The genesis and extent of the problem that the Indian Army faced in its quest to find the best man for the best job, at its higher ranks needs to be understood. The Indian Army is a command- oriented Army with the necessity of all officers to perform in command or deemed command appointments in order to be eligible for promotion at every stage.

The Army & MoD need to reassess the promotion policy for senior officers. The command orientation has to make way for a system where an equally challenging staff tenure are given the same importance & weightage.

It is rare to find an analysis of the Army’s promotion policy related to senior ranks although the policy on junior select ranks has been flogged enough in the last two years as a consequence of a legal case. A recent opinion piece in The Tribune tempted us to offer a little contextual updated explanation to the background superbly explained by Lt Gen OP Kaushik (retd).In 1986, General K Sundarji introduced the promotion policy of Command and Staff and Staff streams for promotion from Brigadier to Maj Gen upwards. Ostensibly, it was to enable the more accomplished rise a little faster by entering the Command and Staff Stream and giving the slightly less endowed a chance to gain one promotion in the Staff stream which meant they would not be considered for further promotion at all. The Sundarji policy was shelved in 1992 as it created considerable turbulence in the absence of any credible tools to help the promotion board allocate streams to officers. The compulsions that led to its reintroduction in 2009 have not been adequately explained and are elaborated below. It also adopted the Quantified Selection System which gave the required accurate inputs for merit-based selection for the two streams.The reader must understand the genesis and the extent of the problem that the Indian Army faced in selecting the best man for the best job, at its higher ranks. All officers must perform in command or deemed command appointments in order to be eligible for promotion at every stage. This assumes much greater importance in the higher ranks. Secondly, slippages occurred in the vacancy-based promotion system of 1997 despite accurate calculation of vacancies. To add to the woes, all post-1974 batch senior officers were university graduates adding a year to their age. As problems in vacancy management accentuated, the number of eligible General Officers reduced, thus rendering some outstanding officers ineligible.The Ajay Vikram Singh Committee (AVSC) cadre review threw up additional vacancies for 20 Lt Gens and 75 Maj Gens to be gradually absorbed from 2005 onwards. But there are 14 Corps (Lt Gen) and 45 divisions (Maj Gen) commanded by General Cadre officers. This means not more than seven officers for Lt Gen and 22 officers for Maj Gen from each calendar batch can hold commands for the recommended two-year tenure. However, with additional AVSC vacancies (all on Staff), for each batch there are 16-17 vacancies for Lt Gen and almost 45-50 vacancies for Maj Gen. In a command-oriented Army, all the corps and divisions will have commanders for less than six-month tenures to accommodate the entire batch. Thus a reasonable solution was to keep the Corps Commander’s tenure at 12 months and of Division Commanders, 18 months; still less than desirable. To execute this not more than 14 Lt Gens should become Corps Commanders and approximately 33 Maj Gens should become Division Commanders to maintain the sanctity of tenures and also vacate command appointments for subsequent batches. The balance (about 20 General Officers) cleared for promotion has to be promoted only in the Staff stream. This would not have caused so much of heartburn that necessitated a “Staff Only” Maj Gen approaching the AFT, but the fact that he could never aspire to become a Lt Gen, even within that stream is a flaw. One of AVSC’s aims — to reduce the age profile of commanders — has not been achieved in the ranks of General Officers. The implementation of AVSC provided personal satisfaction due to increased approvals for promotion but did not help the organisation in the absence of commensurate vacancies in deputations. The “peel factor”, on which the Committee based its recommendations, never got implemented. Coupled with the laid-down residual tenure as Army and Corps Commanders, this resulted in and still results in many outstanding senior officers being ineligible for command due to their higher age profile.The Army wants to revert to the single-stream system so that all General Cadre officers are eligible for Command and Staff. However, it has not clarified how it intends to manage viable tenures in command of Corps and Divisions while promoting all for Command and Staff who will have to necessarily be squeezed through the command funnel.The solutions though limited, are not hard to find. First, the Command orientation has to make way for a system where an equally challenging Staff tenure (Army to identify appointments) are given the same importance and weightage. In the single stream, some selected ones may Command for viable tenures and others perform viable Staff tenures with all being eligible for promotion. Alternatively, the two streams may continue with all Maj Gens on Staff stream eligible for promotion to Lt Gen (Staff only) with earmarked pro rata vacancies.The Army also wants a lower cap in the percentage of approval for both ranks to gradually reduce the age profile. Once that is achieved all approved officers will be eligible to command Corps and Field Armies. Its impact will be the feasibility of having a Selection Board for approval of Lt Gens as Field Army Commanders, which is a crying need. It is ironical that we place a very high premium on command at all levels, the most important of them all, the selection of the Field Army Commanders is still based upon the date of birth. The latest AFT judgment clearly states that the present policy violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Army and the Ministry of Defence have to relook this important policy for promotion to the General Officer ranks. It would be fair to the officers and lead to greater satisfaction and would also benefit the nation as it would throw up the best of the best to lead its field armies into war.The writers have extensive experience in handling complex personnel policy-related issues of the Army

