Needed both hosh and josh

KV Prasad in New Delhi

The sudden shift in the nature of India-Pakistan ties on the political plane is something pundits would not like to predict about. During the last three decades, perhaps the most consistent feature of Indo-Pakistan bilateral relations has been its inconsistency. Since late 1990s, when militancy in Jammu and Kashmir began to rise, ties between the two neighbours have seen sharp swings and often become a roller-coaster ride — high once and then sharply sliding down.

A few years back the political leadership in India and Pakistan had sought to adopt a correctional path — at least on the face of it. That was when President Zia-ul-Haq had managed to extract an invitation from India through what was called cricket diplomacy.

This happened at the height of Operation Brasstacks, an exercise mounted in early 1987 by the Indian military leadership that almost took both countries to war. General Zia arrived in Jaipur to watch a cricket match between India and Pakistan in a bid to reduce the simmering tensions. Subsequently, PM Manmohan Singh and his Pakistan counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani, too, adopted the same measure during a 2011 World Cup fixture. On his part, PM Narendra Modi began his innings on the same diplomatic pitch by inviting all SAARC leaders for his swearing-in. 

Years before, there was a verbal duel between New Delhi and Islamabad. On Independence Day in 1994, the then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao declared from the ramparts of Red Fort that the only unfinished task that remained of Partition was to reclaim Pakistan-occupied territory of Kashmir and that Kashmir would always remain an integral part of India. PM Rao was responding to Pakistan premier's mention of Kashmir as the unfinished agenda for the country. The wordy duel eventually while relations between the two countries continued to swing like a pendulum. Post-1987, an eyeball-to-eyeball situation for troops on either side of the border came in 2001 when the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee ordered the military to reach the borders as a measure to exert pressure after the audacious LeT/JeM attack on Parliament.

Many questions were raised about the incident, especially how could such an attack occurr on India's temple of democracy. However, these queries were more in the nature of introspection and not necessarily finger wagging. In fact, a day after the attack, PM Vajpayee mentioned in Parliament that the first call after the attack enquiring about his well-being was from then Leader of the Opposition, Sonia Gandhi. The gesture, PM Vajpayee remarked, underscored the strength of Indian democracy and its future.

Post 2000, there have been a number of such attacks especially on our military establishments — among them Kaluchak in 2002 and Pathankot in 2016. However, the most grim reminder of how Pak-based terrorists were used to attack India and Indian citizens were the Mumbai attacks in 2008 that went on for three days. Pulwama is the latest in this series of militants killing at will. An indoctrinated youth drove a car packed with explosives in a fidayeen attack to strike at a convoy of CRPF soldiers, killing 40 jawans. 

Condemnations poured in across the political lines though there was an initial outburst by the Congress chief spokesperson on February 14. But it did a swift course correction with party president Rahul Gandhi, flanked by former PM Manmohan Singh and former Defence Minister AK Antony, conveying solidarity with the government in this hour of crisis. The party even decided to call off its scheduled meeting of the working committee realising this is not the time to engage in politics.

Yet, with general elections around the corner, can politicians of different hues and grades not eschew from escalating the debate or lowering its levels? It is easy to point fingers at say a BS Yedduryappa for his remarks that the Balakot operation would translate into rich electoral harvest for the Bharatiya Janata Party in Karnataka or for the ruling party elite to underscore that critical remarks by members in the Opposition were being lapped up by Pakistan.

To examine one of the points raised by the Opposition after the all-party meeting of being taken on board or to be briefed as they, too, had a stake in the country was greeted with derision. Surely, it is not expected that the government of the day would discuss threadbare, leave alone operational details, but even contours of what it could look like.

What needs to be looked at is whether such an outreach by the government to parties across the political spectrum can help in building consensus in the country at a time when a message of being one should be both loud and clear to the world.

For instance, the previous NDA government hammered out consensus when the country was torn between the idea of putting Indian troops on the ground in Iraq, which the USA wanted or those against it. Amid reports of a battalion being readied, Vajpayee felt the pulse of the country through voices in the Opposition to nix ambitious plans of members of his own Cabinet.

Eventually, a resolution in Parliament conveyed to the world the collective sense of disagreement to send Indian military personnel to Iraq. The country had not forgotten the fate of the brave Indian soldiers fighting a war that was not of India — in Sri Lanka against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam — and did not want an encore.

In the last few days, the debate has been shrill around the lack of political will of the leadership after the 2008 Mumbai terror attack. It has been compared with the lightening decisions being taken now to respond — be it the surgical strike post Uri or Balakot in response to Pulwama. The Manmohan Singh government was pilloried then, as again now, for its inability to strike back and pursuing a policy of strategic restraint. Recorded conversations of the days leading to a decision lie wrapped in classified documents and would remain so barring a select few who can access it.

Any dispassionate discussion based on information available on record and examined by a community of strategic, security thinkers and policy researchers, cannot happen since unlike some western democracies, India does not have a clear policy of declassification of such documents or at least unhindered access. Strategic planners emphasise that in planning a retribution, essential ingredient is hosh (consciousness) while its execution requires josh (euphoria).