A horrible attack in Pahalgam, Kashmira, in which 26 people were killed, has left South Asia to the limit, since India blamed Pakistan and her support for cross -border terrorism. Delhi has said that he would maintain the treaty of the Indo waters “in suspense” and Modi promised that India soon “would destroy what is left of Haven terror”, a safe reference of Pakistan.
To understand Delhi’s military options at this time, how Modi’s government exaggerated his statements that “normality” has returned to Kashmir and the risk risky of disparaging conflicts between two nuclear powers, I talked to former military officer Sushant Singh, a professor at Yale University and one of Indian’s security experts.
● ●
Shoaib Daniyal: Do you think India can do another Balakot? [striking across the border as it did in the wake of the Pulwama attack of 2019]?
Sushant Singh: It depends on what you want to say with Balakot. The question is what did Balakot achieve? As this particular incident has been, Balakot did not create deterrence, which prevented the militants or Pakistan from undertaking another terrorist attack in Kashmir. That is one thing.
Second, Balakot, as I wrote in The caravanIt was not a military success. It was a political success because it happened just before the elections, and it worked for them [the Bharatiya Janata Party].
Third, Balakot intensified to some extent. As you know, [Mike] Pompeo, which was [United States] The Secretary of State at that time, in his memorandum he mentioned the nuclear climb between India and Pakistan.
So, I really don’t know what we mean to another Balakot. If the idea is that India would make an exarbast pakistan kinetic operation, yes, that possibility definitely exists, particularly because of the rhetoric we are seeing of the government.
SOUTH DAKOTA: I want to go to your reports on Balakot, especially your piece in the caravan. You have tasks of a view that is in several with much of the main Indian media. You say that Balakot was not really a military success. Do you think that will report what is happening now? Will India reduce the options?
H.H: Let me say it this way. Political leadership in India would do it because doing something that at least at least the emotions of their supporters of their followers, if not the Indian people. They have Alrealy established a bar due to what they say they have done in 2016 with surgical attacks in the locomotive [Line of Control] And then in 2019 with Balakot. Once you have done that, you can’t do anything less than that. If he says he achieved so much, then he must do something bigger. That is a great structure.
The second restriction, of course, is the military failure of making Balakot and the escalation that happened. Balakot is not just about what the Indian Air Force tried to do in Balakot; It is also what happened thereafter, when [Indian Air Force pilot] Abhinandán [Varthaman] It was captured, when the Indian Mig-21 was demolished, the threat of missile releases from both sides. That is also part of Balakot’s episode.
The question is not what India can do, it is how it is descalized from there. Anyone can ask for a terrestrial missile, a strike in the air or an attack of swarm of drones. The point is, will Pakistan retaliate? YEAH. After Pakistan retaliates, what are you doing? Do you take him lying? Do you say: “Thank you, 1-1” and return home? Or more scales? How do you unwishly?
Political leadership has to respond how it intends to avoid a serious escalation between two nuclear weapons states and how to descalize after having the tasks in the first step. Military leadership must respond what their limitations are, if they can honestly say the political leadership they are operating within the limitations: shortage of soldiers, hair removal at the China border, modern shortage of Equment, etc. These two considerations, political and military will come into play.
SOUTH DAKOTA: I want to go to the horrible terrorist attack in Pahalgam. Do you think there was a safety period there?
H.H: Definitely. There were two CRPF [Central Reserve Police Force] Battalions until a year or two. One of them was transferred. Armed men fired for more than 20-30 minutes, and security forces did not arrive. The family of one of the dead naval officers said that the aid did not arrive for 90 minutes and that her husband died. Clearly, there was a safety period.
There was also a failure of intelligence. You have militants in the area, wandering with weapons, clearly integrated into the area with local support. It is not as if the militant came that morning, and salsa. The failure of intelligence is that you had no idea that all this happened.
Security failed on two levels. First, you left the place completing without surveillance, probably believing that tourists would like to see soldiers and that would create normality statements. There was also the belief that militants would do anything to attack tourism, which is the life line of the Kashmir economy, so we can leave it without surveillance. Second, the response that the attack was turned was very poor. Unless you are buying your own Kool aid of the normality that returned, there was no reason not to have strength present in that place.
There were three failures: intelligence and two levels of security, before and the duration of the incident.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Let’s deepen a little more at your Kool help point. What does this incident about the Modi governments say that they claim that Kashmir is now normal and militancy has ended after the abrogation of article 370 in 2019?
H.H: This incident shows that thesis statements are false. In fact, even before, the incidents in Poonch and Rajouri have already refuted that statement.
Let’s be clear: violence is not at the level of the early 90s or just after kargil. But violence had already dropped when Omar Abdullah was a main minister [2009-2015]. In 2011-2012, there are many street protests, a lot of stone fight, but the militancy was already low.
Then PDP [People’s Democratic Party] Formed the government with BJP [in 2016]and the young men of Kashmiro began to join the militancy. Violence was artificial repressed, but anger against the Indian State and the lack of political reparation remain, creating fertile terrain for militancy, equally if you move Pakistan away from the equation.
SOUTH DAKOTA: One of the statements to cancel article 370 was better security, which you say has not passed. Do you think that India’s security apparatus is now now Waker because the local basket holidays have been destroyed and Kashmir is now dictated directly from Delhi?
H.H: Absolutely. Remember, demonization of duration [in 2016]It was stated that the back of terrorism has broken the bone in back. The same was said after surgical strikes and after canceling article 370. In all cases, security has not improved.
We had just lost the limited support we had among the purse. You could generate local intelligence, you had supporters. Everything that has been broken down by the son of politics in the rest of India and by Delhi in Kashmir: the Hardcore Hindutva policy, demonizing Muslims and puppy, the television debates of Anti-Kashmir’s television television not all nights. You cannot expect sympathy when you have done what was done after August 2019: turn off everything, removing the Internet. It is a very oppressive environment in Kashmir.
Even tourism, economically vital, has become a tool for humiliation and oppression.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Could you expand that? What do you mean that tourism is a humiliation tool?
H.H: Many tourists from the continent, influenced by the current Islamophobic political climate, behave unpleasantly, sometimes without knowing it, sometimes knowing, acting as if he had sustained Cashmiro. Even not Kashmiri friends have observed this when they travel to Kashmir and have felt ashamed.
The way tourism is done does not encourage healthy ties between Kashmir and the rest of India. It is perceived as an extension of the policy that India has Sen since four 2014.
SOUTH DAKOTA: We are going to geopolitical security. If India launches any kinetic operation now, what are Pakistan’s options?
H.H: It depends on whether India launches a covert operation or operation. Pakistan can deny an undercover operation and, meanwhile, India, using its Godi media channels, can execute a propaganda campaign. That is easier, since there is no escalation.
If India does something visible that Pakistan cannot deny, Pakistan will have to retaliate. General Khalid Kidwai, a key figure in Pakistan’s nuclear policy, establishes a very clear line: QPQ+. If India does something, Pakistan will have to do Quid Pro quo plus. Something additional should be done when Pakistan retaliates. Because the Pakistan army cannot afford to lose your face. If they recognize the action of India, they must retaliate.
So the question is, what does India do? Retal again? Climb? Step back? A third, American, Saudi, Eau, China, intervene and say: “guys, this is enough”? Or the intelligence agencies begin to speak as Balakot and find a way to decline? Political leadership in India must through this before taking a step.
SOUTH DAKOTA: You said that the Pakistani army must retaliate. Last week, the head of the Pakistan army, also Munir, pronounced a provocative speech saying that Kashmir is the jugular vein of Pakistan. Do you think there is any connection between that and what happened in Pahalgam?
H.H: It’s hard to say. Munir is not the first to use this rhetoric. Ayub, Zia, Kayani-Many have said similar things. This is a long -standing belief in a large section of the Pakistani army. There is nothing new in this.
It is difficult to say if there is a direct link between Munir and Pahalgam’s speech. My sense, not based on any entry, is that it was a soft objective that was left without protection. The attackers saw him as easy to hit and escape. Militants, unless they are Fidayeen, because hitting and exiting. They don’t want to be trapped in a battle launched. My instinct is that it does not seem directly connected to Munir’s speech, but it is difficult to say it with certainty.
SOUTH DAKOTA: His own writing has shown that Modi really handled domestic perception very well after Balakot, regardless of military evaluation. Do you think something similar will happen or do you think they will be some difficult questions of security failures in Pahalgam?
H.H: I do not believe that the corporate media of India, television channels and newspapers, where many of our friends work, will ask any difficult question or Mr. Modi or Shah. They didn’t ask those questions after manipur.
They did not go to ask those questions when the governor of Jammu and Kashmira, Satyapal Malik, ventilated public about everything that happened in the duration of pulwama, the suicide bombardment of the convoy CRPF. Those questions were not asked then. I said that people named journalists and editors have courage or even the ability to ask those questions.
Will comply with some analysts, some commentators and independent platforms such as Move, caravan, cable, news minute, Newslaundry To ask those questions.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Yes, and I think that really leaves the Waker country as these incidents show. If you do not ask the government, then the government works worse.
H.H: Absolutely. I will say only one more thing before finishing. Demanding responsibility is extremely important if you want to fix things for the future. If you do not demand responsibility in a democratic configuration, then it is sowing seeds for future disasters.
(Courtesy: Scroll.in, an Indian digital news publication, whose English edition is edited by Naresh Fernandes).