Surgical Strikes Are Not the Answer to Terrorism, Diplomacy Is

1 Year of Surgical Strike: Aggressive nationalism may not yield the desired result, diplomacy may come in handy.

‘Surgical strikes’ is a term that has become embedded in the national consciousness. Image used for representational purposes. 

(Photo: Reuters)

(As India completes one year since conducting surgical strikes across the Line of Control in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, The Quint is reposting this piece from its archives. It was first published on 4 October 2016)

‘Surgical strikes’, a newly added set of words in the English language, have no literal translation. However, in a period of merely three days, they have become embedded in the consciousness of the country. This strike seems like a logical culmination of the ‘muscular nationalism’ this country has witnessed in the last three years. Yet, there is a very long way to go for this notion of nationalism to take root in the country.

When the Indian Army revealed on 28 September that the Indian forces had crossed the LoC and destroyed seven terrorist base camps, the entire country rejoiced. It also unanimously agreed how the operation was important to put Pakistan in its place. India had finally avenged the Uri attacks.

Are Surgical Strikes the Answer to Terrorism?

This instantaneous method of tackling terrorism has been witnessed all over the world when security forces often cross borders to attack terrorist camps, the Israel-Palestine conflict being an example. Similarly, after 9/11, the United States made it clear to the world that any country which attempted to encourage terrorism against it would meet the same end as Saddam Hussein.

However, it’s a different matter altogether that the reasons used by the US to explain its attack on Iraq turned out to be false, attracting severe criticism from the then American President George Bush.

Former US President George Bush (centre) with former senator Charles Robb (far left) and Judge Laurence Siblerman (far right) in this March 2005 file photo.

His ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, was also similarly criticised for backing this lie. Though Bush and Blair may not be in power anymore, terrorism is not only very much in existence, but also much more powerful than before.

Surgical Strikes - an Instantaneous Step

After the manner in which several European countries and the US were targeted by terrorists, and the way the Islamic State has ushered in a new wave of terrorism, nobody feels safe any more.

Now, if Indians think that the country can be freed of terrorism with surgical strikes, it’s a huge mistake. To destroy a terrorist base is not the same as destroying terrorism. One is an instantaneous step, the other is a permanent state of being.

To change an impermanent situation into something lasting takes time, and it is also likely that maybe terrorism is never entirely stamped out because terrorism is an effect and not a cause. It is important to address the cause to eradicate it entirely.

Therefore, I’d like to tell my fellow nationalists that there is nothing wrong with celebrating success as long as it doesn’t lead to the illusory belief that this is the final victory.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a meeting with senior officials of the country a couple of hours before the announcement of the surgical strikes.  (Photo: PTI)

Will Prime Minister Modi be Able to End Terrorism?

For a permanent solution, the government and the whole country would have to face the problem with all honesty. It is indeed true that the Modi government was under a lot of pressure right before the surgical strikes. This had increased manifold especially because of Modi’s comments on the failures of the previous Manmohan Singh-led government to tackle the several instances of terrorism.

Modi had to stay true to his image, which portrayed him as a leader capable of retaliating adequately to Pakistan and its attempts of encouraging terrorism if he became the Prime Minister. Additionally, right before the strike, this very image of Modi had come under question, with many accusing him of harbouring the same frailties as Manmohan’s government. Social media too did not shy away from mocking the Prime Minister.

The strikes at least served to restore Modi’s image and reversed the damage. However the question still remains if Modi would be able to find a lasting solution to the problem of Pakistan and terrorism. Modi has an image of a decisive leader and thus people believe that such a leader can find them a solution.

People celebrating after the announcement of the surgical strikes. (Photo: PTI)

What is the Final Solution?

Pakistan has violated the ceasefire multiple times since the strikes. Image used for representational purposes only. (Photo: IANS)

A lasting solution would require a formula that accommodates both Kashmir and Pakistan. Kashmir lies at the heart of the cross-border terrorism problem, together with the support terrorism gets from Pakistan. Though Kashmir is not an issue that concerns Pakistan, the latter has been at it since the partition of India.

At the essence of this lies Jinnah’s thinking that led to Partition in the first place. The principle used by Jinnah asserted that Hindus and Muslims are two different entities requiring different countries to exist in. Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress opposed it vehemently, gave the example of the Ganga-Jamuna tehzeeb of the country. But Jinnah did not relent and so the country was partitioned into two.

The forefathers of Pakistan were convinced that since Kashmir is predominantly a Muslim region, it belongs to Pakistan and not India. This is precisely why right after Partition, Pakistani rangers attacked Kashmir and entered as far as Srinagar airport. It was at the request of Maharaja Hari Singh that led to a military intervention by Nehru and Patel and saved Kashmir from falling into Pakistani hands.

However, Pakistan did manage to capture and keep a part of Kashmir and has since been trying to complete an unfulfilled dream by sponsoring terrorism against India.

Indian soldiers wave the Indian flag after capturing Tiger Hill during the Kargil War. (Photo: PTI)

Be it 1965 or 1971 or the Kargil War - they are all parts of that unfulfilled dream.

After 1971, the freedom of Bangladesh is testimony to the fact that Jinnah’s principle was not only useless, but also only a conspiracy to form a separate country.

The Bangladeshis were Muslims. Then why couldn’t they live with Pakistan?

People of the same community should have lived together. But it didn’t happen. Instead, Bangladesh blames India for the partition and is always looking for an opportunity for revenge.

Pakistan seems to have forgotten that the same terrorism which it uses against India has turned upon itself. The terrorists sometimes kill Ahmadiyya Muslims, sometimes Shia Muslims and sometimes the Christian minority of the country. Balochistan is also burning.

Pakistan can fall to pieces any time now, yet it chooses to target India. As the country struggles with fundamentalism and frustration, it is not easy to put these points across to it. But India’s fate is also tied with Pakistan’s and there is no denying that.

India must try to create a distance between Pakistan and China. (Photo: PTI)

Pakistan is Capable of Counterattack

It is a misconception if the Modi government thinks things would be stable post the strike. Pakistan would back terrorism against India in the same manner in which it had encouraged it in different parts of our country following its defeat in the Kargil War.

Attack on the Parliament and 26/11 were other attacks India had to face. Thus, India needs to be prepared to tackle any Pakistani contrivance that might come its way. A lax attitude in this case can cost India more that it can afford. India would have to work on an aggressive policy of isolating Pakistan in every international fora.

India Must Try to Create a Distance Between China & Pakistan

Streets decorated in Islamabad to welcome the Chinese Premiere. (Photo: Reuters)

China and Pakistan have been strengthening their alliance, which might cause a problem for India. India needs to think about creating a distance between the two allies and the Indian market can prove to be useful in this context. China’s falling economy can help India in this effort.

Time to Remind Russia of an Old Friendship

Russian army lands in Pakistan for a joint operation. (Photo Courtesy: Twitter)

In a first, the last few days saw a joint military operation between Russia and Pakistan. Russia has been a friend to India in the past and any growing closeness between Pakistan and Russia is not good news for India. India can use its relationships with Russia from the Cold War period to obstruct the latter’s friendship with Pakistan.

The US may be leaning towards India, but it doesn’t mean complete severing of its ties with Pakistan. Russia, China and the US, all three countries have their eyes on Indian markets. In such a scenario, India needs to sharpen its economic policies to put Pakistan in check.

Pakistan can be cornered using the Indian market as leverage. But for this policy to work, India needs to reduce its escalating tensions with Pakistan.

Economic Progress Not Possible Without Peace

‘Muscular nationalism’, retaliation to Pakistan, historic revenge and ‘an eye for an eye’ slogans might seem fascinating and attractive, but they cannot bring peace and prosperity to any country. 

Despite all its muscular nationalism, Israel has still not been able to end terrorism. The US has still not been able to sit peacefully in spite of its homeland security. We may not be able to make Pakistan understand things, but can work on reducing tensions along the border.

The situation in Kashmir needs to be reviewed to find new solutions. It would be smart to remove those members of the government who are responsible for aggravating the situation, as well as those policies which failed.

Anti Pakistan protests in Amritsar. (Photo: IANS)

People asking for severance of ties between India and Pakistan are not thinking of India’s interests.

Pakistan should be constantly kept busy with talks. Relations should not be severed, talks should continue - that’s the right thing to do. 

Most importantly, if the government’s decisions are influenced by television channels, they would never be in India’s best interests. The best decisions for the country can only be taken after meticulous assessment of India’s profit and losses.

Television Channels Only Care for TRPs

If the TV channels thought of the country’s best interests, they would not spend so much time and energy on encouraging nationalism-related propaganda. It is not a solution, but the problem itself. And to think that military attacks would help with victories in elections is flawed thinking.

In 1992, George Bush, despite a victory in the First Gulf War, lost the election. In 1971, Indira Gandhi, after her unprecedented victory against Bangladesh, lost favpur in the country and lost the 1977 election.

In such a scenario, though surgical strikes can temporarily improve the government’s image, they are neither a lasting solution to terrorism, nor an assurance of immortality for the Modi government.

(The writer is an author and spokesperson of AAP. He can be reached at @ashutosh83B. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)