Pakistan: Now or Never?

Sanjeev:
” The wounds from the 26/11 attack on Mumbai for which the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba has been held responsible, remain fresh for a large number of Indians. They are not in a mood to forgive or forget.”

With all due respect Sanjeev, the wounds of East Pakistan in 1971 are still bleeding in Pakistan too. Can Pakistan also forgive forever? think about it, we are talking about some bad blood between India and Pkaistan.

All the rest is just talk, its a cat and mouse game. This way or that, do this or not. It will carry on.

The good old days of India relying on US to put pressure on Pakistan are gone. Pakistan knows how to navigate Washington very well.Let India and Pakistan go all out for initiatives, peace initiatives. In India you have a statesman like Manmohan Singh, I hope we have a real leader in Pakistan too. Only then we can have peace, merely keep shouting Pakistan is a sponsor of terrorism is not going to help. Someone also trained and funded Mukti-Bahni insurgents in East Pakistan as well. What goes around comes around as well.

India should increase its presence alongside the Pakistani border and LoC if anything.

Until every single Lashkar-e-Taiba/JuD leader is killed or jailed forever by Pakistan, there should be no peace talks and if Pakistan keeps delaying the prosecution of LeT leaders for their role in Mumbai, then India should suspend diplomatic relations as well.

No compromises with state sponsors of terror. And no talks until Mumbai culprits are eliminated by Pakistan.

@The good old days of India relying on US to put pressure on Pakistan are gone.
-posted by Umair

Umair: During the times when Pakistan is in deep trouble and needs increasing number of sane minds, your sense of history is alarmingly low. I thought India was more used to Russians than rely on US, isn;t it? talking specifics, you know what US and China could do to you. Pakistan asked China and US for help. All China wanted was to support with arms (no biggie) but a statement that suggested that they will stay out and watch–perhaps thaey thought Pak is getting into trouble with India too many times too frequently (1948, 65, 71). And about US, police arrived when the war was over.
Please read some good account of 1971 of your choice, except pakistani and Indian version for obvious reasons. Also dig a short artcile by ex-Pak Air Chief Asghar Khan (?) in Dawn that pakistan attacked India all the time and presented India the opportunties to do so in 1971. When he says that the means 6 milllion refugees pouring into India @60,000/day. Yes India did support Mukti Bahni but they were citizens of your country who needed help and India cannot take 6 million refugee, while Pakistan generals listened to no one internationally.
Pakistan has a knack of landing into trouble in the most silly ways–If pakistan would have allowed Awami league to form govt, who won a solid majority of 167 of the 313 total seats in the assembly, nothing would have happened. Also it was Pakistan who started the open war–by attacking India (air and ground attacks) from W. Pakistan on December 3, 1971. Rest is history.

@Someone also trained and funded Mukti-Bahni insurgents in East Pakistan as well. What goes around comes around as well.
- Posted by Umair

-Good thoughts.
LTTE and Mukti Bahni are history.
I hope pakistan does that to all terrorist outfits it created and are now getting out of control. demand for your own sake. You already know the results of Talibinization of Afghanistan–it is Talibinization of Pakistan.

THOSE whom are interested in 1971 India-Pak war account:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/l ibrary/report/1984/KRG.htm

India should take the gamble. It has nothing to loose and everything to gain.

If India pulls back and more attacks happen that originate from Pakistan then it is Pakistan that will look bad. International (not just US) pressure would increase on Pakistan. Pakistan’s image as another Afghanistan or Somalia would be cemented…after all let’s be honest that’s what most of the world thinks of Pakistan today anyway….it’s certainly the impression given off by the BBC or CNN. For India, it might cost them a few lives but the strategic gains would be significant. Global opinion would swing in their favour. Pakistan would find it increasingly difficult to use the victim card. I fail to see the downside here even if Pakistan does not reciprocated India’s gestures.

Alternatively, if Pakistan does do more to fight the Taliban then the whole region and the world would gain. The Pakistanis would finish off the Taliban. Afghanistan would begin to stabilize. Ditto for Pakistan. The immense economic potential of Pakistan would be unleashed. Eventually more permanent progress would come to the India-Pakistan relationship. And that rapprochement might even lead to EU style regional integration.

This all sounds far-reaching. But the way I see it there is very little for India to loose by calling Pakistan’s bluff. Sure they might loose a few lives because of more attacks, but if 26/11 proved anything, it’s that the Indian people are a remarkably resilient bunch. If an attack like 26/11 happened in the US, everybody would still be talking about it, studying it and budgeting billions for improvements to security. Mumbaikars on the other hand dust themselves off and go to work the morning after. So India certainly has the space to give in a little.

Sanjeev,

I dont see any harm in reducing troops from Rajisthan and Punjab. However we have seen no signs of reduction of cross border infiltration in Kashmir(Infact it has gone up). So i dont think reducing troops from Kashimir is judicious.

But since most of Paki troops are based out of POK (An assumption) i dont think any reduction unless done from Indian Kashmir is going to help call the bluff which we can ill afford.

So all in all good suggestion but not workable.

I agree with chirkut. Indo-US cooperation part ways right there.

Its all or none as for as terrorists are concerned, not just Taliban and al Qaida.US and others should include LeT, JeM and all other terror outfits as target. I was given to understand its a global war on terror, it doesnt seem to be the case.

Keith,

That ‘up for sale was targeted at your “Sure they might loose a few lives because of more attacks,” comment. Looks like it missed its target

Banning or putting organization on watch list is a half hearted attempt to placate. If that is the yardstick than LeT was banned way back by Mushy. Even in your above comment you are more occupied with Taliban rather than all terrorists operating out of Pak.

Analysts do discuss a lot of things. Indian analysts discussed hot pursuit also a couple of years back. But it has not been used till date because we love our countrymen more than we hate those terrorists. And hot pursuit will lead to consequences no longer in our control.

You are probably better placed than me to judge where PAK army is predominantly placed. My guess is that its deployed heavily in lahore and pindi till PoK. And India can ill afford to move out troops from those areas given the fact that infiltration has gone up in those areas. But probably we can move little troops from Rajsthan and Punjab but then it will have little impact.

So if i analyze the argument. By moving our troops we are exposing our citizens to terrorists(Unethical for any govt) in return for “probable” quashing of Taliban(Which honestly to me is low risk for India as of now) with no guarantee on LeT and HuM etc. What is our gain in that?

Its strange to think that you have so many strings to pull on pak like cutting aid and/or support and sanctions and you don’t exercise it and expect India to take all the risk and ease the job for you.

Probably unrelated. Tell me what exactly has been done since the report of Pak accelerating its N-program has come to light ? Last time you turned blind eye towards pak resulted in you ending up in mess that is now.

Keith, Chirkut and Azad,
Keith:
@But the way I see it there is very little for India to loose by calling Pakistan’s bluff.”
-May be or may not be anything to lose. More terrorists may or may not enter India. But where is the gain here? Taliban has not hit India and is not our enemy enough to move troops to facilitate their targeting at the risk of infiltration of the likes of LeT who did 26/11. So I agree with Chirkut and Azad views on this. Mr. Obama and Holbrooke said several times that India is not a risk to Pakistan and now PM Manmohan Singh also said just now that India will not attack Pakistan. But Pakistan would not listen. They guys are rusting their guns and wasting their time at India-Pak border. One cannot wake up the already wide awake but pretending. The reason is Pak needs $$$$. One way India can think to move some troops is a sincere statements and an agenda by Pakistan and International forces against LeT/JeM/HuM. So far you know it very well that US/NATO have no intention to target LeT or pressurize Pak. I do not see Indian troops withdraal happening before India-Pak bilateral talks resume with “terrorism against India” on top of the agenda.

Keith

—The prob. is that all such suggestions are based on the assumptions that by doing so we’ll call off the Pakistani bluff of India being an existential threat to them – all for the amusement of the Americans – but what if it doesn’t satisfies the whims & fancies of the Americans & seeing this as a sign of weakness it demands India for more such retreats – their diabolical stance in the diff. approach of -your terrorism & our terrorism is enough reason for us not to take such foolhardy steps.
Our restrain after 26/11 & innumerable proxy attacks & instigations by the Pakistani’s should suffice as proof enough of India’s genuinity of being a defensive & peaceful nation.

Sanjeev

“Can you really draw lines between the groups?”

— Not in the theoretical sense, but it’s very much obvious that they’re the Pakistani blue-eyed boys & the Americans are looking the other way cause it suits them, atleast for the time-being.

Chirkut, Azad, Rajeev,

I approach this problem not as a westerner but purely as a strategic puzzle. What would I do if I were an Indian strategist?

Would a draw-down along the border dramatically increase the threat? Hard to say. Consider that the 26/11 clan came from the sea. And today a lot of LeT’s efforts at coming across are focused on using third countries like Bangladesh or Nepal. We see very little infiltration along the IB. Most of that happens in Kashmir, and there is no argument for a reduction of Indian forces there. There would also be various border security forces along the border to protect it. Generally speaking, the Indian Army does not do border protection on a day-to-day basis. So the idea that the threat of infiltration would increase significantly is misplaced imho.

There is no country that wants to loose citizens to terrorism. And as someone who still has family in the region and worries for their safety, I understand this concern. However, the goal of governments should be long term solutions not short-term sterility. India has dealt the same way with Pakistan for 60 years now with very little to show for it.

If you read the author’s idea, the plan is directed not at necessarily finding accomodation with Pakistan but at reducing Pakistan’s international diplomatic space. There is a lot of merit to this idea. At present, although the West may not address all of India’s concerns the way India would like them dealt with, there is a remarkable amount of sympathy for the Indian viewpoint. The way CNN covered the Mumbai attacks, they made it look like London or New York was being targeted. There was no such coverage for the Marriott bombing in Is’bad….simply because these days terrorism in Pakistan is seen as par for the course. So it makes sense, I would think, for India to press its advantage with the international community. That’s exactly what I would do if were Indian. Work to erode the credibility of Pakistan’s claims. I am sure if you spoke to Narainan, that’s exactly the kind of strategy the wily old cat would suggest (that man is simply a desi Kissinger – just brilliant).

The other prong of such a strategy is already underway: global integration. Make India indispensable to the global market. The more India trades with the world and the more foreigners live and work in India, the less tolerance the world will have for attacks on India. Again, Mumbai was a great example of this. The increased foreign presence means that inevitably foreign nationals and foreign interests will be targeted. Global integration means that when India loses the world loses. India’s interests become global interests.

Hearing what I heard, I would even argue there was so much sympathy for India, that had Singh chosen to respond to the attacks, even though it would have been inconvenient for the west, there would have been some understanding for India’s need to respond. That kind of sympathy can only be built upon by further deft diplomacy by India. This means using the right mix of forces along the border. Bolster the BSF, local police forces, etc. along the IB and pull back the strike corps (don’t tell me that tanks and APCs patrol the border – they don’t). Then Pakistan would be compelled to do the same. Either it would re-dedicate those towards the Taliban (helping the world and the region out) or it wouldn’t (in which case it would get chastised for not doing enough – and there’s very little patience in Washington for this type of behaviour from Pakistan). Either way India would win in that scenario: a long term security gain (no Taliban to harbour anti-India groups…it’s only a matter of time before LeT starts operating out of Swat et al.) or a significant diplomatic gain (increase US and western pressure on Pakistan).

The only risk for India from re-deploying its forces would be a slower response time in the face of a Pakistani military intrusion. Yet, it’s notable that Kargil only happened in Kashmir where India had its densest distribution of military forces. I would argue that it would be diplomatically impossible for Pakistan to launch an incursion across the IB. And if they did, although slow to get going, India’s forces are more than adequately equipped to repulse such an attack. So yes, some increased risk, for a lot of potential rewards.

