The Uri question: by Waqar Gillani in the News on sunday, Oct 2, 2016

September 18. Sunday morning. Four alleged militants storm the Indian army barracks in the town of Uri, further worsening the situation. The deadly attack on Uri army camp ends in the death of at least eighteen Indian soldiers and the attackers, according to the Indian authorities.
The Indian media reports indicate that the attackers spent at least a day in the mountains above the brigade headquarters complex, observing their target with the help of local facilitators.
It is a continuous unrest in Srinagar after the killing of Burhan Wani by the Indian forces. Wani, who was in his early 20s, joined the freedom struggle in response to violence of the Indian forces on Kashmiri people, including Wani’s elder brother who was murdered in front of him.
The attack in Uri town, hardly a few kilometers from the Line of Control (LoC) border between Pakistan and India, has heightened tensions and is straining diplomatic ties between both the countries.
Four heavily armed militants allegedly entered a well-guarded Indian army building while Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was on his way to New York to address United Nations’ annual General Assembly session. India put the blame of this attack on Pakistan.
The Director General Military Operations (DGMO), on both sides of the border, spoke on hotline to exchange views on the incident as per diplomatic rules. Pakistan categorically denies these allegations terming those “baseless” and without any solid proof and admissible evidence.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif extending moral support to the indigenous freedom struggle of Indian Kashmiri Muslims in the UN, hit back saying that the Uri attack is a reaction of Kashmiri freedom fighters against human rights atrocities and unending oppression of the Indian forces.
It is considering blocking Pakistan’s share of water coming from the Kashmir river which India is bound not to block under the internationally moderated agreement of Indus Water Basin Treaty. India also announced it will not participate in the SAARC summit, ultimately managing to postpone it which was scheduled in Islamabad this November. India blames Pakistan for its troubles in Kashmir while Pakistan accuses India for the proxy war in Balochistan.
Following the Uri attack, diplomatic relations between the two countries have become strained. India has further aggravated the situation in the valley in the name of search operations.
“Proper investigation will reveal what the facts are. However, the timing of the attack was intriguing. There are two possibilities: one to turn the human rights violations narrative into Pak-India conflict situation to garner more international attention; and the second to sabotage any chance — even remote — of a thaw between the two countries,” says Raza Rumi, writer and columnist.
He says India’s reaction and public opinion swing was obviously predicted by those who organised it and the recent withdrawal of India from SAARC summit indicates that. “The only chance of Modi visiting Pakistan and meeting PM Sharif has been thwarted. This repeats the vicious cycle of India Pakistan relations being hostage to activities of non-state actors,” he adds.
India claims that the attackers were from the militant organisation Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) and the attack was jointly planned by some militant groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and others. In the ongoing investigations, India has claimed arrest of some facilitators belonging to Pakistani Kashmir and has identified one of the dead attackers as Hafiz Ahmad from Pakistani’s area of Murree hills.
Pakistani defence minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, said the Uri attack on Indian army base was “self-generated” by India. Many experts believe that the attack was conducted by India to gain sympathies and counter criticism from the world in the UN General Assembly session to damage the indigenous freedom struggle of Indian Kashmir blaming it as Pakistan sponsored. While some others think that border crossing is not that easy. They think the attack directly benefits India, diverts freedom struggle to terrorism and might be an action of pro-Indian lobbies.
The expected impact of PM Nawaz Sharif’s New York mission to the UN was obviously affected after the Uri attack for which India blamed Pakistan. This sudden focus on militancy created a negative impact on Pakistan’s efforts to show the world that the people of Kashmir were engaged in a peaceful struggle for their right to self-determination promised to them by the UN Security Council in 1948, according to media reports from New York.
“The attack is to deflect attention from Kashmir and place all dirt at Pakistan, singling it out as terrorism-sponsored, coinciding it with PM Sharif’s UN speech,” says Imtiaz Gul, a security analyst.
Some also see it as a civil military power play in Pakistan in the wake of discussions of extending Pakistani Chief of Army Staff’s (COAS’s) tenure which ends in November. They see Pakistan’s powerful army as the beneficiary to this attack if it has been planned in this background. However, many believe that these are conspiracy theories to politicise the issue and damage the image of the Pakistan army.
“I cannot think of an institution staging something damning like Uri attack just to secure an extension in tenure as army chief and getting the country unnecessary bad name in the process,” adds Gul.
“There have been many incidents like the Uri attack in both the countries and there has been a blame-game. Some of those had links to the rival side too. In some cases, India’s RAW is involved in Pakistan and in some incidents Pakistani intelligence agencies are behind the scene,” says Imtiaz Alam, senior columnist.
He believes “The Uri-attack has definitely damaged the cause of Kashmiri peoples’ struggle for freedom. And also, it seems some dirty elements are involved in this game who do not want improvement in Pak-India relations. People should be aware of these elements.”
Alam says it is quite paradoxical that major states in the region, facing threats from a variety of terrorists, promote terrorism and proxy wars to the benefit of essentially different non-state actors. He believes intentions of reversal of dialogue have pushed the situation into a blind alley.http://tns.thenews.com.pk/uri-question/#.V_CVh_B97IU