Although the possibility of another round of hostilities between India and Pakistan after the attack in Pulwama cannot entirely be ruled out, the last few days of apparent quiet along the front offers a moment of introspection and some soul searching.
The airstrikes deep in Pakistani territory by India crossing international borders for the first time since 1971 is no ordinary misadventure. It demonstrated a willingness and capability to carry out pre-emptive strikes at a time and a target of its choosing. It is immaterial whether the alleged terrorist camp which India claimed to have targeted existed or not, or whether there was any serious damage. Neither does it matter how many warplanes were taking part in the attack. What is material here is that a target indeed was chosen, the international border was crossed and that a pre-emptive strike - even if empty - was indeed launched. Moreover, the attackers were able to return to their bases safely. Was Pakistan’s nuclear bluff really called?
This raised the compulsion for Pakistan to react. If the attacking aircrafts had been aggressively engaged, and one or two of them downed, it would have been seen as a prompt and major equaliser. But that was not to be. So Pakistan responded by also dropping a few bombs, not across the international boundary, but across the Line of Control (LoC) in disputed Kashmir. Again, whether the targets were “successfully locked” but not hit as is claimed, or whether anyone was killed or not, a critical point had been made: Pakistan will not hesitate and strike back, come what may.
A lull in the hostilities in this moment provides an opportunity for soul searching for both India and Pakistan. India must ask the question why Kashmiris feel so deeply alienated and are ready to die. Pakistan must ask the question whether the militants allegedly operating from its soil have become an albatross around its neck. It should also ask how much these militants are undermining the Kashmiris’ just cause.
Pakistan was isolated, since no country condemned India. Friends of Pakistan called for restraint, but there was no condemnation of the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. Most sounded neutral and some offered to mediate in a lukewarm manner.
The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) refused to withdraw the invitation to Indian Foreign Minister as ‘guest of honour.’ The empty seat from Pakistan spoke as no words could speak more loudly of its loneliness at a forum that was founded by it. No one even spoke about mediating. The joint declaration adopted at the end talked of almost everything except Kashmir, which found mention only in a subsequent resolution.
Pakistan’s take home message from the OIC was: “While we value your friendship, we should not be counted as your allies against India.” Instead of rejecting outright India’s presence, it might be worthwhile to weigh in its potential to provide some comfort to Indian Muslims. Pakistan should have utilized the forum – instead of abandoning it - to give a reply to Sushma Swaraj’s one-sided insinuations.
Non-OIC countries also did not accept Pakistan’s narrative on militancy. President Trump recognised India’s right to strike. While talking about a “dangerous situation,” he also underscored that he “understood” why New Delhi was seeking a strong response. As he said this, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He stood by his side. Secretary of State Pompeo tweeted: “We stand with India. Pakistan must not provide safe haven for terrorists to threaten international security.”
Barely 10 days before Pulwama, Iran had also blamed Pakistan for the militants’ attack on a bus carrying Iranian soldiers, killing 27 of them. Last November, it had warned of launching operations against terrorists inside Pakistan in case Islamabad failed to take action. Around the time of Pulwama, a frustrated President Ashraf Ghani announced the start of Afghan exports to India via Chahbahar port in Iran bypassing Pakistan. Is this not time for some soul searching?
To signal its readiness to move against terror outfits, the government announced on Monday freezing of assets of entities and individuals listed by the UN on its terror list. A day earlier, in a planned briefing for selected media persons, a senior security official talked of “imminent and decisive crackdown on extremists and militant organisations” as well as of “reviewing the stance on the listing of JeM chief Moulana Masood Azhar by the UN.” On February 26, the ban on JuD and Falahi Insaniat had also been reinstated. These are welcome signs but let us not forget that such expressions of pious intention were made in the past also.
Remember the assurances of decisive action after the Mumbai attack in 2008 and Pathankot attack in 2015? Seven accused indicted in the decade-old Mumbai attack are standing trial, but there has been no forward movement for many years. The last one was in 2015, when prosecution appealed against a lower court verdict that disallowed taking voice samples without consent of the accused on the ground that there was no such provision in the Evidence Act applicable at that time. The promised investigations in Pathankot also lie in limbo.
One hopes that the assurances given this time will be different, but will things really be different? The question is relevant when one looks closely at the official background briefing. Replying to the question why Pakistan had failed to take action thus far, the official claimed that the military had implemented its part under the National Action Plan (NAP) and quickly blamed civilians for “lack of capacity, capability and will” for the failure. Asserting such self-serving untruths casts serious doubt on the seriousness of claims to launch a “decisive crackdown.”
The litmus test in days ahead will be the progress in the trial in Mumbai attack, dealing with Moulana Masood Azhar and ending the distinction between militants that target the Pakistani state and those that target other countries.
To create fresh impetus, a joint session of the parliament must be called in which the prime minister should make a categorical announcement that Islamabad will no longer shield Moulana Masood from UN action.
Militant organisations have become an albatross around Pakistan’s neck. Whenever there has been some forward movement in Pakistan-India relations, they strike to derail the nascent process. The Kargil misadventure took place soon after Vajpayee’s visit to Lahore, the Mumbai attack was launched within days of President Zardari offering talks on first use of nuclear weapons, the Pathankot attack occurred within a week of Modi’s visit to Jati Umra and now Pulwama in the wake of the Kartarpur border opening.
A hard and deep soul searching will convince everyone that ending the impunity with which militant organisations launch strikes is in Pakistan’s own interest.
