually going to allow a version of that to take place in jammu kashmir's here's as well as the dock and this is a way in which you can see the possibility of growing local politics that might be less tainted by the corruption that we've seen over the last many decades so is it possible and this is a before we get to some of the bad scenarios here. Let me just throw out a good good scenario. Which is the b._j._p. For all the wrong reasons did something that a lot of people locally may benefit from that may improve local governance and that may create an environment in which people outside can invest in kashmir and so you could have a situation where with all the wrong intentions and for all the worst nationalist reasons reasons in the world mody actually comes up with a disruptive policy intervention that functions in a positive way intentionally cinelli pollyannaish. How unrealistic do you think that is so here's the problem. This scenario that you laid out could only happen by getting rid of article three seventy. That's the irony right. So is it pollyannish in the way that all pangloss fantasies are but but the fact is you're never going to get a lot of investment in the state. Job-creating investment is long as people could not buy land now. Here's the other thing about article three seven thirty five. He was inherently sexist. So if you were a female and you married a non kashmiri you lost your right here land. Your children lost their right to inherit your land. A man could marry whoever wanted and his rights were not got erased. If you were a cush mary pundit who was ethnically cleanse in second nineteen ninety there about the estimates widely vary but at the time maybe one hundred fifty thousand or more were driven out and of course they have since multiplied outside of the state. They couldn't sell their land right so they've been sitting therefore decades. Unable to return is not safe. Everyone agrees. It's not safe nor could they sell it to anyone but someone who genocide them right who would then take advantage of their economic precarity and give them a sub optimal price so not only is that a pollyannish scenario. The irony is though that that the only way you could get there. There's no other way of getting there without getting rid of this archaic legal infrastructure but that suggests that you're you're you're saying moody may have ended up doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons and that's exactly what i say. He did the right thing for the wrong reasons with dubious this means to appease his base all right so let's talk about some of the downsides other than that the mean suck <hes> the the motive suck one is that kashmir is an international flashpoint. Pakistan is whatever claim claim it may have on the indian side of the line of control. It's the nuclear power and it's a hyper-nationalist nuclear power and china administers part of kashmir as well and so you have three nuclear power one of which is the second largest economy in the world that actually actually care about this mountainous piece of land so what is the worst case scenario. If i just described the best case scenario which is you know mody malevolently steps into good policy and everybody's life improves. What's the worst case scenario here. The worst case scenario is this move move actually precipitates the outcome that the move was meant to prevent the first choice right which is they were afraid that all hell is going to break loose after this deal with the taliban and it goes back to the violence that the area experienced the nineteen nineties principally through pakistani malfeasance but there's a couple while they're several things that that that makes it less likely in there some things that make it more likely. Let's talk about the things that mitigate that prospect so there is no chance of the indians are going to relax the security the grid anytime soon. They've hardened the line of control. They have drones so it's much more difficult to do the kinds of infiltration now relative to the nineteen nineties when it was a relatively soft border so that makes it harder. There's some things that make it easier. Namely a and i'm not even imran khan not relevant pakistan's military the army chief. They understand that they're the key to giving in trump what he wants by the twenty twenty elections speaking of manifesto promises right trump wants out of afghanistan in a significant way release. He can say his base. I've i have kept another promise if if the b._j._p. Fetish eases election promises you know trump is very much the same way so the question is if you are pakistan's deep state you are very tempted to take advantage of this situation and and really just throw some kerosene on on fires and and what does that look like so if you can't send a lot of people over the border. I think it is true that pakistanis have never actually won a significant -nificant military engagement with indian army. They've started every war and they've lost each one or they failed to win. Depending upon how you define lawson winning and so you if you're the pakistani army you have to be at least respectful of the indian capacity to repel a conventional military attack. The nuclear side side is of course unavailable for all the reasons that nuclear deterrence tends to make it unavailable everywhere and so what are your options if you're pakistan and you really wanna make modise pay a price for this but you know the terrorism's getting harder they kick your ass. Every time you have a conventional fight with kick. Ass is a little bit stretch will you don't you don't prevail don't prevail avail so until very recently and bhai recently. I mean the last three years so here's something really curious so the indians. This is another chain by the way the hint that did not have a no first use and then also change in the military command structure which also signals some really important things on the indian side so until very recently. If you were pakistan you could bully india with your nuclear weapons and it's funny indians. Never indians would always say we can't do x._y._z. Because pakistan's nuclear weapons and all the decades i spent in pakistan which i can't. I can't return to anymore. I never heard of pakistani say we can't do a._b._m. D._n._c. india because they have nuclear weapons in so this goes to issues of strategic culture so pakistan has a war can't win has nuclear weapons it can't use but what it can do is use i use the the impunity afforded by its nuclear umbrella to send jihadi john and they can calibrate violence in a number of ways and you