Pak policy: Opposition has the right to ask

The dastardly Uri attack happened a week ago. Eighteen of our brave soldiers gave their life for the nation. It was the highest casualty suffered by our forces since 2002. The four “fidayeens” were eliminated, but it was beyond doubt that they were Lashkar-e-Tayyaba operatives who had come from across the border. Pakistan’s complicity was writ large over the entire attack. It was, in many ways, akin to a declaration of war.

The nation stands united in the condemnation of Pakistan. We support the government in such action that it takes to convey a befitting riposte to Pakistan. But all thinking Indians must retain their right to expect that the response will be carefully thought out, strategically planned, coherent, sustained and consistent.

Many important voices in the BJP sought to equate the right to interrogate the government as an anti-national act. Frankly, in a democracy, asking the right questions should be seen as a constructive contribution to finding the right answers, and not an act of “disunity”. Moreover, for the BJP to see any query or critique relating to our Pakistan policy as anti-national is unacceptable hypocrisy.

During the 2014 parliamentary elections, it was the BJP, and, in particular Narendra Modi, who had made the UPA’s Pakistan policy the brunt of deliberate and, often distorted, criticism. Anyone can check out the innumerable public rallies where Mr Modi ridiculed the UPA’s “soft” handling of Pakistan, including satirical references to biryani camaraderie even as our soldiers were being martyred. Narendra Bhai also promised that if he came to power he would teach Pakistan a lesson, and that for every one head of our soldiers beheaded by Pakistan he would send back 10. If the BJP could make the nation’s Pakistan policy the subject of such scathing criticism, why can’t the Opposition interrogate the BJP’s policy when it is in power After all, what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

In fact, compared to the BJP’s attack, the Opposition after Uri has observed far greater linguistic restraint. But certain questions continue to linger, and must be answered, in a spirit of constructive engagement beyond partisan politics. How is it that terrorists have managed to literally stroll into high security zones like our Air Force base in Pathankot, and our 12 brigade camp in Uri For two such blatant incidents to happen close on the heels of each other, some responsibility needs to be fixed with regard to intelligence and vigilance and related security measures. It is true that terrorists have always the advantage of surprise, and it is not possible to prevent every terrorist attack, but defence minister Manohar Parrikar has himself admitted that some things could have gone wrong. The government of the day must accept responsibility, investigate matters fully, and begin the process of what can be feasibly rectified.

What is the way ahead A first set of responses must deal with internal housekeeping. First, the presence of our armed forces along the LoC must be beefed up, and their technical, material and equipment requirements fully provided for. Second, our intelligence needs to be upgraded and better coordinated with much faster processing and response systems. Third, the Army must be freed from law and order responsibilities in the Valley, so that it can concentrate on what it is trained to do, which is to protect our borders and carry out counter-intelligence operations. For this last point, it is essential that a political process to bring back a semblance of peace and normalcy in the Valley is initiated. It is not an easy task, but the BJP had publicly committed to do so in the 11-page Agenda for Alliance it had signed with the PDP. It has reneged from this commitment, and it is increasingly clear that the BJP-PDP government in J&K is unequal to the task.

A second major response must be to isolate Pakistan on the international stage as a terrorist state. A beginning has been made at the UN General Assembly, but this will require more than merely hard-hitting speeches at plenary gatherings. What is required is sustained, rigorous, behind the scenes lobbying in the important capitals of the world, most importantly in Beijing and Washington, reiterating the central point that while India may be facing the brunt of Pakistan’s verifiable sponsorship of terrorism as state policy, the world at large is under threat by the emergence of Pakistan as the epicentre of global terrorism. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed and Masood Azhar, terrorists with UN bounties on their head, are roaming free in Pakistan, and not only India but other countries in the region like Afghanistan and Bangladesh are at the receiving end of their terror activities.

Such an internationally orchestrated campaign must have other important elements. There should be no bilateral talks with Pakistan except on the question of terrorism emanating from its soil. Equally, attending Saarc meetings must be dispensed with for the time being. On Balochistan, we must continue to draw global attention to the well-documented human right violations there. However, on what the next steps should be, including on the question of providing asylum to Brahamdagh Bugti, needs to be analysed clinically.

Sterile sabre rattling is of little use. It is to be hoped that populist statements of bravado, like that of Ram Madhav who said that we will take a jaw for a tooth, will not pressure the government into premature or ill-thought-out adventurism. There is also talk of withdrawing most favoured nation status to Pakistan, and abrogating the Indus Waters Treaty. Such steps need very careful deliberation, because we should not initiate a process over which we lose control because of lack of initial foresight.

In short, given the unpardonable flip-flops of our government’s Pakistan policy thus far, what the nation is asking for is strategic clarity, foreign policy coherence, and a responsible, coordinated and well-thought-out policy formulation. Is this too much to ask even after Uri

The writer, an author and former diplomat, is a member of the JD(U)