Brijesh D. Jayal
Faced with a progressively worsening international security environment and in the larger context of our own approach to this emerging threat, two recent events are worth revisiting. In the run-up to the Jammu and Kashmir state elections, four young people travelling in a Maruti car in Budgam district failed to stop at two successive checkpoints. These were set up by the Rashtriya Rifles in response to specific intelligence reports about the movement of terrorists in a Maruti car. When the car attempted to break through the third checkpoint, soldiers opened fire resulting in the death of two occupants and injuries to two others. The police after investigations concluded that these youngsters had no militant links. Almost everyone, from political parties to human rights voices to the media, was quick to condemn the action of the soldiers. Not one voice of reason looked at the incident from the perspective of the soldiers or the army that has for over two decades been compelled to fight a proxy war within our own borders - not of its choosing or making.
The general officer commanding in chief regretted the incident, accepting full responsibility, and did the right thing by tendering an apology for what can only be considered collateral damage in a proxy war environment. No effort was, however, made by the civil authorities to let the public know why the occupants of the car so blatantly ignored authority by jumping two checkposts and then attempting to do the same at the third? Or what motivated them to defy checkpost authority in a secure zone? In the public perception, the soldiers performing their duty were duly damned and life could move on.
Intriguingly, the army then conducted a hurried inquiry and equally quickly announced indictment of one junior commissioned officer and nine soldiers. Investigations to judge the performance of any individual or team in furtherance of duty or tactical operations are routine in the armed forces. These, however, are with a view to professional betterment and accountability. Doing so for extraneous considerations or to mollify sentiment is neither in keeping with the best traditions of the armed forces nor good for the upkeep of morale. The cat was soon out of the bag when, during a subsequent election rally, the ruling party at the Centre took credit for this action of holding the soldiers accountable.
The subtle message to the jawan fighting India's proxy war was loud and clear. He was friendless within his own borders and the nation would rather see him die than be quick on the draw in the line of duty, and if, in the heat of battle, he made a professional error of judgment - none, not even his uniformed superiors, would stand by him.
The second incident is more recent and involves the interception of a boat by the Coast Guard in Indian waters. Reportedly, the maritime operation was launched in response to intelligence reports based on intercepts that revealed that a suspicious vessel with four individuals, suspected to be a terror task force rather than ordinary smugglers, was planning a rendezvous with a Sri Lankan vessel. To the credit of our sailors, they intercepted the vessel in Indian waters, in itself no mean task. Whether the boat was destroyed in the subsequent efforts at capture or it set itself on fire, as announced by the defence minister - based, no doubt, on the briefing by the service - however, has become the matter of a raging public debate.
Surprisingly, rather than a grateful nation applauding the pre-emptive action of our sailors, especially in the backdrop of our shoddy performance during the Mumbai terrorist attack, there was a chorus of reports and voices. Some claimed that the boat was destroyed by indiscriminate Coast Guard firing and criticized sailors for over-reacting, that resulted in the destruction of evidence. One strategic expert opined that the destruction of evidence made our case weak in international fora, conveniently forgetting that the same international audience would suffer no pangs of conscience in safeguarding their own security interests regardless of international opinion, and didn't really shed tears for us after 26/11. With the irresistible temptation to draw political mileage, some accused the government of extracting brownie points by terming it a terrorist attempt. This hollow debate did not go unnoticed by our friends in Pakistan, and they took full advantage of the opportunity to turn the tables on us.
Much like the Budgam episode, rather than the operation be investigated internally to draw professional lessons, the debate appeared to indicate extraneous reasons, catching the defence minister on the wrong foot clearly being one such. It was now the turn of the Indian sailor to wonder whether, when faced with adversity, it was worth risking one's neck and being quick on the draw or he should turn a blind eye and discreetly sail away? In this din of a vibrant democracy, if there were sane voices that felt that our sailors were justified in neutralizing a perceived threat and that collateral damage is the price one sometimes pays in the fog of this proxy war, they were inaudible. Proof, if any were needed, of our being perceived as a 'soft state'.
Regrettably, this chapter, which should have best been forgotten, was reignited recently when a deputy inspector general of the Coast Guard was shown on social media brashly boasting about having ordered the blowing up of the boat. Whether his boast was indeed true and the retraction the next day due to the sobering effect of the morning-after or due to some counselling by superiors, it is hard to say. The result was that the media once again went into overdrive. This cast a shadow even over the prestigious Aero India Show in Bangalore, where India was attempting to showcase its potential as a high technology defence producer in furtherance of its "make in India" campaign and where high-level international government, defence and corporate communities were present and in the full international media glare. It was sad to see that during the defence minister's preview press conference for the event, rather than focus on issues related to the event, some of our reporters persisted in trying to corner the defence minister. The low priority that this nation accords to the looming threat of terrorism or, indeed, to indigenous defence and aerospace manufacturing was not lost on this professional international gathering.
Perhaps in our exuberance to score political points or enhance viewer ratings, the wider implications of these happenings are being overlooked. Today the damaging fallout of these happenings is not restricted to the institution of the two forces involved but extends to the morale and fighting ethos of the men and women of all our armed forces. In addition, forces inimical to our security interests are drawing appropriate conclusions. Having spent countless days and nights manning operational readiness as an air defence pilot, one cannot but wonder what negative impact such instances could have on our young air defence crew.
Historically, 9/11 marks a transformational moment in the march of terrorism. The medium of air affords abundant scope and flexibility to terrorist organizations for disproportionate damage and destruction. With non-state actors for the first time controlling territory, another transformational step has been achieved in this negative march as they could now control airports. As they grow in sophistication and in resources, counter terrorism theorists believe that it is only a matter of time before a real 'big bang' terrorist attack from the air takes place, which in a worst-case scenario could involve dirty bombs or chemical agents.
It is this nightmare possibility that prudent nations must guard against with little or no room for error. It requires the collective effort of every organ of the State to stand solidly behind and support the airmen whose ultimate responsibility it will be to prevent such a disaster. Our air defence radar fighter controllers are our 'eyes' and the air defence pilots our 'swords'. It is this human system, that maintains a round-the-clock vigil to keep our air space secure and safe, and it is these airmen that will neutralize a suspected airborne terrorist threat. Their professional skills are honed through disciplined training, but they know only too well that so were those of the soldiers at Budgam and the Coast Guard sailors.
One worries if unknown to them and indeed unwittingly, these recent happenings are denting their psychological grit to the detriment of swift action. By its very nature, response to air threats needs speedy identification, reaction and instant decision-making. Any hesitation, however momentary, could spell the difference between success and failure. It is this possible fallout of the present episodes and debates that must concern us.
It is time for the institutions of our democracy to pause and reflect. For far too long have we taken the performance and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform for granted without necessarily reflecting on our own institutional obligations to them and their psychological well-being. Their morale is an asset far more precious than all the capital investments that the nation showers on them. It is also an asset that our democratic institutions can either contribute to make or as easily break. For the present we are veering precipitously towards the latter.
The author is a retired air marshal of the Indian Air Forc
No comments:
Post a Comment