The soft state syndrome

By Colonel Digby Jamwal

In terms of Indo-Pakistan relations, one aspect of our present policy is definitive and positive. No dialogue with Pakistan whatsoever till infiltration, cross border terrorism and dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure takes place to our satisfaction. In this respect our firmness has somewhat unnerved Pakistan. Nonetheless as experience shows, the hostile and irresponsible conduct of Pakistan needs constant attention and clinical evaluation on a continuous basis since it refuses to accept the basic equation of a subsidiary role in South East vis-a-vis India. This in turn demands that the overall direction and thrustline of our policy with that country now, and in the future, be a matter for in-depth consideration and systematic review by our political leadership, to avoid moving from a crisis-to-crisis situation.

With a wily military dictator in Pakistan, who not only masterminded the Kargil intrusion but has been fully involved over a long period in ISI's scheme of narco-religious-terrorism against us, as well as planning and conducting military operations in J&K, it would be prudent to be wary. Added to this, Islamic fundamentalism, backed by Taliban cadre's, Pakistan's ISI and active Army support, poses a serious threat to India in particular, as well as to other countries in the Asian hemisphere. Given the current international unipolar system of economic-cum-monetary pressure, western military manoeuvering and US, UN and Euro sponsored intervention under the garb of human rights, status of minorities, democratic governance, flash point dialogue applications, the interplay of such factors assumes key importance in the politics of the subcontinent. Going by the pace of the current developments on the Indo-Pak front as well as on the international stage, there can be no guarantee that nothing will happen and status-quo will continue.

In this context an assessment of Pakistan's long term strategic aims coupled with its periodic short term tactical moves vis-a-vis India since 1947 if critically assessed and analyzed make interesting study. The genesis of the military take over, the mentality of its leadership and its total control of Pakistan, has further exacerbated the overall scenario, not withstanding Musharraf's farcical claim to having introduced genuine democracy to his country.

Pakistani Perfidy

Even before Independence, Jinnah and Pakistan's leadership were quite sure of our mindset and had their plans well organized. Therefore in October 1947 they took to the offensive without hesitation and launched a treacherous assault on J&K. When we finally had, militarily, the operational upperhand, our then political leaders faltered. Being unable to grasp the value of opportunity, and lacking both grit and determination, without consulting the Army, shortsightedly accepted the UN sponsored January 1948 cease-fire, leaving two thirds of J&K to the aggressors.

The subsequent 1965 war again proved these aspects. At the outset, politically and tactically they had gauged our reactions in the J&K Zone of operations, better than we had assessed them. They had fully exploited over a period of many years our lackadaisical and casual approach to the doctrine of 'azadi' being preached with brazen impunity in the Valley, aided by infiltration and insidiously inspired anti-India propaganda on self-determination. Therefore when the 1965 war began, initially the massive infiltration into the Valley followed by the Chhamb tank thrust in Jammu gave us a severe tactical jolt. After heavy fighting at various points on the Line of Control, our Army made many vital gains in J&K capturing many key areas of Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Yet we slipped up politically and our Government gifted back to Pakistan after the cease fire, the hard won vital features we had occupied. Again, for the second time, our political leadership failed in making a reappraisal of our future relationship with a blatantly untrustworthy country.

In 1971, we may have split Pakistan into two parts, but the fact of the matter is, that we bungled overall in our long term strategic concepts and failed to concretize the benefits. Despite Pakistan having suffered humiliation by the establishment of Muslim-dominated Bangla Desh, loss of considerable portions of territory in West Pakistan and the capture of 93,000 prisoners, the Pakistani leadership showed its competence and deep study of the Indian psyche by outwitting us for the third time at the negotiating table in Simla.

Our placatory attitude and far too many attempts to buy Pakistan's friendship has been misadvised. On this fault assumption, the scaling down of our conventional warfare superiority over Pakistan in equipment and troops, both in the mountains and in the plains, by pre-BJP Govt's during the period 1995 onwards, resulted in Pakistan feeling emboldened to embark on the Kargil Operations. Pakistan started initially well and achieved considerable tactical surprise, but they under estimated the Indian military riposte which was swift and comprehensive, aided by Air Force and Navy employments. But here too the Kargil aftermath has not been overly in our favour either, with both sides being equated as quarrelling over disputed territory.

Time and again, Pakistan has played its cards with audacity in a manner where, if their military opportunism and tactics had paid off, it would have been a terrible blow to India. Yet, as it has so happened, whenever and whatever they lost on the battle field and were at the receiving end, they managed to extricate themselves, stabilize their defeats politically without much of a demur, and miltarily scraped through to a position of no loss, no gain. They have therefore been able to limit damage and recoup within short periods. One fails to understand as to what leads our political leaders repeatedly to take a benign forgiving view of their provocative actions.

Pakistani Game Plan :

In the methodical conduct of their long term aim ever since 1947, to balkanize India and achieve domination in the subcontinent, Pakistans leadership has been clear-cut and efficient. They have used every and any means, clandestinely and by maximum use of covert and overt techniques, to undermine the solidarity and integrity of our country through external conflict and internal subvesion. Their assistance and abetment of terrorism in J&K and Punjab, active involvement in the secessionist movements in the North Eastern States, infiltration on the UP, Bihar borders with Nepal are clear indices of their purpose.

Having noted the internal political divisiveness of the Indian State and its inability to integrate J&K (as they have done to POK), Pakistan has focussed its effort to a full fledged proxy war in J&K State and the Valley in particular, with its predominantly Muslim population, vis-a-vis the Buddhist majority Region of Ladakh and the Hindu majority Region of Jammu, Grabbing the Valley is only the first part of their grandiose plan which in the long run aims to reach out to other parts of the country. This leit-motif has guided their military build-up and terrorist-cum-militant funding to the extent that Pakistan today is a permanent case for IMF and World Bank funding without which their economy would collapse, despite backdoor financial assistance from Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan's attempts to concentrate on areas outside the Valley and move their infiltration into Jammu area, Chamba and parts of Himachal Pradesh, now poses another threat. It is obvious that Pakistan's assessment of Indian reaction to their proxy war in J&K and extended terrorist strikes in other areas is that of disdain. The attempt to expand the area of insurgency and infiltation is to reach out; and is in line with the long term plan to establish the rationale that Muslim majority pockets within the Indian Union cannot stay with India, and also encourage other minority groups likewise.

The growth of madrassa's all along our borders extending from Kutch, through Rajasthan, Rajouri and Poonch in Jammu Province, in the Valley, to Kargil in Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, the Northern areas of Uttranchal, Bihar and West Bengal has serious implications. Establishment of subversive cells in other State has also been reported with close links to the ISI. By their unrelenting efforts in J&K and other parts of India, Pakistan has undermined the security and well being of the Indian Muslims by fomenting extra-territorial loyalties. Unfortunately, not one prominent political or religious Muslim leader, or any eminent social, judicial or literary personality from among our Indian Muslims has in-toto condemned Pakistan. The Indian Muslim's conspicuous silence on Kashmiri Muslim intransigence in the Valley and to their separatist challenge to the Indian Union is far too obvious and indicative not to be noticed.

Leadership in the future context

Since we have historic penchant to forget quickly, in retrospect, the Kargil war however fortunately brought out some major criteria for our political leadership to digest. The key lessons were that there is no substitute for robust and clearheaded leadership and the ability to cope with the diplomatic fallout. That we must not be deterred or dissuaded from taking determined and effective action in defending our territorial integrity. That hard headed decisions, despite world pressures, in national interest are paramount and finally, we must not be taken by surprise.

But as usual, after the Kargil Operations we slipped-up lulled into a false sense of security based on an incorrect assessment that our Kargil response would force Pakistan hereafter to abstain from rogue behaviour. The December attack on our Parliament provided us a vicious reminder that no change in their mindset had occurred. It was therefore at this point of time, that an opportunity was available to us to free ourselves from decades of irrelevant dogma's and the shackles of self imposed restraint: and take effective punitive action against Pakistan and specifically in Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

Tragically, and typically, we again failed to utilize the chance despite having the advantage of opinion worldwide on our side, as well as the USA backing us in their support to governments waging war on international terrorism. Obviously our political ''forecast-planning'' was not action oriented for such events. Since it was not in place, it indicated that mentally our approach to Pakistan was still docile, passive and definitely not focussed. If at all proof was required (that we should take a firm and aggressive attitude), it is only subsequent to the current level of troop mobilization and active deployment conducted by us on the complete length of the Indo-Pak Border, that one can discern for the first time after 1971, Pakistans worry, severe distress and discomfort. Never has Pakistan felt so apprehensive as they have done over this one move of India's.

Much to their dismay and chagrin they discern a change in the air to their disadvantage. This posture of ours therefore needs to be maintained. Our potential and determination not only to strike, but to strike very hard, and the right to freely exercise that, is an option which must be kept evident and fine-tuned. This capacity needs to be backed up by effective steps at the military level with 'powerful immediate strike forces', and in the international fora through strong diplomatic pressure, even after we demobilize, (at a time of our choosing), from the Border. Every political, economic, military, social, cultural, PR and media methodology needs to be utilize to convey that we will not accept any Pakistani inspired and abetted terrorism in J&K.

Event have still to run their course, with unpredictable shifts and turns, particularly after the 57th UN Assembly Meeting, the J&K State Elections, and Pakistans rigged Senate Elections post October 10th which will reinforce Musharraf's position. The need for altertness and ability to pre-empt and respond pro-actively needs to be emphasized. As a subcontinental nation we cannot allow to be trifled with and be judged as a meek entity; prepared to compromise, politically, economically and militarily under pressure.

Indian leadership would do well to look into the future clear headedly and show a sense of determination and much more urgency than at present. Our responses must go beyond policy statements hereafter. Not only must we plan ahead, but plan for immediate reaction contingencies, short-term and long term scenario's; and more importantly plan to the end.' Worst case situations must also be catered for. A politico-strategic road map has to be set out to project a strong country image. But most of all, leadership has to be resolute. On such ability for foresight, drive, and opportunism to take grasp of favorable factors and situations, does the real test of the quality and timbre of leadership of a nation rest. When next a crunch situation with Pakistan arises, restraint and looking towards the USA and UN should not be the only major guiding factors.

