 |
|
The article critically examines India's 'new normal' approach to counter-terrorism, particularly in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack and the subsequent Operation Sindoor. It questions the effectiveness of retaliatory military actions as a deterrent, highlighting the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the identities of terrorists neutralized during the operation, beyond the initial claims of eliminating high-value targets. The author argues that unlike Pakistan, India's constitutional democracy necessitates a thorough parliamentary debate and discussion on major national security policies that impact the lives of millions of citizens. The political consensus on combating terrorism should not be used as a pretext to curtail democratic processes or stifle critical evaluations of anti-terror policies. The author draws a comparison between the response to the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008 and the current approach. In the Mumbai attacks, while a majority of the terrorists were killed, Ajmal Kasab was captured, tried, and sentenced through India's judicial system. More importantly, investigations uncovered the broader terror plot, exposed the involvement of Pakistan's ISI, and led to the apprehension of international terrorists. Furthermore, India was successful in diplomatically isolating Pakistan after the 26/11 attacks. The article criticizes the Prime Minister's references to 'nuclear blackmail' and calls for Pakistan to dismantle its 'terror infrastructure,' arguing that these statements highlight the limitations of the current deterrent doctrine. It asserts that Pakistan's military establishment is deeply intertwined with terrorist organizations, a fact that has been well-documented over the decades. The author points to the US operation that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan as further evidence of this connection. The article underscores the continued supply of military hardware, advanced technologies, financial assistance, and diplomatic support that Pakistan's military receives from major powers like the US, China, Russia, and Turkey, despite their awareness of the potential misuse of these resources. It posits that effective deterrence cannot be achieved until this reservoir of support for Pakistan's military-terrorism complex is depleted. The article stresses the need for a realistic cost-benefit analysis of Operation Sindoor, which includes assessing the damage inflicted on the Indian side in terms of military lives, hardware, and civilian lives lost due to Pakistani shelling across the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir. It argues that concealing such human casualties and operational losses diminishes India's credibility on the international stage. It challenges the Prime Minister's claims about 'Made in India' weapons being tested and proven during Operation Sindoor, pointing out that crucial weapons systems used by India during the conflict were procured from French, Russian, and Israeli suppliers. Pakistan's arms inventory also includes procurements from China, Russia, the US, and Turkey. The author suggests that these foreign arms suppliers are the primary beneficiaries of such 'new age warfare,' with no clear victor or vanquished party in the conflict. The article highlights the alacrity with which the US intervened to terminate Operation Sindoor and impose a ceasefire, serving as a reality check for India's security and foreign policy establishment. The near-simultaneous nuclear weaponization of India and Pakistan from the late 1990s has created a durable ground for international intervention in any conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, thereby weakening the Simla Agreement, which was signed after India's decisive victory in the 1971 Bangladesh war. Historically, Pakistan sought to internationalize its territorial conflict with India over Kashmir, while India consistently resisted any departure from the bilateral framework. However, with India's increasing acceptance of US mediation, the article argues that another nail has been driven into the coffin of the Simla Agreement.
The essay contends that a strategic reset is required in India's approach to Pakistan. Despite the challenges, there is a plausible case for India to explore avenues for engaging with Pakistan, taking into account the changes in the geopolitical landscape and global power dynamics over the past five decades. Terrorism motivated by religious bigotry, whether state-sponsored or not, has emerged as a complex strategic threat for nation-states worldwide. However, the author asserts that Mr. Modi's new anti-terror doctrine falls short on retrospective insight, as it is based on the same tried-and-failed formula as the 'war on terror' pursued by the US and Israel. The author warns that Pakistan's military, with its nuclear trigger as existing leverage, now possesses an additional trigger to initiate a new cycle of terror and conflict with India. Instead, the author emphasizes the importance of prioritizing the NIA investigation and bringing the perpetrators of the Pahalgam terror attack to justice, as this is crucial for the credibility of India's anti-terror stance. Diplomatic efforts should be renewed to persuade the US, China, and Russia to cease arming and financing the military-terrorist complex in Pakistan. A key recommendation is for India to work collaboratively with all international stakeholders to restore civilian rule and democracy in Pakistan, which the author believes is the only way to defuse religious extremism and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure. While acknowledging that this is not an easily attainable objective, the author argues that it is a more practicable and realistic approach compared to dystopian military non-solutions. The essay concludes by emphasizing the necessity of an informed parliamentary debate on Operation Sindoor and the Prime Minister's new anti-terror doctrine before it becomes the 'new normal.' The article is critical of the current approach, suggesting that it lacks a comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics at play and relies on strategies that have proven ineffective in the past. It calls for a more nuanced and multifaceted approach that combines diplomatic efforts, international cooperation, and a commitment to democratic values in Pakistan.
The core argument revolves around the ineffectiveness and potential pitfalls of India's current anti-terror policy, particularly as exemplified by Operation Sindoor. The author posits that relying solely on military retaliation as a deterrent is insufficient and potentially counterproductive. This is because it fails to address the underlying factors that fuel terrorism, such as the complex relationship between Pakistan's military and terrorist organizations, and the continued external support that Pakistan receives from various international actors. Moreover, the lack of transparency and accountability in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, including the unconfirmed identities of neutralized terrorists and the obfuscation of casualties, undermines India's credibility on the global stage. The article advocates for a more comprehensive and long-term strategy that prioritizes diplomatic engagement, international cooperation, and the promotion of democratic values in Pakistan. It argues that restoring civilian rule and dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan are essential steps towards achieving lasting peace and security in the region. This requires a shift away from purely military solutions towards a more nuanced approach that addresses the root causes of terrorism and promotes stability in the region. The call for a parliamentary debate on Operation Sindoor and the new anti-terror doctrine reflects a concern that crucial decisions are being made without adequate scrutiny and public input. The author believes that a thorough discussion of the costs, benefits, and potential consequences of these policies is necessary to ensure that they are aligned with India's long-term interests and values. The piece encourages policymakers to re-evaluate their approach to counter-terrorism, moving beyond reactive military measures towards a proactive and sustainable strategy that promotes peace and stability in the region.