Harsha Kakar
The assault on the Indian Consulate at Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan was launched almost simultaneously with the terrorist strike on Pathankot. However, like the visit of Modi to Afghanistan was over shadowed by his visit to Lahore on the same day, similarly, the Mazar assault was over shadowed by Pathankot. A statement by the foreign secretary,late last week, clearly indicated that bothwere planned simultaneously, with the aim of hitting India at two places. Was the Pakistan military or its created watchdog, the ISI, responsible for both, requires investigation. India has taken the decision to send a Letter Rogatory(LR) to Pakistan on the Pathankot assault; however, since Mazar was on foreign soil, the same can and has been raised with Pakistan. Close on the heels of the two incidents were reports of an explosive laden truck being seized near our consulate at Herat and an explosion close to our consulate at Jalalabad, both also in Afghanistan.
It is now clear that the two attacks launched near simultaneous was to embarrass the Government by causing casualties on our assets both within the country as also abroad. Had they succeeded, the government would have been in a tight corner on its foreign policy towards Pakistan. Thus, the Government has raised both the attacks with their counterparts in Pakistan, and as claimed by the foreign secretary, the ball is in their court. The future of talks would depend on the action Pakistan would take.
While the Government is presently committed to continuing with the dialogue, the two incidents are likely to be just the tip of the ice berg to impediments in improvement of relations. Though there have been some positive indicators including peace along the Line of Control (LOC) and the IB, as also a drop in incidents in the valley, these could possibly be the other side of the coin of planned terrorist actions. In Pakistan, as earlier experiences show, there are powerful forces, who view talks with India, as a means of limiting the power of the military, whose survival and budget is only based on the Indian threat.
Thus, as I had stated earlier, the government needs to clearly discuss with Pakistan, that such incidents, irrespective of who is behind them, whether they have official approval or otherwise, would cause all effort taken thus far to become null and void, in case they cross a threshold and public pressure increases. This clarity has to be given, thereby, forcing them to reign in those elements whose intentions are against better relations.Whether their Government is in a position to do so or otherwise is another mute question.
Simultaneously, the government also needs to re- evaluate its foreign policy and determine options available in case of similar attacks continuing in the days ahead. While history has shown that every time talks have been planned, actions on ground have resulted in all efforts going waste. While the same cannot be a black and white guide to the future, there needs to be a method out of this madness. India as a powerful nation, militarily and economically, cannot be compelled to bow down on its foreign policy to actions by a group of terrorists, supported or unsupported by a state. It has to be independent of such blackmail.
Previous Governments, due to coalition politics, were affected by internal political situations. Thus, Mumbai and Kargil both launched by the Pakistan military, clearly anti- peace, made India jump and reverse its stand. This time too, the writing on the wall was enunciating that India call off talks. The opposition, whose accepted national role is to criticize all actions of the Government, was screaming from the roof tops, that the dialogue be stalled. It appears, within our nation, from the opposition, that the talks are being approached as a favour to Pakistan, and we would not benefit. The opposition appear to be playing into the hands of a bunch of terrorists, who feel they can dictate when and what India should do.
Though both nations are nuclear, an all- out war is something of the past, limited military actions are still likely. While India has moved ahead, economically and diplomatically, Pakistan is still caught in a time wrap of religious terrorism, sectarian violence and economic stagnation. It is largely surviving on American and Chinese aid and weapons. Talks would enable India to grow faster, while pulling Pakistan out of its current self- created mess. Hence the dialogue would benefit both; therefore the two political leaders are pushing it forward.
In my opinion, the Government should be firm. If it needs to retaliate against a terrorist strike, it should, even if it results, in a limited war or generates a hostile environment. It should however, in spite of its actions, keep avenue for talks open. The Government should not keep jumping every time a few misguided and religiously brainwashedsuicide terrorists strike. It may retaliate, if necessary, but continue with its positive stance of talks.
If this is the strategy which it should adopt, then it needs to be aggressive in its deployment, develop capabilities within the military, ensure shortfalls in defence preparedness are removed and involve the military in strategic discussions. The Government should ensure that the military continues to maintain a strong conventional edge over its adversaries. Only by enhancing military power, can the Government employ diplomatic power from a position of strength. We cannot as a nation be subservient to a bunch of terrorists, but compel those who guide them, to be vary of the manner and level of our counter response, simultaneously calling for peace and dialogue.
(The author is a retired Major General of the Indian Army)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel