9 Unanswered Questions
A Line Of Control Lost
Sequence of events following Hemraj’s decapitation
The hawks in the Indian establishment could well be patting themselves on the back. The tough message to Pakistan—carefully crafted through a 10-day-long media campaign, aided by fire-breathing TV news channels, social media groups, sundry politicians, senior military officials and key figures from the government—seemed to have seeped through. The recalcitrant neighbour, responsible for the beheading of an Indian soldier and sparking off the current tension along the Line of Control (LoC) with frequent violation of the agreed ceasefire, is showing all the signs of ‘having blinked’.
The spell of tension along the LoC that divides Kashmir, claimed by both countries, appears to be ebbing. After days of posturing, Islamabad is showing willingness to effect a climbdown, adopting a more reconciliatory approach and making efforts to de-escalate tension that had been rising since Lance Naik Hemraj of Rajputana Rifles was beheaded on January 8 by Pakistani troops who crossed over to the Indian side and walked away with his head. The incident had triggered a series of fire exchanges between both sides, resulting in more deaths.
Strong Indian protests notwithstanding, Pakistan had stuck to its ground—denying the involvement of its soldiers in the beheading. Instead, it accused India of inciting the flare-up with its frequent violation of the ceasefire line. A poker-faced Pakistani foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar absolved its troops of any wrongdoing, and even ticked off the Indian side for a lack of poise. What’s more, she suggested the UN Military Observers’ Group do an independent inquiry. Fully aware of the fact that New Delhi has not recognised UNMOGIP since the 1950s—any mention of it is tantamount to “internationalising” the Kashmir issue, hence anathema—and would surely reject the call out of hand, this was a smart way to respond to truculence with a taunt.
Churonda village in Uri sector where a Pak soldier was killed. (Photograph by Waseem Andrabi)
From the time the beheading became known, the mood in India veered towards wanting to make Pakistan pay—belligerent TV debates and competitive tough talk by politicians kept fanning the flames. The near-buildup of a war hysteria and the resultant disquiet in the barracks forced the top brass of the armed forces, and then senior government figures, to issue a series of tough messages to Pakistan. It culminated on Tuesday, January 15, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh warning Pakistan “it cannot be business as usual” unless it took urgent steps to punish those involved in the beheading.
The first signs of change in the neighbour’s attitude came when the directors general of military operations of the two countries met on Wednesday, January 16. An earlier meeting at the brigadier level between the two sides had failed to achieve any breakthrough as both India and Pakistan stuck to their stated position. However, when the DGMOs met, the Pakistani side assured the Indians that “strict orders had been given to the troops on the ground to observe the ceasefire strictly and exercise restraint”. Pakistan said it would make all efforts to de-escalate tension along the LoC. This was followed up almost immediately by foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar’s offer to hold talks with her Indian counterpart, Salman Khurshid, to clear the air and address the concerns of each side sparked off by the hostilities instead of issuing “belligerent statements and ratcheting up tensions”.
Anyway, the apparent softening of Islamabad’s position only bolstered the view widely held by the hardliners in India that the use of tough language had worked with Pakistan. “The message from India seemed to have seeped through. Things are certainly cooling down along the borders,” says Lalit Mansingh, former Indian foreign secretary. He felt the graded response by India, initially from the army and later by the political leadership, putting across a tough message to Pakistan, was the right thing to do and seemed to have worked.
But what changed so drastically in Pakistan? Sources say it was the sage advice the Pakistanis got from the Americans. Hina Rabbani, who was in the US, clearly got the message that Pakistan’s attempt to internationalise the Kashmir issue does not have any takers at this juncture. The best way forward for the country was to lower temperatures along the LoC and assuage the feeling of hurt India felt at its soldier’s beheading.
Righteous brothers Bajrang Dal protesters in the capital
Though no one is willing to confirm it officially, many in the Indian establishment see this as a familiar US approach to cool temperatures in South Asia. Washington played a key role during the 1999 Kargil conflict to force Pakistan to withdraw its troops from Indian territory and did so again in 2002-03 when Indian and Pakistani troops were in an eyeball-to-eyeball situation along their borders following the terror attack on Indian Parliament. The US intervention then had resulted in the ceasefire agreement between the two sides along with a categorical assurance from Pakistan that it will not encourage terrorist activities against India from its soil.
“Though it is difficult to know for sure, the US could well have done some plainspeaking with the Pakistanis,” says Mansingh. Some feel it suits US interests to intervene and cool things off between India and Pakistan, especially as the date of its withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014 draws near. America is trying hard through Pakistani help to broker a deal between the Taliban and the Hamid Karzai government.
Were these developments in Pakistan—with the major players all engaged in a game of brinkmanship—responsible for Islamabad’s changed stance towards India then? Perhaps, but many also feel that Manmohan Singh’s tough stand helped build further pressure on the civilian government in Islamabad.
Tahir Square Cleric Tahir-ul Qadri addresses protest marchers. (Photograph by Reuters, From Outlook 28 January 2013)
From the Indian point of view, the developments of the past few days, particularly the changed Pakistani position, served to satisfy—at least for now—most of the players. The Congress can take satisfaction from the fact that its tough talk without going to war helped in lowering heightened temperatures; the BJP can take credit for pushing the government into taking a tough line vis-a-vis Islamabad; the Indian army can pat itself for managing to keep the morale of its forces running high, while Indian TV channels can claim to have set the national agenda and, of course, helped increase their TRP ratings.
The sceptics, however, continued to scoff at such a view, even doubting the apparent lowering of temperatures along the LoC. “Pakistan has not blinked,” says former Indian foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal. “They tested our attitude and knowing full well that we can’t afford to go to war, successfully managed to bury the real issue—punishing those guilty of beheading our soldier.” He also has issues with the tenor of Hina Rabbani’s statement. “She tried to show India as the war-monger while presenting Pakistan as a reasonable state that wants peace.”
There is no denying the hysteria the politicians and media whipped up or the retaliatory urge that evidently took hold of the military establishment. Why did India react the way it did? If one sees the run-up to the developments from the day the beheading of Hemraj became public knowledge, it is clear that the Manmohan Singh government did try to keep the temperature down by delinking the ghastly incident from the ongoing peace process. Foreign minister Khurshid maintained that though India strongly condemned the Pakistani soldiers’ action and wanted Islamabad to act against the guilty, it wanted to keep the peace process on track.
Photograph by AFP, From Outlook 28 January 2013
However, aided by the TV channels’ hype and ballistic propaganda, BJP leaders found an ideal opportunity to push their agenda and force the government to take a tough line. A nervous Congress party, busy second-guessing how the Opposition would haul it over coals for being soft on Pakistan, itself upped the ante. The Pakistan government’s inability to give a satisfactory response to the Indian charges, the fast-changing mood in the country and the disquiet in the barracks—where many of the soldiers refused to eat their food as a mark of solidarity with the slain Hemraj’s family which had threatened to go on a hunger strike unless his head was retrieved—made it untenable for the government to remain restrained.
A hurriedly convened meeting of the cabinet committee on security on January 14, which assessed the mood in the country as well as that of the armed forces, advised the PM to issue a strong statement against Pakistan. But the government decided to calibrate its response—it first allowed army chief Gen Bikram Singh to tell the media during the army day address that he had instructed his commanders to retaliate. Two days earlier, air chief marshal N.A.K. Browne had stated that India would have to mull “other options” if ceasefire violations continued. The government still felt that the PM needed to issue a strict response, following which Manmohan Singh issued the “can’t be business as usual with India” statement.
It still didn’t explain the high moral ground India was taking since such beheadings are done by both sides. Or, since it had happened as recently as last year, why wasn’t Pakistan making a song and dance about it? Some say that such practices are kept under wraps by the two sides to forestall open war. Which means the leak of the beheading was deliberate this time, forcing the government to take a tough stand.
Was there then a careful choreographing of events by the establishment so as to first play up and then satiate the jingoistic side of India—a bit of muscle-flexing to deal with a hostile neighbour? Or was it a case of being caught in a situation where the Manmohan Singh government had no option but to act tough? Perhaps the possibility of a change in government in Pakistan, the impending elections there and advice from his colleagues that he shouldn’t stake the Congress’s future on the Pakistani altar put the steel in Manmohan’s voice. However, Pakistani reconciliatory efforts may change things in India too. India and Pakistan may resume dialogue after a few weeks, their business communities may look at business and investment opportunities again and the liberalised visa regime, withheld for now, may come in operation then.
For the moment, though, India’s tough talk will only serve to perpetuate the tendency to adopt a hard line without first trying to resolve contentious issues through dialogue and negotiation. Will it mean a permanent setback to the peace process or will it be a passing phase? It will all depend on how things pan out in both India and Pakistan in the coming days.
By Pranay Sharma with Mariana Baabar in Islamabad and Toral Varia-Deshpande
Apropos your cover story News of a Beheading (Jan 28), if war was a solution, the Kashmir issue would have been resolved many times over. A lot has been done to broadbase the India-Pakistan relationship so that Kashmir doesn’t remain the only thread of discussion. Such rhetoric in the name of nationalism will only take us away from this. Let’s work towards building our capacity for peace, not war.
Bachchu Singh, Meerut
The Indian government’s hardening of stand came perhaps in the aftermath of the political unrest in Pakistan. It was trying to play down the events initially, but once it got news of Tahir Qadri’s long march and the Pakistan Supreme Court verdict on the premier, the tone changed.
Abhinav M., Pune
Pakistan has always taken our caution as weakness. Candlelight vigils on the border, civil society, cultural or sporting interaction are all very fine, but they cannot excuse ceasefire violations on the LoC, intrusions by Pak-trained militants, and certainly not the beheading of our soldiers.
Col R.D. Singh, Ambala Cantt
You call this “talking tough”?
Vipul Jani, Toronto
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
if war was a solution, we would have solved kashmir problem many times over. its well known now that indian army started the attack on the 6th by crossing over and sliting the throat of one of their subedars and injuring another.
a lot has been done to broadbase the relationship between the two countries so that kashmere does not remain the only thread of discussion. such rhetoric in the name of nationalism will only get us further away from the solution. let us respect the hard work that has gone in towards normalising the situation and building more bridges. killing and more killing is no solution and makes us look like a barbaric society of the medieval. lets work harder towards creating more capacity for peace than war.
and thanks for the informative article and not succumbing to the cowardice that we do under the garb of nationalism.
another article by the traitors, of the traitors , for the traitors.
the entire article looks like a shameless PR piece for this impotent government. Manmohan Singh talked tough ?/ when ? was the whole world sleeping when he finally spoke ? this useless government has no spine, no shame and can do nothing other than attack the aam aadmi and protesters who dare to demand their rights in a so called democracy. As a person of indian origin, i feel ashamed every day and extremely upset and angry over the continuous degradation of our country at the hands of these morons (i.e. Neta Log). I mean, after every terrorist attack they say the same thing. Next time it will not be tolerated. Really ? What does Next time mean ? If i was a soldier at the border and this happened and my government did nothing, what will happen to my confidence ? A soldier must be backed by his government at all costs, including going to war with pakistan. What did we do after mumbai attacks, after parliament attack, after all other attacks. We stopped the talk for a few months and then it was all back to bogus talks again. Have some guts. Just acquiring missiles and planes and submarines will do nothing, if we don't have the balls to use them.
//Why did the government give in to the jingoism played to the hilt by the netas and the media?//
Because they are a capitulationist government. If you shout loud enough, they will shut up.
It comes with the Nehruvian appeasement mindset. This is why the congress has had hindu, muslim, marxist, anti anti marxist and state communalists. In 1984, it was a state worshipping mob who killed sikhs in the thousands, not Hindu or Muslim mobs. They attacked Sikhs in the name of their religion-Massive Statism- and their prophet Indira Gandhi.
To retain massive powers and soft totalitarianism, you have to appease a few angry hens(I'm not being sexist here, just that angry cocks, instead of angry hens, would sound hilarious and take away from the main point).
Having said this, you in the rabid left wing media are hardly any better than the jingoistic hordes. You are as immoral and lack ethics like your counterparts on TV.
Adults, of the sensible kind, who don't identify with each other, have this wonderful ability to co-exist without feeling the need to, make love to each other leading to multiple orgasms, or stab each other multiple times in the neck.
No war, doesn't mean 'kissy kissy huggy huggy' either.
I don't buy the argument that Pak did a climbdown - it keeps doing its activity while making a soft external talk. This is just another classic case of congress strategy - managing public discourse by escalating and deescalating public mood, without actually doing anything. Nothing was done with the border, nothing is done about the beheading, and nothing is done to get any kind of commitment from Pakistan. Just some talking to take things where they were a few weeks ago. Absolutely no improvement in situation.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT