The Shetty Saga.

B R Shetty, for most people in the UAE, was the sort of story that people reveled upon. From a salesman to a billionaire over a four decade period; a story of a family business that listed on the London Stock Exchange and a social profile that attracted all the platitudes that one could shower. Then suddenly the rags to riches story got a small dent and before we know it a gaping hole emerged leaving Mr Shetty's net worth seriously depleted. Beyond the erosion of personal wealth is the longer lasting damage to the credibility and image of the persona that was commonly known as "B R".

In so far as a person's individual fortunes or misfortunes go there is little an outsider should comment upon. But this goes beyond the persona of Mr Shetty; his two kingpin companies are listed on the stock exchange and suddenly questions of inappropriate corporate governance and accusations of misleading the public and shareholders have surfaced. The verdict is still not out but the tell tale signs are showing up that indicate that all is not well in the Shetty empire.

Years ago a prominent Saudi family business icon, while speaking at Harvard University, made a point that when family businesses grow and expand into becoming regional or multinational conglomerates the challenges this transition throws out are unique and require a paradigm shift in the thinking of the family business owners. In the Middle East a number of companies owned by individuals grew into very large corporates and while some created the processes of corporate governance similar to large public joint stock companies, not all have been successful at this. Single person business empires have a tendency to attract "yes" men, and anyone not meeting the test of adoring admiration for the 'boss' is cast out. Creating an ethos of debate, discussion and disagreement do not come easy to these companies. Business owners, especially where they own all the shares of the business, also tend to believe that what they want will be done and few would advise them on the proprietary of the matter.

Family owned businesses are generally run in a manner where all key decisions are made by the owner himself. While advice and counsel may be available it is the will of the owner that eventually prevails. In some successful cases, and there are quite a few, the family head has created all the apparatus of governance and indeed in many cases an effective board of directors; the key word being effective. These companies stand out, even though family owned, it seems clear that the patriarch sets the policy and direction and lets the business professionals do the job.

Mr Shetty and the problems he is facing now need deeper analysis, and indeed a greater degree of transparency with regards to the dealings between the two public listed companies and his many other companies which hold their accounts private. At the heart of the problem lies the assertion that he and two other principal shareholders mis-stated their holdings in the companies. In addition, it is stated that a significant portion of the shares where held by banks and lenders for loans to Mr Shetty or his controlled companies.

The first allegation is indeed serious, especially if you have listed you company on a major stock exchange like the LSE. In family run businesses, especially in the past, it was not unusual for key shareholders to hold shares for each other, or indeed not report the changes if they swap shares between them. Once you are a listed company then any holdings have to be correctly reported. The errors do not seem to be a few shares that could have gone unreported and this is the crux of the issue for NMC. The Board of NMC has rightly denied the three key shareholders admittance to the Board meetings given these large discrepancies in their shareholdings. It is in the interest of all three to quickly issue a clarification of the status of their holdings. The auditors of the company should also come clean on how they overlooked such a crucial aspect of compliance to stock exchange rules.

Much has been said in the press about the fact that Mr Shetty has large borrowings against his shares and analogies have been created with Mr Elon Musk, who does also have borrowings against his shares is Tesla. The issue is not that you have borrowed funds against shares, this is normal. The issue is that as key shareholders and a board member these borrowings against shares have to be fully disclosed and the companies books must properly record any liens (which there must be) against the shares. The fact that every one is taken aback that the borrowing could be as high as $1 billion in the case of Mr Shetty is not surprising as it would seem the financial records of the two companies did not disclose this.

While Mr Shetty and Co have engaged various experts to investigate and clear up the air on these issues is a welcome sign. A forensic examination of shareholders register should not be a laborious affair and it would seem apart from the public, the Securities regulators in UK will be eagerly waiting for such a report. Whether what will follow will be a simple sanction against the shareholders or perhaps more punitive and legal actions remains to be seen.


At the core of the whole NMC share debacle lies the report by a company, Muddy Waters, which in its December 17th 2019 report issued wide ranging and serious accusations against NMC Health. The charges included insufficient disclosures on related party transactions, manipulation of the balance sheer and asset purchases at inflated prices. In a peer to peer analysis Muddy Waters concluded that the net margins boasted by NMC Health were, in their words are "too good to be true". The most damaging comment was "we are unsure how deep the rot at NMC goes, but we do not believe that its insiders or financials can be trusted."

While NMC has responded that the accusations are false, the battering in the markets in the backdrop of a respected firm like Muddy Waters comments has caused the damage that has far reaching implications. One of the key shareholders and the Vice Chairman off loaded over $500m of shares to settle debts against the shares (which in fairness he has reported), and while the core business may still have a good story to tell the damage to Mr Shetty is deeper than just NMC.

On the positive side the NMC business side has not seemingly been damaged by this fiasco and even if revenues and asset values are over stated the basic model of treating patients remains intact. This explains why there are rumors of predatory interests to acquire the business, which might be the fair outcome for the customers and employees of the business. However, it would seem rash for any buyer to dip into his wallet just yet. The air has to be cleared over not only the key shareholders but also a deeper probe into the allegations of Muddy Waters about the business itself. After all this whole pandoras box on shareholders only opened up after the Muddy Waters report, which did not question the shareholders but rather the business numbers itself.

In the larger scheme of things the NMC business model, while rattled may plod along, Mr Shetty may be able to restructure his debt and survive the crisis. The damage to his personal reputation will be more difficult to fix and certainly it is in his interests to push for correct disclosures as soon as possible. The longer the specter of wrong doing lingers out there the more damage will happen. The after taste will stay for a while and we can only hope that the way this resolves will restore confidence in the market place.

An unhinged Trump and another four years?

The Democratic impeachment of Donald Trump was destined to fail in large measure due to partisan politics in the US Congress. This was a fore gone conclusion and if the Democrats hoped the impeachment process would dent the credibility of the incumbent US President there was little mileage in that effort. Trumps resonance to his base and the undecided voters is not based on what is goon in human nature but more on the unsaid in decades of US politics. If Gray Hart in 1988 had to bow out of politics for his alleged affairs with women, Donald Trump in 2016 could flick off any political fall out even when his own words showed his misogynist trait because character is no more an issue for the electorate.

Trump's impeachment proceedings clearly highlight probable cause for impeachment, but without more witnesses enough wiggle room was there for Trump and his party to squeeze out of the discomfort of some on the line Republican senators from joining the impeachment camp. The thing about Trump has been that while he has elevated politicians lying to art form, his decisive and at times racial bias have become more the norm than the exception. His die hard supporters rejoice at his remarks against the Mexicans, Muslims and African countries (amongst others) because this is something they would have wanted to say themselves without being called 'politically incorrect'.

On the Democratic party side the impeachment proceedings were too rushed, leaving one to question why more witnesses were not brought before the House Committees; even though some subpoenas to Trump officials were ignored. On the broader political forum there is no denying the Democratic party has continued to be in disarray and the Iowa caucus fiasco only highlights their problems. Senior leadership of the party is lacking, and in general none of the current flock of Presidential hopefuls make one step back and say 'Wow'. The Obama legacy of a strong unified party has been left of the wayside, thanks in part of the Hilary Clinton era of an election run against Trump which lacked planning and intent.

What all this might mean is that a Trump re-election, as unpalatable as that may sound, his win in the 2020 election will not be because of him being the better candidate but because the Democrats are just not organized enough to have a charismatic leader to take on Trump. Much like boxing promoters one can only wish for a Trump versus Obama election fight but sadly that is not to be; even though I do believe Obama would have trounced Trump within the ten rounds. In a sense Michelle Obama against Donald Trump stands a better chance of winning than any of the current aspirants in the Democratic stable. This is not because the current coterie of Democratic candidates are not qualified enough, it just that they are not unqualified enough as Trump to tackle him on his terms; a dirty campaign!

Unless Trump does something more off the wall than he has done so far, and that is not impossible, the chances are that a Trump re-election, albeit with a smaller margin than 2016, is more than likely. A reinvigorated Trump with scale higher in his arrogance, and certainly we have a larger dose of his un Presidential style through the next four years. The impact of the trade wars he started may well come home to roost in his next term and any slow down will hurt the average American more than ever before. Will there be further attempts to impeach him? Highly doubtful unless the Republicans also lose control of the Senate, which is possible. Some Trump supporters may hope that a second term may bring out the better Trump and negate some of the damage he has done to the prestige of the office he occupies. This would only be necessary for the greater good of the Republican party because when it comes to congressional elections and local council politics the Democratic party has managed a better showing; they only seem to fail at the level of the national leadership.

Sadly for the impartial observer the next four years of an unhinged President Trump will be hard to follow. Frequent changes in his team, scandals and the general lack of an ethical bent to the administration will remain the order of the day. On the good side of things it will mean the end of the era of Trump, an era where crudeness, lack of honor and a slide into unhinged tweeting were the hallmarks of the Presidency.




 

A distant view: Trump Impeachment.

Being outside the fray of the daily US political scene has its advantages, the main one being having a distant view without the emotional drama that dictates whether you are pro or anti Trump. It allows one to see the issues without the political parties bias that has become the hallmark of a divided US political diaspora. The Trump impeachment issue is headline news, and the obvious question is whether he will be impeached and removed from office.

There is no denying that the process of impeachment itself has totally unhinged a President who was not entirely stable to begin with. It is often touted that it is his style and straight forwardness that in the hallmark of his behavior. His supporters often say 'he says it like it is', a trait they say that is removed from the political figures in Washington and it endears him to his political base. being straight forward and being vindictive are not the same, being politically savvy and telling lies are the not the same, expecting loyalty and dumping the people who went on a limb for him are opposites. But in the Trump world it does not matter. Its the world according to Trump and no one else.

However, the impeachment process makes it all different because it more than just washing the dirty laundry in public and on television. It could have the consequences of being removed from office. Herein lies the problem as given the US system his impeachment by the House of Representatives will mean then the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans, will then hold a trial to determine if indeed he should be removed from office. Currently there is a slim chance of that even though it would mean seven Republicans in the Senate voting for impeachment.

There is a possibility that Trump quite relishes the idea of the impeachment as he knows he can hold the Republicans in the Senate to use their majority to not remove him from office, while the impeachment battle allows him to rally his base and remain the focus as the only national issue in the 2020 elections. However, a great deal of the impeachment process and its success will depend upon the validity of the arguments. Some Republican Senators are also mindful of the changing mood within their constituencies where in recent elections the Democrats have made inroads. Also the Democratic voters who were swayed to the Trump camp in 2016 are the ones suffering most from Trumps trade wars and GOP Senators are going to need something persuasive enough to voter against Trump in the Senate.

There is ample evidence emerging through the impeachment process that President Trump did indeed commit impeachable offenses. It must be remembered that since President Reagan almost every US President has had some impeachment resolution table against him in the House of Representatives, and most of them have faltered or fallen by the wayside. This impeachment resolution certainly has the legs to make it to the Senate. While one may argue that the Democrats may be rushing things, which is a cause for concern, eventually it is in the Senate that the trial will reveal the depth of the allegations.

It is unlikely that once the impeachment trial is in the Senate that the GOP will be able to pressure Trump into either stepping down or at least stepping down from a re-election bid in 2020. The outcome in the Senate will mostly likely be a win for Trump, given the slim majority the GOP has, but the extent of the damage it will do to him in the 2020 election will depend on the weight of the evidence that will come out at the trial stage. One can argue that there were other more stronger arguments for impeachment, but this one has the more credible witnesses and based on the testimony thus far on judicial principles Trumps goose is cooked. However, in the Senate no matter who strong the legal arguments to remove him from office the matter will most likely be decided on political considerations; i.e party lines.

For the Democrats the aim might well be expose Trump and his wrong doing in the eyes of the public to such an extent that even if they don't succeed in the Senate they may well have damaged him in the 2020 elections.  This is only a partially viable strategy as his political base does not care what Trumps personal character or conduct is, and the swing voters may well be influenced by the economy more than by Trump asking political favors from foreign leaders. While the economy in some sectors has worked to Trumps advantage, i.e job numbers, the trade war has begun to take its toll in the largely rural vote bank which was Trumps election backbone.

On a more theoretical level one has to ask to what extent will Trumps supporters go to excuse him his shortcomings or wrong doing? Was he right in saying that he could shoot someone on Times Square and his supporters would still vote for him? He has politically shot many of his former supporters and his political base did not seem to balk. He has demeaned the stature of the Oval Office and all it stands for to petting tirades on Twitter and instead of putting people off, his supporters have cheered him on. Perhaps the political psyche of US politics was always divisive and politicians were mean little souls pretending to be nice and all that Trump has done is bring that reality to the forefront.