Every claim of “liberation” these days is taken with a generous dose of salt ever since US President George Bush, decked up in a flying suit, announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq 14 years ago. It is the same with Mosul. If the retaking of Mosul is such a seminal event that the Iraqi PM personally arrived to congratulate the commanders, then can the world hope to end the spectre of unmitigated violence against civilians? The short answer is no. At this point, at least six battles are under way in a vast battlefield that has opened up from North Africa to West Asia after the destablisation or overthrow of several largely secular but anti-US regimes.The recapture of one or two cities will not make much of a difference now that the genie is out of the bottle. Besides the ISIS, a bewildering array of militant organisations is also in the fray, frequently at cross purposes with each other because each is backed by nations with conflicting strategic goals. And now that several nations have sunk their teeth into the real estate of what was once Iraq and Syria (besides Libya), they are unlikely to back off without cutting a beneficial deal for themselves. The only saving grace is that the reversal of the ISIS’ run of victories will dissuade many susceptible youngsters from other countries trying to lend their shoulder to the establishment of a so-called Islamic caliphate.The ISIS is not down and out. It has tended to morph elsewhere such as in Afghanistan despite suffering debilitating reverses in its strongholds. This ability of the ISIS to survive lends to the suspicion that despite public disclaimers, countries keep propping up militant organisations as proxies to advance their interests. In areas such as Mosul, where there was complete unanimity on clearing out the ISIS, the tougher task of restoring civilisation from rubble still remains. The locals will inevitably benchmark the new regime against the rule of the ISIS. Unless these countries join hands to provide decent governance, the ISIS will continue to tempt all those radicalised on social media by ideologues of the Takfiri\Wahabi ideology.

MAJ GEN SATBIR SINGH MUST STOP FOOLING EX-SERVICEMEN FOR HIS OWN VESTED INTEREST—-PART-II

BRIEFING OF EX-SERVICE FOR PUNJAB GOVT GOG SCHEME BY MAJ GEN SPS GREWAL AT NAWANSHAHR 07 JUL 2017

MISSION ISRAEL: INDIA’S NEW STRATEGY EVOLVINGBY LT GEN SYED ATA HASNAIN

GOVT SPEEDS UP PROCESS TO PROCURE 1.85 LAKH RIFLES

ARMY CANTT CENTRE HOSTS PLANTATION DRIVES

DEFENCE MINISTRY PROBE NAMES 2 FORMER ARMY CHIEFS IN ADARSH SCAM

OUTREACH THAT ESCAPED SCRUTINY BY LT GEN SYED ATA HASNAIN

SIKKIM STANDOFF: ARMY READY FOR LONG HAUL IN DOKA LA SOLDIERS PITCH TENTS, STOCK UP SUPPLIES

ON BURHAN DEATH ANNIV, ARMY HOLDS MATCH IN HIS HOME DIST

JAMMU KASHMIR SEMBLANCE OF NORMALCY IN KASHMIR AS RESTRICTIONS EASEINTERNET RESTORED; BANIHAL-BARAMULLA RAIL SERVICE RESUMES

ARMY BACK IN VIOLENCE-HIT DARJEELING

WEAPONS NOT FOR SHOWING OFF, BUT SELF-DEFENCE: DELHI HC

CHINA WALL: INDIA LOOKS FOR ANOTHER NSG ROUTE TRYING TO JOIN EXPORT CONTROL REGIMES, WOO HOSTILE NATIONS

QUESTION FOR MAJ GEN SATBIR SINGH TO BE  ANSWERED  TO ALL EX-SERVICEMEN OF THE NATION: A LIFE TIME QUESTIONS  BY COL ANIL KAUL Vrc

Now that the court has declared the 2014 General Body (GB) as defunct. I write as a life time member of IESM . The following questions need answering. 

With the 2012 GB in place as per court order: –

1. Who has authorised continuation of protest at JM?.

2 Who has authorised the daily expenditure of approx Rs 12K for JM?

3. Where is this money coming from? 
4. Are IESM Funds being used? If so on what authority?
5. Who are the so called protesters that hang around for free lunches?.
6. Have any of the daily letters written by Gen Satbir Singh  got any response ?
7. Are stores used at JM paid for by IESM funds being further hired out? If so to whom and with what authority?
8. What is the amount of daily payment to hired protestors and RHS participants, besides free breakfast and lunch courtesy Gurdwara Sahib?
9. Is UFESM (JM) registered?.
10. If not how are funds being collected in its name ?

An early reply will be appreciated from 

Col Anil Kaul

COMMENTS

The above Question Bank sent by Col Anil Kaul Vrc, who had put his heart and soul for OROP Agitation and was the Media Coordinator of the Collected UFEM (intially) when all Organisation of ESM of the Nation supported the Protest is deeply hurt by present situated and  Scenario created by Maj Gen Satbir Singh for his personal Interested and to remain  in Lime Light.

2. The UFEM was formed with Lt Gen Balbir Singh Yadav ,Chairman IESL, Lt Gen Raj Kadiyan, Chairman IESM  and Major Gen Satbir Singh Vice Chairman IESM all as Advisers to the struggle along with Brig Kartar Singh , Vice Chairman IESL  and all state Presidents of IESL along with support from Sanjha Morcha.

3. The UFESM was fragmented by Maj Gen Satbir as he never wanted to give detailed of Donations received in Lakhs /Day from ESM, and he used to carry all donation in form of Cheques/Cash to his home at end of the day,  The other manipulators and supporters were VK Gandhi and Wg Cdr CK Sharma, who were always at collection table along with Lt Pandey. 

4.  However the UFEM was got Registered by fragmented ESM with Col Charanjit Singh As president, Col Dinesh Nain  as Secy Gen and other officer barriers and the first meeting of the registered UFESM was held in Delhi. But Maj Gen Satbir continued to write as Advsior as false Projection of the dissolved UFESM and later he named himself as Chairman of UFESM(JM) , just to keep the memento alive and keep collecting the donations.

First Meeting of UFESM(Regd) . Col Charanjit Khera(President) along with Lt Gen Raj Kadiyan and Brig Manjit Singh and others.

5 IESL was the first to withdraw because of non existence of transparency in donation received  followed by Sanjha Morcha and other Organisation after Maj Gen Satbir Lost his credibility of not being transparent and honest in his dealings for the cause of OROP, which he is not till date.

6. Now the sate is such that Govt had closed its doors for any type discussions with Maj Gen Satbir Singh. He is sailing in the same boat when Ex-Defence Minister Anthney did not want to see his face and he did not allow him for 9 years and now the Present govt Def Ministers Mr Parrikkar and Now Arun Jately  including PM dont want to meet him any cost, even Capt Amarinder Singh Prior to Punjab elections did not want to meet him(Story in Part-III Exposure) .

7. If Satbir is so active and fighting for the OROP at Jantar Mantar with his Paid and hired Protesters of his security Firm than why all like thinking Generals,Brigadiers and all ranks have left him to defend himself and his acts.

8 He was never a Chairman of IESM or UFESM or any other Organisation  as he claims and writes his designation . So What can be concluded that he has lost trust of ESM Masses which he is trying to win by distribution of Cash to make him win the IESM Elections by hook and crook( Details in Part-IV exposure). There is no chaiman in the UFESM nor there was only President.

9 Confirmed that Maj Gen Satbir is fooling ESM of the Nation for his own vested Interest other than OROP.He has lost his face to speak to RM or PM. Today ESM are suffering and loosing their respectability because of Satbir own self Portrait  in the eyes of the Nation.

The Following will be covered subsequently in next Parts.

1. He is provoking ESM of Punjab against Capt Amarinder and winning ESM favour by distribution of booty and wants to Split IESL.
2.  Why he backed out to Join Anna Hazre.
3.  Elections of IESM as per Registrar of Company order.
4.  Fate  of deposited Medals
5.  Least concern for welfare of ESM/Widows or even Martyrs .
6. Funds embezzlement of Maj Gen Satbir with New account opening.
7.  Comments/reactions received from Veterans will be uploaded on Daily Basis
8.  Jantar Mantar Struggle is no more OROP struggle  but Political Struggle of Maj Gen SAtbir Singh

Col Charanjit Singh Khera

Ex-Media Adviser of UFESM ( Initial)

Jantar Mantar

The GOG  ( Gurdians of Goverance)  OR Khushali De Rakhe Scheme of Punjab Govt is going to be launched in the month of Aug 2017. The Ex-Servicemen will act as Eyes and Ears to the Capt Amarinder Singh ,CM Punjab.

The  ESM once selected will be provided with training about their Role as GOG at Distt Levels ,however trainers will be trained at MGSIPAP ( Mahatam Gandhi State Institute for Public Administration) mostly Officer Cadre . The GOG will be functioning as follows

(a) State Level Cell supervised by a Brig Rank Officer 

(b) Distt Level to be supervised by Col/Lt Col/Maj

(c) Tehsil Level to be Supervised by Col/Lt Col/Maj.

(b) Village Level- One selected ESM from Each village.

The GOG will not function under control of Constituency MLA bu twill be Independent and will function in close coordination of  SDM/DC/CM. 

ESM BRIEFING AT NAWANSHAHR 07 JUL 2017  FEW PICTURES

The meeting was organised by Col Chuhar Singh(Retd)

Col Chuhar Singh  Introductory briefing to the ESM Gathering .

Maj Gen SPS Grewal briefing ESM about GOG

After the 1962 war with China, the Nelong valley was declared a sensitive area by the Ministry of Home Affairs. file photo

Neena Sharma

Tribune News Service

Dehradun, July 5

Foreign tourists will now be able to take a night halt in Uttarkashi’s Harsil and even travel up to the Nelong valley as the Ministry of Home affairs has declared Harsil free from requirement of inner line permits for foreigners and for the first time opened the Nelong valley for both domestic and foreign tourists through a permit.After the 1962 war with China, both Harsil and Nelong valley were declared sensitive areas by the Ministry of Home Affairs.Harsil was off the radar of foreign tourists as they required permits and could not stay there overnight. But the domestic tourists did not require inner line permits to do so.The picturesque Nelong valley was completely out of bounds for both foreign and domestic tourists. Now, both foreign and local tourists will be allowed to visit the valley with permissions for a day.“On June 19 this year, the Ministry of Home affairs issued a notification declaring Harsil free of requirement of inner line permit for foreign tourists and also opened up the Nelong valley for tourists by giving permission for a single-window system. This will boost tourism in the state,” said Satpal Maharaj, state Tourism Minister.The notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs says, “It has been decided to shift the notified protected area and to lift the inner line permit from Harsil town towards the border by 50 m to facilitate the stay of foreign/domestic tourists.”However, the district administration will have to take the consent of military authorities for allowing tourists.“The tourists will no longer have to take multiple permissions to visit the Nelong valley as a single-window system will be set up for them,” said Lokender Bisht, a resident of Uttarkashi, who launched the initiative.In May 2016, he, along with local residents, petitioned the Uttarakhand Governor KK Paul to take up the matter and finally, the state government moved the files to the Ministry of Home Affairs.“In June 2016, we also took up the matter with Central ministers in New Delhi and finally, the notification was issued this year,” said Bisht. The lifting of the inner line in Harsil is likely to give a huge boost to tourism and also open up job avenues for the local residents.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Saturday upheld the minimum age criterion of 17 years prescribed for taking the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to MBBS/BDS courses. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain ruled that taking the test…without fulfilling the age criteria would only amount to exhausting of a chance….

The Court was hearing a Petition filed by a minor, Kuldeep Singh Malik, through his father Ranbir Singh Malik. The Petitioner was supposed to complete 17 years of age in February, 2018, and had challenged an eligibility criterion which prescribed tha…
The Court, however, noted that the Petitioner’s contentions were “fallacious” as a minimum age limit of 17 years is prescribed under Regulation 4(1) of the Medical Council of India Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, as framed in  accordance with Section 33 of the Act. It further noted that the vires of Regulation 4(1) has already been tested and upheld in the case of Ankit Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, 2016 AIR (Allahabad) 126….

Moreover, the Petitioner had, during the proceedings, been allowed to fill the online/manual application for NEET-2017 (held on May 7), subject to the outcome of the Petition. He had now pleaded to withdraw the Petition, and avail three chances to o appear in NEET. The chance availed by the Petitioner, under the court order, may not be counted, he had demanded. The Court, however, refused to allow this, and observed, “The contention of the petitioner is totally fallacious… there is no merit  in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. It is also ordered that since one chance, under the order of this court, by misrepresenting the facts has already been availed by the petitioner, he can avail two chances more…of the first attempt need not be declared because he was underage.”…

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/punjab-haryana-hc-upholds-minimum-age-limit-17-years-neet/#.WVGqFNx4LXg.whatsappi…

LS ex-Speaker Meira Kumar with Congress chief Sonia Gandhi. file

Aditi Tandon

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, June 23

Sudden turn of events over the past week have again brought Congress veteran Meira Kumar face to face with destiny. It’s familiar territory for her though.On June 3, 2009, Kumar was unanimously elected the first woman Speaker of the Lok Sabha. This June, she has emerged the Opposition’s unanimous choice to contest the July 17 presidential election. This may not have been the case had the BJP nominee not been a Dalit. Consciously avoiding the caste reference, Kumar today kept her reaction to the nomination guarded.“I express my gratitude to 17 Opposition parties which have selected me as their presidential candidate. I am delighted by the Opposition’s unity. The post of the President is not symbolic. It carries the responsibility of safeguarding our constitutional principles. I appeal to the members of the collegiums to base their decision on these cherished principles and secure them for our future generations,” Kumar said in her first statement post nomination today.She also described the July 17 fight as ideological, terming the post of President beyond realms of castes and regions. “The Opposition unity represents the coming together of forces which have a strong ideological base. I am going to contest election as their representative. The President’s post embodies the diversity of Indian culture and the vision of our composite ideology. It transcends the considerations of caste, religion or region,” said Kumar as her life came a full circle today.And how? BSP chief Mayawati will back the nomination of Kumar as President, having tasted defeat at her hands in 1985 Lok Sabha elections from UP’s Bijnor. That was Kumar’s first election in which she defeated two Dalit icons — Mayawati and Ram Vilas Paswan.Kumar’s five LS terms later culminated in a dream elevation as Speaker of the 15th Lok Sabha between 2009 and 2014, a House that will be remembered for disruptions. Kumar, however, acquired the reputation as a mild-mannered Speaker, a contrast from Somnath Chatterjee, the forceful Speaker of the 14th LS.As for Kumar’s politics, much of it remained rooted in the ideals of her late father Jagjivan Ram, a freedom fighter and former Deputy PM under PM Morarji Desai.Kumar graduated in law from Cambridge and went on to join the Indian Foreign Services, serving in various missions, including Madrid and London. She turned to politics in 1985. Besides being a LS member, Kumar held high organisational positions in the Congress as general secretary and Working Committee member and later became minister in UPA-I handling social justice and water resources.

