From the time of independence, Pakistan's leaders have treated India as a Permanent Enemy. It exhibits its policy through jihad.
The Uri terror attacks over the weekend certainly originated from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir or Pakistan and were sponsored by Pakistan. Eighteen brave men, mostly from the Bihar Regiment and Dogra Regiment, were killed. A readout of their names shows that they had come from all over India. Clearly this was war on India. This was terror at its ugliest. It also must be admitted that the jihadists had much better intelligence about their target, were well equipped and had some local help.
One has only to read what Pakistani leaders have been saying about India over the years and this does not mean only ‘leaders’ like Hafiz Saeed or Masood Azhar, but even many of their democrats like Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto or eminences like A. Q. Khan, and then understand their visceral hatred for India. For this lot, and many more, they were the rightful heirs to the throne in Delhi after the British left and today’s Hindu BJP majority is a particular anathema. This attitude pervades the thinking in their Army, civil service and the political circles although some may be too suave to say so. This is what we are up against when we deal with Pakistan.
There are many in India who persist with their belief that political circles in Pakistan have a different point of view on India in comparison to the Army’s stance on India. When it relates to India, Pakistan Army, ruling politicians from the Punjab, civil service, and the civil society have the same view. They may have differences when it comes to handling Balochistan, Sindh, the MQM, the economy, education policies, freedom of the media, but not about India and Pakistan’s claim on Kashmir.
It is naive for us hope that if we are sufficiently nice to Pakistani politicians, make concessions and this could drive a wedge between the politicians and the Army and lead to a more conciliatory approach by the Pakistani politicians and civil society. Both are under the yoke of the Pakistan Army and this is the state within the state that has to be tackled. An olive branch in response to each depredation is viewed as a sign of weakness, not statesmanship as some of us would like to believe. One of the most incongruous hopes and contradictory approaches has been the recommendation that we treat the Hurriyat as being representative of the people of the Valley and therefore authorised to decide for the entire state. We also pay tax payers’ money for their security, upkeep and medical benefits amounting to crores while they retain their secessionist stance. This is absurd logic. This bunch represents no one except themselves, can not win an election and are the mouth-pieces of Pakistan. It is only the elected representatives in the State Assembly who represent the people. Besides, we have tried this approach for the last 70 years, but it has not worked. It is time we tried a different approach.
Separate Kashmir from Pak relations
The domestic issue of Kashmir must be separated from our relations with Pakistan and both must be tackled separately. Pakistan’s avowed policy is the dismemberment of India, and Kashmir is the route. Kashmir is not the end. They would follow their war of attrition, their thousand year war, with a thousand cuts, in the hope that India will succumb one day. Kashmir is in this state today, not just because of Pakistan but also because of the politics of our dynastic politicians who have ruled the state. Every periodic crisis means the politicians turn to the security forces to help bail them out. In the process, it is the Army which gets the blame whereas the real fault lies with the political leaders who have never made good use of the interregnums to sort out issues among themselves.
Pakistan’s avowed policy is the dismemberment of India, and Kashmir is the route. Kashmir is not the end.
Pakistan’s avowed policy is the dismemberment of India, and Kashmir is the route. Kashmir is not the end.
When Pakistan launches its terror attacks, it has a fair idea how we and the world will react and it knows that it can prepare for the next attack with impunity. The more reasonable nuclear powers consider nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Pakistan, being an irresponsible state, openly considers its nuclear weapons as a strike weapon against enemy India and uses its cover to continue its jihadi warfare against India.
Despite the best arrangements, acts of terror will take place. But when a terror strikes in the same region with similar tactics, routes and targets, this is not just a security breach, but a systemic failure. Obviously, where the security systems and the intelligence systems are not adequate or imperfectly coordinated, the chances of terror are higher.
When an attack takes place, the first priority is to neutralise the attack, save lives, move the injured to hospitals, and not to look for causes. High decibel debates and fists punched in air, are just that. So much air. What India needs is sustained action taken at a time of our choosing, all things considered and in cold calculated rage.
A terrorist is a terrorist
We must get our narrative right and this is highly important because the battle is psychological and one of perceptions. Therefore, a terrorist is a terrorist; he is not a misguided youth, a freedom fighter, nor a gunman, non-state actor, enemy of humanity, rogue elements. Troubles in Kashmir are not intifada because the Indian Army is not an occupation force. Let us also not delude ourselves. There is no such thing as rogue elements in the ISI or in the Pak Army. These are ploys designed to fool the gullible or make it acceptable to those wet behind their ears or introduce deniability, helplessness and confusion.
A terrorist is a terrorist; he is not a misguided youth, a freedom fighter, nor a gunman, non-state actor, enemy of humanity, rogue elements.
A terrorist is a terrorist; he is not a misguided youth, a freedom fighter, nor a gunman, non-state actor, enemy of humanity, rogue elements.
Reactions in New Delhi after the Uri attack were also true to form. One section went hyperbolic in its condemnation, with politicians giving the usual fire and brimstone sound bytes. Discussions on national channels were on similar lines while some political parties and even TV channels seemed to enjoy the seeming discomfiture of the government. Equally bizarre were those open discussions on special operation capabilities and comparative strengths in intelligence capabilities by persons not well qualified to comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment