Opinion

Surgical strikes signal a change of course. Do they also mark the beginning of a long-term strategy?

Beyond addressing a domestic constituency, the government has sent out a clear message by widely publicising the present operation. Will it stay the course?

The old paradigm of India’s responses to Pakistan-backed terrorism now stands irrevocably shattered, not only by the surgical strike across the border, but by the radical shift in the political discourse, and the round of aggressive diplomacy that preceded it.

For decades now, a great deal of noise inevitably followed each major Pakistan-sourced terrorist attack on Indian soil; this quickly died down, and it was business as usual. The worst Pakistan could apprehend was a temporary suspension of talks, but New Delhi would soon be back, abandoning all conditionalities, to importune Islamabad for a resumption of “dialogue”. An elaborate rationale had evolved around this fruitless cycle, with extensive networks of “peace advocacy”, reinforced by imagined nightmare scenarios of catastrophic collapse in Pakistan, of nuclear war, or nuclear terrorism.

Events after the Uri attack, in which 19 soldiers were killed, indicate a paradigm shift. The standard package of generalised condemnation, threats and imprecations on the one side, and blank denials from the other, have yielded to a radical broadening of the spectrum of strategies and tactics of response available to New Delhi. Crucially, the surgical strike across the Line of Control marks a dramatic departure from, and a significant escalation of, patterns of the past. The Indian policy pendulum between talks and no talks has abruptly veered on to a new course even as the Army fulfilled its promise that it would respond to the Uri attack “at a time and place of its own choosing”.

Well-advised ambiguity

While details of the surgical strike have not been officially disclosed (there is, of course, an abundance of leaks and plants), Lt Gen Ranbir Singh, the Indian Army’s Director General of Military Operations stated that “significant casualties were caused to terrorists and those providing support to them”. Pakistan acknowledged that two of its soldiers were killed, but denied any “surgical strike”, insisting, instead, that there was just an exchange of fire along the Line of Control. In an evident contradiction, Islamabad promised a “forceful response” if the operation was repeated.

The ambiguity that the Army has chosen to maintain about the details of the strike is well advised, as is the formulation that the operation was “aimed at neutralising terrorists”. Islamabad has often sought cover behind the claim that “non-state actors” outside its control have been responsible for terrorist attacks against India, and that Pakistan is itself a “victim of terrorism”. In immediately contacting Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations and briefing him about the “surgical strike”, and seeking the Pakistan Army’s cooperation “to erase the menace of terrorism from the region”, Lt Gen Ranbir Singh hoisted the Pakistanis with their own petard. The ambiguity, moreover, provided Pakistan ample space to deny or downplay the operation, pushing down perceived domestic pressures for disproportionate retaliation or uncontrolled escalation.

Retaliation is, however, likely and it remains to be seen what shape and at what time it will manifest itself. India’s forces are now on alert, and civilian populations in close proximity to the border have been evacuated as a measure of abundant caution.

Global isolation

Pakistan’s options, however, have been severely circumscribed not only by a continuous plunging of its global standing and loss of support even among some of its most consistent champions – with the notable exception of “all weather friend” China – but also by India’s well crafted diplomatic campaign preceding the strike. At the United Nations General Assembly, it was India’s message that was heard and acknowledged, not Pakistan’s. Worse, from Islamabad’s perspective, Afghanistan and Bangladesh also stepped forward to squarely identify Pakistan as the fountainhead of terror and disruption in the region. Thereafter, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Bhutan joined with India to declare, separately, that a “conducive environment” did not exist for the hosting of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Summit at Islamabad, with the result that the conference has been cancelled, embarrassing Pakistan further.

The surgical strike, moreover, compounds Pakistan’s discomfiture, as it confirms Pakistan’s complicity with terrorism – two Pakistani soldiers were killed and another nine injured at the terrorist launch pads – potentially deepening Pakistan’s isolation. It is significant that the Indian operation has not drawn any international criticism, and even China has offered no more than its habitual cliché, expressing the “hope that they (India and Pakistan) can carry out dialogues to properly resolve disputes and maintain regional peace and security.” More importantly, Susan Rice, the US National Security Advisor, called her Indian counterpart, Ajit Doval, on the morning after the surgical strike and, without any reference to the incident of which she would have been well aware, reaffirmed Washington’s support to India in handling “cross border terrorism”, and reiterated “the expectation that Pakistan take effective action to combat and delegitimise United Nations-designated terrorist individuals and entities, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, and their affiliates.” Any visible retaliation by Pakistan, at this juncture, can only enormously deepen its growing and global isolation.

Reality check

It is useful to remind ourselves that the “surgical strike” is not the first operation Indian forces have undertaken across the LoC. Indeed, retaliatory actions across the LoC and International Border have been undertaken on several occasions in the past, without the chest-thumping and jingoism that has marked the present instance. Evidently, Prime Minister Modi was addressing the domestic constituency and the deepening sense of disappointment even among his most ardent followers, with regard to his Pakistan policy.

This, however, does not exhaust the underlying intent of the government in widely publicising the present operation. The surgical strike is, in fact, the exclamation mark at the end of the rising discourse on alternative strategies to be explored and deployed against Pakistan, which has distinguished media and political discussions after the Uri attack. It is intended, equally, to communicate to Islamabad and to the world’s capitals that India will use all instrumentalities, political, economic, social, diplomatic, and if necessary, military, to confront and counter Pakistan backed terrorism.

There is, presently, clear evidence of political will to pursue this course. It remains to be seen whether this wanes with the passage of time, or crystallises into a long-term strategy that will eventually compel Pakistan to abandon its sanguinary fellowship with terror.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.