Should India put peace balm on Pak border ambush and move on

A hawkish stand may jeopardize ties. Restraint, not righteous retribution, is the need of the hour

One step forward and two steps back has always been the story of India-Pakistan relations. It is more clear that unless Pakistan is able to move beyond the pathological hostility towards India that defines its identity, there is little India could do to really improve bilateral ties.

Tit-for-tat, head-for-head, weapon-for-weapon, Prithvi-to-Ghauri, ... this is the game that India and Pakistan have played for over six decades. Each death of an Indian soldier and every death of a Pakistani soldier on the Line of Control (LoC) is a tragedy, especially after the two countries had agreed to a ceasefire in November 2003. 

 

 

Lashing out, opening fire, making war —- these are the easy options. One school of thought in the security establishment is that New Delhi’s frustration in its relations with Islambad has reached a point where it should keep all its options open, including the use of force. So far, India has responded cautiously as an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
________________________
. ALSO SEE
.  EDIT | Do not escalate
. India-Pakistan trade talks to be hit again
. The problem with Antony's statement
________________________

The Manmohan Singh-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has not yet given any clear cut signal that what useful diplomatic-political-economic-military action it could take. Foreign policy experts are of the view that the Centre should do something concrete to protect India’s identity, otherwise, India’s aspirations of becoming a superpower will be jeopardized by big and small nations in the subcontinent.

 

The ball is in New Delhi’s court. The million-dollar question is:  what action would India consider appropriate? The most-talked option is a raid on alleged terrorist training camps in the part of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) that Pakistan controls. At present, India must not display a mood for compromise and the Pakistani government may feel it has risked enough already.

 

Will the killing of five Indian soldiers escalate military tensions between India and Pakistan? In the immediate term, yes. But does this mean that they are on the road to a larger conflict? That depends on how the political leadership reacts to the current crisis.

The latest assault exhibits the divide in Pakistan’s establishment, a section of which obviously does not take kindly to the furthering of ties with India. As of now, India cannot afford diplomacy to take a back-seat back approach. Bilateral talks between India and Pakistan were practically stalled since January 8 when two Indian soldiers were killed — one of them beheaded — and the PM declared that “it cannot be business as usual” with Pakistan.

 

There has been no let-up in alleged Pakistan sponsorship of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, and increasingly most terror groups are led and manned by Pakistanis. One should not forget that some of the most sophisticated terrorists in the world still operate out of Pakistan. Defence Minister AK Antony has acknowledged that infiltration attempts doubled this year and ceasefire violations went up by 80%, with 57 incidents reported so far this year. The pertinent question is: why does the Indian Government not take this up with Pakistan through diplomatic channels? 

 

Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley has pointed out that Pakistan was “a state living in denial”, whether it was Kargil, the 26/11 attack or the beheading of an Indian soldier this January, and had long obliterated the line between non-state and state actors. He demanded the government rework its foreign policy to send a clear message to Islamabad.

 

Pakistan has Chinese support in actions against India, too. The tactic is to tie down India’s troops to the Pakistan border and in Kashmir, contain India’s power in Asia, and prevent a role for India in Afghanistan. In 2014, the United States of America will reduce if not withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Pakistan’s unholy game plan is to force India to dedicate more troops to the Pakistan border and reduce its flexibility of action in Afghanistan.

 

Echoing the concerns voiced by several foreign policy experts, Communist Party of India (Marxist) politburo member Sitaram Yechury has said the trend may be directly linked to Afghanistan angle, sparking concerns in India that the pullout would embolden terrorists and lead to more strikes. 

 

The principal opposition party – the BJP – is of the view that in the current prevailing scenario Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should put talks on hold with his Pakistan counterpart Nawaz Sharif during his visit to the US on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting. While talks with Pakistan are a way out, they cannot be held when that country is bent on using violence to gain an upper hand. However, the Congress party is not hawkish by instinct. India is all set to face general elections in 2014.  Most important, perhaps, is that failure to retaliate could be seen as an admission that the UPA government is incapable of answering Pakistan-sponsored terrorism with force. 

 

The key threat facing India is clear: a somewhat unstable and dangerous Pakistan. For the past five years India has been the world’s largest importer of weapons. According to The Wall Street Journal report, India is spending more than $30 billion per year on modernising its armed forces in a race to catch up with China’s much larger military and perceived military threats from Pakistan.  

 

Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities are also a constant concern. Its arsenal of warheads, developed with Chinese assistance, is at least as large as India’s and probably larger. It has missiles of mainly Chinese design that can reach most Indian cities and, unlike India, it does not have a “no first use” policy. 

 

India’s problems with Pakistan are not of the sort that can be solved militarily. The possession of nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems by both countries has added a new dimension to any future war between the two countries. For the first time civilian populations of both countries will be hostage in any conflict. India holds the moral high ground. Even during Kargil it did not cross the LoC. It is debatable if it will be worthwhile now. Pakistan faces a very uncertain future. India must remain on its guard. Bonhomie between people does not mean that old hostilities and resentments have disappeared.