The impeachment process in this respect will only give up the substance to what we all knew that the man was not fit of the office he holds. Whether that opinion is not substantiated by impeachable acts will resonate in the minds of people according to where people stand on the scale of USA's divide political platform. His supporters could not care less, the vast middle class swing voters may well have got fed up with the politics anyways to care. In the end it is unlikely that the impeachment process will succeed in the Senate and in the end the trial of Donald J Trump will be at the elections of 2020.

Third Umpire: Misbah and the cult of hope.

There is a propensity within Pakistan cricket, administrators, players and fans alike, to always hinge the outcome of a game upon that one indispensable ingredient called 'hope'. Ever since Javed Miandad hit the last ball six against India in 1986 at Sharjah, the element of hope became an integral part of Pakistan's cricket psyche. We hoped the Akmal brothers will come through, and time after time at crucial moments they failed us. We hoped in most games that one of the many players who had under performed would suddenly become the Javed Miandad of the moment.

Yes there were periods where planning and developing a scientific approach to each game took front stage, but when the planning failed, be if better opposition or poor execution of the game plan we gravitated back to the 'hope'. At times players seem to have that belief that their cameo can save the game and they would abolish the game plan and go for that one slog that will change their fortunes more than that of Pakistan cricket.

The current tour of Australia suffers from two major set backs. A coach like Misbah who is steeped in being defensive, and the continuation of relying more on hope than planning. Yes Misbah has the distinction of being a successful test captain, compared to most others from Pakistan, but one cannot dispute that an aggressive strategy and mind set are not his forte. Most of the games he won were not from the implementation of a game plan but more from the individual brilliance of some of the players. Usually when two or three players clicked Misbah, as captain got the credit.

Hope, on the other hand, continues to be an integral part of the dressing room accessories that the Pakistan team carries in its kit bag. Sadly this cocktail has often been mixed with liberal doses of favoritism and inexplicable exclusions or inclusions of players that do not fit into any rationale of selection policy; like the inclusion of the tall Irfan on this tour of Australia. Someone must have said the Aussie pitches have a good deal of bounce and we have Irfan who is 7 foot 1 inch tall lets include him, forgetting that he is 37 years old, with highly questionable fielding and even more questionable fitness!

Well there was the hope that he would rattle the likes of Warner, and Steve Smith; none of that happened and much more capable bowlers were sidelined because someone, perhaps Misbah, introduced the element of hope and of course no one in the Pakistan selectors argues with hope. After all we have been hoping that Fakhar Zamman will find form, even though after a dozen consecutive failures someone would have woken up and said this is simply not working. We continue with the hope that Haris Sohail, who can be effective in the shorter format will somehow become a test player of class.

Yes we have reorganized Pakistan cricket, as indeed Imran Khan promised he would, and while the results of this may take time to show up, I personally do not believe replacing corporate owned teams by provincial teams (like in England as Australia) is the sole answer. We need to build a base to the game and the base is built at the school level. Create and effective school cricket system and the results will show in a few years. Take the example of New Zealand rugby. Why is it such a formidable force for over 50 years? Because the school rugby system in New Zealand is strong, well supported and encouraged. Any All Black players will proudly speak of his heritage of school rugby.  Pakistan cricket needs to concentrate on long term plans not just a quick fix glued together by hope.

Imran's Challenge of Governance.

Imran Khan, the Pakistan Prime Minister's,  integrity and sincerity towards making his country a better place economically, socially and in the eyes of the world is never in dispute. He has a clean record in terms of financial ethics and indeed what appeals to his many supporters, especially the younger generation is this sense of values and mission. Countries, however, cannot be run alone on intentions. Intentions have been be backed by actions and a sense of implementation which requires many aspect of the process and people to come together to give a result oriented system.

Imran, in my opinion has, in his zeal, taken on too much on his agenda of change, and this ever expanding menu creates its own challenges on delivery. Added to that has been a regional political scenario, especially Kashmir, which has created its own priority. In fairness Pakistan has never been an easy country to govern and added to years of economic mismanagement the task on the shoulders of Imran is far to heavy to carry in the current package of things he wants to tackle.

Yes education, health, social order, and ending corruption are all vital parts of the Imran agenda and need to be tackled. However, into this melee has been the ongoing investigations into corruption by former political leaders, most of who happen to be from the opposition parties, give a nasty twist to the perception of the process. Yes the accountability process is carried out by a supposedly independent government body and the higher courts in Pakistan have shown a remarkable independence from the government yet one would like to see government ministers and Imran himself not commenting on the cases against his political foes. The moment he or his ministers make a statement about the cases against former President Zardari or former Prime Minister Sharif, it erodes the independence of the accountability process.

Pakistan's democracy, which has had a stunted growth with interruptions of military rule, is far from mature. When a right wing religious party (JUI F) which fared abysmally in not only the last election but ever election in Pakistan, suddenly calls for a march on Islamabad and demands Imran Khan resign it harkens to the 1970's when street power was considered a means of political change. Indeed Imran Khan himself also employed the same tactics against the Sharif government, though in fairness he did not get the resignation he may have wanted, it did elevate him in political stature within the country. The JUIF ascertain that Imran is a 'selected' prime minister rather than elected one is a silly street slogan considering that while some merit will always be in the allegation of rigging in Pakistan elections, few would accept that the election that brought Imran to power was rigged to the point of him being considered 'selected'.

So what is the governance that should be expected of Imran Khan's government. My sincere opinion is that his first and foremost priority has to be the economy. He needs some seriously bright people to be heading up the economic policy formulation and implementation team. At the same time seeing things from abroad the oversight that some government agencies have been given into scrutinizing financial transactions even for foreign investments (individuals) needs to be toned down. Potential investors from abroad, including overseas Pakistanis are prone to ask that even if no more than normal questions are asked on their investments today, some years down the road who knows if the scrutiny will be more broad based and perhaps political too.

Creating an investment atmosphere is more than just announcing projects. In involves crucial confidence building steps, and for Pakistan shifting the economy towards and export oriented economy is a necessity given that it would boost foreign exchange reserves. Export orientation has to be towards value added goods, and for this base industrial sector incentives have to be put in place. Aligning the financial sector to boost not only exports but provide important financial support to export based industries is the need of the hour.

Imran's government has taken steps to tighten its spending and rationalize the government workforce. However these steps are just the beginning and to create a lighter more efficient government machinery also require higher levels of competence and expertise. Job creation has somehow been projected in Pakistan as the job of the government in power. In reality the government must create the conditions for job creation in the private sector and this means a rethink of the stimulus package that is needed for the private sector.

Pakistan has been plagued by what is known as 'circular debt' and its concerns years of mismanagement of the electricity sector in the country. Power theft and non payment of bills by a large segment of the population has meant that an endemic crisis in financing the power sector has resulted in circular debt which is simply rolled over with interest each year. There has to be reform of this sector and something bold has to be done about it. It weighs down the financial sector and also creates a very inefficient power supply system that cannot sustain itself in the long run.

Imran Khan's government must clearly understand that all the posturing in the public eye has its own place in terms of garnering support of their agenda. However, if they do not deliver on the economy then at the end of the day everything else is a wasted effort. I do believe that the agenda of reform has to be pared down to manageable levels and the priority on the economy should be foremost. Then within the economic plan various measures need to be taken to reform the system. Some contentious issues like sales tax and broadening the tax base, while very laudable, need to be implemented through a dialogue with the business community and to consider them the long term stakeholders of the benefits from reforms. Increasing taxes on the people who already pay the tax is not a solution as much as the IMF would prefer it, the solution is to broaden the tax base and for this the business community who pay taxes would certainly not object.

The passion for reform and transforming Pakistan has to be spearheaded by economic change and the social welfare that flows of this economic change is what would benefit the population at large. The government has to also seek to work in partnership with the business community rather than have a adversarial posture towards them. Once the economy starts to head in the right direction then the broader social agenda of the Khan government can be seen and will be more palatable to the people on the back of economic well being. The slogan has to be 'economy first'.

Brexit: A view from afar.

