Indian Defence Review

It was in the wee hours of 18 Sep 2016 that four heavily armed terrorists, who had earlier infiltrated across the Line of Control (LOC), in the Uri sector of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), attacked an Army Camp and inflicted heavy casualties on the Indian Army. 18 soldiers died in the attack, many of who were burnt alive in their tents in fires caused by incendiary grenades, a first by terrorists; the four terrorists were also killed in the ensuing gunfight.

The reactions, both by India and Pakistan were along predicted lines. India condemned the attack and said that the attack was conducted by Jaish e Mohammad (JeM) group, which has its hideouts and training centres in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). Pakistan, true to its stand that has been maintained, stated that it had nothing to do with the attacks and claimed that the militants involved were non-state actors.

Initial investigations by the Indian Army pointed to several lapses by the border outposts and at the Uri Military Camp itself. Notwithstanding the lapses, the Indian ego had been hurt, and hurt badly. Political parties were quick to condemn the attacks and wanted heads to roll, especially that of the Prime Minister for his soft approach against Pakistan. There were calls for immediate retaliation from the public and many an armchair strategist, both from the ranks of veterans of the Armed Forces, and civilians from think tanks.

The military retaliation finally came on 29 Sep 2016.

Reactions

The reactions, as mentioned, were along predictable lines, with various ministers and the Prime Minister himself condemning the attack. It was, however, evident from the statements that the establishment was shaken up. The Raksha Mantri (RM) asked the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) to take appropriate action to avenge the deaths of the soldiers; his deputy reportedly stated that the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues were of the opinion that a befitting response needs to be given to Pakistan.

Recovering from the shock and trauma, the Government of India (GoI) went into an overdrive and launched a diplomatic blitzkrieg. It just so happened that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) was meeting within a few days and the Minister of External Affairs was to address the General Assembly in lieu of the Prime Minister. India garnered support from almost the entire membership of the UN, with even some of the Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar also condemning the attack.

India called upon the UN Human Rights Council to urge Pakistan to stop providing a safe haven to the various terrorist groups and dismantle their non-state infrastructure being used to facilitate cross-border infiltration into India. It also called to isolate Pakistan diplomatically, in an effort to it being declared a terrorist state. The war of words continued into the UNGA with the Minister and her staff engaging their counterparts from Pakistan.

In further response to the attack, the GoI stated it would exercise its rights under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty to the full and would expand its utilisation of its rivers flowing through J&K. The Government subsequently stated it would also review Pakistan’s Most Favoured Nation (MFN) trade status, which India had granted in 1996, and which Pakistan has been stubbornly refusing to reciprocate.

In the wake of the attack, India cancelled its participation in the 19th SAARC summit to be held in November in Islamabad. In an official communiqué, the Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement, saying, “…under the prevailing circumstances, the Government of India is unable to participate in the proposed Summit in Islamabad”. Later, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Bhutan announced their withdrawal from the Summit, thus giving credence to India’s arguments.

Pakistan, in its defence, has steadfastly denied any participation in the attack, but has not condemned it in that many words either; an unconfirmed report even mentioned that the entire episode was enacted by India to divert the attention from the happenings in J&K! Reacting to India’s announcement of utilising the waters of the Indus and other rivers, Pakistan has been quick to react and now wants to approach the World Bank and other international bodies for arbitration.

What Next

It is obvious that the decision to retaliate against Pakistan would have been taken in the very first meeting chaired by the Prime Minister on 19 Sep 2016. The Army would then have made its plans based on hard intelligence and would have even practised on sand models, and may be even rehearsed on a mock up, if required. That the “surgical strike” was a success speaks volumes of the levels of professionalism of the Army, despite recent happenings and all the noise about emoluments and pensions.

What next now?

India has to continue to be prepared for retaliatory action, by both Pakistan, and the terrorist organisations that it harbours. While the media is reporting about various nations and nation-groups advising restraint from both sides, India, on its part must continue the diplomatic offensive. As a display of its desire for peace between the two nations, India can offer to initiate talks with Pakistan, may be at a neutral venue, but with an agenda set by it, which should include action on all pending issues, such as the 26/11 trial. What if Pakistan does not conform to the international norms? Consequences, that it is well aware of, could follow! The aim in the diplomatic onslaught should be to internationalise Pakistan’s villainous behaviour, with some realpolitik rather than continuing with idealism.

On the economic front, Indian talk of reviewing the MFN status should also continue, along with efforts to convince other nations to join in. There is little trade between our two nations; India’s exports and imports to and from Pakistan constitute less than a per cent of the total trade figures. On the other hand, for Pakistan, India is a reasonably major trade partner with a shade more than four per cent of its imports from India. The revoking of the MFN status would thus be only symbolic, as the balance of trade is in India’s favour, and what Pakistan imports from India can be then obtained from another supplier; some of Pakistan’s sympathisers may even view the action as a petty action on the part of India. If, however, other nations join India, in curbing trade with Pakistan, then the impact would be different.

The Indus Water Treaty is perhaps, the most successful water treaty negotiated between the two countries. Abrogation of the treaty, it is feared by some experts and in political circles, would hurt India as much as it would hurt Pakistan. The foreign affairs adviser to the Pakistan Prime Minister has been reported to have made a statement in the Pakistan Senate that any violation of the terms of the agreement, would be an act of aggression by India. The treaty, with the World Bank as its guarantor, has been in place for long and was never suspended even during any of the wars with Pakistan. India, therefore, should tread carefully on this road, as any unilateral abrogation could damage India’s credibility as a responsible nation that respects international law.

Militarily, India has displayed restraint and maturity. While the ‘surgical strikes’ were across the LOC, which was not crossed even during the Kargil Conflict in 1999, the targets were the terrorist launch-pads and not the Pakistan military, economic assets, or the public. The restraint displayed by India has been appreciated by countries in the region and even internationally. The present Government would do well to work on building the capabilities of the Armed Forces now. All the Services are crying for new equipment. The Army wants new assault rifles, the basic equipment in any army. The Air Force combat capability is dwindling at an alarming rate. The Navy has a shortage of ships of all classes, with even the existing ones with little or no new armament; the vigil at the borders has to be with the latest of detection equipment. The list is endless. Gen VP Malik’s statement at the time of the Kargil Conflict, comes to mind, “We will fight with whatever we have.” The Armed Forces are high on morale, but short of modern machines; the situation must change if India has to maintain a heightened vigil at the borders.

Conclusion

Whether it is the aggressor through its sponsored terrorist force, or even when it is on the receiving end, as it is now, Pakistan always has been in a state of denial! The action taken by the Indian political leadership was correct to avenge the deaths of its 18 brave-hearts, for just a diplomatic or an economic onslaught would not have been enough.

The launch pads that were located in the close proximity of the LOC would now be shifted deep into PoK, making further strikes difficult. Nevertheless, the option should remain open. Would Pakistan have learnt its lesson? It is doubtful for it to shed seven decades of its hostile policy towards India in the blink of an eye.

For some time to come the mood of the public would be celebratory, but amongst the strategists and policy makers in the government, the question would be how to inflict a further sever cost on the terrorist groups and their sponsors, without an escalation into an open war. The heightened vigil by the Indian Armed Forces would continue for a few weeks, or even a few months. It is but human, that at a time would come when the guard would be lowered. Pakistan would wait for that moment, but India has to ensure prevention.

Is it not that “Prevention is better than Cure”!