9 minute read
Risk of Escalation
Strategic Vision vol. 8, no. 40 (February, 2019)
Terrorist strike raises specter of nuclear exchange between India, Pakistan
Advertisement
Raviprasad Narayanan
Taliban members surrender their weapons. Terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan are an irritant not just to India, but the entire global community.
photo: isafmedia
On 14 February, 2019, a suicide bomber detonated his vehicle in the proximity of a bus carrying troops of India’s Central Reserve Police Force, killing forty individuals. The bomber was a member of the Jaish e Mohammed (JeM) terrorist group, proscribed by the United Nations, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and other countries. The suicide bombing was carried out on the national highway in Lethpura of Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir. The JeM operates with absolute impunity in Pakistan and has a cadre trained by retired army officers from this country. This attack was loudly condemned by the world, with the patron of JeM—Pakistan—remaining conspicuously mute. This instance of terrorism and the nonchalance displayed by Pakistan angered India to a level where leaders in New Delhi felt that retribution was the answer required, and the imperative for a response demanded that a message be sent: that terrorism is best answered by swift and decisive state action.
On 26 February, 2019, the Indian Air Force (IAF) bombed the base of the JeM in Pakistan’s province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Casualty figures in this bombing are not clear, and information has been scarce. Indian media reports stated that more than 300 terrorists, including their trainers, were killed. That 12 Mirage aircraft of the IAF evaded radars in Pakistan and were able to bomb the terrorist facility inside Pakistan was acknowledged by that country, though there was a denial that the air strikes caused any damage or loss of life. It is known that, facing an embarrassment, Pakistan will escalate tensions.
An artist’s rendition of a Pakistani F-16 as a SU-22 has just been hit by an AIM-9L missile at 16,000 feet over Parachinar, during the 1979-1988 Afghan war.
photo: Government of Pakistan
Non-military pre-emption
India characterized the attacks on the JeM terrorist camp as “non-military pre-emption.” On 28 February, 2019, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) made incursions into Indian airspace and dropped “dead loads” (ordnance without explosive material) in Sher Makri of Nowshera sector in Jammu and Kashmir. The sortie did not cause any damage to its target, which was supposed to have been an ammunition dump of the Indian army, and the Pakistani jets were quickly pushed back by Indian aircraft.
Complicating the issue was Pakistan’s initial insistence that it did not use F-16s purchased from the United States in its strike on Nowshera, presumably because this would have had serious repercussions from Washington, which helps arm Pakistan for the purpose of fighting terrorism, not to wage war against other nation states. It was demonstrated that F-16s had indeed been used by Pakistan, however, as evidenced by photos, released by the Indian military, of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) deployed in the attack. This was followed up by an attempt, on the part of the Pakistani military, to characterize the missiles as ones that were not purchased by Pakistan from the United States, but instead ones that the US had sold to Taiwan. This assertion, too, was quickly refuted, this time by the Republic of China (ROC) military, which indicated that the cited identification numbers do not match any of the missiles in its arsenal, and indeed were incompatible with any ROC weapons systems, it was reported.
This fast flowing episode between the two countries was widely debated in the rest of the world, since both countries possess nuclear weapons, and were a hair trigger away from a nuclear war.
India-Pakistan relations are an irritant, giving a headache to the rest of the world, since they have proved immune to resolving outstanding disputes that have plagued bilateral ties. The sanctuary provided by Pakistan to terrorist groups on its soil make it imperative for the rest of the world to recognise the role of a state actor possessing nuclear weapons, playing a willing host to terrorist groups violently arguing for religious sanctions to implement an agenda which Pakistan has lost on the battlefield not once, but three times to India, in 1947, 1965 and 1971. The last fullfledged war in 1971 between the two countries led to the creation of Bangladesh, which until then was called East Pakistan. For Islam in the Indian subcontinent, known for its tolerance, this new, absolutely irrational virulence is against civilizational tenets.
Having lost three wars, the “half war” of Kargil in Kashmir in May-July 1999 was an epochal episode as both countries possessed nuclear weapons with delivery capabilities. It required the efforts of then US President Bill Clinton, to give a dressing down to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif ensuring that troops from Pakistan stood down and prevented an escalation, the possibility and consequences of which would have made a nuclear catastrophe unthinkable and unpardonable.
Taliban members surrender their weapons. Terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan are an irritant not just to India, but the entire global community.
photo: Government of India
India’s foreign policy has for a couple of decades tried to impress upon the rest of the world, the impact of terrorism on India. This terrorism is fomented by non-state actors based in Pakistan, who rely upon state actors like the army in Pakistan that encourages these groups to coalesce and focus on India. Pakistan’s history of being a base for radicals during the Afghan war, saw the mushrooming of many groups swearing to an ideology of extreme violence sanctified by the Wahabi strand of Islam, best reflected in the Taliban. This group found sanctuary in Pakistan and, while in power in Afghanistan, was considered a strategic victory by the army of Pakistan based in Map: CIA Rawalpindi. India’s tireless efforts at sensitising the rest of the world to the shenanigans of Pakistan were ignored even after US SEALS managed to neutralise Osama Bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan in May 2011. The most wanted man on the planet at that time was in Pakistan, where the intelligence services are predominant, owing to their being part of the armed forces and are not civilian expressions of government. This was temporarily worth international reflection, but nothing more.
The 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai perpetrated by Lashkar e Taiba (LeT), a group based in Pakistan led by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, was an act of indescribable violence in which 183 people lost their lives, including several foreigners. Despite owning up to the atrocity, this group and its leaders were in Pakistan, protected by that country’s army and intelligence services. It is this game being played by Pakistan that gnaws at every government in power in India.
Three days of mayhem
The 26-29 November, 2008, terror attacks in Mumbai on a number of targets—including the Taj Mahal Palace and the Nariman House, which housed a Jewish outreach centre—were televised live by news organisations in India, and were made aware to Indian citizens and viewers abroad. Three days of mayhem spurred by wanton acts of terror, committed by a group based in Pakistan with deep institutional and financial links to that country, steeled India’s resolve to go international in appealing to the world to appreciate the centrality of terrorism in contemporary international relations, with the crucible being a nuclear armed country, where the military is in cahoots with terror groups.
Swift countermoves
The atrocity perpetrated by the JeM was reciprocated by India within a fortnight by targeting its group headquarters in Balakot, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. That the IAF could bypass Pakistan’s radar was embarrassing to its military, requiring swift countermoves to restore face. Sure enough, this happened, and while chasing intruding PAF aircraft, an IAF aircraft was shot down and its pilot detained by Pakistan. This pilot was repatriated within a couple of days, defusing tensions for the moment on both sides.
For Pakistan, a country constantly defaulting on loans extended by international financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the use of terror by non-state actors is to camouflage its renegade status in international fora. Pakistan is a nation that has become a client state of China in recent years, and it shares that country’s abysmal record on human rights. Worse, it fails in almost every metric of what modern societies are known for—literacy, health, robust financial health, economic growth, and many other variables. This may perhaps be the first instance of redefining the state as it is conceived in political science and international relations. The army in Pakistan is the sole decision maker with politicians and the political class beholden to Rawalpindi for everything. The current prime minister, Imran Khan of the party Tehreek e Insaaf, is a well-known former cricketer, who in the 1970s and 1980s was famous for being one of the fastest bowlers. His appeal in Pakistan comes from his exploits on the field, and also for being the captain of the team that won the country’s first World Cup. His presiding over the release of the captured IAF pilot was welcomed in India, more because of India and Pakistan both being fans of cricket.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan, seen here speaking at a conference in Germany, is a popular former cricketer.
photo: Stephan Röhl
As prime minister, however, Khan cannot make decisions on policy without concurrence from Rawalpindi, where the military headquarters is located. Put simply, Pakistan is posing what may amount to a new theory in political science, with an unelected military steering an elected state apparatus, and turning around constitutional considerations of the armed forces abiding and swearing by constitutional propriety. In Pakistan, it is the other way around: The army in Pakistan has had repeated instances of staging coups, with the last being that which brought General Pervez Musharraf to power from 1999 to 2008. Musharraf was the author of the Kargil half war, as military commander of Pakistanoccupied Kashmir.
Soldiers of the Indian Army pose for a photograph after taking a hill from Pakistani forces in 1999 during the Kargil Half War.
photo: Government of India
Asymmetric option
In the case of hosting and tolerating the fomenting of terror by virulent Islamic groups on its soil, the generals in Rawalpindi acknowledge terrorism as a potent asymmetric option against India that aids in confusing and derailing India’s response, if any. Periodic episodes of terror emanating from Pakistanbased groups on the Indian side have been met with public outrage followed by a quiescent approach by the government in India emboldening terror groups to up the ante. The pusillanimity of the international community towards terror groups being based in Pakistan despite tireless attempts made by India to highlight its concerns regarding a global evil, has acted as a force multiplier to groups swearing fealty to an ideology that views a constitution as an instrument by the devil to divide the pious. Piety, for such terror groups, can only come from the Koran, which is held above all constitutions and laws, and which guides people on every aspect of life.
The challenge for India and Pakistan lies not just in addressing terrorism. The need for bilateral mechanisms at the level of the military are urgently required so as to prevent further attacks by non-state actors in Pakistan forcing the hand of India to target groups inimical to India in every aspect, including its economy, plurality and democracy.
Dr. Raviprasad Narayanan is with Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) where his teaching and research interests focus on China. He is a member of Strategic Vision’s editorial board, and can be reached for comment at raviprasad.narayanan@gmail.com
