The attack on an Army cantonment at Uri, reminiscent of the
Pathankot attack, in Jan 2016, by Pak based terrorists, perhaps, of the JeM (Jaish
– e Mohammed) resulted in 17 soldiers taken down – burnt in tents to be
precise; one more succumbed to his injuries a day later. Not
taking any action would be an act of cowardice said MoS Jitender Singh while
the BJP General Secy., Ram Madhav, advocated a jaw for a tooth; sadly a day later their
voices were more nuanced leading one to wonder if it was not merely rhetoric. That
the Govt. is yet unmoved alludes either to the absence of a strategy or presence
of an ineffective one, not executed to prevent embarrassment; neither depict India,
with great power ambitions, in great light. A country with expectations of being acknowledged as a “World Power” cannot be tagged even as a “Regional Power” if it cannot tame an intransigent
neighbour. Should India not have anticipated such bellicose acts from Pak &
planned an effective response beforehand?
The Indian response should be based on only one criterion
Are the Pak armed forces getting weakened by out acts?
Pak for long has been ruled vide a military dictatorship &
even in the presence of a civilian administration, the ISI & the army form the
real power centre. Talks with a civilian administration are therefore
ineffective since they lack the power to execute the promises. Indo-Pak talks have
been most effective when a military ruler was in power & it needs no rocket
science to assert that negotiation from a position of strength is always a
preferred option.
The suggested responses
Diplomatic Options
(1)Withdrawal from the
SAARC summit – India
should either withdraw from the SAARC summit, planned in Pak this Nov,
downgrade it to a ministerial representation or attend it & along with Afghanistan
& Bangladesh – both at the receiving end of Pak’s stick – wreak the summit. While it shall cause
diplomatic embarrassment to Pak, it shall not weaken the military.
(2)Downgrade Diplomatic Relations with Pak: India can expel the Pak High Commissioner or the Defense attache - who definitely must be from the ISI - & withdraw its own Ambassador from Pak before there is reciprocal action from the other side. The effect, unfortunately, shall only be cosmetic.
(2)Downgrade Diplomatic Relations with Pak: India can expel the Pak High Commissioner or the Defense attache - who definitely must be from the ISI - & withdraw its own Ambassador from Pak before there is reciprocal action from the other side. The effect, unfortunately, shall only be cosmetic.
(3)Declare Pak a
terrorist state – India
has raised the issue of Pak support to terrorism at the G20 & has urged the
UN to include non-state actors too while defining terrorism. However, all major powers have a dubious
history when it comes to supporting terror to achieve geopolitical objectives & hence have cold shouldered the proposal. Any Indian resolution to
declare Pak a “terrorist” state is unlikely to find support at the UN, because
of the lack of support from the Muslim Ummah - the 57 member OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) & the GCC (Gulf
Co-operation Council) - or torpedoed through a Chinese veto. Even the US would be loath to pursue
the option for fear of pushing Pak, further, into a Chinese embrace, losing whatever
little leeway it has over the country today.
(4)Push Major powers to
stop joint military exercises, military aid or arms sales to Pak – The Russians have cancelled the
first ever joint military exercises, planned with Pak; incidentally, plan to sell
MI 35 attack helicopters & military exercises was a consequence of India
moving closer to the US, much to Russian chagrin, in the recent past. The
military sales could still go through. No western country would stop defense sales
to Pak unless threatened with denial of bidding into our annual defense capital purchases market, worth about Rs. 70000 crores – amongst the top 2 in the world, with Saudis giving
us company. The Chinese, however, would continue to prop up Pak just as they have
supported the International pariah, North Korea, nullifying our expected gains.