Masood Azhar, Pathankot plotter

Simran Sodhi

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, June 20

A day after BRICS foreign ministers came together to condemn terrorism, China today stuck to its old tune of Masood Azhar and said its position on the issue remained unchanged. For India, it also translates into being back to square one as far as China is concerned.The communiqué issued yesterday after the meeting between BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) ministers was emphatic in its resolve to combat terrorism.However, in Beijing today Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said, “At present, some members still have a disagreement over the listing matter.”Geng was responding to a question on the Azhar issue ahead of its review by the 1267 Committee of the UN next month. The 1267 Committee comprises members of the UN Security Council. Interestingly, Jaish is, as an organisation, proscribed under 1267. India, in the recent past, has made several attempts to get Masood, chief of the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), listed as an international terrorist at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).China has always vetoed any such move citing lack of evidence, but in effect really standing up for its all-weather friend Pakistan. Azhar is accused by India of being the mastermind behind the Pathankot attacks.  “We have talked about our position many times. We believe the principles of objectivity and professionalism and justice shall be upheld,” Geng said. “China stands ready to remain in coordination and communication with the relevant parties.”(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)For India, the challenge of going ahead remains China vis-a-vis Pakistan. Whether it is the matter of getting Masood Azhar designated as terrorist or India seeking a berth in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the main stumbling block for India is China. In the UNSC, India finds itself facing a defeat time and again because of China’s veto power. And in matters of NSG that works on the basis of consensus among member states, the problem again is an adamant China.China’s statement should come as a wakeup call to the South Block mandarins. With a USD 50 billion Chinese investment in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor also happening, for India the worry is a growing China-Pakistan nexus where India’s interests are getting squeezed out – See more at: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/china-says-no-change-in-stand-on-masood/425442.html#sthash.GXS356j3.dpuf

The year 2016 was horrible for the dialogue process, what with the Pathankot attack, Burhan Wani episode, Uri strike and the retaliatory surgical strikes. At the recent SCO Summit in Astana, there was no move to initiate dialogue. The red lines are now shallow, cl;oser to the LoC and inside Jammu and Kashmir.

Chill in air: (From L) Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev and Russian President Vladimir Putin and Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif gather for a “family photo” at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit in Kazakhstan”s capital Astana. AFP