The writer is a former senator.
The airstrikes deep in Pakistani territory by India crossing international borders for the first time since 1971 is no ordinary misadventure. It demonstrated a willingness and capability to carry out pre-emptive strikes at a time and a target of its choosing. It is immaterial whether the alleged terrorist camp which India claimed to have targeted existed or not, or whether there was any serious damage. Neither does it matter how many warplanes were taking part in the attack. What is material here is that a target indeed was chosen, the international border was crossed and that a pre-emptive strike - even if empty - was indeed launched. Moreover, the attackers were able to return to their bases safely. Was Pakistan’s nuclear bluff really called?
This raised the compulsion for Pakistan to react. If the attacking aircrafts had been aggressively engaged, and one or two of them downed, it would have been seen as a prompt and major equaliser. But that was not to be. So Pakistan responded by also dropping a few bombs, not across the international boundary, but across the Line of Control (LoC) in disputed Kashmir. Again, whether the targets were “successfully locked” but not hit as is claimed, or whether anyone was killed or not, a critical point had been made: Pakistan will not hesitate and strike back, come what may.
Pakistan was isolated, since no country condemned India. Friends of Pakistan called for restraint, but there was no condemnation of the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty
A lull in the hostilities in this moment provides an opportunity for soul searching for both India and Pakistan. India must ask the question why Kashmiris feel so deeply alienated and are ready to die. Pakistan must ask the question whether the militants allegedly operating from its soil have become an albatross around its neck. It should also ask how much these militants are undermining the Kashmiris’ just cause.
Pakistan was isolated, since no country condemned India. Friends of Pakistan called for restraint, but there was no condemnation of the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. Most sounded neutral and some offered to mediate in a lukewarm manner.
The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) refused to withdraw the invitation to Indian Foreign Minister as ‘guest of honour.’ The empty seat from Pakistan spoke as no words could speak more loudly of its loneliness at a forum that was founded by it. No one even spoke about mediating. The joint declaration adopted at the end talked of almost everything except Kashmir, which found mention only in a subsequent resolution.
Pakistan’s take home message from the OIC was: “While we value your friendship, we should not be counted as your allies against India.” Instead of rejecting outright India’s presence, it might be worthwhile to weigh in its potential to provide some comfort to Indian Muslims. Pakistan should have utilized the forum – instead of abandoning it - to give a reply to Sushma Swaraj’s one-sided insinuations.
Non-OIC countries also did not accept Pakistan’s narrative on militancy. President Trump recognised India’s right to strike. While talking about a “dangerous situation,” he also underscored that he “understood” why New Delhi was seeking a strong response. As he said this, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He stood by his side. Secretary of State Pompeo tweeted: “We stand with India. Pakistan must not provide safe haven for terrorists to threaten international security.”
Barely 10 days before Pulwama, Iran had also blamed Pakistan for the militants’ attack on a bus carrying Iranian soldiers, killing 27 of them. Last November, it had warned of launching operations against terrorists inside Pakistan in case Islamabad failed to take action. Around the time of Pulwama, a frustrated President Ashraf Ghani announced the start of Afghan exports to India via Chahbahar port in Iran bypassing Pakistan. Is this not time for some soul searching?
To signal its readiness to move against terror outfits, the government announced on Monday freezing of assets of entities and individuals listed by the UN on its terror list. A day earlier, in a planned briefing for selected media persons, a senior security official talked of “imminent and decisive crackdown on extremists and militant organisations” as well as of “reviewing the stance on the listing of JeM chief Moulana Masood Azhar by the UN.” On February 26, the ban on JuD and Falahi Insaniat had also been reinstated. These are welcome signs but let us not forget that such expressions of pious intention were made in the past also.
Remember the assurances of decisive action after the Mumbai attack in 2008 and Pathankot attack in 2015? Seven accused indicted in the decade-old Mumbai attack are standing trial, but there has been no forward movement for many years. The last one was in 2015, when prosecution appealed against a lower court verdict that disallowed taking voice samples without consent of the accused on the ground that there was no such provision in the Evidence Act applicable at that time. The promised investigations in Pathankot also lie in limbo.
One hopes that the assurances given this time will be different, but will things really be different? The question is relevant when one looks closely at the official background briefing. Replying to the question why Pakistan had failed to take action thus far, the official claimed that the military had implemented its part under the National Action Plan (NAP) and quickly blamed civilians for “lack of capacity, capability and will” for the failure. Asserting such self-serving untruths casts serious doubt on the seriousness of claims to launch a “decisive crackdown.”
The litmus test in days ahead will be the progress in the trial in Mumbai attack, dealing with Moulana Masood Azhar and ending the distinction between militants that target the Pakistani state and those that target other countries.
To create fresh impetus, a joint session of the parliament must be called in which the prime minister should make a categorical announcement that Islamabad will no longer shield Moulana Masood from UN action.
Militant organisations have become an albatross around Pakistan’s neck. Whenever there has been some forward movement in Pakistan-India relations, they strike to derail the nascent process. The Kargil misadventure took place soon after Vajpayee’s visit to Lahore, the Mumbai attack was launched within days of President Zardari offering talks on first use of nuclear weapons, the Pathankot attack occurred within a week of Modi’s visit to Jati Umra and now Pulwama in the wake of the Kartarpur border opening.
A hard and deep soul searching will convince everyone that ending the impunity with which militant organisations launch strikes is in Pakistan’s own interest.
The writer is a former senator.