Keith writes: “The more India trades with the world and the more foreigners live and work in India, the less tolerance the world will have for attacks on India. Again, Mumbai was a great example of this.”

There is another side to this. The more foreigners work in India, the easier it is to arm twist India into submission. In 2002, after the attack on the Indian Parliament, India was piling up its troops for a war with Pakistan. The US found its objectives in jeopardy. Diplomatic efforts to convince India did not work. Indians argued that for 9/11, the US went to war right away and how come India was being told to show restraint when its very foundation of democracy, the Parliament was attacked boldly. The US could not argue on that point, but their efforts were in jeopardy. They knew that if India went to war with Pakistan, Musharraf had no hesitation in using his nukes.

So the US and its Western allies did another trick. Suddenly the State department and foreign affairs departments in Western countries (US, UK, Australia, NZ, Canada etc) issued directives to their citizens in India to leave. And they began to leave. Guess what happened? India submitted.

When Mumbai attacks happened, India’s cricket was shut down. Cricket in India is big business. Their professional cricket league had to be shifted to South Africa for security reasons. No foreign player was willing to risk his life for the money being offered.

Pakistan’s response to the Mumbai attacks showed their attitude and sincerity towards resolving terrorist issues directed at India.

Our experience with the US and its allies is very different. We do not find them trust worthy. They do what suits their needs the best. If India pulls its troops out from Kashmir, and Pakistan does something else, the US is going to blackmail India to stay put or face the consequences on economic terms. And its allies will follow suit. Kashmir problem has persisted for 20 odd years because of Western acknowledgment to Pakistan’s activities there because it was a strategic ally.

The problem is that of trust. And neither Pakistan or its Western sponsors have demonstrated trust that India can rely on.

Whatever my opinion is, the Indian government does not take orders from me or anyone else. They might still do what they think is the best. I just offered my opinion.

Sanjiv,

You ask, can there be a distinction between the Taliban and the LeT? I’d say, ‘Yes’!

The difference lies in the agenda. The Taliban, with Pashtuns in its cadre, is a local phenomena which exists in the bad lands of FATA and NWFP. However, the Punjabi terrorist groups – LeT, JuD, HuM – hope of annexing Kashmir, dismantling India and spreading radical Islam in South Asia. The PA is sympathetic towards LeT’s cause and supports them.

In the short-run, the Taliban and the Punjabi terrorist groups may have collaborated but it does not imply that attacking the Taliban equals dismantling the likes of LeT.

The elites in Lahore & Islamabad have always seen the Pashtuns as backward and as ‘the other’. Fighting the Taliban with full force is easier for the Pak army than taking on their own, the Punjabi terrorist groups like the LeT. Taking on the Taliban also pays more in US dollars.

India is weary of Pakistan’s phony distinction between the good and the bad mujahadins. The governments in the West know this but they choose to be silent. The governments of NATO nations have their troops to protect and their electorates to please.

Mauryan,

I agree to all your premises but not on your results.
India’s integration in world economy works both ways. It depends how we are going to use it. We cannot blame others to weakness in our leadership.

We have power to influence GoI. No matter how absolute majority MMS has in house, he is still accountable to us.

Keith,

Missed one of your point.
What India should do? What it has done in Sri Lanka and Nepal. Stay out of the internal mess and help in rebuilding later on.

Chirkut writes: “India’s integration in world economy works both ways. It depends how we are going to use it. We cannot blame others to weakness in our leadership.”

In 2002, BJP was in power and they had to submit to the Western wishes. We are calling the Congress as a weak government and the BJP as the belligerent one. The BJP was hoping that they’d return to power this time due to the mild reaction from Congress for the attacks. However, BJP also had to play by Western rules when they were in power. So it does not matter who in charge, geo-politics is a difficult game. I’d say both governments, the BJP and the Congress, had/have reasonably strong leadership with maturity. They had Vajpayee and Congress has MMS.

World economy is down right now. India is the one that is going to have to chase the Western nations for business now and they themselves are in doldrums. In this situation, what they dictate will need to be followed, to gain business. India might have to turn a blind eye to the racial attacks in Australia now with just some warnings and condemnations. Business can be cruel sometimes.

“We have power to influence GoI. No matter how absolute majority MMS has in house, he is still accountable to us.”

Our power can be exercised in two ways – by protest marches or by votes. We are are all arm chair critics and none of us would march on the streets. As far votes, it hardly has a dent on what the government policies should be.

The Kashmir problem has lingered on for so long because India never got the support it deserves from the same Western powers. Their media can completely black wash everything and change public opinion if they wish. And there are arms sales that these countries rely on. A conflict that does not affect them, but keeps their military industries busy is something they desire. So that is another reason why they have turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s activities in Kashmir and elsewhere in India. India really cannot trust their ulterior motives. I remember in the 1980s with Rajeev Gandhi as the PM when the UK arm twisted the Indian government to buy their helicopters (Westland?) against a much better set of Dauphins. Otherwise they were going to intensify their support for Pakistan. Countries like France supply weapons to both India and Pakistan and mint money. And the US is not far behind either. So India must be very careful in its analysis of the situation before making any decision.

If India reduces its troops in Kashmir and LeT is let loose, Pakistan can simply wash them away as non state actors or paint them as genuine Kashmiri fighters. Musharraf openly lied that no Pakistani soldier was involved in Kargil. And Pakistan has its own agenda. They can mobilize their insurgents and do another Kargil, just to deflect the internal war away from the center. Though the US claims to have many “experts”, many are ignorant and have their own inherent bias which they consider as neutral stand point.

Whatever happens will happen. To control the situation inside Pakistan, they want everyone else to bend over. India has nothing to do with Pakistan’s internal conflict or Afghanistan problem. But it is told to reduce its troops to facilitate something for Pakistan. The question is, will Pakistan do something like this if the roles were reversed? Indians wonder why Pakistan gets such excessive pampering for all its abuses.

I strongly feel that India should reduce troops or increase it, based on its own priorities and not for someone else’ war issues. When India needed the Western powers for support, not one of them came forward to help us. Mumbai attacks got so much attention in CNN because Americans and Westerners, Jews were in the middle of the attack. If the attackers had taken a city where no Westerner was involved, it will get a passing mention in the 7th page. As I see it, nothing has changed in the perspectives and analysis of the Western powers. From an Indian stand point, we have to see what is in it for us. We really need things in writing from these countries before we agree to anything.

Nikhil writes: “Some people are fearing another Kargil-style attack if India draws down its troops. Guys, that is not going to happen. The PA may be crazy but not foolish to risk economic, political and diplomatic isolation if it indulges in any misadventure on the LoC.”

Remember the time before Mumbai. Kashmir had become very quiet. There were even articles in Indian magazines about cutting down troops there as peace was returning. Life had become peaceful. Zardari even said, “There is an Indian inside every Pakistani.” Everything looked positive. Pakistani singers were competing in Indian music competitions. A Pakistani boy had his heart surgery done successfully in India. IPL 2 was going to happen.

Then suddenly Mumbai attacks happened and everything changed rapidly. And the Pakistani establishment and its people were initially embarrassed about the event. Then they tried hard to cover it up. But at the end, it was too obvious. But then, nothing has gone forward after that. So let us not assume that there will be no surprises like Kargil. We trusted the Chinese before we got mauled by them in 1962.

Military establishments learn from trials and tests. They come up with strategies on how past mistakes could be corrected this time. I have seen Pakistani posters here say that Kargil plan was drafted long ago and it was gathering dust. And Musharraf executed it and they said it was a very good plan.

