04/03/2014
There is plenty of speculation that post 2014, the security scenario in Afghanistan will likely deteriorate and pose heightened terrorist threat to India. Pakistan and Afghan Taliban both want Sharia enacted and an Islamic Caliphate; both are linked to ISI. It was the ISI that facilitated escape of Mullah Fazlullah to Afghanistan last year where he stayed for months as guest of Afghan Taliban before returning to Pakistan. Post US-NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, the terror industry will get a major boost. Pakistani military officers say they are Allah’s Army first and Pakistan comes second. Senior officials admit Brigadier and below officers have been affected by institutionalised radicalisation. Politicians like Imran Khan have been talking radical in the past while Nawaz Sharif’s own brother distributes millions of rupees to terrorist organisations. While Pakistani Government talks to the TTP, Pakistani army undertakes operations in SWAT and ISI plays its own games, there is the inevitable blow back from having spawned the Frankenstein. Pakistan army’s Counter IED, Explosives and Munitions School has recently stated that 4,042 soldiers from the army and Frontier Corps have been killed and more than 13,000 wounded in the war on militants in the country's northwest since 2002. Bulk of these casualties is because of roadside bombs, mines and IED’s, implying little direct ground operations. Taliban have been singling out and executing Shias from captured Pakistani army patrols. Looking at the pace of radicalisation, Sharia becoming law in Pakistan in a few years from now is a distinct possibility.
How will this heightened terrorist threat manifest in India. It is not that Taliban would come gushing across the border, though some infiltration cannot be ruled out entirely. Significantly, of the 9000 Pakistan Taliban fighting in Afghanistan at the time of US invasion, 6000 were from Punjab. Presently Pakistan is training some 20 Mujahid battalions to invest Afghanistan disguised as Taliban. But, internal turmoil, increased radicalisation and the time elapsed since 26/11 are enticing for ISI to orchestrate the next major terrorist strike in India, which might occur during this summer, accompanied with spurt in infiltration. Such a strike could even entail weapon(s) of mass disturbance. The Cobalt 60 leak in Mayapuri and theft of 15 Uranium isotopes from SAIL (both during 2011) coupled with discovery of 1.5 kg Uranium mine in Assam last January are pointers, not that the material cannot be smuggled in. The planning will likely be done by ISI and ISI-LeT links and IM, Popular Front of India, Maoists could be exploited to provide support.
Serious thought is required on India’s response options to the above contingencies. For that matter, if there is another terrorist attack on Parliament, are we going to mobilise or launch conventional attack on Pakistan and if so, what do we expect to achieve? If terrorist attack involves a weapon of mass disturbance (chemical, radiological, biological), how will we respond? Surely, the response cannot be second strike. Isn’t this what sub-conventional warfare is all about? This is the major lesson we should have learnt from Op ‘Parakaram’. Ironically, emergence of irregular forces with greater strategic value over conventional and even irregular forces during conflict situations in recent years has not been acknowledged. Hence, we have failed to establish deterrence against irregular forces relying only on diplomacy, which has not sufficed. Current and future threats that India faces dictates there can be no shortcut from having full spectrum conflict capabilities. What should be a matter of serious concern to us is that while both China and Pakistan possess advanced Sub Conventional capabilities and are employing them proactively, India is lagging behind. This is a strategic asymmetry considering sub-conventional war will continue to be the order of the day.
We have been talking of a two and a half front war but little is known about the anti-India China-Pakistan sub-conventional nexus that dates back to 1960’s with China advising Pakistan to raise a militia to fight in India’s backyard. As early as 1992-93, Pakistani armed modules had been identified pan India. The gestation period for an arrangement facilitating launch of irregular forces needs considerable thought, planning and time; intelligence of areas and specific locations / targets; identification of enemy fault lines; contacts; communication; logistics; insertion; merging with surroundings; safe houses; arming; financial support; propaganda and psychological operations; perception management; execution of the missions with none or ambiguous signatures; extraction etc.
China, earlier using Pakistan as proxy for stoking internal fires in India, has now taken on a direct role in arming and equipping our northeast terrorists and the Maoists. Recent revelations of presence of Paresh Barua and ULFA hierarchy on Chinese soil through communication intercepts also should be seen in conjunction China heavily arming the Shan State based United States Wa Army (USWA) of Myanmar on India’s eastern flank. While we trumpet the raising of a Mountain Strike Corps, will China in conjunction with Pakistan not be working towards sucking in the India Army into the Maoist insurgency? If that be so, we need to visualise how such a situation can possibly be orchestrated through sub-conventional war. So, while post 2014, the situation in Afghanistan will likely aggravate to India’s disadvantage, China too appears to be in a hurry to settle borders after grabbing maximum possible territory with her bulk population on the wrong side of 50.
It is time we shed the utopia of Pakistan changing its India policy, which is firmly in the grip of her military-ISI that aside from spawning terrorism globally has pathological hatred towards India. It hardly needs reiteration that conventional power is ineffective against sub-conventional threats, US war in Afghanistan being the latest proof. More importantly, we must realise that creating a sub-conventional deterrent need not be equated with spawning terrorism. Are we labeling China of spawning terror? Idealism cannot be a stand-alone factor especially when costs of following an inward looking policy is much higher in the long-run and detrimental to our economic progress and national security. Therefore, the macro level changes we need are to remove the sub-conventional asymmetry through balanced mix of realism and idealism, evolving such a policy with a road map and an execution plan. The balanced mix is the crux because hard-headed realism without idealism will land us in the state Pakistan has landed up today.
Lt Gen Prakash Katoch (Retd) is a Delhi based defence analyst. Views expressed are personal.
No comments:
Post a Comment