28 jan 2013
India's
seriousness on war against terrorism has fluctuated with the
imperatives and diktats of the USA. When the US and its allies initiated
Operation Enduring Freedom, there was a palpable anticipation amongst
Indians that India's moment of redemption from decade long unremitting
jihadi terrorism had arrived. Utterances from US officials like: 'either
you are with us, or you are with the terrorists' (George W. Bush in US
Congress) and 'we will bomb you to the Stone Age' (Richard Armitage),
only fuelled the hope of Indians.
This
is the reality. India has to learn to fend with its own initiative, if
necessary with foreign weapons , but without foreign threat perception.
 |
| Dr Sanjay Kumar Cardiac Cardiothoracic Heart Surgeon India |
India-Pak Hyphenation
There
was unmistakable alacrity in the Indian establishment to forge a
strategic partnership with the US in the so-called war against
terrorism. Indians, who intrinsically, place heavy premium on natural
justice were convinced that Pakistan was going to dissolve because of
the accumulated sins of the successive establishments and the jihadis.
They were convinced that Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terrorism was
going to be rolled-back from its epicenter i.e Af-Pak region. They were
also convinced that this time around, unlike after Soviet withdrawal
from Afghanistan, the Americans would not leave the theatre without
drastic and enduring geopolitical restructuring of the region.
This implicit faith
prompted many Indian security experts and some policy makers to advocate
deployment of two divisions in Afghanistan. These security experts
ensured that they sold this idea at every conceivable seminar or
gathering, which mattered. Editorials were churned out in favour of the
idea. The news channels held regular debates to contrive support for the
proposal.
At one level the proposal did not
appear to be foolhardy because of the stakes involved for India in the
long term perspective. Indian investment in Afghanistan of more than US 1
billion was not resented by any quarters in India because of sheer
robustness of the strategic logic of purging Taliban from Afghanistan
and depriving Pakistan of any strategic depth.
India was said to have moved far away from the hyphenated Indo-Pak paradigm in international reckoning.
A
decade down the line, on this day, hope has given way to despair. Far
from moving away, the hyphenated Indo-Pak paradigm, has hit a new low.
Indians are being inured to believe that they are condemned to suffer
terrorist bombings; 13/12, 26/11 are just dots on the vast political
landscape of India and the country has enough manpower to sacrifice;
beheading of two soldiers on the LOC is routine; abduction and killing
of Sarpanches in Kashmir is normal feature of ongoing insurgency; ISI
forging links with Maoists is logical; Hafiz Saeed did plan 26/11 in
concert with the ISI, but he is only an antithesis to the RSS; and
targeting terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden or Hafiz Saeed is the
exclusive preserve of the sensitive and nationalist Americans.
The New Geopolitical Structure
Just
as an entire structure was put in place in India to promote US
intervention in Afghanistan, a similar or may be more elaborate
structure comprising politicians, so called intellectuals, diplomats,
strategic experts and journalists has been created to ensure new
geopolitical reconfiguration of the region to ensure its smooth and
honorable exit . The overwhelming refrain at the time of intervention
was that 9/11 happened because the Americans did not dismantle the
jihadi structure they had created in Af-Pak region to contest the grand
finale of the Cold War before abandoning the region to its own destiny
and devices, and as a consequence, the jihadi structure suffering from a
misplaced sense of invincibility after humbling the Soviet Union, a
super power, took on its mentors, i.e. the USA.
There
was genuine and acute anxiety in India about the consequences if the
Americans were to abandon the region again without dismantling the
jihadi structure in Af-Pak region. This apprehension stands seemingly
vindicated. The US war machine looking for an honourable exit, and the
jihadis raising the pitch of having chased out another superpower is
quite discernible.
The last time when Soviet
forces withdrew, the jihadi machine was redirected to India, and thanks
to the attrition caused by the Indian Army over a decade, only one 9/11
took place.
India needs to be prepared for a more vicious terrorism in times to come.
The
indications are already there. As per reports, LeT is relocating some
of its camps in Eastern Afghanistan, i.e. Kunar and Nuristan, not very
far from Kashmir. Hafiz Saeed has meanwhile reiterated his terror
message, i.e. 'arms struggle is the only solution to Kashmir struggle'.
The
beheading of the Indian soldiers on the LOC has clearly unmasked the
vast structure that has been assiduously created in India by the
American establishment to promote the new geopolitical script of the
region. In this script the perpetrator and sufferer of terrorism have
been put on the same pedestal. For America it is of no concern that
Hafiz Saeed and the ISI planned and executed 26/11. The US has already
granted legal immunity to two former ISI chiefs for their role in 26/11
Mumbai terror attack.
Allegedly, this deal
was reached at a clandestine meeting between Admiral Mike Mullen and
General Ashfaq Kayani held in Oman on 22 February 2011. Hafiz Saeed, on
whom the American establishment had announced a reward of $10 million,
roams free in Pakistan. The then Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram had
then hailed the US decision.
