|
FOR
|
AGAINTS
|
|
The
retaliatory action for the Pakistan army’s brutal
killing of
Indian soldiers at the Line of Control should be
punishing and
decisive. We need to make a pragmatic
assessment of
Pakistan as a state and its mindset on India,
its
capabilities and intentions and pattern of its
engagement
with us.
|
There can be
no denying the excesses of the Pakistan
army in
brutally killing two Indian soldiers at the Line of
Control. But
an eye-for-an-eye (or ‘ten heads for one
head’)
response can only lead to an escalating spiral of
violence, with
huge human, social and economic costs.
Better then to
sit across the table, under the institutional
mechanism of
CBM (confidence building
measures), to
prevent the occurrence of such
incidents.
Keeping CBM going does not mean
ceding ground
on security concerns; a two-track
approach
is needed.
|
|
In the wake of
recent experience, we need to amend our
policy of
appeasement and accommodation. Einstein’s
definition
that insanity is doing the
same thing
over and over again and
expecting
different results next time,
holds out a
lesson for India. Our
confused and
inconsistent policy
based on
faulty assumptions needs to
be substituted
by a realistic assessment of our neighbour’s
intentions
and actions.
|
As for the
current episode, macabre though it is, it should
be kept in
mind that such acts have allegedly occurred in
the past on
both sides of the border, going by our own
media
accounts.
A plea for
peace is not meant to wish away serious
differences.
Pakistan has erred repeatedly — this time,
26/11 and
Kargil. However, the Pakistan state is under
siege, and
provoking a conflict at this stage will
strengthen the
Pakistan Army and religious extremists in
their bid to
wrest more political power from and further
weaken the
civilian government. Hence, this is the time to
exercise
restraint.
|
|
The gruesome
act of barbarism displayed by the
beheading of
an Indian soldier followed by total denial
and
blustering, though reprehensible, is neither the first of
its kind, nor
unexpected from Pakistan. What is
unacceptable
is that despite many such incidents in the
past, India
did not press into action a well-thought-out
response
within hours of the incident; not as a retaliatory
measure but to
make tactical deterrence credible.
Ensuring
tactical deterrence and preventing any border
violation
is the responsibility of local commanders
|
It would be
foolhardy to overlook the spin-offs from
increased
bilateral trade, particularly when the developed
countries are
in crisis. The business community on both
sides is only
being pragmatic in pressing for a reduction
in trade
barriers. Bilateral trade talks held last year
marked a major
step forward, with both countries
agreeing
to keep their ‘negative lists’ to a minimum.
|
|
After policy
guidelines and Standard Operating
Procedures are
laid down, local decision-making and
execution
should be left to the local commanders.
Pakistan
should be informed that our response will be in
real time, and
decisive. The deterrence content of our
actions should
be enhanced through improved equipment
and
technological support. Given the clarity of
instructions,
our troops are capable of delivering the
impossible. A
delayed, hesitant and confused response not
only conveys a
wrong message to our adversaries, but
demoralises
our own forces and dents the national will.
|
Over the last
decade, despite Kargil and 26/11, both
countries have
improved cultural, commercial and peopleto-
people
exchanges. This has set in motion an
irreversible
change in popular perception: Pakistan is no
longer the
mysterious ‘other’ it used to be. Cricket
matches
between the two countries are now a benign
affair,
and not ‘war by other means’.
|
|
The Prime
Minister’s statement that there would be no
more “business
as usual” and the Defence Minister
terming the
incident as a ‘turning point’ send a strong
message.
Unfortunately though, in the past too, much
braver
assertions were made and forgotten. Pakistanis
laugh
it off as a bluster meant for domestic consumption
|
As
psycho-analyst Salman Akhtar has observed, the
wounds of
Partition have started to heal, with the urge for
revenge giving
way to remorse, reconciliation and
forgetting.
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment