Indian Defence Review

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Professional soldiers mutilate none, dead or alive, enemy or friend. Indeed, a martyred enemy is an object of sombre empathy and deep veneration. Pakistan Army soldiers – most of them – are highly professional and share the pristine military ethos with their Indian counterparts, as indeed that is so with the soldiers the world over. A more practical reason to uphold an impeccably honourable code of conduct lies in the eternal understanding that a warrior, if bereft of sublime moral fibre, will invariably be found to be cowardly in face of danger or death.

Meek capitulation of the Pakistan Army in 1971 after having sullied their calling in what was then East Pakistan, is the closest example of that eternal truth; that was experienced first hand by many of us. Gentlemanly conduct therefore is intrinsic to the profession of arms, and the military fraternity across all frontiers finds its breach to be abhorrent, despicable, indeed, downright unacceptable. Obviously therefore, the recent incident of decapitating a martyred Indian soldier to take the head back as a ‘trophy’, has raised widespread indignation in India – and surely even among the sensible in Pakistan. Consequently, as the stale farce of Pakistan’s show of indignant innocence is played out, Indo-Pak relations have touched another low.

Motivated Barbarism

Much analysis of the growing incidents of cease-fire violations in general, and this barbaric act in particular, has followed. Ramifications of this act on management of the Line of Control (LoC), growth of military-terrorist coalition in Pakistan and the situation in Afghanistan have been debated. Highly regarded analysts have expressed a range of opinions on these aspects. The observations range from the incident being attributable to Pakistani Army’s nexus with that despicable mutant – Hafeez Sayeed – and frustration in its failure to push terrorists across under the cover of cease fire violations, to the likelihood of playing out this episode to divert public attention from the bloody mess in Pakistan and to save the Pakistan Army from estrangement with the polity.

It has been further suggested that it could have well been a preparatory exercise  aimed at escalating tension between the two nations ahead of Pakistan’s foreign minister’s tour abroad, and so to attract attention of the international community towards the Kashmir issue. The myopia among the powerful arbitrators of world affairs, who remain captive ever to the expediency of assuagement of the habitual nuisance-maker – much to the reward of the latter – might have prompted that idea. In relation to Afghanistan, it has been suggested that this could be the first step in re-orienting the India-baiting army from its much detested diversion towards Pakistan’s western borders, a ‘correction’ that would afford ‘depth’ to her surreptitious machinations across the Durand Line. No doubt, all such possibilities are real; these need to be studied in reference to the observable signs that are garnered from our deeply troubled neighbourhood.

This stage offers an occasion to suggest another factor that could also have triggered the manifestation of Pakistan Army’s macabre design. This is a factor that has found ground among Pakistan’s post-1990 soldiery, and our military fraternity knows that.

Turning Soldiers into Murderers

Barbarism in the conduct of soldierly duties was apparently not prevalent in the Pakistan Army before the Zia era. It was General Zia ul Haq who, in a fit of self-destructive urge, institutionalised religious bigotry upon his society; even the soldiery was sought to be converted thus. Soon, there were treatise written on ‘islamic principles of warfare’ (!), and soldiers, rather being motivated to defend their nation with fortitude and foresight, were incited to lunge in blind frenzy at those, who having been born into other religions, were declared as bonafide targets for killing. Even those sects of Islam which do not subscribe to extreme forms of Salafist ideology were not spared that qualification. Such  a macabre ordination was ostensibly made for the sake of Islam –  a prophesy of compassion and peace.

The purpose was to find fodders for ‘proxy wars’ within Pakistan as well as in the neighbourhood. In Kashmir, it was envisaged that these robots would achieve what the regular Pakistan Army could not, that is, to ‘allow the Muslims of Kashmir the right to choose to merge with Pakistan’, as the conceited rhetoric goes. Indeed, wallowing  in blood and gore, there is little to differentiate between that kind of abuse of the religion and what the recent abuse of the dead represents. May be it is for our good – head hunters have generally found defeat at the end. We may salute those two martyrs for injecting their unworthy adversaries with the seeds of self-destruction in exchange for their severed heads.

In Military Domain

In Indian Army, there have also been breach of soldiery decorum in the past. As one recalls the court martials and summary dismissals in this context, such deviations have not gone unpunished.  Undoubtedly, any Indian soldier bringing a head, or for that matter found vandalising in any manner a body slain, would find himself condemned and ostracised for ever. Not so in Pakistan’s battalions today. There, perpetuators of such ‘Islamic’ conduct would find support from many of their platoon mates, endorsement from the company commander and acknowledgement, if embarrassed, of their commanding officer. At higher levels, whereas in the past this act would have raised indignation across the board, today there would be many who would not be able to suppress open expression of their glee, identifying themselves with the throat-splitting Al Qaeda, and so claim higher adherence to the tenets of Islam.

News paper readers are aware that prompted by localised tensions, both sides have, in the past, executed raids across the LoC; besides, occasionally they have been  firing at each other. People on the ground are aware that snipers on both sides have many times felled an odd unsuspecting soldier who may have failed to observe due precautions. Even artillery duels have taken place in most sectors. Once, fed up of repeated shelling of a village close to the LoC, our Army had retaliated so vigorously that the Pakistanis had to extend a promise of good behaviour to be spared. The silence had lasted long thereafter. Of course, since the beginning of the ‘proxy war’ in Kashmir, Pakistan Army’s propensity of breaching the cease-fire to cover infiltrating terrorists, have become a routine. We are also privy to another incident a decade back when a Special Service Group commando-turned-terrorist, Illiyas Kashmiri, in association with Pakistani troops, had succeeded in raiding an Indian post on the LoC, and secured his place among the terrorists by carrying an Indian soldier’s severed head. Reportedly, Indian Army had avenged this failure sometime later, sans, of course, the mutilation part.

Indeed, for the Pakistan Army, cease-fire violation is not a choice, it is a compulsion  to sustain the mayhem in Kashmir. On India’s part, it is also true that beyond its possible ramifications upon bilateral as well as big-power relations, such developments hardly ever get to find place among the government’s primary concerns; the managers of national security may not have the vision, or the urge, to ‘feel’ the factors that determine the exactions of defending the LoC. The Army brass, stoic as they are by traditional disposition, prefer not to rake up the matter beyond a certain point, chary as they are of imposition of impractical restrictions from the mandarins of the South Block.

This case is, however, somewhat different. Offer of incentive to bring in a severed head had certainly been made. That this incentive originated from a terrorist organisation – apparently the Lashkar e-Taiba – and that it had active support from individual Pakistani officers in the direct chain of command, is also a foregone conclusion. So what next?

Practicable Options

There are two aspects to be considered in dealing with Pakistan’s misdemeanour. One, as her past record validates, she will continue to assume her traditional poker-face denials and blatant lying – as her Foreign Minister is engaged these days – till some years later when few of her worthies can no longer suppress their urge to let her people know of their purported ‘heroics’. Of course, there would be no show of embarrassment even then, a thick hide would take care of that. Therefore, it would be illusionary to expect Pakistan to stop violation of the cease-fire, just as it would be futile to expect Pakistan Army to act honourably in punishing the guilty and returning the head with due military decorum.

Two, we cannot expect Pakistan Army to cure its compulsive intransigence. Invariably therefore, such violations would be repeated after a short interlude, and we will be obliged to remain stoical – unless debilitating retribution is delivered to chastise the obstinate. The duel will go on till that time in the unforeseen future when one of the polity blinks. However, there comes a chance of keeping the ‘rat’ in its hole and live through a longer interlude till it lasts. This is the option enunciated by the Indian Army brass when they made a promise to respond ‘at a time and place of own choosing’. Let the Damocles’ sword keep the cowardly lot cowering till that promise has to be implemented. May we sit tight and watch, sword in hand, and take our men into confidence regarding the promise to keep.

Morale Regardless

Many among the civilian fraternity have shown their concern over the effect that this incident, and the Indian government’s forbearance in handling this unacceptable event, would have on our troop’s morale. These well wishers may be assured of our military leadership’s competence in maintaining their soldier’s spirit. They have done so against equally serious machinations that have emanated from within the Indian state; there is no reason they would not do so against provocations thrown at them by the external adversaries. Indeed, there may be a need to convey that assurance to our civilian hierarchy too, bereft as most of them are of the understanding of soldier’s morale and its nuances that makes it neither fragile, nor permeable.