news details |
|
|
| From Rhetoric to Realism | | |
Krishnan Srinivasan
The war drums have been beating after the Mumbai terror attacks. Mild-mannered men in drawing-rooms, whose only acquaintance with war is through Picasso’s Guernica, are anxiously asking one another when a strike against Pakistan will take place. Television anchors have been prodding their interviewees to announce that all options were kept open, senior military officers have declared themselves ready for all eventualities, Opposition spokesmen have dared the government to take punitive action against Pakistan or suffer badly in the next elections, and all and sundry have been forward in exposing their bellicose views to the media. Experts both acknowledged and self-styled have opined that the possession of nuclear weapons by the adversary is no bar to India’s contemplating the armed option.
While this robust talk reflects in great measure the mood of the country, and can hardly be otherwise when the general elections are only a few months distant, it also reflects the fact that India has fortunately never experienced hostilities that impacted on the whole country. The conflicts of 1962, 1965 and 1971 were in their nature limited in geographical, economic and physical terms, even in loss of life among civilians. In the pumping up of this hysteria, it would appear that the commentators are ignorant of the horrors of war and its probable repercussions.
India should certainly not stand idly by: we should strengthen our domestic and foreign intelligence, our local policing, and keep our powder dry, because the worst-case scenario will be the breakdown of the State in Pakistan which will lead to extremism and adventurism with India as the main target. But that is for the future; what is essential now is an Indian prime minister with a brave heart, a cool head and a steady hand on the rudder, and for this, the forthcoming elections assume the greatest importance.
India has mounted a very successful diplomatic campaign, finely tuned between the requirements of domestic emotion, censure of Pakistan’s involvement and the implicit absolving of the civil government in Islamabad, despite the torrent of deliberate or inadvertent leaks and misinformation that continue to vitiate our cast-iron case. The result is that Pakistan is under intense international pressure and close scrutiny. The world community is conscious of the dangerous activities of various groups in Pakistan whose sponsorship of terror has global implications. This cannot be glossed over any more, because there are too many Pakistani connections in most of the world’s terror attacks. Had Pakistan been even neutral or agnostic with New Delhi from the very beginning, the state of bilateral relations could have been very different; as it is, the culture of denial and repeated flip-flops have led to a severe loss of Indian confidence that will take a long time to rebuild. Here was a chance for the Islamabad political establishment to show real leadership, but it baulked at the fence.
Whether Pakistan is pseudo-democratic or semi-democratic is of no direct concern to India in this context: what is relevant is that the Pakistan government should perform. If it does not or cannot, there is no point in bemoaning the fact. India has pointed the finger of blame at those culpable, and it is for Pakistan to undertake the surgery needed in their society. After decades of impotence, it may be unrealistic to expect that the civilians would be able to roll back the military influence so quickly, but if the terror chain in Pakistan is seriously investigated, that could connote the beginning of civilian assertion over the levers of power. There should be no doubt on both sides of the border that the terrorist attacks on India are equally directed at the political leadership in Pakistan, which is regarded as weak, corrupt and ineffective, and which had been making friendly approaches to India.
In resisting the war-mongering, New Delhi must be aware that any strike, however ‘targeted’, would lead to retaliation by Pakistan. Governments the world over are not known for their propensity to contrition, confession or eating humble pie. Any conflict between India and Pakistan would spin rapidly out of control. Whether hostilities last a long or a short time, there would be tremendous international pressure to bring them to a halt, and this would prove irresistible for the combatants. Inevitably, as history has showed, there will be a desire among world powers to be ‘even-handed’, and this will be to India’s detriment.
The setback to economic progress for both sides would be incalculable, especially at a time when the world financial situation is precarious. Neither side can afford to lose decades of development in an attempt to project power. Pakistan is wholly dependent on financial assistance from international and external sources, and would accordingly suffer more than India, but that will be cold comfort for Indian citizens whose hopes of a better life will also be dashed.
The doctrine and execution of pre-emption, massive response and armed retaliation has always ended in being unsuccessful as far as the declared objectives are concerned. India now stands united, but any attack on Pakistan may prove divisive, especially when there will be costs and burdens to bear, not least in the form of much higher taxes. Contrary to the taunts of the Opposition, if the government in New Delhi initiates a conflict, it will lose the next election. Any attack will unite Pakistan against a common enemy, at a time when civil society in Pakistan is deeply fragmented, and where thinking people are painfully aware that India is the wronged party. Any strike on Pakistan will give the terrorists and their sponsors exactly the result they want, because an Indo-Pakistan conflict will divert the Pakistan forces from the anti-terror campaign waged inside their own borders, and will give succour to the military and to the real enemies of both India and Pakistan.
Israel’s actions are not exemplary for India. Israel can afford to take punitive actions against the Palestinians to prevent attacks on its civilians because of the unstinting support of the world’s only hyper-power, the United States of America, which protects Israel from censure and sanctions in the United Nations security council and finds justification for all Israeli actions. Israel also enjoys asymmetric force levels with its adversaries and no prospect of retaliation in kind. Its opponents do not even have the status of a nation-state with fixed borders.
Terrorist camps in Pakistan are not neatly organized in exclusive compounds like military barracks distinct from civilian populations and facilities. Therefore collateral damage to non-combatants and innocent bystanders will be unavoidable. Both by casting the first military stone and in inflicting civilian casualties, India would lose the moral high ground, which has thus far stood it in good stead in winning unanimous world support and sympathy.
The possession of nuclear weapons by proponent and opponent in South Asia is a strong prophylactic against all-out war. Our self-professed nuclear experts claim that despite the lack of any declared Pakistani nuclear doctrine, that country has a sound command and control system — though at the same time, they paradoxically assert that nuclear weapons are totally under the control of the army. In drawing the conclusion that India therefore has substantial strategic space to consider a punitive strike, our hawks display a confidence not shared by the major nuclear powers whose intelligence assets are immeasurably greater than ours.
There has been talk also, with a nod and a wink, about covert action, presumably against Pakistani facilities. This is precisely the kind of non-attributable action from which India has suffered over many years from some of its neighbours. Such activities are universally condemned as deplorable. Dirty tricks are the stuff of novels and cannot be a substitute for diplomacy and foreign policy. It would be hard, furthermore, to cite any example where covert activity sufficiently and positively advanced national interests.
At a time unique in the history of the subcontinent, when Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and the Maldives have held elections in 2008 deemed to be free and fair, and joined India and Sri Lanka in having governments reflecting the will of the people, the region can expect a democratic dividend. At this time, which should have introduced an era of hope, any conflict between India and Pakistan should be unthinkable because its effect would inflict colossal damage upon the whole region. As Benjamin Franklin said, “There is no such thing as a good war, or a bad peace.”
The author is former foreign secretary of India
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