can see them do over time so one his geographically kashmir is the most low salient because it's viewed as disputed far away and it's well india's media has changed that right for many years indians in the south were like kashmir or whatever but in the cargo war nineteen ninety nine the indian government made a decision that they were going to send end bodies back locally in the same way that americans and perhaps vietnam war saw body's return and it was very emotive the indians decided to do that tried to nationalize the conflict this had never happened before in the previous wars there'd be cremated on site and and the families would begin sort of like you know general cranes pains but this time bodies were sent home to be buried or cremated depending upon the face so this really for the first time made indians is in trivandrum care about what was happening in kashmir right so the idea that it's remote. I don't think that's true anymore. With india's media in india's media has become jingoistic beating the drums of war. India's media has transformed the popular framing of of these issues shoes so one is kashmir which is still low valence. If you're thinking about calibrating violence the high end we be attacking bombay a for delhi now which they've done which they've done that right now with india vowing to punish every subsequent attack would be a really really dangerously escalating move and it's not clear what pathways to de-escalation would be available in these circumstances so one thing that they have done so the and the the other option or like these third tier cities like this poor another way of esco a calibrating the violence is your target so you've got geographies one access. The other is target. Indians indian get more exercise over the loss of security forces and they do civilians right so indians were more upset about the loss of twenty two members of the central reserve police force in pulwama than they were for example over the nineteen ninety-three attack in mumbai that killed even more than the two thousand eight attack so that's another way of calibrating is who you're killing and then the third thing is the way that you do the attack. Is it going to be sabotage like blowing up a bridge or is is it gonna be <hes> if it eighteen attack like west gr- taiba does which are really special operations missions or is it going to be like paloma a suicide bombing right so where i anticipate pakistan is gonna do is try to use these different measures these different dimensions of calibration to figure out what can it get away with breath in other words. There's gonna push india only so far to the point where it can actually manage how india response and the other thing that pakistan is. I think is going to be banking on is that trump is going to sit on the indians to suck it up right in other words like we saw at pulwama largely because trump was golfing. He not joking he he wasn't there to micromanage. The dispute as previous presidents had so actually from a game theoretic point of view view was actually kinda brilliant because the pakistanis i think they were anticipating. The united states to play traditional role. Just tell the indians just calm down to the responsible adult in the in this diaid. Don't be provocative so i think that will be the other thing that the pakistanis are going to be thinking about is what role will trump play as long as pakistan is necessary for trump's twenty twenty agenda item which is getting out of afghanistan is a really fun game theoretic matrix so where does china fit into this so china. I china's really fascinating so the pakistanis always said that the americans us pakistan is the condom to screw of ghana stan but i would point out to the pakistanis frequently do that. You're also the condom that china uses to screw india in the sense. Ah the differences willingly well exactly they don't they don't perceive it that way because the conflict with india is so salient that they actually don't mind being exactly absolutely so when you point out the facts of the pakistanis they do get sober up a little bit. It is a fact that china has never material aided pakistan in any war in the nineteen seventy-one war nixon nixon actually asked china to make just a few gratuitous movements along the mcmahon line which is there is disputed borders with china in excite chin but also along original production if you think about the map india and you've got east pakistan then in sort of like the armpit a rental rushes in the shoulder right so if the idea was that if china could just look menacing india would've been deterred from invading east pakistan donovan bifurcating it china couldn't even be bothered to even pretend china even refused to even put out that it might do this right so china china has been so supremely unwilling to help pakistan in an actual data four but what china does like to china likes to make pakistan fuel competent enough that it can challenge india and in china will certainly when it can take pakistan's positions additions to the united nations security council so it has been very reticent to designate pakistan based terrorist groups that attack india so that's what china wants wants to make pakistan feel that is militarily and politically and diplomatically capable of challenging india short of war but does china in care whether the land on the indian side of the line of control is a state whether article three seventies seventies respected or whether it is a <hes> militarily administered territory. I mean does the domestic configuration. Ration- of the indian politics mattered china at all. I mean it matters deeply to pakistan but the chinese give well so i on august fifth that question was unclear right because the question on august fifth was is this revocation in the application of indian law only envisioned to be pertinent to that part of the territory that india administers on august six on that shock clarifies this i'm at shaw try says no and he's the indian foreign minister xactly he says no in applies we have an instrument of a session it applies to all of it because india claims the parts of kashmir that are administered by both china and pakistan on the theory that this instrument of accession was for the whole territory and actually it's true. I mean legally india that is indian territory. They have an instrument of accession myra. How are you saying that was the entire hire territory that he governed so legally india can say this the other problem though so when he made this declaration. There's no reason why china was like wait a minute because because the nineteen sixty two war as i said there's two areas of disputed territory so one is an oxide chin and so there which is called the line of actual oh control china is in control of territory that india claims right so so when you ask a question does china actually care so china's lloyd in china has remember. They had a very significant. I'm not sure how he was right at proxy conflict over what happened in bhutan in at doklam twenty sixteen so china twenty years ago china really thought india was a pip squeak that was punched above its belt oh but after this significant realignment of u._s. indian relations the american commitment to help india really to be a a first class world power capable of challenging china and being a partner in managing china's rise. They've had to really rethink what what india is and what india's. He is capable of it particularly after the indo u._s. Nuclear deal which was very bombed friendly so the one hand so china issued a statement that was both derisive but also demonstrated its peak so it's look india's making all of these domestic laws that have international implications in it's really irritating but does it change the facts on on the ground that is to say that we are sitting in occupation of territory that india claims so it cares but it doesn't care the fact is i'm gonna paraphrase china good luck india getting this land back so as you look forward over the next few weeks and months here what are the warning signs that were headed toward a bad outcome a sort of eruption of of violence or some other heightening heightening of tensions and what would be the indicators that were more in the first scenario where mody has for all the wrong wrong reasons done something that actually is. Maybe a good thing for a lot of people. How will you know over what timeframe what we're looking at here so this this is like a nuclear reactor and the sense that when all the parts are you taking a line from the noble mini series when all the parts are dancing dancing nicely together it is a beautiful thing but when things become out of balance it becomes very dangerous so let's take for example the security security clampdown right so the reason why they're doing the security clampdown in the communications clamp down so they wanna make it very difficult for pakistan to activate eight domestic sells you know basically local boys as they call them to engage in terrorist activities right so on the upside year suppressing the ability of these groups groups that contain violence the downside is you're punishing a whole lot of people in the expectation that you're preventing nefarious actions of a few right so this is this. This is very counterproductive. You're probably also preventing a lot of people from complaining in elastic free speech kinds leave leave the other thing is and i've i've lived under curfew india. You cannot believe what is said about the curfew. I remember being curfew in masuda as a student and we were watching indian. The news saying that curfew has been lifted so that people can buy groceries a that wasn't true be there were no groceries to buy because howard groceries getting into a curfew affected area so this is the other thing. Is that when you have these curfews people are dislocated from their ability to earn. There is no produce coming in. I mean we're we are moving into the winter rapidly and food shortage is going to begin to be an issue. If this situation persists this time we get to october november. We're getting into a situation where we're going to have snowfall. How is food gonna get in so this is going. I think the nuclear reactor analogy is is actually quite apt and we're not gonna be able to see because of this clampdown so a couple of things. I think think india could do and should you. That would be immediately helpful. One let the mainstream politicians leave house arrest. This was gratuitous. It didn't need to happen. It has just been needless the curfew <hes>. I understand the need to restrict. I understand beyond that they're concerned about peaceful protests lawful protests being exploited by by the pakistanis but this is the cost of democracy right the indians are we're gonna need to stop this oppression of lawful legitimate and democratic protests. This is how you you you basically take the air out of a tire before it explodes by letting it letting it leak <hes> legally so the the things that i am very worried about in the near term and whether or not here's the irony whether or not india does those things india could do all of those things india could stop the jackboots sogari and terrorism will still happen right so it's sort of like the israel paradox right when israel says we can either give land for peace or don't give land in for peace. We're still not gonna get peace and i don't wanna make the parallel to india ticket schmear at that's not what i meant to do. What i mean to say is. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't because whether or not they stopped the jackboot thuggery terrorism pakistan has an incentive to do that anyway. It's just that pakistan will use the situation as the hook cook to justify it so <hes> whether india does or does not do that. I still fear that we're gonna see pakistan manipulating the various vectors actors of of escalation. It's possible that we'll see an attack. Maybe against civilians and places like jammu where it's hindu-majority hindu-majority. Maybe we'll see attacks on a bus or the reason. I say civilians is that indians will tolerate civilian losses. I said more than than security thirty forces on third tier cities so these are this is what i anticipate to see in the pakistanis are going to be balancing with the anticipate from from trump as well as this leverage that they have in terms of escalating the kinds of violence that they can perpetrate. I'll tell you there is a terrorist attack. India will justify this to be even more oppressive in kashmir and quite frankly pakistan benefits from that on that cheerful for note christine fair. Thanks so much for joining us thank you the law fair. Podcast is produced in cooperation with the brookings institution. Thanks thanks this week to christine fair for coming on the show. If you have a second please share the law fair podcast on social media and give us a five star rating and review wherever wherever you found us you can also purchase l'affaire swag at our online store w._w._w. Dot the l'affaire store dot com. The podcast is produced edited by gen patio hull. I was your audio engineer. This week and our music is performed by sophia yan as always. Thanks for listening <music>.