Pahalgam terror: Govt at strategic crossroads

The nation has been deeply angered and outraged by the dastardly terrorist attack on innocent tourists at Baisaran, Pahalgam, on April 22, which claimed at least 26 innocent lives of tourists belonging to different parts of India. It has been condemned by the country’s entire political class, though some opposition parties are also seeking that responsibility be fixed on those concerned with the maintenance of security in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The international community has also denounced the attack and leaders of important countries have said that they stand with India in its fight against terrorism.

However, such support notwithstanding and behind-the-scene appeals that will inevitably be made to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to exercise restraint, the fact is that this attack presents the Modi government with a very grave security and public relations challenge. Unlike Pulwama or Galwan, where defence personnel died, at Baisaran, the terrorists mercilessly targeted specific civilians.

It would, therefore, be no exaggeration to state that the nation’s eyes will be on Modi. It will expect that he will give a full and befitting response to the perpetrators of Baisaran and those who aided and sponsored them, especially after the claims of normalcy having returned to J&K after 2019.

The attack has been claimed to have been undertaken by the Resistance Front, which is believed to be affiliated with the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Those who have had long experience in studying Pakistani terrorism against India would instinctively know that an attack of this nature can never be undertaken without the specific orders of the Pakistani generals.

Hence, the first assessment has to be the reason which led the Pakistani generals to order the attack. They have been unhappy at the progress in India’s relations with the Afghan Taliban, though that has largely been under the radar. They also hold India responsible for assisting the Tehreek-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan and the Baloch Resistance Groups. All this fed into their intense anger with India for the Baloch Liberation Army’s attack on the Jaffar Express on March 11. The Pakistan army held India directly responsible for that attack. Pakistan’s political authorities and its Foreign Ministry were more circumspect.

After studying all aspects of what had transpired in Pakistan after the Jaffar Express attack, this writer wrote an article in Firstpost, on March 21. Its concluding paragraphs are relevant to the Baisaran attack and are quoted below:

“Soon after the BLA attack, the Pakistani army said that, with it, the ‘rules of the game had changed’. Chaudhry (Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, Director-General, Inter-Services Public Relations) was asked to clarify these words in the press conference. It is now that he said words that Indian analysts and policymakers should pay close attention to. He said that BLA and (terrorist groups) would be dealt with the way they ‘deserve’ and the same would apply to their facilitators and abettors whether inside or outside Pakistan.

“The Pakistani army follows the tradition of ‘badal‘ (badal in Pashto means revenge) for perceived grievances. It has done so against India even though, in the process, it has beggared the country. It knows no way other than that of confrontation. This is part of its ethos and each army chief has to show that he is up to giving a ‘fitting’ response, especially to an attack on the institution he leads, perceives or rather misperceives has come from India. As such, it is possible that the Pakistan army will attempt to sponsor a terrorist event in India within the foreseeable future,” I wrote.

In the wake of the Baisaran attack, it is clear that Indian policy-makers must respond decisively. They should make it clear to all the major powers, especially those with influence over Pakistan, that public sentiment in India — including in Jammu & Kashmir, which has witnessed unprecedented anger against the attack — will demand an appropriate retaliation to the massacre of innocent civilians in Pahalgam. Moreover, India should have no hesitation in stating that the dangers associated with escalation will not be India’s responsibility.

Second, these powers should be clearly told that they cannot interfere any more in attempting to resolve the long-standing differences between the two countries; and they should, indeed, let this be known to Pakistan as well.

It is not clear how seriously the Indian security establishment took ChaudHaryana’s media briefing at the time, but great attention has been paid in India to Pakistan army chief Gen Asim Munir’s statement to the overseas Pakistanis on April 16.

Referring to the ‘two-nation theory’ which is Pakistan’s ideological frontier which its army is sworn to defend, Munir said explicitly what the army and most Pakistanis believe privately but do not articulate publicly: Hindus and Muslims constitute two irreconcilable nations. He expressed his ire against the Balochi terrorists but asserted that they could not impair Pakistan’s unity.

Munir’s comment that J&K is Pakistan’s ‘jugular vein’ is also old hat. Munir’s animus against India may have been illustrated in this address, but for seeking a reason for the present terrorist attack, it is essential to go back to ChaudHaryana’s fulminations.

In charting a course for a response to the Baisaran attack, Modi will be acutely aware that for the Indian public, the mowing down of innocent civilians hailing from all corners of the country falls in the category of ‘unacceptable’. The attacks in Uri and Pulwama, in contrast, were against Indian soldiers. This time around in Pahalgam, the Pakistani terrorists crossed a line.

It follows that a response to such an attack, must necessarily be kinetic. Obviously, it cannot be knee-jerk or even immediate, but it must satisfy Indian public opinion.

It is inevitable that the great powers will be drawn in to defuse India-Pakistan tensions. The Pakistani generals will urge that the involvement of these powers is needed to go into the root causes of bilateral problems, ie J&K. They may seek to invoke the UNSC or Donald Trump, but India should clearly state that India-Pakistan issues have to be dealt with bilaterally.

Late this evening, the first blow has been struck via the diplomatic route — the 1960 Indus Waters treaty, which has survived two wars, will be immediately suspended, and the already small strength of the diplomatic missions in both countries will be halved.

The country knows that this is only the first step, a warning to Pakistan as well as the world that India means business.

The next few weeks are going to be tension-filled for the country and the leadership will have to think strategically. The India-Pakistan relationship is at a crossroads. Pahalgam is a clear marker.

Vivek Katju is former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs.

Comments