FEATURE ARTICLE

Pakistan: The Counter-Strategy

BHARAT VERMA

In the big picture of Pakistani game plan, Kargil is merely a footnote. Pakistan's end game is to cause as much destruction within India by activating direct insurgency in Kashmir, extending support to terrorist activities in the North East and supplying arms and explosives to sow seeds of dissent within the country against the legitimately elected authority of the state. Inability of the political leadership in the last fifty years to grasp the essential elements of the entire picture is evident from the fact that Pakistan continues to dictate and sustain its activities detrimental to the Indian nation - state even today.

After a Herculean effort India will once again manage to prevail in Kargil due to a dedicated military machine and in comparison, considerable resources at our disposal. However, as in the past, so in future, Pakistan will continue to tie down Indian military and police resources and the administration through smuggling of mercenaries and arms via coastal areas of Gujarat, hostile terrain of Kashmir, porous borders of Rajasthan, soft states of Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh, and by extending narco - terrorism into Punjab. To a determined enemy endless possibilities abound since it has correctly gauged that Indian political leadership does not have the will to pose a direct challenge to the integrity of Pakistan. Instead, as usual, India will react by deploying its resources inside to contain the collateral damage. Thus this defensive - defence strategic doctrine propagated by Indians since independence has put the nation - state in an extremely vulnerable position. The enemy time and again holds us to ransom because the pre-eminent power in the sub-continent refuses to project any counter threat, which will force the adversary to behave.

The faulty defensive-defence doctrine envisages defending the territorial integrity of India by deploying physically the military resources merely to push back the invasion to the LOC or the international borders. The enemy is allowed to live to strike on another day. This strategic doctrine is an extension of the centuries old fortress mentality or fighting from fixed positions, which resulted in unprecedented invasions in the past from our Western borders. Our history argues against it because defensive-defence mode erroneously has always allowed the enemy to retain the element of surprise. And is akin to the adversary perpetually dominating our half of the soccer field. In such a self-destructive mode, it is obvious that goals will be scored as they were in Kargil. With large borders located in hostile terrain, this politico-military doctrine expects the impossible - to guard physically every square inch of the territory. In Kargil alone, a stretch of 140 km will requires atleast seven divisions! The other negative dimension is the internal consumption of enormous military power due to external interference. This practically leaves no military power surplus to deal with the frontal abuse of our territorial integrity frequently. Kargil is a prime example.

India needs to look at this unique position of asymmetry in thinking vis-à-vis rest of the world. More so, as weapons and forces by themselves do not constitute the source of security or threat but the ideas and attitude governing their use and usability do. Therefore the political leadership to safeguard national interests must shift to the strategic doctrine of offensive-defence. This will ensure defence of vital national interests along with the territorial integrity. It's an assertive (not aggressive) territory plus philosophy which if used wisely can play hell into the forces inimical to India. Our vital national interests stand threatened by any activities of potential adversary, which in any manner tends to vitiate peace, harmony, prosperity and progress of India. Thus in offensive - defence mode correct appreciation of the situation and counter action to neutralize the developing threat prior to their affecting the society or the territorial integrity of the country are mandatory. On shifting its posture to offensive -defence, Indian counter strategy will emerge based on the critical evaluation as stated subsequently.

The bitter truth about partition of India out of fundamentalist hatred, shooting and looting of the population moving to India, and the adventure in Kashmir in 1947-48 reveal the first signs of Pakistani design to disturb our tranquillity. Operation Gibraltar in 1965, war in 1971 and waging of low intensity conflict since 1989 and other terrorist activities to date point in one single direction - imbalance India through all means causing destruction wherever possible. Animosity towards India is not only indicated in the barbaric murder and mutilation of our soldiers' bodies but during cricket matches too. Rest of bonhomie displayed in people to people contact is merely an eyewash. This is the big picture, which in the last fifty years our political class has refused to come to grip with. Resultant mischief by Pakistan has compelled us to shell out billions to defend ourselves against the recurring menace.

Under offensive-defence doctrine, the bottomline assessment is that a stable Pakistan is not in our national interest. A counter strategy to degrade Pakistan's capability to pose a threat in future needs to be worked upon. Strategic calculations should be based primarily on two aspects. First, much need not be read into the international diplomatic support. The reason being that whether it is America or China, their stance will always be rooted in geo-politics and geo-economic compulsions and not in morality or emotions. India should learn to similarly deal with cold blooded ruthlessness based on our national interests. Therefore, the international weight behind India is valid upto a point. Especially true, in ultimate analysis, as we have to trouble shoot and win our own wars. Second, to succeed, the counter strategy must be a pragmatic study of the prevalent political, economic and social conditions in Pakistan.

Pakistan without a national identity is an incomplete, therefore, an insecure or failed state. Seeds of instability were sown by the Punjabi Mussalman who dominates all structures of power. Claims laid to equality in power sharing by the Sindhis, Pathans and Baluchis were ignored and are subject of widespread dissent. Mohajirs who leveraged the partition of India, on shifting to Pakistan were treated as second class citizens. They not only demand recognition as the fifth nationality but want to carve a new province out of Sindh for themselves. The Islamic fundamentalists enjoy minimal popular support but use Islam as an instrument to control power in Pakistan. This has unleashed armed sectarian violence due to conflicting interpretation of Muslim law and doctrine between Sunnis and Shias. Taliban's radical Islam further adds shattering tremors to this fragile construct. The economic scenario is bleak with an adverse balance of payment position. Unsound bail out through IMF on behest of America due to a possibility of nuclear blackmail by Pakistan will not remove the state of bankruptcy. Especially since Pakistan, a nest of Islamic fundamentalist organizations continues to divert money in export of Jihad and narco-terrorism to the West, besides India.

To counter Pakistan, an assertive diplomacy based on gaining friends and allies through mutual beneficial activity in the realm of geo-politics and geo-economics should be the cornerstone of our foreign policy. On the other track, covert operations to increase dissension and widen gulf between different nationalities must be activated. In a role reversal, India should dictate the agenda, create mayhem inside, and turn the heat on Pakistan. It is in our vital national interest to perpetually keep Pakistan off-balance till it sues for peace. Coherent accretion of military power with lethal offensive capability, which, if unleashed can create terror in the mind of the enemy is a paramount requirement. The awe of a lean and mighty military machine itself is a deterrent which prevents outbreak of a war. In a bold political move, Indian Defence Forces should be allowed to cross the LOC as and when necessary, build counter-pressure points along the border to diffuse Kargil and be given a free hand in the conduct of operations. Otherwise we will be committing a similar mistake as in 1947-48 where we first absorbed the shock and then doubled our effort to repel it ! While maintaining the international diplomatic initiative, we must remember that G-8 countries will not bail us out or fight on our behalf. Therefore, it is time, India unshackles and shifts its mindset from ostrich like position to a credible assertive posture.

The strategic mosaic of the big picture contains elements which pose threat to India from Pakistan - Taliban combine. Attempts to Talibanize the Muslim population areas of India and China and occupation of under populated areas of Leh are the main thrusts of operations. This challenge is backed by Osama bin Laden and Islamic fundamentalist organizations located globally. The threat to the West by the Pak-Taliban-Laden nexus is in equal proportions. India, under offensive-defence operations needs to develop a strategic doctrine which looks deep inside Afghanistan and Pakistan to nullify and destruct the emanating threats. India will need considerable diplomatic skills and military `stand alone' capabilities to negate the challenge. On one hand, we have to make effort to bring this picture in `sync' with Russia, China and Iran and on the other, sufficiently dovetail it with the Western powers who already operate a hidden global agenda to neutralize the Islamic fundamentalism. It is vital to understand that in the Pakistani big picture Kargil is merely a footnote and not the endgame.

Reproduced with permission from Lancer Publications: Indian Defence Review Volume 14 (2) Copyright © Lancer Publications and Bharat Rakshak