Peace or War: The Game of Choice

(Prof Khurram Shahzad, )

Deliberate Coercion

Blowing the peace once again, in a condemnable demeanor, India brutally and mischievously ravaged the regional calm by igniting fire on LoC and on a part of Working Boundary. More of us do have the central idea behind the latest escalation that pursued right after Kashmir took to the center stage across the world. Either in UN General Assembly session where the issue once again raised by PM Nawaz Sharif outraged India or the protest in Britain that not only brought a sheer embarrassment to India but a strong message conveyed to the international community that Kashmir no longer be held in the Indian occupation against the will of its people.

Apparently it is now a widely held belief, peace on the Line of Control has always been irrelevant for India. In 2011, when there wasn’t a cloud in the sky, there were 61 incidents of firing from the Indian side of the border. There was a similar number in the first 10 months of 2012. But the exchanges of fire in October this year have been qualitatively different. Not only have these seen the heaviest bombardments that villagers can remember, but most of it as usual, has been by India. Hence the Pakistani forces couldn’t take an exception and simply retaliate. In a single day, October 9, Indian forces fired more than 1,000 mortar shells into Azad Kashmir. This was preceded by a week of heavy firing from both sides that, by Indian estimates, has killed 35 civilians in Azad Kashmir and 20 in Indian held Kashmir, and forced thousands to flee from their homes. India in these attacks has clearly been the aggressor but it must realise that our deterrence will be credible as demonstrated by Pak Army. It seems clearly that if it persists with this adventurism, our forces will make the cost of this adventurism unaffordable like they did in 1965. Islamabad has the ability to respond to Indian aggression, perceived as a veiled threat. Moreover, Pakistan did not want the situation on the borders of two nuclear neighbours to escalate into confrontation. Nevertheless, the response from the Pakistani military must deter and restrict India from taking such provocative actions next time, especially the killings of innocent civilians.

The current spate of aggression has been different for three reasons: First, although it too may have started as a local exchange of fire, unlike the myriad exchanges of yesteryear, it has not been allowed to remain local. Instead, in a manner disturbingly similar to the way the 150-year-old local dispute over the Babri Mosque in Faizabad was politicized by the BJP in the 1980s, the Modi government has chosen to read a new aggressiveness in Nawaz Sharif’s government for highlighting the Kashmir in an international arena of UN. Second, instead of relying on diplomacy to straighten things out, the Modi government has deliberately chosen coercion. Not only has India’s ignition to firing been disproportionate, but the Modi government has not bothered to hide its so called desire to teach Pakistan a lesson. The Modi government has decisively closed the door to a return to diplomacy. Third, unlike the UPA and Vajpayee governments, Modi has not hesitated to make domestic political capital out of an aggressive response to Pakistan. At a pre-election political rally in Mumbai on October 9, he claimed “it is the enemy that is screaming … the enemy has realized that times have changed and their old habits will not be tolerated.” “The enemy”; note the choice of phrase.

Such an aggressive response to Pakistan would be justified if there was no doubt that it had opened unprovoked fire on Indian border posts first. But we have only Indian government’s word for this. Pakistan has stoutly denied opening fire first and Islamabad has again a strong stance far more often than New Delhi. But the Indian media have treated South Block’s press releases as gospel without once publishing a Pakistani refutation. Such desperate gimmicks are, however, unlikely to succeed with filthy Indian politics plunging into a spiral of chaos that augurs ill for prospects of better ties between the two countries, separated by decades of distrust. The relations between the estranged South Asian neighbours started off on a hopeful note under the new government in Delhi, but plummeted sharply after New Delhi unilaterally cancelled the foreign secretary-level talks last August.

In his UNGA speech, PM Modi merely made an impression that he was willing to hold talks with Pakistan, but only on the condition that the talks were held without the “shadow of terror”. But the in the same shadow of terror the world saw across LoC after Modi’s arrival at home. For, under a succession of Indian regimes have been sowing the wind in its neighborhood for five decades, and is now, perhaps, about to reap the whirlwind. The world knows the ordeal of people living in Indian held-Kashmir as well as they are well aware of the liberties of people enjoying in Azad Kashmir. That is a visible difference that gives a higher moral ground to Pakistani stance over Kashmir.

The weak link in the Indian construct is the absence of motive. The Modi government ascribes its new-found aggressiveness to its frustration over failing to internationalise the Kashmir issue. But it does not acknowledge the fact that Pakistan being busy at home to mend the fences on western border with Afghanistan as its Army’s successful operation Zarb e Azb has been uprooting the terror. This may be the one good reason for Indian leadership to create an annoyance for the Pakistan Army on the eastern front. Knowing the bestial cruelty with which the TTP butchering Pakistani citizens, the nation and forces unanimously are adamant that it has to be fought and eradicated. To pursue this fight Pakistan has already shifted more than 150,000 soldiers from the Indian border to FATA that shows its resilience to combat the menace.

With emerging scenario in Afghanistan, as the last American combat troops prepare to pull out, the Taliban have begun to show their power. The Afghan National Army itself is subject to some of the same tribal and sectarian rifts that have made a joke of the Iraqi army. There is thus the real danger of desertions, collapse and the acquisition of modern American arms by the Taliban. The future of the new Afghan government is therefore in considerable doubt where India has been meddling with its nefarious designs regarding Pakistan. But it has to remember the fact that in order to preserve its strategic interests in Afghanistan and beyond, India will need close cooperation and coordination with Pakistan. India might be confronted with a rapidly changing scenario in Afghanistan. If India wants to remain in Afghanistan it must change its policy towards Pakistan.

Obviously, signs ahead of time and gestures from both countries hoisted prospects for a invigorated commencement to India-Pakistan relations but, fatefully, due to its integral nature, India neither came up to the expectations nor it succeeded to ameliorate the image of Narendra Modi from a conservative to rational statesman. Even though the efforts to penetrate vulnerability between two rivals is not much but, if one desires to slack off these all-fired cross-border skirmishes, the call for time would be to abrogate the environ of mistrust and incommunicado. Opening a window of dialogue would create a unique opportunity for the two countries to bury the poisoned legacy of Partition and make a new start towards lasting peace and amity. But the BJP seems to seize upon his forbearance and projected it as cowardice and weakness. Today it has made India a prisoner of its own hawkish past.

Prof Khurram Shahzad
About the Author: Prof Khurram Shahzad Read More Articles by Prof Khurram Shahzad: 6 Articles with 3875 viewsCurrently, no details found about the author. If you are the author of this Article, Please update or create your Profile here.