Indian Army means business. This is its new tough Kashmir strategy
Recent events indicate that the Indian Army is changing its strategy of operating in Kashmir and conveying the message that it means business.
The events indicating this change in recent times include recommencing cordon and search operations (CASO), thus seeking to dominate large areas, announcing aggressive counter infiltration actions, including destruction of Pakistani posts to the press, and permitting an interaction with major Gogoi on the jeep-tying incident, in addition to awarding him for his intuitive thinking.
The last time when the Army conveyed its strong intent was post the surgical strike last year, when the Director General of Military Operations made a press statement on the issue.
The prevailing scenario in Kashmir, internal criticism and Pakistani behaviour does warrant this change. Politically the government is being repeatedly questioned on its policies on handling the Kashmir agitation and countering an aggressive Pakistan. This questioning leads to adverse publicity.
The Army has also been accused on its hard actions in countering agitators. The jeep tying incident continues being blown out of proportion, compelling the Army to react and announce facts to the public.
Most Army actions are normally kept away from the public domain, basically because the Army never seeks kudos for a task well done, but considers the same to be a part of its duty.
Realistically, the LoC has always been active and every act by Pakistan has been countered with. Firing has always been considered routine business. Retaliation to Pakistani firing is rarely announced, except when it concerns civil areas.
In an active LoC, each nation blames the other for violating the ceasefire, as it can never be proved as to who violated it first and why. The major losers are the locals, who reside close to the border. Diplomatic representatives are regularly called by each nation and protests on violations lodged.
The announcement of destruction of the Pakistani post in Nowshera and releasing a video of the same is an indicator of change in approach, from retaliation to escalation as also a changed policy from restraint to active engagement.
India would henceforth be willing to violate the ceasefire, if it felt that such action could stem the flow of militants. The recent escalation in Nowshera sector has greater significance, as the region South of Pir Panjal has generally been militancy free. With infiltration attempts in this region, Pakistan seeks to enlarge areas under active militancy, which the Indian Army does not desire.
By releasing details of the destruction in public domain, the Army intends to embarrass its Pakistani counterpart. Hence it waited ten days, watching for Pakistani reaction to its strong measures.
It was known that Pakistan would deny the same, as it can never accept loss of face. Further, it would place pressure on the Pakistani army, which would be compelled to seek an enhancement in its defence budget in a financially troubled nation. This would impact nation building and strain the economy, struggling at the ends.
Unless the Pakistani army is embarrassed in the eyes of its own people, the polity in the country would never gain the upper hand, giving peace and talks a chance. To further expound this statement, offer for talks have only flowed from their government, never the army chief, who remains the power behind the throne.
Destruction of posts is one part of the game, denying reconstruction is the next.
However, every action has a counter action. Pakistan too would seek to escalate, for which its own troops would need to be on high alert. The country released a video of its own actions, the contents of which have been proved fake.
The second major change has been recommencing CASO, employing large force levels. These had been discontinued after there was semblance of near normalcy in the state. These operations, conducted in the early part of the morning, were always disliked by the public due to the inconvenience they caused.
An increase in the number of militants, their harbouring in built-up areas and increased local support has necessitated a change in approach.
Its recommencement indicates that the army is willing to adopt harsher measures to flush out militants from built up areas to jungles, where they can be handled without local interference.
The third and most debated issue indicating a change in approach has been awarding young Major Gogoi, as also permitting him to make his comments live on television, on the jeep-tying incident. The Army has by this action indicated its decision that it would accept ingenuity in operations and support its own personnel, irrespective of criticism by any human right advocates, veterans or politicians.
Further, as far as its actions in the valley are concerned, the decision to award the officer sends the message that the Army is only responsible to the government of India and the common Indian, who supports it. It has and would ignore those sitting in comfort and passing judgement on its actions, unaware of ground realities. It would do what it feels is essential and correct for the uplift of morale of its soldiers, critics be damned.
The Army for a long time had adopted a soft approach on the directions of the government in power, which was always seeking solutions when none were in sight. Talks with Pakistan have no relevance unless the power behind the throne, the country’s deep state, feels it essential. Failure to correctly read the scenario would lead to another stab in the back, like Mumbai, Kargil and Pathankot.
For talks with stakeholders in the Valley there were umpteen opportunities, when the situation was near normal. Farooq Abdullah and his son Omar, along with previous central governments wasted them. Presently, when the situation is being brought back to normal by employing force, they are most vocal, solely for political reasons.
The Army has made clear its intentions to no longer be a silent spectator, but to undertake a lead role in tandem with government plans, by creating the right environment, both within the state and along the border, enabling the government to move forward.
It is willing to accept criticism, but would simultaneously reward ingenuity, apply force where essential and challenge Pakistan to escalate, if it so desires. It is a risky strategy, but at this time, it may be the only one which could give requisite dividends.