India-Pakistan peace pessimists enjoyed another smug moment last week when the two countries violated the ceasefire agreement and in the subsequent series of killings martyred a total of 5 soldiers from the Pakistani and Indian armies. After the media outrage subsided. The details of the attacks became clearer. Indian defiance to the 2005 agreement on prohibition on construction of check posts near the Line of Control (LoC) prompted Pakistan to register official warnings. When they failed to elicit a response, Pakistan carried out cross-border firing that India claims caused civilian casualties. Soon afterwards, on January 6th a Pakistani soldier was killed when Indian forces crossed into Pakistani territory. Two days later, the Indian Army accused Pakistan for murdering and mutilating two of its soldiers, one of whom was beheaded. While political and military officials scurried to protest and deescalate tensions, another Pakistani soldier was killed on January 10th. The latest death was incurred by Pakistan on January 14th.
Defense analysts while sympathetic about this tragedy, are certain that this transgression, like those in the past, will come to pass. But the conduct and response on both sides of the border leaves strong questions about the viability of long lasting peace.
The most significant issue was the way the media documented this incident. In the Indian media accusations were hurdled and fingers were pointed. Opposition parties and right-wing politicians accused the Indian government for being soft in standing up to Pakistan. Retired military officials appeared on television testifying to the unethical and brutal nature of the Pakistani forces. The masses soon got infected with the same blame game; subsequent protests compelled Indian authorities to send Pakistani hockey players back home and delay the visa-on-arrival facility for elderly visitors. Unfortunately, it seemed that facts were hardly verified especially when the motives of different anti-state actors were discussed. Pressurized by both fronts, the Indian government came out to denounce the attacks and pass some defamatory public statements about Pakistan. At the same time, it chose to highlight its desire to ease tensions. In reality, it is well aware that provoking a nuclear Pakistan is not in its interests. Foreign minister Khurshid’s and Prime Minster Singh’s comments are thus nothing less than an emollient for the enraged masses. There is another belief that governments often try to deflect attention from domestic issues by bringing up an international issue. The Indian government has been feeling uncomfortable living under the microscope due to the recent sexual abuse cases that have engulfed the nation. Triggering a border conflict with a nuclear neighbor may have been part of a larger plan.
The Pakistani media has surprisingly kept a tempered attitude to the whole affair, a little too tempered according to some people. With multiple terrorist attacks across the country, Pakistan has been experiencing the worst week in terms of security. In addition, political turmoil resulting from Qadri’s million-man march and news of PM Ashraf’s arrest warrants has raised fears of a military coup. As a result, news of border skirmishes with India was lost in the middle. The little attention that this event has been able to acquire came mainly from state officials instead of hard-line nationalists and the public who maintained a cautious and controlled stance. Pakistani officials showed regret but kept the focus on reconciliation. It was after several days of the initial incident that FM Khar accused India of “war-mongering”. Pakistan is not known to hold back in its fights with India but at the very least, state officials maintained a professional propriety. It offered to have the matter resolved by a third party like the UN Military Observers Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) but India turned down it down. After several dead ends, Pakistan suggested holding a meeting between the foreign ministers. The Indian government has yet to respond though BJP has downright rejected the proposal. If this kind of narrative and sentiments are running high in Indian politics then there is a serious danger of upsetting the progress the two nation have made in promoting peace.
The role of the military in determining peace between India and Pakistan also came to the front. Indian COASBikram Singh declared the mutilation of the bodies of Indian soldiers “premeditated” and threaten to “retaliate at a time and place of our choosing”. The Indian Military has in the past created hurdles in resolving matters like Siachen, when it insisted on the acceptance of its troops actual ground positions. The Indian government which has initially decided to withdraw its troops decided went back on its claim and adopted the stance on the military. In this incident also we saw a dominating presence of the military. The flag meeting that was called after the death of Indian soldiers failed to yield results as both sides continued to accuse each other for the LoC violations. If the Indian military continues to hijack the government’s stance, the peace process may become more challenging. The Pakistan Army is no less to blame in overshadowing diplomacy efforts between the two nations. The Kargil fiasco showed how the military made rash decisions that not only heightened Indian mistrust but also created an international embarrassment for Pakistan. Small scale skirmishes on the Indian border may be a way for the Pakistani Army to buck up its troops after their failures on the western border with Afghanistan.
Lastly, the presence of third party non-state actors exploiting decades of rivalry for their benefit is a concerning matter. Indians are fearful of terrorist organizations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) whose prominent Mumbai tragedy is deeply etched in their minds. Even worse, they believe these militants are in cahoots with the Pakistani Army which has employed their services to carry out clandestine operations against India in the disputed area of Kashmir. In the latest confrontation too, some Indian news reports claimed the initial Pakistani attack was carried out to let these militants sneak into Indian Territory. Some reports went further to claim that LeT chief, Hafiz Saeed, even visited the border a few days before the murder of Indian soldiers. Saeed who offered a bounty of Rs.5 lakh in return for the beheading of an Indian soldier, was said to be accompanied by Pakistani soldiers.
Likewise, Pakistan blames Indian intelligence agency, RAW, for causing instability in Baluchistan through target killings through its agents and by funding local insurgents against the provincial government. The upcoming withdrawal of Coalition forces from Afghanistan is deeply concerning for Indian investors. They fear the resurgence of Taliban and their support from Pakistan would be used to target Indians. Triggering a conflict on Pakistan’s eastern border can be seen as a way to reassert Indian authority and supremacy in the region. It would also prove to America the fallacy of making Pakistan a partner in the Afghan peace process. It is also possible that Taliban forces are deliberately trying to worsen border tensions with Indian so that troops are relocated to the eastern border. This would provide easy passage for the Taliban militants in and out of Afghanistan.
The agenda of these extremists is as unclear as are their links to the two states but one thing is for certain: they are a danger to both countries’ security. Pakistan and India would both benefit if they combine their resources to prevent these extremist elements from precipitating a conflict between them. A recent Pakistan Army report claimed the greatest threat to Pakistan comes from internal insurgents rather than India. Good border ties would only facilitate Pakistan in reallocating its resources to clamp down against militants terrorizing both nations.
This latest conflict has unraveled certain issues that must be dealt with immediately. Although politicians, military officials and social workers have tried to build ties through economic cooperation, trade and arts, the factors identified above indicate that some basic elements inherent to the peace process have to be reevaluated. A media and state team that is more inclined to reforms than retaliation can eliminate third party actors and terrorists to simplify the road to peace. If external mediators are disliked, Pakistan and India should include a joint investigative body in addition to the telephone hotline to resolve such explosive situations.
Tacstrat Analysis
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.
Comments
Post a Comment