Alien
Regular Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2015
- Messages
- 584
- Likes
- 819
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/18-Jun-2015/containing-india-s-ambitions
Given the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) strident anti-Pakistan rhetoric during India’s general elections, there was quite some controversy about whether Prime Minister (PM) Mian Nawaz Sharif should accept Modi’s invitation for his swearing-in ceremony last May. A consensus finally developed between those opposed to the visit and those for it, with maturity prevailing in the interest of peace. The BJP’s negative mindset soon became apparent when our PM was treated rather offhandedly in New Delhi. Relations with India did not go sour immediately but have gone downhill since.
Targeting several villages near Sialkot on the morning of Eid last year, a heavy mortar barrage led to the deaths of people, women and children amongst them, preparing to celebrate Eid and offering their Eid prayers. Frequent violations of the Line of Control and a lot of aggressive bluster aside, talks between the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan were conducted at the last minute on the flimsiest of pretexts. The brief visit was simply to show “India’s sincere intent about bettering their relations with Pakistan” before Modi’s visit to China.
The courageous attempt by Ashraf Ghani to drastically change the nature of Pak-Afghan relations, once he became President of Afghanistan, was a massive foreign policy setback for the Indians. Ghani’s historic visit to the army’s General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, at Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Shareef’s invitation, along with the entire military hierarchy in November 2014, left the Indians in a state of shock. In reaction to this “foreign policy failure”, as their analysts put it, a campaign was initiated against Ghani’s initiative for a more neutral stance using the former Afghan President. Kabul’s animosity has resurfaced with vehemence.
Our leaders have been falling over themselves, ingratiating themselves with the Indians, with repeated unreciprocated visits in the “interests of peace”. Our policy of appeasement at any cost has confirmed the perception of the Indians that we can be pushed around. The last time a Pakistani head of state stood up to the Indians was when Mian Nawaz Sharif went ahead with our nuclear test in response to the Indian Pokhran blasts on May 28, 1998, despite enormous international pressure. The clear message of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) resonates in the detente we enjoy today. Conditioned by our supplicant stance, the Indians must have been unpleasantly surprised that we were not rolling over and playing dead as we normally do.
Both a strategic and economic game changer for the prosperity of Pakistan and the region, the inherent potential of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor has really upset the Indians. Brimming with anger and frustration, they have openly opposed this project tooth and nail. Raheel Sharif delivered a strong reaction to the latest Indian threats, articulating the deep-rooted feelings of the Pakistani public. It took some time for our government functionaries to rebut India’s blatant war rhetoric. Mian Sahib did give a mild response initially, giving rise to a lot of misperception about why he seems to be silent on the issue. The PM ultimately made a strong statement, condemning India’s belligerence, which was better late than never. His delayed tough talk earned him a five-minute phone call from Modi, prior to the Holy Month of Ramadan. If anyone has seen our vintage Mian Nawaz Sharif of 1998, please tell him that all is forgiven and he should come home.
On Aug 16, 1965, Indian PM Lal Bahadur Shastri told the Lok Sabha (India’s lower house of parliament) that “the time has come to retaliate against aggression and retaliate at a time and place of our choosing by the method we want to choose”. National Security Advisor to the Indian PM, Ajit Duval, took pleasure in stating his intentions to “inflict pain” on Pakistan and alluding to Balochistan’s secession from Pakistan. Not to be outdone, Indian Defence Minister Parrikar, who is from Gujrat and close to Modi, recently advocated the use of terrorists as proxies against us. Although the much-hyped Myanmar raid against Manipuri rebels turned out to be more of a Bollywood production, Parrikar called it a “dress rehearsal” for action against “terrorist sanctuaries”. With Modi’s inner coterie (including Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj) openly talking of a possible foray, his Deputy Minister of Defence has repeated Shastri’s comment 50 years later. In the face of India’s Cold Start doctrine, what are we supposed to do? Parrikar said that “the importance of the Indian Army has been diminished because it had not fought a war for the last 40 to 50 years”, adding in the same breath that he was not endorsing war. Parrikar is mistaken if he thinks that we believe that India does not want war.
Some in our intelligentsia and media seem to think that we should not read too much into India’s bellicose posturing and that our reaction should be muted, at the most. Intercepts handed over to the Afghan President by the COAS and the Director General of the ISI showed that five National Directorate of Security (NDS) agents were in communication with those who had committed the attack on the Army Public School (APS) in Peshawar. Although the suspects are under arrest in Afghanistan, they have not been handed over to us.
Despite being badly outnumbered in conventional terms, when push comes to shove, we can hold the Indians at bay. However, anyone would be foolish to wish for a war that could lead to a nuclear holocaust. The process of dialogue must focus on compromise, so that the situation does not spiral into war, death and destruction. India and Pakistan can come to an arrangement over Kashmir if an agreement is not possible.
The September 1965 war escalated after the Rann of Kutch skirmishes in May, almost 50 years ago. To retaliate with tit-for-tat rhetoric would be a non-starter. Our measured response to the enemy must be conveyed in the language that they understand, that war remains an option if required, whatever the sacrifice. However, we must be patient and not be surprised like we were in 1965. Remember the Sun Tzu saying: “If you wait by the river long enough, you will see the corpse of your enemy go floating by.”
The writer is a defence analyst and security expert
Given the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) strident anti-Pakistan rhetoric during India’s general elections, there was quite some controversy about whether Prime Minister (PM) Mian Nawaz Sharif should accept Modi’s invitation for his swearing-in ceremony last May. A consensus finally developed between those opposed to the visit and those for it, with maturity prevailing in the interest of peace. The BJP’s negative mindset soon became apparent when our PM was treated rather offhandedly in New Delhi. Relations with India did not go sour immediately but have gone downhill since.
Targeting several villages near Sialkot on the morning of Eid last year, a heavy mortar barrage led to the deaths of people, women and children amongst them, preparing to celebrate Eid and offering their Eid prayers. Frequent violations of the Line of Control and a lot of aggressive bluster aside, talks between the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan were conducted at the last minute on the flimsiest of pretexts. The brief visit was simply to show “India’s sincere intent about bettering their relations with Pakistan” before Modi’s visit to China.
The courageous attempt by Ashraf Ghani to drastically change the nature of Pak-Afghan relations, once he became President of Afghanistan, was a massive foreign policy setback for the Indians. Ghani’s historic visit to the army’s General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, at Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Shareef’s invitation, along with the entire military hierarchy in November 2014, left the Indians in a state of shock. In reaction to this “foreign policy failure”, as their analysts put it, a campaign was initiated against Ghani’s initiative for a more neutral stance using the former Afghan President. Kabul’s animosity has resurfaced with vehemence.
Our leaders have been falling over themselves, ingratiating themselves with the Indians, with repeated unreciprocated visits in the “interests of peace”. Our policy of appeasement at any cost has confirmed the perception of the Indians that we can be pushed around. The last time a Pakistani head of state stood up to the Indians was when Mian Nawaz Sharif went ahead with our nuclear test in response to the Indian Pokhran blasts on May 28, 1998, despite enormous international pressure. The clear message of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) resonates in the detente we enjoy today. Conditioned by our supplicant stance, the Indians must have been unpleasantly surprised that we were not rolling over and playing dead as we normally do.
Both a strategic and economic game changer for the prosperity of Pakistan and the region, the inherent potential of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor has really upset the Indians. Brimming with anger and frustration, they have openly opposed this project tooth and nail. Raheel Sharif delivered a strong reaction to the latest Indian threats, articulating the deep-rooted feelings of the Pakistani public. It took some time for our government functionaries to rebut India’s blatant war rhetoric. Mian Sahib did give a mild response initially, giving rise to a lot of misperception about why he seems to be silent on the issue. The PM ultimately made a strong statement, condemning India’s belligerence, which was better late than never. His delayed tough talk earned him a five-minute phone call from Modi, prior to the Holy Month of Ramadan. If anyone has seen our vintage Mian Nawaz Sharif of 1998, please tell him that all is forgiven and he should come home.
On Aug 16, 1965, Indian PM Lal Bahadur Shastri told the Lok Sabha (India’s lower house of parliament) that “the time has come to retaliate against aggression and retaliate at a time and place of our choosing by the method we want to choose”. National Security Advisor to the Indian PM, Ajit Duval, took pleasure in stating his intentions to “inflict pain” on Pakistan and alluding to Balochistan’s secession from Pakistan. Not to be outdone, Indian Defence Minister Parrikar, who is from Gujrat and close to Modi, recently advocated the use of terrorists as proxies against us. Although the much-hyped Myanmar raid against Manipuri rebels turned out to be more of a Bollywood production, Parrikar called it a “dress rehearsal” for action against “terrorist sanctuaries”. With Modi’s inner coterie (including Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj) openly talking of a possible foray, his Deputy Minister of Defence has repeated Shastri’s comment 50 years later. In the face of India’s Cold Start doctrine, what are we supposed to do? Parrikar said that “the importance of the Indian Army has been diminished because it had not fought a war for the last 40 to 50 years”, adding in the same breath that he was not endorsing war. Parrikar is mistaken if he thinks that we believe that India does not want war.
Some in our intelligentsia and media seem to think that we should not read too much into India’s bellicose posturing and that our reaction should be muted, at the most. Intercepts handed over to the Afghan President by the COAS and the Director General of the ISI showed that five National Directorate of Security (NDS) agents were in communication with those who had committed the attack on the Army Public School (APS) in Peshawar. Although the suspects are under arrest in Afghanistan, they have not been handed over to us.
Despite being badly outnumbered in conventional terms, when push comes to shove, we can hold the Indians at bay. However, anyone would be foolish to wish for a war that could lead to a nuclear holocaust. The process of dialogue must focus on compromise, so that the situation does not spiral into war, death and destruction. India and Pakistan can come to an arrangement over Kashmir if an agreement is not possible.
The September 1965 war escalated after the Rann of Kutch skirmishes in May, almost 50 years ago. To retaliate with tit-for-tat rhetoric would be a non-starter. Our measured response to the enemy must be conveyed in the language that they understand, that war remains an option if required, whatever the sacrifice. However, we must be patient and not be surprised like we were in 1965. Remember the Sun Tzu saying: “If you wait by the river long enough, you will see the corpse of your enemy go floating by.”
- Ikram Sehgal
- June 18, 2015
The writer is a defence analyst and security expert