IN these times of acute famine in dialogue between India and Pakistan, now in its fifth year of suspension following the beheading of an Indian soldier in January 2013, it was gratifying that at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meet at Astana, Kazakhstan, recently, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi shook hands and exchanged pleasantries. But sadly, that’s only as far as they went, a full 18 months after the two-strand Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue format was worked out on the sidelines of the Paris Climate Change talks in December 2015. That one was a real quickie because within days, the two NSAs and the two Foreign Secretaries were meeting at Bangkok to enable External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to attend the Heart of Asia conference in Islamabad on December 9, proving that where there’s a will, there’s a way. It was also on the sidelines of the 15th SCO summit at Ufa in July 2015 that bilateral talks were held. At Astana, Modi could easily have pulled Sharif aside for a tete-a-tete to start the comprehensive bilateral dialogue as soon as possible. Modi has the political mandate to pull a rabbit out of the hat though Sharif has less of a say in such matters due to big brother, Gen Bajwa, watching. Swaraj unfortunately had  already robbed the little surprise there was of any structured conversation on the sidelines by announcing that this would not happen. The year 2016 was horrible for the dialogue process, what with the Pathankot attack, Burhan Wani episode, Uri strike and the retaliatory surgical strikes which did not force a clampdown on cross-border terrorism as was claimed by the government. Violence continued without any breakthrough on Track I. The dearth of any official engagement was made up by the number of Track II dialogues, two of which two were held in the last two months at Dubai and Kathmandu which I attended. These happened in April and May when after the winter lull, violence had kicked up again. Panelists from both sides recognised that the time was not conducive for talks given the growing levels of vigilante-ism and high-decibel television frenzy on both sides of the Line of Control to wipe each other off the map. Pakistan has sought moral equivalence with India as a victim of terrorism, thanks to what our Prime Minister, Defence Minister and National Security Adviser have been saying about punishing Pakistan in Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan. The charges specifically listed are unleashing of state terrorism in Balochistan through people like Kulbhushan Jadhav, a spy who incidentally was sentenced to death by a military court on the day after the Dubai conference. Reaching out to Baloch leader in exile, Brahamdagh Khan Bugti, financing of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, colluding with Kabul agencies for disruptive activities in Pakistan and most of all, the desire and intent to break up the CPEC project: these are the allegations now openly made against India. Samjhauta is forgotten. Pakistanis urged India to join CPEC, which eventually might provide an opening to the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.Two new elements have clouded the discourse: firstly, the tolerance threshold of cross-border terrorism never articulated by India has been abridged. Red lines are now shallow, closer to the LoC and inside Jammu and Kashmir. Previously, these were crossed mainly in attacks outside Jammu and Kashmir. Now, 19 dead in Uri would evoke a surgical strike. The red line has now been shifted to inside the state — with Uri becoming  the new normal. Ajit Doval, before he became the NSA, used to say if there is another Mumbai, there will be no Balochistan. Rawalpindi has identified this red line and confined its attacks mainly within Jammu and Kashmir. Secondly, a retired Pakistani General observed at Kathmandu that the equation between India and Pakistan has moved beyond LoC violations to kidnapping of each other’s officials. An advisory governing the attendance of Track II meetings anywhere in the neighbourhood has warned about threats from hostile intelligence agencies. He was referring to the disappearance in Nepal in April this year of one recently retired believed to be ISI Lt Col Mohammad Habib Zahir by R&AW to facilitate the eventual release of Kulbhushan Jadhav. A retired Indian General who was to attend the conference stayed away. A former Pakistan minister attended the conference, ignoring the advice from his party President but kept a low profile and left immediately after the conference. Swaraj has attached three conditions for resumption of talks – resolve all issues through dialogue, bilateral without any third party; and talks and terror cannot go together. It is the last provision which is tricky and one Pakistan has been unable to fulfil even during Gen Musharraf’s time. Then infiltration reduced by nearly half but violence in Jammu and Kashmir did not end. Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir has acquired a certain grassroot motivation and momentum. The tap of infiltration can be partially closed, not shut at least not till progress is seen to be made on Kashmir. Not long ago, both sides argued endlessly over which of the two core concerns of each other was more important: terrorism or Kashmir. In the end, the principle of simultaneity won the argument. Mentioning only terrorism, not Kashmir, grounded the Ufa agreement.  Further, New Delhi has quietly removed the red line of Pakistani officials not meeting the Hurriyat before the dialogue which wrecked a meeting between Swaraj and Sartaj Aziz in 2015. With a miss at Astana, the next window of opportunity will be on the sidelines of UNGA or a Saarc summit later in the year which was postponed last year due to the tensions between India and Pakistan.  Track II veterans at Kathmandu last month said that the next window of opportunity would arrive only after the elections in  Pakistan, 2018 and elections in India, 2019. Such is the sorry state of India-Pakistan relations.The writer is the convener of an uninterrupted India-Pakistan dialogue.