One of the biggest weaknesses of India’s security discourse is the
failure of the Indian leadership to truly understand the nature and
psyche of its Western neighbour. Pakistan, like any other country, does
not like to lose face, is always ready to up the ante, initiate
audacious and precipitous action, make noise, co-opt its benefactors
especially the United States and China, demand international
intervention and establish a sort of moral and psychological ascendancy
and superiority over India. Once the dust settles down, it is business
as usual including demands for a dialogue to resolve the core issue of
Kashmir before bilateral relations can be improved. The rest is
cosmetics. The Indian leadership seems to repeatedly fall prey to such
ruses.
India, on the other hand, mistakenly believes that because Pakistanis
talk, eat, speak and very often behave like us they are indeed like us;
our long lost brothers whose wayward behaviour can only be corrected
through sustained and sincere peace building as well as
disproportionately large concessions because India is after all a big
country which is focused on its economic development and can ill afford
to be distracted by resort to arms. India is also convinced that
Pakistan’s benefactors will not let that country sink beyond a point and
intervene to ensure its survival. There is much truth in this
assessment but history tells us a somewhat different story.
Right from the time of its birth, Pakistani leaders including Jinnah
had convinced themselves that India had somehow cheated and
short-changed Pakistan with British help and that is how Jinnah got a
‘moth eaten Pakistan’. Although legal, the accession of Jammu &
Kashmir was also seen as another case of Indian treachery conveniently
forgetting that it was brought on by Pakistani aggression and attempts
to wrest control of the state by force. India committed its first
blunder by prematurely taking the issue to the United Nations and
compounded the folly by choosing the ‘wrong’ article/clause of the
Charter, thus allowing Pakistan to become an equal party to the
‘dispute’ when in fact Pakistan was simply the aggressor and nothing
more.
Thereafter, through the last 65 years, Pakistan has tried to settle
the matter by resort to force whenever its leadership felt that the
circumstances were propitious and favourable. A major mistake that
Pakistan has always made and continues to make even today is to
underestimate the resolve of India’s leadership and the capability of
the Indian military. The defensive defence policy that India has
followed in preference to military retaliation has unfortunately
emboldened Pakistan, which continues to believe that it can always get
away. Repeated attacks by Pakistan at Haji Pir, Kargil and Chhamb are
examples of such aggressive behaviour.
Worse, every time Pakistan lost the battle its resolve became
stronger to somehow avenge the previous defeat. The wars of 1965, 1971
and 1999 were followed by more aggressive and violent behaviour. India’s
shooting down of a Pakistan Navy Atlantique, which had violated Indian
air space, was followed by the hijack of Indian Airlines Flight IC-814
in December 1999 as well as various terrorist attacks including
KaluChak, Delhi’s Red Fort and the Indian Parliament. India did not
retaliate to any of these provocations. It must not be forgotten that in
the run-up to bigger hostilities, Pakistan always began with sustained
heavy shelling of border posts and towns, as in Kargil in July 1998, to
gauge the Indian reaction. In all of these incidents Pakistan’s losses
were minimal simply because India had consistently demonstrated
self-imposed restraint but to no avail.
The recent case of cease-fire violation and Pakistani barbarity
should be seen against this backdrop. Once again a pattern is
discernible. Pakistan has reportedly violated the 10-year long ceasefire
on many occasions but since 01 December 2012 alone the number of such
violations has gone up to 22. India has repeatedly been telling the
world that the Pakistan Army resorts to unprovoked firing across the
Line of Control (LoC) to facilitate infiltration of terrorists but
somehow refuses to take action with the result that the world at large
does not believe the Indian story. If it is true that Pakistan lost a
soldier (Lance Naik Aslam) in the exchange of fire in Mendhar on
Saturday last, India should have expected a tit-for-tat response from
Pakistan. In 1996, when a Pakistani helicopter carrying a Brigadier was
allegedly shot down by India over the Siachen heights, Pakistan lost no
time and shot down an Indian Mi-17.
The brutal Pakistani response came on Tuesday simply because it had
to avenge the loss of Aslam. It reportedly chose Mendhar because here
the border fence is well within Indian held territory and Indian army
patrols move along and inside the LoC but still on the other side of the
fence hence making it easier for Pakistan to mount a raid across the
LoC. Foggy conditions further helped Pakistani designs but it is not
understood why the so-called Area Domination Patrol was moving so close
to the LoC in such poor visibility and that too in the aftermath of the
Saturday incident and when the Intelligence Bureau had warned of
possible Pakistani action. What sort of area domination was achieved
when the Pakistani intruders in fact return unscathed?
It is also noteworthy that the Pakistan Army was not satisfied with
merely killing the two Indian soldiers and injuring others in the well
planned ambush but had to leave a tell-tale signature, a sign of
victory, by beheading and mutilating the body/bodies of the Indian
soldiers in the medieval practice of victors building a pyramid out of
the heads of slain enemy soldiers right outside their tents. The main
aim of the exercise was never to hide the barbarity but to explicitly
tell the Indian Army to not mess with Pakistan. Why else would Pakistan
have returned the mutilated bodies of the brave Lieutenant Saurabh Kalia
and the six Indian soldiers during the 1999 Kargil Conflict? This is
the psyche that India needs to understand. No amount of cajoling or
appealing to their better sense is likely to change this characteristic
of the Pakistan Army. The Pakistani message is clear; “We have done what
we had to; you want to escalate, do so at your own peril. Pakistan has
thrown the gauntlet, try if you have the guts”. Pakistan knows full well
that there will soon be a chorus from world leaders demanding restraint
and cooling of tempers from both sides. Pakistan knows it can get away
unscathed. This time, however, India cannot blame the Jihadi terrorists
for wanting to provoke hostilities between the neighbours because it is
Pakistani regulars who have perpetrated this atrocity.
The tragedy is that many among Indian decision makers are experienced
and intelligent enough to understand perfectly well the real import of
such brutal and barbaric behaviour but are unable or unwilling to devise
appropriate responses in the vain and forlorn hope that Pakistan will
somehow mend its ways and reform itself into a ‘normal’ member of the
international community.
It is time India reviewed this thinking. Instant, hard and yet
calibrated military, diplomatic and political response is needed since
mere warnings and protestations have proved grossly inadequate to change
Pakistan’s behaviour. It is not surprising that the Indian Government
spokesperson is ‘perplexed’. While India cannot afford to respond in
anger it must also not make the mistake of allowing others to meddle in
its affairs but, in fact, show to the world that it is perfectly capable
of taking care of these pinpricks and teaching its recalcitrant
neighbour(s) a hard lesson if need be. To do this, India must, however,
shed its misplaced and grossly exaggerated fears of escalation into a
two front war if such limited military action was initiated; in fact,
the world will welcome it.
The Indian Jawan is a simple man who is trained to obey orders but
his morale should not be undermined by continued inaction and India’s
faith in high sounding principles of international behaviour. The
constant demand to withdraw the AFSPA from parts of Jammu & Kashmir
when the Indian Army is repeatedly attacked by the so-called militants
is already causing the Jawan avoidable anguish. He still routinely walks
into harm’s way without a moment’s hesitation simply because he has
vowed to defend his sacred land. But his unquestioned obedience must
never be taken for granted nor should he ever be allowed to feel
defenceless against such atrocities.
It is not as if India lacks the wherewithal to safeguard its borders.
Intelligence gathering mechanisms, armed and attack helicopters,
Special Operation Forces, specially trained Commandos and above all
plenty of electronic air and space based means are available to
accurately identify and strike at the enemy in a highly calibrated
response with little or no collateral damage. But for such actions to be
successful India needs to first show strong resolve and equally
importantly initiate without any further loss of time a truly ‘joint’
planning process that includes all arms/agencies of the state. While
politicians and diplomats will do their job by informing other countries
of India’s concerns and limits of patience, let the military devise
ways to ensure a permanent stop to future provocations from across the
borders.
It is also time India considered the use of ‘drones’ or Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAV) fitted with suitable weapons and missiles to
punish the enemy; merely possessing them will however not help. There is
a chance that such declarations of red lines and open preparations for
military retaliation will raise a storm of protest and criticism by
India’s neighbours and other countries simply because they are not used
to India taking any action but that should not be allowed to dissuade
us. By constantly resorting to legal action such as exchange of dossiers
of universally known international criminals, India has been sending a
wrong message to the world. What India must urgently consider is a
declaratory national security policy that includes as a first step the
recovery of India’s lost territories to its neighbours or national
reunification even if it means waging a long struggle. The absence of
such an articulated aim has in fact weakened India’s case. A bold yet
calm declaration of red lines is the only way India can put the onus of
peace on the other side. The Indian soldier is enjoined to not only
defend the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty but more
importantly its honour. We must not be found wanting in this sacred duty
by neglecting the soldier’s honour.
First published on
idsa.in on 10 Jan 2013
