Ceasefire in valley faces challenges Deccan Herald 18 May 18
Post Mehbooba Mufti’s appeal to the Prime Minister and Home Minister, Rajnath Singh announced a unilateral ceasefire by security forces. While he stated ceasefire, the logical term would be ‘Non-Initiation of Combat Operations’ (NICO) as was used when it was last announced by Vajpayee in Nov 2000. The term ceasefire is between two nations or armed forces, not between a nation and militant groups operating within it. The ceasefire in Nov 2000 lasted for just 58 days during which over 170 civilians were killed by militants and Srinagar airport and Doordarshan attacked.
The announcement of Rajnath Singh has been welcomed by Farooq Abdullah and his son Omar, along with Mehbooba. She even went on to request Pakistan and militants to adhere to it. The Home Minister’s comments included the words, ‘to help peace loving Muslims in the state to observe Ramazan in a peaceful environment’. It added that security forces are not to launch operations during this phase but ‘reserve the right to retaliate if attacked or if essential to protect the lives of innocent people.’ The statement, well worded, does not place security forces in barracks or prevents their normal operational actions.
Figures released by the state government indicate that 33 civilians, 28 security personnel and 72 militants have been killed till Apr this year. Most of the militants who have been eliminated this year are locals, who rarely stray away from their home bases, preferring to survive with the help of stone pelters. They are more likely to display themselves with weapons on social media sites rather than challenge security forces. Most are neither trained, nor motivated to challenge security forces might, hence rarely survive as militants. Most of the civilians killed are those attempting to disrupt encounters by pelting stones or are caught in the cross fire.
Mehbooba’s call was based on aiming to slow down this unending cycle of violence in the valley in recent times. However, militant groups and stone pelters are not bound by this ceasefire which has been announced. Lashkar has already stated that it would not adhere to it but would escalate its levels of violence. Within an hour after it was announced an encounter commenced in the orchards of Shopian. It is possibly the right moment for Mehbooba to appeal to local militants to surrender and enjoy Ramazan with their families, however that has still not been done.
The call by Mehbooba is possibly for political purposes and to garner local sympathy and support. In all other Muslim nations, where terror groups operate, Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, there has never been any mention or even a call for a ceasefire during Ramazan, either by militant groups or the state. Anti-militant operations continue unabated and with full vigour.
The central government, already facing difficult times in the state had to possibly take this approach to satisfy its political partner in the valley. Therefore, the announcement appears more political than a serious withdrawal of security forces into barracks. The government is aware that it is now has the situation fairly under control, hence would be unwilling for a reversal.
Pak, which continuously breaks the ceasefire along the LoC and targets Indian posts and villages would never accept or adhere to it. It would continue to attempt to push through militants and may even seek to enhance attacks on security forces through its already inducted militants. Firing along the LoC is invariably initiated by Pak, hence own alertness would remain as hither-to-fore. In this scenario, own forces cannot let their guard down.
What would this ceasefire imply for forces on ground? It cannot imply they would stay in barracks, opening doors for militants to enhance recruitment, pressurizing locals and targeting isolated security posts. While instructions passed state only if attacked they would retaliate, however, expecting them to sit back and lose the advantage they have gained is nigh impossible. Therefore, they would have to take a middle path, which would imply adhering to the ceasefire while not losing the advantage.
Area domination operations would intensify, as forces cannot allow free movement for armed militants. Free movement implies enhanced recruitment, which is detrimental. Anti-militant operations would be launched on confirmed intelligence; forces may preclude the launch of cordon and search operations during specific timings to avoid hurting religious sentiments. Areas around Mosques and where there would be religious assemblies of local population would remain under the scrutiny of local police.
The army may reduce roadblocks and searches in built up areas, however would monitor routes out and in. The anti-infiltration grid would be enhanced to prevent further induction. Firing on an army patrol or movement would imply breaking rules of the ceasefire to launch specific operations. If stone pelters interrupt, they would retaliate, as such actions could lead to own casualties.
If there has to be peace within the valley during Ramazan, then political parties of the valley need to interact with the masses and seek their support in keeping militants out and avoid hostile engagement with security forces. NICO or the ceasefire can never be one-sided. The public would need to be more cooperative than earlier.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army