Every action done by Pakistan over the years have only built our mistrust over them. Still, we are asked to bend our backs. They are not asked to move an inch. In 1948 UN resolution, it clearly says that Pakistan has to remove all of its military before the resolution could take effect. Now 61 years have gone and they are still sitting there. May be we could ask for the following and if Pakistan commits to them, we can pull our troops back:

1. Make another bilateral treaty that negates all the previous resolutions on Kashmir.

2. Withdraw all Pakistani troops from Azad Kashmir under international supervision and replace them with UN troops.

3. Withdraw all Indian troops from J & K and replace them with international troops.

4. Clear out all terrorist training camps from Kashmir.

5. Arrest all LeT and other insurgent leaders who have criminal cases pending in India and hand them over to either the UN or India. Have them punished. Pakistan, as a goodwill gesture, should complete the Mumbai case and hand over Dawood Ibrahim. If there is no extradition treaty, then hand him over to the US or UK where a case on behalf of India can be filed.

6. Build roads, railroad tracks etc that link all important towns inside Kashmir.

7. Allow for a rule by the UN or a sponsored nation (UK or Switzerland or Australia etc) for about a year. Hold a plebiscite. Let the Kashmiris vote and decide what they want to do. It will satisfy every party.

8. If they cannot trust either the Pakistanis or the Indians, let there be a long term presence of international military there.

Everyone will be happy. Pakistan can go back to fighting the Taliban. Then there must be a guarantee from the US and its allies that Pakistan will meet all its commitments to India sincerely and should be verifiable. I think this is a better plan than even troop reduction. In today’s situation, Kashmir will get a peaceful resolution and Indian troops can return home and focus on other critical areas.

I agree with many of you that India should seek some security guarantees from the US when it makes this offer. It would be a good way to really pressure the US on Pakistan while simultaneously appearing rather magnanimous.

@Sanjeev,

I am curious to see what Bloggers think.

If India does take a gamble and Pakistan attempts another Kargil, perhaps another pre-planned misadventure, man years in the planning, how should India respond?

Should India just sit down and keep showing a tempered response, or should it retaliate, if so, how severely?

Do Pakitani’s expect India to take more unprovoked attacks lying down, without any consequence?

I am curious to hear what both Paks and Indian’s think?

What iron clad security guarantees should India expect from Pakistan and the U.S.

Legally speaking, should there be bonafied consequences against Pakistan, if it tries another Kargil, or should India stay the course and keep taking shots to the chin and remain passive?

Let’s hear it?

Manish,

In India, there is unanimity among political parties to resolve the Indo-Pak border dispute. The problem lies in the lack of capacity of Pakistani state to honor commitments it makes in the peace agreements. Pakistan’s vicious politics has been an obstacle in the progress of Indo-Pak peace process for the last decade.

The US/NATO is spread thin and its patience is running out. The big powers will court and coax India to reach some agreement with Pakistan. For India, there are no easy choices. India should demand some security guarantees from US/NATO in case Pakistan defaults on its commitments like that in the past.

—In Short, any military position compromise shall be viewed as a diplomatic failure.

Keith
“If you read the author’s idea, the plan is directed not at necessarily finding accomodation with Pakistan but at reducing Pakistan’s international diplomatic space.”

-we know it, Pakistanis ar enot stupid, we have the smartest and sharpest of our diplomats in western capitals. We know how to deal with coercive diplomacy, we have mastered the art of avoiding diplomatic isolation, Pakistan has weathered many storms, the Kargil war, the 2001-02 border standoff, the Mumbai 26/11 after math.

So try reducing Pakistan’s international diplomatic space, but remember there are some Pakistanis smart enough to counter that.

For those who think, India will pull back forces from Pakistan border. In return, Pakistan will have no excuse in devoting more military resources against Taliban along the Afghan border. Thus international pressure will increase on Pakistan.

Well, take this: ISI activates its sleeper cells inside India. Terrorists strikes take place in India which are blamed on Pakistan, back to square one, Indian Army back to the border, Taliban issue again at the backfoot and Indo-Pak tension at the forefront. Pakistan has many options while dealing with India, while India doesnt have that much of a choice.