Brexit (or British Exit) has been the focal point of any discussion not only in the UK and Europe but elsewhere. In a sense, other than the seriously politically minded within us, most people are fed up with the whole discussion about Brexit. This is precisely what is wrong with the way our British friends are dealing with the Brexit issue. Boris Johnson, the British PM, seems to have stepped a few strides closer to the exit from the European Union, and even though there is no certainty that Parliament will go with the deal he has brokered, there is considerable merit in the thought that being tired of this issue the MP's who could sway this vote might just cave in.

Boris Johnson the other day commented that he is determined to get the deal done as that is what the majority of the voters wanted. He could not ignore, he said, the wishes of this majority and called it the will of the people. Most people focus on the 'will of the people' which was 17.4 million who voted to leave the EU, however, 16.2 million voted to remain in the European Union, and in all this 'will of the people' argument we forget the large segment who wanted to stay. It therefore makes sense that whatever deal is finally done should go to the people of the UK for final say in a referendum.

One understands the entire emotional appeal of leaving the EU and British people having their say in their own affairs. Yes in a sense no one likes to be told what to do within their own country. However there always was an alternative to leaving the EU and could have been moving the EU to roll back some of the powers that Brussels (the EU head quarters are there) have over domestic policies of member states. While a longer path to achieve this it would have been a less painful path for the British people.

Beyond the emotional hype of regained independence from Britain, the economic cost of leaving the EU has never really been put to the average British person. Just during the leaving process, (mind you the divorce has not been done) the inflationary pressures of Brexit have caused an average increase of expenses to each household in the UK of approximately £ 404 per annum.

In the long terms UK's GDP will slow down from between 1.2% to 2.9% (depending on the final divorce terms), unemployment is expected to rise by 1.9% and net foreign investments into British Industry will shrink. Already British export industries have moved some of their manufacturing jobs to Europe to avoid the new tariffs that would affect them post Brexit. In the same sequence European industries have cut back investments and job which were within the UK causing considerable strains to British industrial production and jobs.

The argument that the UK will benefit from new deals with USA and the Commonwealth countries is not based on any economic reasoning. The US remains, under President Trump, a highly mercurial and temperamental trading partner and the most of the Commonwealth nations have very favorable trading terms from China and Japan, which Britain, in its current state cannot match. some have suggested that since UK was a net contributor to the EU, that money saved will augment the effects of leaving the EU. Yes indeed the UK was a net contributor to the EU by about £ 9 billion a year. However when accounting for over all effect of jobs and investments in UK created by being in the EU  one can be sure that this £9 billion would have been more than offset by the job creation and investments and exports into the EU.

Brexit was sold to the UK people as an emotional deal, and the economic realities of its effects were glossed over to the point of suggesting that the average British citizen will be better off. NO free borders, hence less foreigners taking the jobs, not subsidizing the EU meaning more funds to the British people etc etc. The realities are that, as an example, many of the jobs that lower paid Polish workers were taking up in Britain are usually not taken by British people. The pros and cons of such policies will never be crystal clear but after decades of integration into system disengagement is not going to  be painless. The British economy will shrink and with it jobs and the common man will feel the pinch. EU workers came to Britain because the economy was doing well and expanding, much of this from being in the EU. Take the financial sector, where perhaps British employees will be hit the hardest as major financial institutions will find being in London is no more beneficial in a post Brexit environment.

The skeptics would argue that losing 10,000 jobs in the banking sector cannot do much harm but this is just one important segment. We must consider this is a high salaried sector so the knock on effect into the consumer spending side is larger than just 10,000 jobs. These higher salaried people spend more, buy houses, send kids to school, and of course pay taxes. So the trickle effect into the economy would be far greater than just losing 10,000 jobs to Europe. This story repeats itself into other sectors of the British economy and gradually the pinch of Brexit will be felt across a wider cross section of British society than we care to admit today.

In all honesty rather than just focusing in the people who wanted to leave the EU one should consider that a great deal has changed since the 2016 referendum and more realities have come to show that while the emotional euphoria of leaving EU is all fine, the economic pinch is going to be much worse. It would be appropriate therefore to have a new referendum on the issue of leaving the EU.

India and Dissent in Kashmir.

The Indian government and the right wing nationalist media in India has taken pains to pretend that all is well in Kashmir. Indeed in some parts of Indian administered Kashmir, where Hindus are a majority or at par with the Muslim population things seem to have a semblance of relative calm. However, the majority of Indian Kashmir is seething with dissent over India revoking the special status of the state. This dissent would normally show up in street protests but with curfews and internet and phone lockdown it would seem such protests cannot be organized with ease.

