I understand and fully appreciate the cunning move. The problem is that this Islamic Terror fashion is not going anywhere just as yet.
It is not something that is of late, it is something that has been showcased as such since inception itself.
The only difference has been the approach is fructifying over the years. India of 1990s was an economically insecure and diplomatically weak nation, present years give out a different picture for apparent reasons.
It would have been much easier if you would have jumped on the bandwagon in 2001. Now thanks to fatigue and the leftist nutties it is not that viable to present Kashmir as such.
There has been no 'jumping' on bandwagon overnight. Systematic undermining of the pre-eminent organisation of the day is a time tested strategy, that is in vogue as always. Hence the rise and fall of different organisations.
LeT had established itself as the pre-eminent group, now, HM out of the blue, is reasserting itself. These two organisations have their own inherent differences. The situation is more complicated with advent of wahabi fundings into valley. This has enabled mosques sprouting at every nook and corner, which, admittedly are preaching an anti-India agenda, but are also preaching the rabid interpretations that are more identified with places like Afghanistan and mid-East. These are inherent contradictions within a viable armed struggle.
The fatigue is within the common man on ground. The common man on street is caught in a grinder, a corrupt political setup in the state and separatists (whose near and dear ones are comfortable and who control major businesses in Kashmir, including contractors for the armed forces) and militant groups on other side. It is this man who is the daily wage earner, who is being pushed deeper into despair and penury as strikes leave no business unaffected.
There is no fatigue in IA. The fatigue only exists in this forum. Ground realities are quite different. But IA is not the solution here.
The Leftists are actually killing themselves. They are a minuscule population who gets the bytes but has no bite, so hardly an issue.
It maybe just too hard to convince or sell Kashmir as a case but you know once you invite Uncle Sam it brings all other parties to the table pretty quickly.
Uncle Sam is not invited, that is a sure thing. That is why even the present power set up, is stressing on Shimla Accord only. Even Chinese are not exactly a great idea into this dispute over Kashmir.
I am just postulating that the terrorists will just find an excuse to make Kashmir a destination and its not good for the region.
I doubt many will find a way into Kashmir save from coming in through LC from your side. And any who do come, will meet their fate here. As for homegrown ones, short life span. The present military strategy of restrained targeting will provide the necessary controls, but then, again, it remains only a stop gap measure.
With China sitting just a stone's throw away Kashmir. Uncle Sam would love to sit here and fiddle with Chinese Muslim issues which is the ultimate goal.
The ultimate game remains to isolate China into South China Sea in order to establish a status quo there. CPEC allows China an alternate and simply disallows that. Hence, Kashmir is very stupid place for US to bother in. I would always point to Baluchistan area.
My logic, for past 9 months now, remains on Iran as being a target for US. US moves to destabilise Iran, logically go towards Baluchistan-Sistan province of Iran.
Now reading it with Modi's statements over Baluchistan over the last year (rhetoric notwithstanding), one can imagine a convergence of interests here between US and India if Iran follows a policy of supporting Kashmiri movement. That is what my original contention remained.
This combination of US-Indian interest in Baluchistan (including Baluchistan-Sistan region) allows addressing two major interests of US - Iran and CPEC. Two of India also are addressed - CPEC and destabilised Pakistan (I say destabilised as anything more than destabilised aka like Syria will be dangerous for US and Indian interests, so even if India wanted, US will not allow that; so perhaps a level of violence enough to make CPEC unviable/risk prone option yet not enough to allow destruction of host country itself)
would have been much better if Kashmir would have stayed bilateral.
I remain a strong proponent of that. Never allow hungry wolves into your pen.
You do realise that Pakistan offers Kashmir nothing but rudimentary support and this violence is nothing but a new wave of frustrated youths?
I will laugh at this one as I know exactly what level of support Pakistan provides. Been there done that situation for me
I don't hold it against Pakistan, they have to do everything to secure their interests. But then, it is a game two can play
I think we can leave this bit to our understandings on this aspect
By the way these would be the very first terrorists who wave Pakistani flag and not jihadi flags.
Actually, it makes our job easier