(5)Support Baloch
liberation: Granting
asylum to Brahumdagh Bugti & others fighting for the Balochi cause while
helping them travel to world capitals to canvass for Baloch independence & bring
sharper focus on the human right violations in Balochistan would help; however
the collateral damage would be risking a focus on Kashmir. Just as Kurdish Independence from Iraq - Turkey- Syria is not getting international acceptance, Balochi independence too would suffer a similar fate; even the US believes that Balochistan is a indisputable part of Pak. Therefore, but for needling Pak & causing it some headache, this strategy would not take us far unless we use this to wreck the $46 billion CPEC (China Pak Economic corridor)
(6) Stop Visas &
cancel People to people engagements: This is the softest but the most foolhardy option that is
generally exercised which merely succeeds in some “signalling” without
achieving any strategic goals. When supported by jingoism, prompting the digging
of cricket pitches during an Indo-Pak match or forcing the cancellation of the
Gulam Ali show, perpetuated by the Shiv Sena, in Mumbai, evoke nothing but
discord & sends wrong signals to the international community. It is prudent
to allow Pak citizenry to continue to come to India to create a constituency in
the civil society of Pak.; offering citizenship to interested personnel, without national security implications, as was
done in the case of Adnan Sami, could start a discussion back home in Pak,
creating a better appreciation of India.
Economic Options
(1)Stop trade with Pak
or withdraw the MFN status – Annual Trade with Pak is about $7.5 billion, of which 2/3rd
flows through informal channels vide Dubai; India has a trade surplus. Stopping trade would push the entire basket
through Dubai & hence shall not pinch Pak; withdrawal of the MFN status shall
not help either. Incidentally, the Kashmir fruit trade that happens across the LOC would be severely dented effecting the economic conditions in the valley further. Damaging Pak’s export economy by forcing its largest trading
partners EU & the US, by dangling our defense import or the large domestic Indian market carrot, shall help.
But this shall be a medium term plan which could be torpedoed if China plays
white knight
(2)Threaten China with
Trade sanctions: To prevent China from supporting Pak, India could threaten sanctions. The
China – India annual trade is about $70 billion with a trade surplus of about $50
billion in favour of China. But are we in a position to
threaten china – a $10 trillion dollar economy, 5 times our size?; the latter could very well put
its strategic interests above the trade ones & call our bluff. Enticing China by granting greater access to
the Indian market if they forsake Pak could be a better option; but it would not sail either since an Indo-Pak
narrative & not an Indo-China one is seen by China as being in its long
term interest.
Military/Covert options
(1)Declare War on Pak: This is unlikely despite our conventional weapon superiority. While
India has the 4th largest military in the world at 1.3 million with
about $40 billion annual budget, Pak has the 11th largest
military in the world at 0.55 million with a military budget of $7.6 billion
apart from being a nuclear power & hence
no pushover. It is unlikely that they would use the nuclear trigger since it
would invite Pak’s annihilation too. Mao once called the western bluff, on nuclear war, by asserting that even if
400 million Chinese perish in the act, the remaining 200 million would continue
to build a greater China; Does India have the gall to take a similar stand?
(2)Attack terrorist
training grounds: India had attacked the PLA, a Meitei outfit’s camp & NSCN
(K) site in Myanmar, as retaliation for the ambush killing of 18 soldiers in
Manipur last year. However the sites were deserted when the attack happened, aver some strategic analysts; Pak too keeps changing the locations of the training
camps & unless India has concrete information on the sites, a punitive
strike would be counter-productive for the diplomatic fallout would most likely dent
India’s reputation as a “responsible power”. Pak has a fairly robust air defenses too as per the analyst Cristian Fair.
(3)Take down ISI’s
prized assets:
Finishing off Dawood, Hafeez Sayeed, Mahsood Azhar et al would cool, partially,
the pent up public opinion. This action has to be executed covertly either by
our RAW agents or hired mercenaries. Genaral Roy Choudhary wants “non-state
actors” to be created to sharpen our covert machinery while VP Malik has confirmed
that such an arm was disbanded in the mid 1990’s on political directions;
Manohar Parrikar statement in 2015 that a thorn has to be removed by a thorn
alludes certainly to some thinking in that direction even as it confirms absence
of such capacity today. The point to remember is that such actors could recoil
on their patrons, perhaps, creating a Frankenstein monster – as has happened
in Pak now; therefore, hiring is always desirable. A covert plan hatched by
using hired mercenaries – Pashtuns or the Balochis – should be immediately
executed to finish the JeM chief.
Other options
(1)Cancel the Indus
water treaty: The
Indus Water Treaty, signed between India & Pak in 1960 reserves 80.52% of
the river water to the lower riparian state; such largesse was, perhaps, meant
to be a barter for the still elusive peace. Pak has used the international dispute
resolution mechanism to stop India from constructing dams while simultaneously
proceeding with its own - the Bunji & the Basha dams with Chinese help.
Strategic expert - Brahma Chellaney- argues for annulling the treaty under
clause 62 of the Vienna Convention by reason of a fundamental change of
circumstances of exporting terror & causing palpable harm to an upper
riparian state. Unfortunately, this would hit the people of Pakistan & not the military. This strategy also could depict India as a country which does not
respect international treaties & perhaps force China to squeeze the
Brahmaputra effecting water flows into the NE.
(2)Cyber Warfare: Being an IT powerhouse, India's capability in this space is miles ahead of Pak. However, sensitive assets, in Pak, must be currently protected through isolation, defeating our strategic resolve. Desecrating more than mere websites should be our aim & that could take time. Since attacks of such nature can never be owned publicly, the heightened public angst cannot be subdued. Some form of saber rattling in this space could be expected.
Conclusion
(2)Cyber Warfare: Being an IT powerhouse, India's capability in this space is miles ahead of Pak. However, sensitive assets, in Pak, must be currently protected through isolation, defeating our strategic resolve. Desecrating more than mere websites should be our aim & that could take time. Since attacks of such nature can never be owned publicly, the heightened public angst cannot be subdued. Some form of saber rattling in this space could be expected.
Conclusion
None of the options listed above weaken the Pak Military industrial
complex. Even if Pak economy is weakened, affecting the annual budget of Pak military, they are cushioned by the Fauji
Foundation which has assets of $20 billion; thus other options like keeping the
Pak army engaged in internal disturbances in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
& Sindh, to stress them out, need to be explored. Balkalization of Pak might not help since the
Pak army & the ISI are largely drawn from Punjab; disruption in Paki Punjab
shall genuinely weaken the Pak army which is what India should target.
Alas, all these are medium to long term strategies & that
perhaps, explains why the Indian govt. is still silent despite the carnage. Gen. Jaswal has argued for taking down a few Pak army pickets, immediately, post the attack; that even such a tactical act was not implemented is surprising for it would not have elicited a more than proportionate response from the other side. With every passing hour the element of surprise is getting lost & patrolling on the other side shall get more robust, reducing the possibility of a retaliation further. It is unlikely that any action would be initiated post the UNGA session comes to a close. Many in the govt. would like us to believe that just as the Indian Armed forces prepared for a few months before launching a war in 1971, a similar exercise is currently underway. Hopefully, the don't do something before the Punjab or the UP elections to gain some advantage as the cancellation of talks with Pak was done earlier to gain an advantage in the then impending J&K elections.
Post the 1971 defeat, in the Indo-Pak war, that led to the creation of Bangladesh, Pak spent the next decade in capability building to launch a blitzkrieg in Punjab in the 1980’s & Kashmir in the 1990’s. Col Ajai shukla avers that currently India & Pak capabilities are symmetric & the consequences of an attack are far worse than what is generally assumed. China is bound to intervene if they sense the annihilation of Pak; hence we need to be prepared for a war on 2 fronts. Perhaps, India should cease rhetoric, plan adequately & reciprocate in the same coin.
Post the 1971 defeat, in the Indo-Pak war, that led to the creation of Bangladesh, Pak spent the next decade in capability building to launch a blitzkrieg in Punjab in the 1980’s & Kashmir in the 1990’s. Col Ajai shukla avers that currently India & Pak capabilities are symmetric & the consequences of an attack are far worse than what is generally assumed. China is bound to intervene if they sense the annihilation of Pak; hence we need to be prepared for a war on 2 fronts. Perhaps, India should cease rhetoric, plan adequately & reciprocate in the same coin.