Indian military has been stating that 'terrorists' from across the border, i.e. from Pakistan, are trying to infiltrate across the Line of Control to cause trouble. Pakistan for its account has been urging the Kashmiris on its side and their Afghan and Pakistani sympathizers not to cross the border for fear that such a move would play into India's hands of blaming foreigners for its troubles in Kashmir. Given the emotion on the issue it will be a tough ask for Pakistan to contain the many on its side who want to go and fight for the Kashmiris.

In as much as there has been much attention on the organized militant groups within Pakistan these have been the focus of pressure from Pakistan to rein in their actions. What must worry India is really the disorganized tribal groups, some from Afghanistan, who are more difficult to control. As the study of the Afghan war against the Soviet Union shows that one of the reasons the Mujahideen were so successful was because they were a disorganized force without a clear and hefty command and control structure. Local leaders, usually the tribal chiefs, were free to decide on tactics and timing of attacks and selection of targets. While the Mujahideen may have lacked a coercive strategy to fighting the Soviets, it was precisely this element which always kept the element of surprise on their side and nearly impossible to defeat and disband such Mujahideen forces.

For Indian forces, to ignore that there is no element of armed resistance to their administration of Kashmir is naive. One can argue that who supports them and to what extent, but if the Afghan Mujahideen model of fighting is adopted by these Indian Kashmiri groups then history tells us that it will be virtually impossible for the Indian forces to defeat them. This is why so long as the Indian narrative insists that any armed resistance is not only foreign inspired but foreigners themselves are involved in it, (Pakistanis in their eyes) then they feel they have the moral advantage to carry out whatever tactics the Indian forces use and the extent of the force they use.

Numerous independent sources and Indian Kashmiri leaders have stated empathically that there have been human rights violations in Kashmir. Indian investigations, primarily by the army itself, have not been substantive or independent enough to lend any credibility to such show of transparency. Whenever New Delhi has been questioned about its human rights track record in Kashmir it has been quick to point out others, like Pakistan, on their human rights record. This is very Trumpian in approach as it seems pointing a finger is the best defense. The question is simply Indian human rights record especially in Kashmir and nothing else.

While New Delhi is eager to show it is restoring telephone and internet services in Jammu and Kashmir, albeit it after a 72 day black out, there is no denying that it will monitor the situation and any signs of public protests might well lead to another black out. Kashmiris may well be disheartened by the lack of immediate support on the international stage, but slowly but surely more voices from the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union and even within India are speaking out against India's handling of the situation. While its response has been that its a domestic matter, Indian decision makers can surely not assume that its a position the world will accept especially if India fails to bring calm to the Kashmir valley.

Pakistan could take the moral high ground and suggest a plebiscite (as per the UN Security Council resolutions of past decades) but add the option for Kashmiris to choose independence rather than only the choice of joining India or Pakistan! It is highly unlikely that India would accept such a proposal given it current stance but most certainly such a move would give the Kashmiri movement an impetus that would color the voice of dissent to one of true freedom.

We will see street agitation increase over the next few months, prior to the harsh winter setting in, and one must remember in the words of Martin Luther King 'the riot is the language of the unheard.' By locking up the Kashmiri leadership, even those who have worked within the concept of Indian Kashmir being a part of the Indian Union, the is no voice that can be heard. In this vacuum the direction of street protests without a leadership can turn ugly. Reason will surrender to passion and restraint will become absent in the face of violent blow back from the Indian armed forces.

I have a fair number of Indian friends and I ask them only one question "If the people of Indian Kashmir really are happy with this decision as the Modi government tells us then why do you need a lockdown and 900,000 armed personnel in Kashmir?' Their usual answer is to deal with terrorist threats. Fair enough, but I have always believed no terrorist even from abroad can operate in a country without some local support and encouragement. Secondly the nature of a terror threat is not mitigated by curfews and lockdowns and roadblocks, they choose their timing and place of attack.

I do believe that while support and encouragement from abroad may have been there for these militant groups, (much like India has supported such groups operating in its neighbors territory) the Kashmir dissent is home grown and for him to move from throwing stones to lobbing grenades is decided by how the Indian armed forces treat the people of Kashmir.