Against this background, shedding our passivity both in our political thinking and our defence posture is the need of the hour. A clear and realistic strategic concept, far sighted politico-military measures, backed by a deterrent mecha- nism capable of a hard hitting and befitting salutary response is the only answer to Pakistan's belligerence. It is to be hoped that our leadership can take this stance in national interest and prove worthy of the mandate received.

Crystal Gazing

By Spectator

It happened many years ago and it sounds as an apocryphal story. But it isn't. A "suited-booted" elderly reporter, a solar topee shielding his bald head from the heat and dust, was travelling through the interior of one of the BIMARU states that were going to elect a new assembly. A few miles outside the State capital he saw a small group of villagers sitting idly on a platform under a tree. He asked the taxi driver to stop and went up to the group to learn about the villagers' party preferences in the coming election.

"Huzoor, Mai Baap, I shall vote for whoever you tell me and so will all of us," said the eldest of the group with folded hands. "No, no. Be frank with me. Tell me honestly who will you vote for," said the reporter who represented a reputed English language newspaper of the time. "Sir, we have told you the truth. How can we go against the wishes of the Sahib?"

A few more such "interviews" and the reporter was satisfied that he had gauged the trend well enough to send a report on the likely outcome of the particular constituency he was covering. The poll result did not tally with his assessment. But no eggs on his face as he had laced his reports with a lot of "ifs" and "buts". Besides, no editor is known to have sacked a reporter for not accurately predicting the poll results.

This story could well relate to sample poll surveys that dominate the media these days whenever assembly or Parliament election approaches. A difference is that the pre-poll surveys and similar forecasts, reportedly based on scientific inputs, are conducted not by reporters but "professionals" whose organisations are paid handsomely for their labours. A six-or seven-figure fee for a tantalizing peep into the future! But no regrets are expressed when the predictions, made by these "professionals" go wrong, as they most often do.

It is the age of "poll surveys' preceding a major election and "exist polls" just after it. Almost every media organisation carries reports from professional organisations; some of the newspapers, journals and TV channels conduct their own surveys and opinion polls and announce them with much fan-fare. All of them claim to be right though they admit there could be some minor deviation.

The reader or the viewer, brought up on years of experience with wrong weather forecasts, is supposed to get a sense of thrill out of such prognostic exercises. But what if the professionals' prescience proves to be wrong? Only the politicians or parties mauled at the hustings despite the favourable forecast may squeak.

There is no such thing as once-bitten-twice-shy in this game of poll foretelling. In this respect it is almost like the astrological predictions that the majority of newspapers carry. While some TV channels are catching up with astrological predictions, many are in the business of poll forecasts too.

Astrologer columnists do seem to be aware that they cannot be very accurate in looking into the unknown future. The "fortune tellers" have learnt to be delightfully vague and one is left free to draw one's own conclusion from the astrologers' prophecy.

Here are some "samples".

Scorpios are told in a particular week that it will be good for most "Government servants" — well, nearly every day is a good day for Government servants in India where Government offices steadfastly refuse to adopt a work culture. Those born under the sign of Cancer learnt from the astrologer's forecast that the particular week in question "will open an avenue of feeling that had been blocked until now." Will you let out a blood - curdling scream at the sight of Praveen Togadia or Parvez Musharraf during that week?

But the poll "astrologers" may well be dismissive of the opacity that the more traditional astrologers exhibit in their columns for which, incidentally, they are not paid a fortune. The pollsters tell you in mathematical terms how many seats a party will in an election and what will be the percentage of "swing" in its favour — or against it. They present a profile of constituencies from almost every angle. There is an "analysis" of voters preferences on the basis of caste, community, religion and so on so forth. They assess the performance of the incumbent Chief Minister by awarding them "marks", as though in an examination. They also tell you who from a band of leaders will make the best Chief Minister.

The details about voters and constituencies that these political astrologers provide along with "analyses" of all kinds are supposed to lend an authenticity to their forecasts. Yet, the only "trend" that can be rightly foreseen is the inaccuracies in forecasts!

Newspapers or TV channels that pay huge sums for foretelling the election result are, of course, bound to carry their report. But when these "forecasts" tend to be misleading what is the point of devoting columns after columns or hours and hours on TV channels to them.

In the just-concluded Gujarat election these poll surveys drew flak from both the main contenders. These surveys themselves were subject to some "mood swings".

One weekly first gave the BJP a massive majority. But when the rest of the media reported that the ruling party was not going to fare that well, the magazine came out with another poll survey that gave the BJP considerably lesser number of seats.

Then there was another weekly that predicted that the BJP and the Congress will be involved in a neck-and-neck race. But the poll surveys had failed to see the landslide victory of the BJP.

To go back to the astrologers' columns, most newspapers that carry them give them restricted space, tucked in a corner. The poll predictions, on the other hand, dominate the newspaper pages and TV channel coverage of news. The whole thing looks rather disproportionate.

Newspapers and TV channels are free to carry pre-poll reports complete with "forecasts". But should these "forecasts" be played upto the extent they are?

(Syndicate Features)