[Here is a summary of my comments to print and
television media on the India-Pakistan standoff on specific issues raised by
them on January 15 & 17.]
On
Indian Prime Minister’s strong statement and later developments
Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s statement has
relevance externally to India-Pakistan relations as well as internally to the
people. His demand to Pakistan for bringing to book those responsible for
killing and mutilating two Indian soldiers on January 8, 20012 is a break from
the past. Despite strong opposition criticism Prime Minister
had always made an effort, at time bending over backwards, to ensure that peace
process with Pakistan is not derailed. He did not react sufficiently
strongly against Pakistan even to the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Similarly,
he also refrained from on reacting strongly two beheadings were carried out by
Pakistani troops in 2011 (as stated by the Army Chief General Bikram Singh) to
keep the peace process going. In fact this incident was never reported in
public.
The Prime Minister’s statement came a full week
after the barbaric incident. Did he want to give Pakistan sufficient time to
come out with a face saving interim reply? Or did he lose his cool when the Pak
Foreign Minister Ms Hina Rabbani went on a publicity gig by offering to get the
incident investigated by the UN Military Observers Group (UNMOGIP)? Or was he
exasperated by Pakistan routinely not responding to Indian sensitivity on not
only this issue but on many others including action against terrorist
masterminds of 26/11 attacks in Pakistan? The use of the words ‘it cannot be
business as usual’ would shows his level of exasperation with Pakistan as he is
not given to such usage in public statements. Whatever be the reason, he has shown a red
card to Pakistan – ‘Don’t take me or India for granted.’
Dr
Manmohan Singh’s detractors might say that he was only reacting to Indian
public outrage which was being capitalized by the opposition. This could also
be a reason because in Indian politics public posturing more than concrete
action is an important tool. Increasing public protests demonstrated after the
gang rape issues and by Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement have shown the inability
of government in dealing with public sentiments. So the Prime Minister may have
also made his statement in response to the growing anger among the people over
the incident whipped up by real time coverage by visual media.
It is
a good thing that the Prime Minister had understood the need for communicating
his views to the public. He should make it a regular feature. This has remained
one of the biggest weaknesses of his government. Such public briefings through
regular press conferences would make the public aware of the complexities in dealing
with a hydra-headed Pakistan where three power centres – political mainstream,
the army, and the Islamist segment aided by Jihadi terrorists, are trying to
outplay each other.
Has
the Pak foreign minister purposely escalated the situation?
Pak
foreign minister Ms Rabbani was in the US as the issue was heating up in the
Indo-Pak front. She made a number of statements on the situation after the
beading. The key one to my mind was her statement: “What
we saw from India was a statement saying that a proportionate response would be
given. We see (statements) India has capacity and capability to (make that
response), we see warmongering and we saw that proportionate response on
January 8 when a Pakistani havildar was almost target-shot by Indian soldiers.”
This statement apparently expressing her
disappointment after Indian Army Chief and the Prime Minister strong reacted to
the incident, showed no intention to defuse the explosive situation building up that could
damage Indo-Pak relations. Probably she had a larger strategic aim of using
incident to get Kashmir issue back on the UN agenda. As Pakistan is chairing the
UN Security Council now such the possibility was probably tempting for her.
Probably,
she realized that she had underestimated India’s reaction to the incident
particularly from Dr Manmohan Singh. Her
subsequent statement (also made in New York) calling for talks with her Indian
counterpart to reduce tension along the LoC in the interest of peace and
stability would indicate this. Pak high commissioner in New Delhi Salman
Bashir’s statement on similar note made on its wake would confirm this.
Probably
Ms Rabbani’s actions also have an internal context in the developing internal
political crisis in Pakistan. The ruling PPP-led government feels it is facing
an existential threat. There is a latent suspicion of the army and the
judiciary colluding in this. Now there an embarrassing line up of opposition
has also appeared before it faces the June 2013 elections. Dr Tahir ul Qadri,
the Sufi cleric and founder of the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) staged a
“million march” (though media estimated it at 25,000) in Islamabad demanding
the dissolution of national assembly and hold the elections under neutral
supervision. He had also invited Imran
Khan, the leader of Tehree-e-Insaf (TeI), who has similar views, to join the
protest. And these developments suspiciously coincide with Pakistan Supreme
Court’s order to arrest Parvez Raja, the Prime Minister to face corruption
charges. However, for the time being the government has come to an agreement
with Qadri to attend to some of his concerns.
But it is likely to haunt the PPP in the coming months as election mood
sets in.
At
this critical juncture, has PPP decided to show it was not soft on India? We
need to understand the dynamics of the developing situation in Pakistan and
respond with firmly avoiding snowballing of anti-Pakistan hype as it could derail
the India-Pakistan composite dialogue process, which is already limping. It is
easy to be cynical and say India-Pakistan relations can never be mended; but
wisdom lies in attempting it and achieving it.
Even
after a flag meeting, firing across LoC has continued. Pakistan has accused
India of killing its soldiers. Was the Indian Army Chief statement provocative?
We
need to understand the limitations of flag meetings. These are between local
commanders from both sides to minimise misapprehensions between the two sides.
So it is purely local in nature. Even after the flag meeting, Pak forces have
continued firing across the LoC. This was not only to show Pak army’s teeth but
also to facilitate infiltration of terrorists. General Bikram Singh has also
said that mines with Pak markings have been unearthed on the Indian side;
apparently planting them was also probably a method of provocation after the
firing.
General
Bikram Singh’s strong statement was made after Pakistan government had
sufficient time to respond positively. As head of the Army he has a
responsibility to defend the territorial integrity of the nation. At the same
time it should conduct itself so that the 2003 ceasefire agreement in J and K
is not violated. After the beheading there had been widespread speculation that
our army had been restrained from retaliating in kind whenever Pakistan army
fires. In a bid to set the record straight, he had warned that India reserved
the right to respond to such provocations at a time and place of its choosing. At
the same time he has also made it clear such response would be tactical and
local to ensure it does not become out of hand. The statement makes it clear
that the army was alert to the dynamic situation and it’s response would be
calibrated to respond appropriately.
What
do the developments so far indicate?
India
Pakistan relations have entered a new tricky phase after the beheading incident
and Indian strong statement. The continuing border violations even after the
much delayed flag meeting indicated the Pak army is in no mood to de-escalate
the volatile situation. However, the statements of the Foreign Minister and the
Pak High Commissioner indicate probably Pakistan does not want the situation to
go out of control. So we can expect Pak army to conduct itself across the LoC
better; however, the situation needs to be watched as there is a lot of volatility
in Pakistan in which the army could emerge as a major player.
For
the time being India has not responded to the Pak invitation for talks between
the two sides at foreign minister’s level. If past conduct is any indication we
would probably relent and talk to Pakistan.
When we do this, two items should come on top of the agenda.
- We should insist on the disbanding of over 40 terrorist camps on the Pak side across the LoC should be the top priority. Otherwise regardless of confidence building measures, the Pak army and terrorist groups have an option of taking provocative actions to destabilize the situation. The unearthing of mines with Pak markings inside Indian territory even as the situation was becoming explosive shows this.
- Apart from vigilance along the LoC, we need to be vigilant on Pak borders in Punjab and Rajastan as well. In particular in Punjab, there had been a renewed effort in 2012 to revive Sikh extremism. Similarly security along Nepal and Bangladesh borders also need to tightend as Pak terror groups and ISI have used these countries as take off points for their activity in India. Last year there was a report which indicated the use of Colombo as a training base by Pak terrorists in tandem with Indian Mujahideen.
We need to enhance the quality of border surveillance using modern technology devices. Though a beginning has been made it is not adequate. This would reduce the level of human error.
Written on 17 Jan 2013 Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group
No comments:
Post a Comment