Options for reducing ceasefire violations (English Version) Amar Ujala 08 Feb 18
The Line of Control (LoC) between India and Pak has always been active. Firing to support infiltration has been the design by Pak over the years. Further, it needs to keep the Kashmir border alive, thus indicating to the world the disputed nature of the region. India always desired a peaceful LoC, as civilian population reside and till their lands close to it. In case both nations maintain a ceasefire along the LoC, it is easier for India to monitor infiltration and engage terrorists as they attempt to cross.
India terms the Jammu border as the International Border (IB) and the area north, as the LoC. Pak, terms the Jammu border as the ‘working boundary’, thus refusing to recognize the region as demarcated. India deploys the BSF along the IB and the army controls the LoC. Pak has a mix of the army and Rangers along the Jammu border and the army along the LoC, since it does not recognize the status of the IB. Thus, firing continues along the entire stretch.
The last two months have witnessed an increase in ceasefire violations. Looking back across the years, 2015 had 387 violations, 2016 had 271, last year had 860 and the month of Jan, upto the third week had already witnessed 134 violations. In 2017, the maximum was in Dec, which witnessed 147. Thus, considering the trend into the next few months, there would only be an increase in the same. The number of deaths this year on our side of both civilians and security personnel, has touched double figures and is likely to rise.
The ceasefire agreement of 2004 can be considered to have been torn to shreds. Claims by both nations, accusing the other of violating the ceasefire are on the rise. Indian claims of causing higher casualties to Pak is true as it retaliates with full measure. Earlier, it was the Pak army and rangers, deployed along the border, who had full freedom to fire, while the Indian government had restricted Indian forces, hoping to deescalate the situation, thus saving civilian casualties and recommencing talks. This has now been lifted hence firing continues unabated.
With increasing political instability within Pak, the control of the country by the army is almost total. Its support to terror groups operating in Kashmir increases. These group leaders easily procure cannon fodder militants, whom they train and equip, with the support of the deep state. The army is responsible for creating conditions for their infiltration into Kashmir. The Indian army was able to cull most militants attempting to cross, frustrating the deep state. Thus, ceasefire violations increased to support their infiltration.
Many commentators have been stating that since actions along the LoC, including surgical strikes and strong responses, causing casualties to Pak and destruction of its posts have had limited impact, India needs to reconsider its military options. These comments are realistic, as the Pak army has never truly accepted its casualties nor does the media or government have the courage to challenge the claims of the army. The refusal of the army to share its casualty figures even to their own parliament, claiming impact on national morale, proves this fact. Therefore, what would happen along the LoC, may place caution on Pak but would never change the dynamics of the region.
Pak cannot also be seen to be stopping pushing in cannon fodder militants, as it would be against their strategic design. Further, political instability in Pak would imply that no political party, in the forthcoming elections could even state seeking talks with India as a major agenda point. They would all be compelled to declare support to the Kashmiri cause, thus opening doors for the army to continue with its present policy. Therefore, status quo would remain in the foreseeable future.
Declaring an open war may not be an easy answer just because the LoC is burning. The world is watching, worried that escalation may lead to a nuclear conflict. India’s strong military deterrence and effective retaliation has ensured that Pak does not attempt another Mumbai or Parliament style attack, but restricts its activities to J and K. It is aware that India would strike back with full measure and even risk Pak’s nuclear threats. The comments by the army chief during his pre-army day press conference on this topic had rattled Pak, compelling many from the government and army to counter it, terming it as inflaming tensions.
If local military actions have only imposed caution, not compelled Pak to stop, then the next measure should be enhancing diplomatic and economic pressure on Pak. Both these measures would only be effective with strong military backing. Economic pressure increases with developing our own military capabilities, compelling Pak to resort to the same. China may be providing arms to Pak (over 63% of Pak military equipment is Chinese manufacture), however it comes at a cost. This forces Pak to expend more than it can afford, fearing widening of conventional gap with India. Such an expenditure would crack its fragile economy, pushing it deeper into chaos. That the country could not even afford to purchase F-16s which the US cancelled, shows its economic state.
Diplomatically, international pressure is on the rise. The US has commenced drone strikes, which Pak desperately seeks to blame on Afghan refugees. It would only increase. The UN monitoring committee may not have interacted with Hafiz Saeed but reading his open comments and the courts actions saving him, indicates Pak openly supporting terror groups. While China may save Pak from open international humiliation, it can do nothing, if countries independently begin ignoring it.
The US should be the first to commence action, despite threats by Pak to block the use of Karachi and its air space. A different approach which the US can adopt is imposing sanctions on known army officials supporting terror groups. It would have desired results and compel Pak to be cautious as children of elite army and political leaders are based in the US.
Indian diplomatic initiative has begun producing results, with Pak being named in multiple international forums as a supporter of terror groups. The groups that it supports, as also its leaders are being declared international terrorists. Its claims to Kashmir at the UN are ignored because of its terror policies. Its attempts at blaming India for supporting anti-Pak terror groups has also no takers.
A rogue nation, openly adopting terrorism as an instrument of state policy, must be brought to heel. It cannot be permitted to destabilize a whole region, solely to support its agenda based on religious affinity. War should always remain a means but adopted when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed. While war rhetoric and developing military capabilities to pressurize Pak must continue as also enhanced response along the LoC, emphasis should be on alternate measures to compel Pak to act. War should remain an instrument of last resort.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army