Geopolitical Analysis

By K.N. Pandit

As days pass by our country’s reaction to Mumbai carnage is becoming more wobbled and incoherent.  If Pakistani President Asif Zardari is shifting poles day in and day out, New Delhi is no less deficient in its own brand of flip-flop. From “war is no option” to “no option is closed” and from “Pakistan must fulfill its assurances” to “Pakistan should do much more”, the rhetoric becomes farcical and ludicrous.  An impression is created that we timidly supplicate for empathy for torture by our tormentors in the vain hope that somebody will appear from nowhere to tell us, come on we are going to fight your battle.

Nearly three decades ago, the then Pakistani President said publicly that his country would fight India on Indian soil. This was the time when the blue print of Operation Topac had been approved, which planned inflicting a thousand cuts on the body of India.  Pakistan’s covert support first to Khalistan and then to Kashmir separatist movements was part of her proxy war that was to become a regular phenomenon of Indo-Pak acrimony on the sub-continent.

We labeled these movements anti-India and fought them on the ground, of course Indian ground. We did not realize the dangers of remaining content with fighting the proxy war on our soil even though we were confident we would not let the miscreants have an upper hand despite the covert or overt support they were receiving from across the border. We also did not pay attention to the consequences of Pakistan’s policy of resolute deniability and the manner in which her western allies would be disposed to turn blind eye to her involvement in these perfidies.

The unavoidable and irreplaceable idea of retaliation and paying the enemy in the same coin never occurred to our policy planners.

They never came out of their defensive shell. How easily they forgot the time-tested dictum that offensive posture is much more rewarding than defensive posture, especially towards a country whose creed of hatred does not broach peaceful coexistence.

With brutal carnage let lose by terrorists in our neighbourhood, our government, in keeping the tradition alive, rushed to the doorsteps of the sole world power and like a harshly beaten and mauled urchin, beat our breast in front of the arbitrator to invoke his sympathy.

Ever since, we are looking expectantly to the arbiter what words would flow from his mouth that assuage our hurt sensitivity and help us regain our demolished prestige?  To put it in crude words, we are expecting others to fight our battle and make a gift of victory to us on a platter forgetting that great nations themselves fight their wars: small nations look for crutches.

The sole power has behaved precisely like a schoolmaster pouring out a profusion of sympathy to a bullied boy and at the end exhorting him to wipe his tears and stop crying and he would see to it that he is not bullied the same way next time.

When 9/11 happened loud and clear came the warning from Washington to world powers: “If u are not with us you are against us.” This is how great nations meet the challenge. We succumbed to the sham counsel of the arbiter during Kargil war. What was the result? We facilitated our counsellor to remove the duly elected government in Islamabad and replace it with a military dictator. We, who are habituated to making a loud noise in support democracy for our neighbouring country, brazenly agreed to talk peace with a military dictator. The emboldened dictator, who ruled the roost with the blessings of his foreign mentors, gave us a nightmare as long as he was at the helm of affairs. To this day, Washington never conceded that Kargil war was of this dictator’s making.  Today, when the then ignominiously ousted prime minister of Pakistan has come out with a statement of facts about the LeT terrorist Ajmal Ahmad Kasab, our official and private media give in banner lines the news bout his gripping statement as evidence in support of India’s contention. This shows the hollowness of our cry for democracy.

Let us closely go through the statements of the US secretary of state ever since she paid a hurried visit to New Delhi to learn from Indian side the story of Mumbai carnage.  From Delhi she flew to Islamabad, conferred with Pakistani leaders and made the grandiloquent statement that she was happy with how both the countries were handling the critical situation. Nobody asked how she came to the conclusion that the situation was critical for Pakistan? Pakistan was the most contented country with all the four aces in her hand. The Army not only trivialized the crisis in India but also authoritatively forced the elected government to recant its earlier statements. It dispirited the secretary of state by warning her that Pakistan would pull back all her troops from Pak-Afghan front and deploy them on border along India. It demands more vehemently than before that India produce a convincing proof of Pakistan’s involvement. It forced the so-called popular government to slide back from the statement that Azhar Mas’ud was put under house arrest to no-clue stunt about his whereabouts.

Not only that, ISI has mounted strong counter campaign through hyped press that human rights of Ajmal are violated; that “Hindu terror” is responsible for the gunning down of Mumbai police cops including Karkare and that New Delhi is looking for a pretext to launch attack on Pakistan. Activating its moles within Indian civil society and official establishment, ISI has found an impressive segment of so-called peace brigade in India that claims to put Indo-Pakistan relations on an even keel. A section of national press that spread canard about the killing of the Delhi police officer in Jamia Millia encounter is activated now to defend a Union Minister who has no qualms of conscience to attribute the gunning down of Karkare to “Hindu terrorists”. Who can deny the competence of Pakistan Army and its ISI in waging a proxy war with incredible success?

And what is the reaction of Washington to all this drama? It has gone back to hyphenate the two countries as before.  In a recent statement to the press on Indo-Pak situation, Admiral Timothy Keating, commander, US Pacific Command said the “two countries have successfully avoided military confrontation and Washington was satisfied the way both countries have handled the dangerous situation.”   What he precisely means to say is that the two countries were on the verge of a war which the US succeeded in diffusing. Obviously he is seeking kudos for Washington’s feigned neutrality. But at whose cost is that neutrality? It is at the cost of thousands of innocent Indians whom their popular government is unable to provide security of life. Furthermore, he claims that his country is satisfied the way both countries have handled the dangerous situation. Who created the dangerous situation? The captured Pakistani terrorist told the American sleuth this story face to face and in full and left him with no doubts.  Indirectly the Admiral is giving two cheers to Pakistan, one for creating the ”dangerous situation” and the second for “satisfactory handling the dangerous situation.” In reality he is patting Pakistan for adept handling of the aftermath of Mumbai carnage.  Indian authorities naively believe that the FBI agent interviewed the captured terrorist for nine hours and thus would substantiate India’s allegations. The fact is that the FBI agent would not oblige Indian authorities but he has the interests of his own agency and country upper most with him.

In New Delhi, British PM Mr. Browne made a daring statement that Pakistan must stop its land being used by terrorists for attacks on India. It was a laudable statement with which New Delhi felt satisfied and elated. In Islamabad he presented Pakistani government with a cheque of nine million pounds to fight terrorism knowing full well that the money, as before, straightaway goes to be spent on terrorist training camps in Pakistan. At the same time, a proposal has been introduced in the US Congress for grant of nearly a billion dollars to Pakistan to fight terrorism.

New Delhi needs to do some hard introspection. Great nations do not exist on the mercy of other countries howsoever powerful they are. They survive on their will to exist and the will to make sacrifices for their people to exist with honour and dignity.

India has to fight her battle herself. She must first begin with taking on seditious elements within the country. Foreign policy, as we know is the extension of domestic policy. If domestically India succeeds in coping effectively with sedition, treason and subversion, half of the war on terror is won.

The PM called a high level meeting of Defence, Home and Foreign Ministers, the NS Chief and the three chiefs of defence forces to assess the latest situation arising from Pakistan’s policy of deniability, counter propaganda and re-deployment of her troops along Indian border. The grapevine has it that the possibility of a pincer operation has been considered.  This all appears to be posturing and hollow threats. Pakistan army knows that and hence remains unfazed. A pincer attack or a full scale war will not work laser guided missiles will not work. The US used them in Tora Bora battles but without desired results. A surgical-like operation in PoK means giving an affront and throwing a challenge to Pakistan’s very existence, and if India hazards it, western countries will flock to Islamabad with weapons, ammunition, money and all logistical support because dismemberment of Pakistan means topsy-turvy of their strategies world over. India will be a tremendous loser. The world will not be convinced that a full scale war between two nuclear powers in South Asia was warranted by circumstantial evidence. The cause is much smaller than the effect, they will conclude.

What India should do to meet Theo-fascist terror is first, she should streamline her internal security system, which means decimating anti-national, seditious and subversive forces with an iron hand, purging her corrupt, incompetent and nepotistic intelligence establishments (especially the RAW), side-lining dubious and malevolent politicos, punitive but legal action against corrupt and imbecile bureaucrats and police higher echelons. In short it is to cleanse civil institutions on war footing and with unrelenting enforcement of the rule of law.

Yes, it means departure from a soft and vulnerable state to a business-like state that has the will to exist.

On external plane, India must produce a befitting counter reply to Pakistan’s proxy war. Disgruntled elements within Pakistan like the Baluchis, Sindhis and Pukhtoons must join forces with us to float subversion inside Pakistan on a large scale. We need to give moral, diplomatic and psychological support to their nationalist movements and not let them starve for want of adequate instruments of running a nationalist movement against Punjabi hegemony.  We need to make a dent in nationalist and moderate Punjabi segment also. Positive forces in PoK and Northern Areas need to be cultivated adequately and effectively; propaganda machinery has to be geared to the national interests and a global propaganda blitzkrieg needs to be launched. Known pro-Pak think-tanks in important western countries have to be roped in by exploiting their acquisitive weakness so that they not only reverse their perceptions but turn hostile to their former benefactors. A formidable think tank of experts in regional history, politics, societies, culture, languages and strategies has to be cobbled together as core resource centre and all activates of subversion have to be conducted through that

instrument.  Deep dent has to be made in political parties, organizations and personalities to create cleavages wherever possible. At the same time moderate, secular, nationalist and progressive forces have to be supported vigorously so that their ultimate domination of Pakistan’s political platform is guaranteed. This is a two to three decade long plan and has to be pursued step by step reinforcing it intermittently with new strategies based on new and fresh input. Nations wanting to survive with honour and dignity will have to make sacrifices in more than one way.
(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).