Few months down
the line, Kashmiri separatist leaders in India were allowed to travel to
Pakistan on Indian passports and meet Hafiz Saeed. Another Home
Minister referred to this terrorist leader as "Shri Hafiz Saeed" in the
parliament, and more recently, another senior politician famous for his
'Osama ji' remark, alluded to him as "Hafiz Sahab". The word 'Sahab' was
not used in jest, but reflected the authority that Hafiz Saeed has
begun to exercise over the Indian establishment for intriguing reasons.
The Jingoists and Warmongers!
The
new structure assembled in India during the last decade by the US
could, in the wake of the recent LoC incident be seen to be unabashedly
pro- US and pro-Pak. Any one advocating caution with regard to
Pakistan's ulterior strategic motives was labeled as 'jingoistic', a
term that has crept into the Indian security establishment and will cost
India dearly.
One diplomat turned politician,
known for his acerbic speech and specialization and fealty to one
particular political dynasty has been abusive towards members of the
diplomatic and strategic community who favour holding the Pakistani
establishment accountable for the dastardly act on the LoC and other
acts of terror, and suspending sporting and cultural links as they
cannot be allowed to facilitate murder and terror.
Even
before the shock and anger following the LoC incident had attenuated,
one media house persisted with a Indo-Pak friendship show where in some
Indian journalists chose the occasion to indulge in India bashing. One
of them went to the extent of equating Hafiz Saeed with the RSS. This
was even as Hafiz Saeed was being accused for his role in the
beheadings.
So the pro-Hafiz constituency is
not only confined to the separatists and certain segments of the
political class in India. Then there was a journalist who began to drum
the notion that Indian troops also resort to beheadings citing verbal
testimony of two journalists from their experiences in Kargil War. Well
one of them is known to have enjoyed the hospitality of ISI linked Fai
Foundation in the US and the other has been in news for indulging in
political-fixing.
Also in this very period
Musharraf was in India and unabashedly, for the first time, from the
Indian soil he declared that indeed he was the architect of Kargil War
as a revenge for 1971. This was something always known but never before
officially acknowledged.
The number of
Pakistani participants in the debates following the LoC incident, is
baffling, given the logistics and coordination involved.
On
one channel a former Pakistani Admiral derided India by calling it an
inherently weak state, and on another channel a retired Brigadier
ridiculed the Indian panelists suggestion that India refrained from
exploiting Pakistan's preoccupation with its western front. He retorted
that India did not dare to do so because of the strategic diktats of the
US. Both these statements can be construed as sarcastically
provocative, nevertheless, coming from the adversary, there may be more
than passing truth, and therefore cry for introspection.
Anti-India Spin-Doctors
There
have always been Indian journalists under the patronage of the ISI, but
in the past they were fewer. A journalist friend of this author who was
part of Vajpayee's entourage to Lahore had one evening accompanied
another Pakistani journalist to the club. As they got up to leave a well
known Indian journalist walked in. Alluding to him the Pakistani
journalist said that he was bewildered that the Indian authorities do
not bother to ascertain as to on whose cost the said journalist makes
monthly visits to Pakistan and enjoys five star hospitality.
With
the proliferation of news channels the segment of disloyal media has
only increased in size, notwithstanding the rise in their nationalistic
pitch when things become impossible.
The new
structure that has evolved over the years to serve strategic interests
of extra regional powers and political interests of some outfits in
India has subverted the Indian state as such. Collaboration of elements
in the Indian establishment with terrorist groups and ISI in Pakistan is
therefore not a wild possibility. If Ajmal Kasab had not been caught by
sheer act of providence, 26/11 would have been certainly portrayed as
an act of 'Hindu Terrorism'.
If one were to
treat 26/11 as the center, and plot rest of the stories Hindu terror
revealed through inspired leaks to one and only newspaper, the entire
fraud can be unraveled. Probably Hafiz Saeed and the ISI know too much
and that is why the fear and respectability amongst the collaborators in
the Indian establishment.
Such
was the sensitivity and anger noticed in the pro-Pak and pro-US lobby in
India that anybody talking of punitive action following the beheading
of soldiers on the LoC, and the killing of Sarpanches in the Valley was
greeted with umbrage and epithet of 'warmonger'. They deliberately
ignored that there were many diplomatic measures short of war. These
include extradition of Hafiz Saeed for his involvement in 26/11,
extradition of David Hadley from the US and action against Hurriat
leaders for meeting Hafiz Saeed during their recent tour to Pakistan on
Indian passport. Even these suggestions were considered to be
blasphemous.
In this entire episode, the
viciousness and the naked courage of anti-India spin-doctors in the
Indian establishment is the most disturbing feature.
Revising Threat Perception
The
Indian Army Chief and the GOC-in-C of Northern Command were rightly
incensed over the beheading. Nevertheless it would have served the
security of the country better, if the Army Chief had taken a more
holistic view of the country's security rather than just the incident at
the LOC. This incident was not isolated but was concomitant with
killing of Sarpanches and ambush in Chhattisgarh by the Maoists, wherein
weapons of Pakistani origin were found. There has been inconvertible
proof of growing ISI-Maoist-ULFA links and the formation of Strategic
United Front. The Indian Army cannot fail to appreciate the new phase of
proxy war from Pakistan.
Taking into account
the threat from China and Pakistan, more importantly the proxy wars in
form of jihadi terrorism and Maoist terrorism emanating from them; the
developments in Afghanistan; the extent of the Red Corridor; the jihadi
terrorism emanating from Bangladesh; the impact of instability in Nepal;
the insurgency in Assam and Northeast; the growing ISI footprints in
the very heart of India — the Indian Army needs to readdress its threat
perception. It is reiterated that the ISI is a part of the military
establishment of Pakistan and jihadi terrorism is its inalienable
strategic tool, therefore the Indian Army can continue to
compartmentalize internal and external security at the peril of India.
The form of warfare has changed and so has the concept of defeat and
victory. Defeat has so far been our destiny in this new form of warfare
because we do not even know what constitutes victory!
The
distinction or line between internal security and external security has
obliterated. The degree of harmony between internal security and
external security determines the overall security of a country. It is
this disharmony that has cost us 230 districts in the Maoist corridor
and the displacement of more than four lakh Kashmiri pandits from their
motherland. The latter poses a glaring question on the very secular
model of Indian state that we have inherited. It is a sad reflection on
the ability of the state and its instruments to provide to its people
the very basis of Indian nation-state.
The
Indian security forces cannot afford to get carried away by the new
political and diplomatic discourse in Indo-Pak relations. If at all, the
recent LoC incident has exposed the irreconcilable disconnect between
political reach out, diplomatic reach out and security imperatives
vis-a-vis Pakistan.
In fact, a very sizeable
segment of the political and diplomatic community, as also the media,
has been seen to be desperate in localizing the LoC incident. Their
entire thrust was to dissociate Kashmir from the overall Indo-Pakistan
interface, so that the country could be told that it is our manifest
destiny to suffer terrorism in Kashmir. The script made itself quite
evident when the scare of a nuclear war was propagated by a Kashmir
based newspaper. The entire exercise is to portray Kashmir as a nuclear
flash point to the international community and therefore the beheadings
should be seen in that larger backdrop.
The
ostensible 'peace lobby' is in deliberate criminal neglect to ignore
that terror had moved full circle from Kashmir to Mumbai. This circle
remains intact. It would have done wonders to the morale of Indian
troops if the Prime Minister had visited the families of the beheaded
soldiers, just as he did in the case of a diplomat, who lost his life in
Afghanistan, since both were victims of the same jihadi terrorism.
It
is incumbent on the Indian Army to argue cogently with the
decision-makers regarding the circle of terror operating in India. It
must prevail on the decision makers that since the terrorist camps in
PoK and elsewhere continue to thrive, and there is not an iota of
change in the terrorist discourse in the Pakistan's
military-intelligence establishment, no amount of investment in peace
would deliver dividends.
It may help the
Americans to script the new geopolitical discourse in the region and a
new Pakistani dispensation that will ensure smooth exit from
Afghanistan, but it will certainly be at the cost of India. In fact, we
may just be in worse situation than before 9/11 as far as victims of
jihadi terrorism.
Conclusion
The
new strategic reality obtaining in the region was best summed by John
Kerry, a passionate Pakistan supporter, in the US Senate when he
challenged senator Rand Paul's proposed bill to make US aid to Pakistan
incumbent on release of Dr. Shakil Afridi, who had helped in locating
Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil. John Kerry, who is to shortly take
over as the new Secretary of State, argued that the victory in the war
against Al-Qaeda would not have been possible without Pakistan and
Pakistanis are sacrificing lives in the Northwestern tribal regions. It
was this this support from Kerry that resulted in the provision of $ 688
million to Pakistan for its infrastructural support to the US led
coalition in Afghanistan.
It may be noted that Americans in reaching out to Pakistan displayed no concerns about jihadi groups targeting India.
John
Kerry never fails to underscore the strategic importance of Pakistan.
It may be mentioned that whenever Pakistan has been on the verge of
collapse, it has been salvaged by concourse of a strategic
circumstances. In the 50s and 60s its key strategic location was
critical for CENTO and SEATO, in the 70s when it was on the verge of
collapse its territory became indispensable to fight the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan and in the beginning of 21st century its demise was
prevented by the US led war against terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment