- The Observer
42 11.08.19 Comment & Analysis
Established in 1791 Issue No 11881
Kashmir
Modi’s acts go
unchecked in
an ever more
lawless world
T
he crisis over Kashmir, triggered
by the Indian government’s
decision to impose direct rule
from Delhi, has universal
relevance. It says much about the
times we live in and how we are
ruled. Here is a semi-autonomous
state, part of a federal union
protected by a constitution, which
has seen its democratic freedoms
abruptly abolished by executive decree. This was a very
Indian coup, but one with a global context.
Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, and the ruling
nationalist BJP stand accused of acting without proper
legal authority by unilaterally revoking article 370 of the
constitution, which guarantees Kashmir’s special status.
Delhi’s arbitrary bifurcation of the state into two union
territories ( Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh) is also
legally contentious. Opponents say Modi has opted for
“raw power” over legitimacy.
Modi also ignored UN resolutions on the
internationally recognised dispute with Pakistan oversovereign control of the Kashmir region and, notably,
the 1972 Simla agreement , which stipulates that its fi nal
status must be settled by peaceful means. That point
was made last week by the UN secretary-general while
appealing for “maximum restraint”. To cap it all, Modi
failed to consult Kashmir’s political leaders, whether
pro-independence or pro-India, or the Kashmiri people.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Political leaders were placed
under house arrest. The population was placed under
curfew. Means of association and communication were
cut. And massive army deployments have been used to
enforce Delhi’s diktat.
By subverting the constitution, ignoring India’s Simla
obligation to ensure that the “principles and purposes”
of the UN charter govern relations with Pakistan, and
removing Kashmiris’ right to self-governance, Modi
has placed himself squarely in the wrong. To argue, as
he does, that Kashmir is solely an internal matter is to
ignore the realities of 70-plus years of strife.
So it is particularly striking how insouciant has been
the reaction of governments around the world. The
US and EU reiterated their Delhi-appeasing view that
Kashmir is a bilateral not an international issue. Britain’s
response was feeble. Dominic Raab, the neophyte
foreign secretary, meekly thanked India for a “clear
readout of the situation”.
Not a word of public criticism of Modi’s high-
handed behaviour. Not a thought, apparently, for the
dire implications for the UN’s authority, international
law and the so-called rules-based global order. Not an
iota of understanding that India’s enhanced military
occupation may revive a confl ict that weaponises
religion, race and identity in place of democratic
dialogue and inclusion.
If this sounds familiar, it should. This is the dog-eats-
dog world created by Donald Trump, Xi Jinping , Vladimir
Putin and copycat ultra-nationalist “strongman” leaders.
It is a lawless world where the rules no longer apply,
where pacts and treaties are bypassed or torn up, where
nations blindly pursue perceived self-interest and where
minorities, however defi ned, are mocked, ignored and
exploited.
In this harsh, ugly world, Modi the hardline Hindunationalist and his Muslim-baiting BJP colleagues are a
good fi t. It may be the case, as Modi argued last week, that
Kashmir has suffered from decades of violence and a lack
of jobs and investment. It is certainly true India’s record of
human rights abuses in Kashmir is a shaming one.
But by imperiously imposing his will , Modi only
raises new obstacles to progress. This is not the way
forward. It will not improve the lives of most Kashmiris.
It will not ease the security burden on the Indian state.
More likely, it will lead to political resistance across the
board, escalating confrontation and the exploitation
of tensions by violent extremists on both sides. Modi
claims a “new era” has begun. Kashmiris see only a
new calamity.
Pakistan’s reaction has been predictably hostile. Imran
Khan, elected prime minister one year ago , once spoke of
improving relations with Delhi. Such hopes are shattered
now. Khan and his generals have sensibly avoided a
military response, instead imposing diplomatic and
trade sanctions. But this may not satisfy public opinion.
Militants based in Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir
will want, more than ever, to take the fi ght to India.
Khan has limited options. His country is severely
indebted. Modi has been clever in strengthening ties
with Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia that
traditionally bankrolled Pakistan. None of them
spoke up on Islamabad’s behalf last week. Meanwhile,
relations with the US have become strained, not least
over Afghanistan.
No surprise, then, that Pakistan has increasingly
looked to China for support. Beijing was one of the
few countries to condemn Modi’s coup. It has a geo-
strategic interest in curbing India’s infl uence. It also
has a territorial stake in Kashmir. But China’s abuses in
Xinjiang, another Muslim majority entity, and its overall
attitude to democracy, self-determination and human
rights make it a problematic partner.
As India steamrollers into a deepening quagmire in
Kashmir, Britain and other western countries must work
to keep Islamabad on side and at peace. A bullish Modi
cannot to be relied on to eschew further provocations.
The weaker and more isolated Pakistan becomes, the
greater the risk it could hit out.Kings Place,
90 York Way,
London N1 9GU
Telephone
020 3353 2000
email editor@
observer.co.ukElectricity
Britain’s blackout
illuminated the
brittle nature of
our infrastructure
N
early a million people
without power; parts of
the rail network crippled;
Newcastle airport
plunged into darkness;
a hospital temporarily
without power. Friday’s power cut caused
chaos across much of Britain’s transport
network , leaving people stranded at
stations for hours and causing traffi c
light failures across parts of the country.
The National Grid has pointed out
that this was caused by a highly unusual
event : two simultaneous power station
failures, one at a gas-fi red power station
in Cambridgeshire, the other at anoffshore wind farm in the North Sea.
It also said the system operated “as
planned” in reaction to the fall in power
frequency, by disconnecting “an isolated
portion of electricity demand”, allowing
power to be restored quickly. A cyber
attack or wind power supply problems
have been ruled out.
We will need to wait for a full technical
investigation to understand what exactly
happened and whether the two generator
failures were connected. But the energy
regulator, Ofgem, is right that this
incident raises immediate and serious
questions about the resilience of the UK’s
energy systems. Why did what experts
say would have amounted to around a
5% decrease in energy capacity for 90 or
so minutes cause so much chaos across
essential infrastructure?
Given that the National Grid said an
isolated portion of electricity demand
was affected , why were hospital power
supplies, traffi c systems and the railways
so affected?
And while a multiple generator failure
may be a rare event, it is far from unheard
of – the last was in 2008. Britain’s
energy network should be able to cope
with a once-in-a-decade event withoutcausing so much potentially dangerous
disruption. Even though the culprit in
this instance was not a cyber attack, it
illustrates just how vulnerable we may be
to a malign attack of this nature.
This should ring alarm bells about
the resilience of British infrastructure
to rare but far from unprecedented
events. Resilience planning requires a
joint effort by industry and government.
But because Whitehall has been so
consumed by Brexit in recent years,
resilience planning appears to have
fallen by the wayside. What other
vulnerabilities are there in the system
that could be exploited by our enemies?
Now we fi nd ourselves in the
extraordinary situation where the
no-deal Brexit that much of Whitehall
is engaged in planning for could cause
a series of self-imposed shocks to vital
services – not just energy, but to food
and medical supplies , to name just a
few – that could make Friday’s power
supply disruption look like a relatively
minor event.
The disruption comes in the context
of serious concerns about the long-term
sustainability of Britain’s energy supply.
As we rightly move away from coal-fi redpower generation, there will need to be
a big increase in nuclear and renewable
capacity in the next 20 years. But the
climate change committee has said that
current government policy simply will
not deliver the additional low-carbon
energy capacity required by 2030.
The government’s policy on nuclear
energy is in a complete mess in the wake
of the hugely expensive subsidy deal
it struck over Hinkley Point, which the
National Audit Offi ce has criticised as
terrible value for money for taxpayers.
An energy white paper was supposed to
have been published to provide some
sorely needed direction over long-term
energy, but has been delayed as a result
of Brexit. If Britain crashes out without
a deal on 31 October, who knows when
the government will have the capacity
needed to ensure the sustainability of our
energy supply?
The power outage should function
as a rude awakening to the brittleness
of core parts of British infrastructure
to cope with events that should not be
debilitating. Is this really a country ready
for the huge strain a no-deal Brexit would
probably place on essential services? It
hardly looks like it.ПОДГОТОВИЛА
ГРУППА"What's News"
VK.COM/WSNWS