People's Democracy

AFTER the December 13 terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, many people thought an Indo-Pak war was imminent. There was proof that the attack was an extension of the Pakistani fundamentalist proxy war waged in Jammu & Kashmir. The suicide attacks by Pak-based Islamic terrorists were more frequent and were getting bolder. The shoot-out at the Jammu &Kashmir assembly building in which several employees died, was an indication that democratic institutions in India would be targeted. The attack on parliament was the last straw that broke the camel’s back, no almost. It was an attack on the highest institution of political power and Indian democracy.

There was much anger among Indian people. Political parties went on an aggressive one-up-man-ship in asking for military action against Pakistan, to prove their patriotism, if not for getting more votes. The most vocal was the ruling BJP and its Hindutva parivar. The war cries reached a crescendo, but the rulers decided to rein in their cadre, and the battle to be limited to diplomatic offensive.

The Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan was recalled. The embassy staff in both countries were ordered to be halved. The train connecting India and Pakistan, and the Lahore-Delhi bus service were stopped. Overflight for Pakistan International Airlines was denied.

However the government stepped back from the brink of war. The union home minister L K Advani has said that India was waging a war against terrorism and not against any country. That war was conducted more actively, and it was being considered if this strategy had to be changed, he added. The same old act of policy ambiguity and verbal balancing act.

Military strength-wise, India has double the defence capacity of Pakistan. It has 12.5 lakh active troops, whereas Pakistan has only 6 lakh. India has 736 combat aircraft, while Pakistan has less than half that number, only 353. India has one aircraft carrier and 16 submarines, where Pakistan has no carrier and only 10 submarines. Therefore, India clearly had conventional weapon superiority over Pakistan, which could tilt the scales in our favour in case of a war.

However, the nuclear weapon factor, to some extent, deters India from starting a war with Pakistan. Of course, India has overwhelming superiority in nuclear weapons in delivery systems such as aircraft and missiles. But nuclear weapons are supposed to be not weapons of war, but for deterrence. Deterrence means the capability to inflict such damage to the enemy that he will not dare to use his nuclear weapons. Therefore, the quantity of nuclear weapons do not count.

Under the circumstances, one can only laugh at pronouncements by "nuclear war strategists" like BJP president Jana Krishnamurthy, who said that if Pakistan used nuclear weapons, that country would be completely destroyed. But even if Pakistan is obliterated from the world map, will it be compensation for the wiping out of Delhi or Bombay? Will it be acceptable damage?

But then, very knowledgeable strategists like India’s Army Chief, General Padmanabhan, too, talk in the same light-hearted manner on an Indo-Pak nuclear war. He said "the perpetrator (Pakistan) shall be so severely punished that his existence will be in doubt. We are ready for a second strike." Since India has decided not to resort to a first strike, its reaction to nuclear weapons use is also reactive, not "pro-active". However, everyone is not sure that the nation and our nuclear assets will be intact for a second strike.

However, defence minister George Fernandes realised that his General was not the proper person to talk on nuclear matters. He said "The government has not been talking of nuclear weapons. I wish every one would give up this talk of nuclear weapons being brought into play."

Leave alone a nuclear war, was there a possibility of a conventional war? Both India and Pakistan authorities were saying that they were for peace, but if a war was imposed on them, they would fight. But who was interested in initiating a war?

To be fair, it would not have been Pakistan, because Pakistan has been for long fighting a proxy-war against India, with minimum cost and risk, and maximum gain to itself. Therefore it would be foolish for Pakistan to start a war which it cannot only not win, but also lose disastrously. The superior Indian Army would have ensured victory for India, and General Musharraf is no fool to go for a war when his country is on the brink of economic collapse and undergoing political crisis.

Therefore the war hysteria was only an excuse for the government and the ruling party to pacify an angry nation shocked by the attack on parliament. There was no proof that the Musharraf government had a hand in the attack, but a country cannot fight a war with abstract terrorism, and its faceless organisers. It can only go to war with another country.

The ruling BJP had shifted its focus from the Ram Mandir to terrorism in its election propaganda. The main opposition party did not call for restraint for fear of their patriotism being questioned. So many political parties lined up to blindly support the government’s war effort.

The political parties completely rely on the official defence community and seldom question military decisions, even when they are disastrously wrong and highly wasteful. People are swept by the current of patriotic jingoism, so much so that few dare to think rationally on policies of war and war-fighting. Remember the euphoria raised during the Kargil war when what the Indian army did was only to make Pakistan vacate the positions to which they had intruded in the winter. No doubt the jawans fought gallantly and many young lives were sacrificed, but all that was due to lack of vigilance and command failure of the top brass.

The unfought war of this December-January, too, cost the country heavily. But patriotic passions and abysmal ignorance in military matters have made people ignore the massive and quite avoidable losses.

Thousands of crores of rupees were spent on panic mobilisation and movement of troops to the north and western forward areas from different parts of the country. Sudden procurement of stores, commandeering civilian transport for military purposes, vacating of villages on the border, mining some of the border areas, destruction of standing crops, were all costly exercises. Of course all these are necessary to fight a war, but better planning and thoughtful strategy would have helped to avoid waste, inconvenience and even loss of lives. An example is the destruction of 80 truckloads of some 1000 tonnes of tank and artillery ammunition in a fire near Bikaner, when the stores were being rushed to the forward areas in Rajasthan in unsafe civilian lorries.

Pakistan has only half the armed force of India. As such, half of our army would have been sufficient to ward off any threat from Pakistan, even if Pakistan were to deploy all its forces on the border. India could have deployed the necessary forces in normal circumstances and there would not have been any necessity to rush troops such as from the eastern sector.

If the situation worsens in the eastern sector will the government rush the troops back all the distance to Assam and beyond?

More jawans have died recently through accidents while laying mines on the border than by actual cross-border firing. Is it tactical wisdom to make Indo-Pak border a chain of mine-fields. Will not the mines become an impediment if Indian troops have to cross the border into Pakistan? Or are our troops to be always on the defensive only?

The Kargil war roused sentiments of superiority, satisfaction and victory. But reality dawned only when the Subramanyam Committee revealed abysmal intelligence failures that caused our jawans being made into cannon-fodder. And the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report said "clothing, ammunition and arms could not reach troops in time; Rs 1046 crore, entirely in foreign exchange, were spent fruitlessly". Unscrupulous defence officials made money even in the procurement of coffins meant for jawans who died on the battlefield, and these coffins imported from USA could not be used.

At least Kargil war was real. But here is a war that never was, and the nation is made to spend thousands of crores for it. If it was clear to the government that a war was not feasible, it was criminal waste to order panic movement and redeployment of troops to kick up war hysteria.

Only another CAG report will tell the colossal loss to the nation in this fruitless war effort.