Satish Chandra
(Distinguished Fellow, VIF)
The anger in India at the recent mutilation of its soldiers by
Pakistani forces in J&K is natural and understandable. Quite
unwarranted, however, are the calls for revenge and of
internationalisation of the issue as also our feelings of surprise. The
idea of a tit-for-tat response to the mutilations is an obvious
non-starter given the Indian ethos which militates against such
atrocities. Moreover, unlike the Pakistani Army which is essentially a
jihadi outfit in uniform the Indian Army is much more professional with a
code of conduct that makes such reprehensible moves unthinkable.
Going by our historical experience calls to haul Pakistan before the
bar of international opinion, while more meaningful, do not hold much
promise. In this context, one need only recall the manner in which the
international community failed to address Pakistan’s aggression in
Kashmir, its blatant involvement with nuclear proliferation, and its
aiding and abetting several terrorist outfits. Moreover, today when the
West needs Pakistan in order to facilitate its disengagement from
Afghanistan it is most unlikely that the international community will
bestir itself in order to address our concerns about Pakistan’s
unacceptable behaviour, particularly when we continue to engage it.
There is no reason for Indians to be surprised at the acts of
barbarism committed by the Pakistan Army and its modus operandi when
confronted with them. These have been committed by it from time to time
most notably in August 2011 and earlier during the Kargil conflict. Its
propensity to engage in them arises from its affiliations to terrorist
outfits since its very inception. Its standard operating procedure when
confronted with its behaviour is to flatly deny the same. Lies, deceit,
and subterfuge are second nature to it. This should only be expected of
an army and a nation that has engaged in Mumbai like terror attacks on
India for decades.
Quite clearly Manmohan Singh’s policy of engagement with Pakistan has
failed in reducing the trust deficit with the latter and in securing
India from the latter’s inimical designs. This is reflected in
Pakistan’s recent acts of barbarism against our soldiers, frequent
breaches of the ceasefire, infiltration of terrorists into J&K,
repeated terrorist attacks against India even after 26/11, refusal to
shut down the infrastructure of terror and to bring to justice the
perpetrators of 26/11, efforts to revive the Khalistan movement, the
induction of fake Indian currency, etc. This falls into a pattern as
over the years all Indian endeavours to establish a meaningful
relationship with Pakistan most notably the extraordinarily generous
Indus Waters Treaty, the return of over 90,000 Pakistani POWs as well as
the over 5,300 square miles of territory captured by India in the 1971
conflict, and the unilateral grant of MFN treatment, did not succeed and
must go down as grave errors of judgments.
Engagement and generosity with Pakistan have failed because its armed
forces, which have all along called the shots, have had a vested
interest in maintaining an inimical relationship with India. An Indian
bogey has been critical as a means of keeping their hands on the reins
of power. The expectation that civil society could weaken the grip of
the Pakistan armed forces on power is totally misplaced as not only is
it too weak but has over the decades been brainwashed into an
anti-Indian mould and, to an extent, co-opted into the establishment.
This is borne out by the insensitive statements coming from Hina Rabbani
Khar. Given the fact that anti-Indianism is a part of the Pakistani DNA
the latter will continue with trying to bleed us no matter what
gestures India makes towards Pakistan.
In view of the foregoing India needs to undertake a paradigm shift in
its Pakistan policy. Policies of engagement and unilateral concessions
have got us nowhere and, indeed, have proved to be counterproductive as
they have only encouraged Pakistan to continue with its efforts to hurt
us. Accordingly, we need to evolve a holistic approach designed to bring
home to Pakistan that its pursuit of inimical policies vis-a-vis India
will not be cost free and, in fact, persistence with the same could
jeopardise its very existence.
Some elements of such a policy, which should be short on rhetoric but
strong on action, are: the composite dialogue process may be abandoned.
It has not succeeded in bridging the trust deficit and only maintained
an illusion of improving ties between the two countries. Abandoning it
would, moreover, be in keeping with our PM’s initial assurance, which he
reneged upon, that it would only be resumed when the perpetrators of
26/11 would be brought to justice; trade liberalisation with Pakistan
may be made contingent upon its according us MFN status and providing us
overland access to Afghanistan; visa liberalisation should not be
entertained till such time as Pakistan addresses our concerns relating
to terrorism as it would open us up to all manner of undesirables from
that country; India should exercise full rights over the Indus waters as
legally permitted under the Indus Waters Treaty. For starters, the
release of Indus water to Pakistan should be minimised by maximising the
use in India of these waters as permitted under the Indus Waters
Treaty. Building of storages as permitted under the treaty should be
accelerated in Kashmir. A notice should be served on Pakistan for
renegotiation of the treaty under which we get only 20 per cent of the
waters while having 40 per cent of the catchment area; Pakistan’s
faultlines must be ruthlessly exploited particularly in Balochistan.
Since it already accuses us of such activity it would do us no harm to
engage in it covertly; covert action, and if need be focused strikes,
should be undertaken to take out terrorist elements and their supporters
operating from Pakistan. Contingency plans for such action should be
developed expeditiously so that following another terrorist attack on us
or any unacceptable behaviour these are undertaken within a matter of
hours; the armed forces may be given full tactical freedom to militarily
address any Pakistani adventurism across our borders; and, at the
diplomatic level India should relentlessly expose Pakistan’s involvement
with human rights violations, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism. In
addition, we should oppose its efforts at securing any office in
international bodies.
The pursuit of such a policy alone would lend reality to the PM’s
assertion that it cannot any longer be business as usual with Pakistan.
It goes without saying that such a policy must be accompanied by
measures designed to tighten up internal security, ensuring that the
needs of our armed forces both in the conventional and nuclear sphere
are met, and ending alienation in Kashmir through our endeavours.
