By Brig BL Poonia, VSM (Retd)
Pakistan is the epicenter of terrorism. It is the most experienced country in the world in training and churning out die-hard terrorists from its terror-producing factories. The USA is equally responsible for this, since it had provided military aid to Pakistan for a decade from 1979 to 1989, to drive out the Soviet forces out of Afghanistan to avenge its humiliating defeat in the Vietnam War. Financial and military aid had then poured in lavishly, and Pakistan was given the latest weapons and equipment like Stinger missiles to be used against the Soviet forces. The Afghan and Pak militants trained in the Pak ISI training camps had ultimately tasted success of driving out the Soviet forces, and thus Pakistan became a master in the art of training militants. It was an effort and experience of 10 long years that had ultimately resulted in a historical success of driving out a super power out of Afghanistan. For Pakistan, it was something to celebrate. Moreover having achieved its aim, the USA had left the entire cache of arms, ammunition and equipment with Pakistan, which it later used extensively against India in Kashmir.
The situation created by 1987 rigging of elections by Farooq Abdullah and Congress alliance government in J&K, during the Rajiv Gandhi government era at the Centre, provided an ideal opportunity to Pakistan for smuggling of arms and ammunition. This was complemented by infiltration of trained terrorists and Islamic clerics to brainwash the local leaders to carry out the ethnic cleansing of the Hindus and the Sikhs in 1990. Thereafter, there was no looking back. A strong network of Pro-Pak leadership, a political wing to give thrust and direction to anti-India cessationist movement, and militant outfits to be used against the Indian security forces mushroomed across the state. Jamat-e-Islami, the political party, which would have otherwise won the 1987 elections, provided the required public support. Religion of course, was a strong binding force to support the Pakistani agenda, and the mountainous and jungle terrain along the LOC was ideal for infiltration. All these factors, combined together created an ideal situation for terrorism to flourish.
Pakistan, having driven out the Soviet forces out of Afghanistan through the terrorists trained in their ISI training camps was more than confident of driving out the Indian Army out of J&K, so it unleashed the entire might of its militancy in J&K with full force. For Pakistan, Kashmir was a pending issue, which it could not annex in 1947-48. Combined with this was the pain of the humiliating defeat it suffered in 1971 war, as well as the loss of East Pakistan. All these factors combined together became the driving force to avenge the defeat. So we should not expect Pakistan to slow down or give up its low cost option of terrorism, ever in the future either.
Pakistan keeps on adjusting the intensity of terrorist activities by measuring the threshold levels acceptable to various Indian governments in power from time to time. Even if the Pakistan government tries to make peace with India, the Pakistan Army has its own agenda to settle, and unfortunately Pak Army is strictly not under the political control of the Pakistan government. And use of terrorism is the most potent weapon Pakistan has; practically more powerful than the nuclear weapons, which are more of a deterent. Unfortunately, Dr Manmohan Singh government's total inaction after the 26/11 Mumbai massacre in 2008 encouraged Pakistan to become more bold. It gave the impression to the top Pakistani leadership, that the threshold limit of the Indian government to their terrorist actions of even such high intensity, was quite high and acceptable without a retaliation. Hence the two, million dollar questions, that still remain unanswered are :
● Why did Dr Manmohan Singh government not take any action, inspite of 175 innocent people getting killed and 300 injured in the city of Mumbai, so deep inside the Indian territory?
● Were the lives of these people less precious than that of the Indian soldiers?
The soldiers are at least trained and armed to protect themselves, but the ordinary citizens are not. And imagine, Pakistan dared to do so in a city like Mumbai, deep inside the Indian territory, yet no one clamoured for action against Pakistan, the way they are doing it now. Why? This question too still remains unanswered; and those who question the political will of the present government must first answer these questions before coming out with their brilliant ideas now.
However, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government took an appropriate action after the terrorist attack on Parliament by launching of 'Operation Prakram' in 2001, when the USA intervened to avoid a war. However, the entire Pakistan army was kept tied up along the border/LOC for six months. The message was loud and clear that Pakistan would not be allowed to cross the limits. Thereafter, Narendra Modi government also retaliated boldly through surgical strikes on Pak militant camps across the LOC, followed by launching of air-strikes at Balakot, which once again conveyed a strong message to Pakistan regarding the strength and political will of the Prime Ministers of India.
While the surgical strikes, followed by air strikes on Pak militant camps did have the desired effect for quite a few years, which forced Pakistan to slow down, but the abrogation Article 370, followed by the assembly elections due in J&K this year, has motivated Pakistan once again to increase the intensity of terrorist activities in J&K. This has obviously led to an increase in casualties of our soldiers, which in turn has led to a demand for a strong action against Pakistan, with a section of people, even clamouring for an all out war to teach Pakistan a lesson to stop this nonsense once for all. While the emotional surge can well be understood, but will an all out war with Pakistan solve the problem, and will it be cost effective, especially in terms of loss of precious human lives ? And will it make Pakistan behave thereafter ? No, it will not. Moreover, opting for an all out war would result in violation of 'Economy of Effort', one of the principles of war.
If that be so, would it be prudent to opt for a military option that would not cure the disease ? The question is not that a rogue nation like Pakistan, armed with nuclear weapons can pause a nuclear threat; that is not a matter to so much worry about since India too is a nuclear state, and any misadventure by Pakistan will be at the cost of its own survival as a nation thereafter. But the issue of real concern is whether an all out war would be worth the effort in terms of achieving the aim ? And how many countries across the globe would support India ? Israel retaliated through an all out war against Palestine in response to the Oct 7 terrorist attack by Hamas, but there are more countries supporting Palestine today than Israel. One can find n number of reasons for doing the same. Would India, who is presently aspiring to become the third largest economy in world, not get economically retarded by fify years at least, by going in for an all out war ? Hence it is not enough to ask, "Does this government have a political will ?" The cost of war has to be weighed in all its dimensions - politically, diplomatically, economically, militarily, financially and practically.
And let us not forget that a majority of the countries of Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) with the membership of 57 countries covering four continents, would support Pakistan, and the oil-producing muslim countries would stop supplying oil to India. Let us not underestimate the strength of Islam as a religion; it is much more binding than any other factor, all over the world. Moreover, had we had good relations with China, we could afford to shift the entire weight of our defence potential against Pakistan, but presently we are constrained to keep the 4056km long Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China well guarded, especially if we get engaged with Pakistan in an all out war. And without having an unquestionable support of the local population of J&K, a large portion of our security forces will get tied down in guarding our extensively long axes of maintenance in J&K. Moreover, the opposition parties, deprived of power for three consecutive terms will try to let the government down in every possible manner, even during the war. These are the hard ground realities, and facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored.
But the most important factor would be to consider as to what would be our aim, in case we decide to go in for an all out war ?
● To capture POK ?
● Or to capture a portion of Pakistan ?
● Or to capture the entire Pakistan ?
Aims, both political and military, have to be commensurate with a nation's capabilities. While we as citizens of India would like to see Pakistan being punished nice and proper, and be taught a lifetime lesson, the ground reality is quite different. Successive Indian Service Chiefs have pointed out that the margin of Indian conventional superiority over Pakistan is not adequate to generate decisive results in case of a military action. The most that can be expected is limited territorial gains across the line of control.
So what is the best course of action now ? It is a point worth pondering, that what Israel could not achieve through the 10-month long-drawn war against Palestine, the effect of eliminating top militant leaders like Faud Shukra of Hizbollah, and Mohammad Deif and Ismael Haniyeh of Hamas has achieved. These actions have shaken the Arab alliance against Israel, and they have started getting worried about the security of their own nations. Hence this is the kind of action India requires to take against Pakistan. Such actions can achieve results out of proportion to the effort put in. And let us grant it to the people responsible for the security of India; may be they are already on the job, without being dependent on the bright ideas of the multiple veteran think-tanks spread all over the country. Let us grant those in service that they know their job better than what we claim to do now. In fact, quite a few of the top terrorist commanders in Pakistan, responsible for bloodshed in India, had been eliminated by some unknown people in the recent past. We need to have more of such covert operations to eliminate the top political, militant and military officials of Pak ISI and others connected with sponsoring terrorism in J&K. However, let us have full faith in the people responsible for the security of the nation, and we have no reasons to doubt their calibre and competence.
But an all out war to sort of Pakistan is an emotive issue and not a politically prudent and militarily desirable option, since the argument suffers from a serious flaw of not achieving the ultimate aim. Moreover, it is not a cost effective option, either militarily, or politically. It rather takes a myopic view of what is ultimately at stake. Military plans cannot be based on emotions, hence we need to bleed Pakistan by :
● Inflicting strategically deep surgical cuts (sar tan se juda) of their higher militant hierarchy, so that they do not find their strategy of bleeding India through a thousand cuts, cost effective any more.
● Promote rebellion in the ex state of Kalat, now known as Baluchistan. The independent state of Kalat was forcefully annexed by Pakistan in March 1948, the way POK had been occupied, and the people of Baluchistan are still struggling for independence since then, and the state is already inflicted with militancy.
While the government is the best judge regarding the timing and modus operandi of implementing the same, there is no other option for India either; that is for certain. But these two are viable options which need to be exploited to the hilt to restrain Pakistan from its mischievous designs against India. And lastly, let us not forget what Sun Tsu, the Chinese military general and strategist had written in his book 'The Art of War' 2,800 years ago, "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."
Comments