Present evidence. Prove Imran is lying

The Balakot strike showed a determined India would respond decisively to terror. For this message to be delivered, the doubts must be removed

Today I’m going to focus on an important issue that hasn’t really been raised by the Indian media but has been widely commented upon by a very substantial section of the foreign media. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Telegraph, The Guardian, Gulf News, Reuters, AFP, BBC and Al Jazeera have all raised questions about what India achieved with the Balakot strike. Do we not need to be aware of what they’ve said? And don’t we need to refute it if they are wrong? 

First, let’s look at what they’ve claimed. The Washington Post says there are “no signs of mass casualties”. The Guardian claims “it was unclear… whether anything significant had been struck by fighter jets”. The New York Times states “little had been damaged”. Reuters reported that only one person was wounded and no one killed. The Daily Telegraph echoed that view. Reuters also claimed the Indian bombs missed their target. Gulf News repeats this. Al Jazeera believes the strike hit “a mostly uninhabited forest and a farmer’s field” and there is “no evidence of any building debris or casualties”. Finally, Jane’s Information Group states: “this is more political symbolism than anything else”.

Now there are two ways we could respond. The first is not to pay attention. This could be on the grounds the Western media has traditionally taken Pakistan’s side and is doing so again. So, regardless of how widely it’s read or watched, we need not worry. The other response would be to say the Balakot strike was intended to convey a message to Pakistan and Islamabad knows exactly how successful it was. We need not worry about anyone else. As long as Pakistan knows the truth that’s all that counts.

Now, let’s turn to what we’ve said. On the February 26, India’s Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale simply said “a very large number of JeM terrorists, trainers, senior commanders and group of jihadis… were eliminated”. In addition, almost every Indian newspaper and television channel quoted government sources to claim 300 terrorists had been killed. But this was general, non-specific and lacking in detail.

The information provided by the Indian military at Thursday evening’s press conference was no better. In fact, it raised fresh questions. Air Vice Marshal RGK Kapoor said: “There’s fairly credible evidence with us which proves that there was damage to the camps. Weapons hit the intended target and they caused the damaged that was intended… whatever we intended to destroy we have got the effect we desired. We have evidence to show that whatever we wanted to do and targets we wanted to destroy we have done that.”

Cleverly or cryptically, the Air Vice Marshal did not explain what he meant by “the damage that was intended” or “the effect that we desired” or, even, “whatever we wanted to do… we have done that”. All he said is India achieved what it sought to do and has “credible evidence” to prove it.

However, the Air Vice Marshal also said “it would be premature to say what is the number of casualties… and what is the number of deaths”. So where did the figure of 300 terrorists come from? Indeed, you could even ask how was it ascertained in the first place. 

This means nothing India has so far said effectively refutes the scepticism of the international media. But should we not take steps to resolve these doubts and prove what we achieved? After all, if we have the evidence let’s make it public.

I have two reasons for asserting this. First, the Balakot strike was also intended to tell the world that a determined and strong India would respond decisively to terror and can hit hard. For this message to be delivered the doubts must be removed.

Perhaps more importantly it would also benefit us to prove to the Pakistani people their government is lying. Imran Khan told his Parliament “there were no human casualties”. If we can provide credible evidence there were, we will undermine his stature as well as that of the Pakistan army and the ISI. Conversely, not to make our evidence public can only provide them comfort and security.