Indian Defence Review

While conducting CI/CT operations, as far as possible, we must avoid collateral damage. However, if a person or persons protect militants, provide logistics support or assist in their escape, it is they who should be made to answer for their actions rather than the security forces. Witch hunting should be avoided at all costs. We have to enrol larger number of women into police service to defeat the age old tactics employed by the locals in such areas of acting behind ‘women and children’ shield. Judiciary should also be careful in entertaining frivolous reports of excesses committed by the security forces while discharging their lawful duties.

While employing security forces, we always think of “employ the Army – withdraw the army – employ CAPF or state police forces”. A change in this mindset may prove beneficial. Sensing that the situation in the Valley improved to be under manageable control of the CAPF, the Army was withdrawn from certain parts of the Kashmir Valley in 2014. Considering the current unrest in the Valley which is already into its third month, the Govt is considering bringing the Army back.

A case for segmenting the entire Valley into smaller areas and employing the Army, the CAPF and the State Police in different zones of the valley may be tried out. A unified commander of the entire Valley under whom should be Zonal Commanders who may control all the forces in that particular zone may be nominated. The synergy of effort would pay handsome dividends. This approach may be resisted by each force on the grounds of difficulty of command and control and shifting the blame on each other when the situation spins out of control or become difficult to handle in a particular area.

This strategy, however, will also divide the modus operandi of the people/ demonstrators/ crowd who now employ a uniform method to deal with one type of force in the entire area. A note of caution is to instruct each force commander to resist the temptation of scoring brownie points. Let us make a beginning by employing a synergised force in each pocket and see the results. If the strategy fails, we have the option of reverting back to the current policy.

It is an internationally known dictum that the monopoly of violence (weapons) must remain with the State. Passing this ‘monopoly’ to anybody else (crowd/trouble creators/civilians/militants) will always lead to disaster. Let it be known to everybody who is living in this country that an attack on the security forces personnel and their posts will be replied with fire. The principle of use of minimum force/fire would, of course, be applied by the security forces while dealing with the internal strife. The onus of losing limbs or life will rest on the crowd/trouble creators/person(s) involved. Similarly, as has been done in the case of minors causing death/injury following an automobile accident, the parents would be found blameworthy; it should be ruled that the parents would be booked for injury/death to a minor, if he is found to be indulging in unlawful activities or dies/gets injured.

We have seen the result of a policy of appeasement and its failure. We may have to go back to the strategy that we employed between 1990 and 2005 – i.e. hand over the situation to the Army and bring it under control. People must be told in no uncertain terms that any type of violence will be retaliated appropriately. In the first place the Home Minister seems to have committed a mistake by admitting that use of pellet guns would be discontinued. Has he got the assurance from those who have been pelting stones and using other types of missiles that they will not use the same hereafter? Are the lives of the security personnel dispensable or not important?

In the absence of a suitable weapon in the hands of the security personnel, they will be left at the mercy of the miscreants as has been shown in the media every time the trouble erupts in the Valley. There is no reason for the powers that be to feel insecure? If we change our tactics and methods after every demonstration and after losing the lives of a few demonstrators, we will be only doing that. Let a method or tactics, which has been employed after carrying out due thought, continue for some time. Minor course corrections may be done as we go along.

At the strategic level, three things need to be done. One, we must not allow Pakistan to come out of its economic morass. If it sinks deeper into the economic tunnel, its own population will get disenchanted with the Govt and force a change in its attitude. It is not considered safe to pen down the modus operandi to do it here. Suffice to say that we have enough strategic thinkers and other intelligent people in the field of economics to suggest ways and means to carry out this activity.

The oft quoted statement that a strong Pakistan is in India’s interest is behaving like an ostrich. Kutte ki poonchh 12 saal tak naal mein rakhne ke baad bhi tedi ki tedi nikli (dog’s tail could not be straightened even after it was kept in a tube for 12 years) is aptly applicable to Pakistan. We have experienced it over last 69 years. Let nobody fool us by saying that our relations have been on the mend due to Track II Diplomacy or due to Gujral Doctrine or during Bajpai’s Prime Ministership, or due to efforts of Manmohan Singh. If that was so, we wouldn’t have met them on the battlefield in 1948, 1965, 1971, 1999 and 2001-02. Two, We have to increase the cost to Pakistan for creating trouble in our country. Pakistan will stop only if it hurts her more than us. Till it is done, nothing is going to change. The policy of presenting the other cheek will not help.

The only strategy that will work with Pakistan is to kill two if we lose one, to kill many times 18, if we lose 18. What means we employ to carry out this strategy need not be told to anybody and let no outsider advise us as to what we should do. Unfortunately, the trouble with our leadership and the media is that they shout too much, but do sweet little. Even after losing 18 men in Uri, all that our Home Minister and other leaders have been saying/tweeting “ghor ninda” (utterly condemn) of the cowardly act. Our Prime Minister has said that those involved will have to pay a heavy price for their actions. One is waiting for the heavy price that those involved in Pathankot attack have been asked to pay (under the same Govt). We have been too soft and have always been hoping that others will do our bidding. Who the hell, in the whole world, is interested in fighting for others?

Three, we need to change our policy of rushing to USA or other international powers/groupings to declare Pakistan a terrorist state and do chest thumping. We should do everything at our disposal to protect our interests. When has the USA or others in nearly five decades ever imposed sanctions on Pakistan, even though Pakistan is recognised by the same USA as the fountainhead of terrorism in Asia? We should not be afraid of China supporting Pakistan. China, today, has much to lose if sever our economic ties with it. We should ensure that our fences with other global players continue to become stronger to maintain an equilibrium in international relations.

Unemployment is a problem in the entire country and so is the problem of poverty. Kashmir is no different. But the problem of creating jobs and alleviating poverty in Kashmir has been rather slow because of heavy corruption. The money that has been given to J & K over last seven decades is not less. On the contrary J & K has been getting much more in per capita terms than any other state of the Union. Where has this money gone? Somebody needs to answer.

J & K has also been a big beneficiary economically with the huge strength of Armed Forces present in that state as part of salary that the men receive gets ploughed back into the economy of the state. A look at the lifestyle of a large section of people living in and around Srinagar reveals total opulence, to say the least, but tax collection has been negligible. The black money so generated is being utilized to support militancy in the state. Militants, in turn, provide protection to these very businessmen. Helplessness of the Govt machinery is unimaginable, particularly since many of these people have sympathisers in the State Govt and its law enforcement agencies. The need is to improve governance in the state and hold people accountable for the largesse that the state has been receiving. Is the Central Govt prepared to bell the cat?

A section of the intelligentsia agrees with the separatists and advocates uniting J & K and POK with a view to declare Kashmir an independent nation. Nothing would be more damaging for India than doing this. Such a move would not deter Pakistan from creating trouble in India. On the contrary, it would direct all its evil energies against other states of India, since it would be free from doing so in Kashmir. And why should we lose a part of our country when it has legally decided to be part of it after the independence of India? Instead, we must not give up our right to get POK back from Pakistan.

We have two states in the country where a high level of insurgency prevails – Manipur and Kashmir. If we analyse the reasons for it, we would see that the root cause of problems, in both states, has been the result of political blunders committed by one or more political parties at the centre. Unfortunate part is that none of the political parties which ruled India subsequently have tried to mend the relations. In the case of J & K, if we want the situation to improve, we will have to consider giving greater autonomy to the State as was promised at the time of accession of Kashmir with India. We have to assuage the hurt feelings of the population there, without losing any time, if we want them to join the mainstream.

To say that Kashmiris have been creating trouble without having any grievances is to fool ourselves. We have to make all out efforts understand their viewpoint sincerely, in letter and spirit. All political parties, without exception, must, therefore, agree to do this and work together to make it happen. Any half measures will not do, more so since Pakistan would not stop fishing in troubled waters. A note of caution – none of the measures suggested above will succeed, if we do not resort to a spirit of give and take with the Kashmiris. Stubbornness will only spoil the situation further and may lead us to a point of no return.

Lastly, our strategy for the type of attack that has been recently launched in Uri. Our Prime Minister’s image will go very high in the eyes of the nation if he can act decisively. If we can pay back Pakistan in the same coin and cause equal amount of damage, if not more, to its people and security forces that it does to us, we would help solve the Kashmir problem too. If that leads to war, so be it. We have had enough of pussyfooting for last 69 years, nomore now.

As Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Guru of Sikhs, had said, “Chu kar az hamah heelate dar guzasht, Halal ast brdan bi shamsheer dast” meaning “When all other ways of redress fail, it is righteous to pick up the sword”. To that end, the Govt must make all diplomatic efforts on the international stage, immediately intesify the political process to assuage the hurt sentiments of the Kashmiris and at the same time prepare its armed forces to be ready to meet any challenge, keep its powder dry, raise the morale of its rank and file, which has got a beating due to recent events, reduce its counter insurgency responsibilities as much as possible and order it to train for conventional operations with vigour. While dealing in the international affairs, we must keep in mind the warning of the late British diplomat Sir Harold Nicholson, “Nations do not have permanent friends or enemies. They have permanent interests.”

As mentioned earlier, for us our interests must be supreme and we must protect them ourselves first. Nobody else is going to do it for us, howsoever close he or she may be to us.

We need to put our heads together, think and more importantly, act to increase the space of this conflict. We may have to pay some price in the initial stages, but we must carry out a cost-benefit analysis over a longer period and think, decide if it is going to give us a lasting peace.