Trail Of A Clash
Like most other things in India-Pakistan relations, its disputes too tend to get shrouded in a complex grey, making an objective analysis difficult. It gets worse when overzealous ‘experts’ and a nationalist media calls for retaliatory measures to teach the recalcitrant neighbour a lesson for their apparent act of brutality—in this case, the reported beheading of an Indian soldier and the killing of another along the Line of Control on January 8 by members of the Pakistani army. The reported presence of LeT chief Hafiz Saeed in the area added a certain edge to proceedings. A serious concern is that if the current eruption of malevolence spirals, with denials and calls for revenge, it could not only rupture the fragile peace process, but trigger a whole spell of hostility.
What happened on January 8 is still unclear. According to the Indian army, one of its patrols, consisting of men from the 13 Rajputana Rifles, was ambushed by Pakistani soldiers (thought to be from the 29 Baloch regiment, as well from the Special Service Group, or ssg) inside Indian territory at the Krishna Ghati sector in the Mendhar area in Poonch, along the LoC. But what could have passed off as another skirmish—low-level attacks keep happening along the LoC, despite a ceasefire agreement since 2003—took a serious turn because of the brutality involved. One of the Indian soldiers, Lance Naik Hemraj was beheaded and another, Lance Naik Sudhakar Singh, was killed and his body mutilated by Pakistani soldiers who had crossed over, under cover of the thick fog that had descended on the area. A third Indian soldier, also part of the advanced patrol team, though seriously injured, escaped death with the timely intervention of other members of the Indian patrol who were following them. “It is not just an incident but a serious incident because of the brutality involved in the killing of the Indian soldier,” former Indian foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh told Outlook. But what has made matters worse is Pakistan’s decision to deny the involvement of its armed forces in the killing. Its high commissioner in Delhi, Salman Bashir, who was summoned to South Block by India to lodge a strong protest, had initially promised an investigation into the incident. But soon after, Pakistan claimed that after an investigation it was sure that no Pakistani soldier was involved.
India, which hasn’t recognised the unmogip since 1972 and considers it defunct, rejected Khar’s offer, seeing in it an attempt by Pakistan to internationalise the Kashmir issue. But what has inflamed passions in India is the selective reports about the incident involving the grisly beheading of a jawan, and Pakistan’s subsequent, brazen denial.
“The Indian response should be a deterrent punishment—razing the Pakistani forces in the area to ground level,” says Gurmeet Kanwal, a retired brigadier of the Indian army. He acknowledges the LoC to be active despite the ceasefire agreement, with enough border skirmishes and exchange of fire between the two armies. “But Pakistan’s denial makes it clear that it needs to be taught a lesson so that it does not dare engage in such behaviour in future,” adds Kanwal.
Had it been a linear narrative of Pakistani brutality, it could have made matters simple. But reports from sections in the Indian establishment suggest that an innocuous incident sparked the spiralling violence that led to the January 8 incident. According to it, in September, a 70-year-old woman from Charonda village in Uri decided to join her son in PoK and crossed over from the Indian side of the LoC. This alarmed the Indian army, which saw it as a sign of the vulnerability of its position along this stretch of the LoC. Accordingly, it started constructing observation bunkers to keep vigil on the villages in the area. Pakistan protested the constructions, citing a violation of the ceasefire—Indian officials also concede the point—but it did not deter the Indian army. This sparked off a series of low-level exchanges of fire, and tension escalated along the LoC. The arrival of Hafiz Saeed under such circumstances presumably added to passions. Things came to a head when Indian troops raided Pakistani position near the Haji Pir pass on January 6, leading to heavy exchange of fire that left a Pakistani soldier dead and injured several. The ambush on the Indian patrol by the Pakistani troops, leading to the incident when Lance Naik Hemraj was beheaded, came soon after.
There are many in India who see the incident and the increase in infiltration figures along the LoC in the last six months as signs of an emboldened Pakistani army, which is being courted by western powers to help stabilise Afghanistan. But that doesn’t explain why the Pakistani military establishment would show such belligerence and disturb its vital eastern sector when it is not yet fully in control of its border with Afghanistan.
Many in New Delhi feel the January 8 incident, irrespective of its brutality, should be seen as actions carried out by ground-level Pakistani commanders and not involving the top brass in Rawalpindi. Nor do they deny the occasional brutality resorted to by personnel of both armies in skirmishes. Pakistan’s almost instinctive denial of the involvement of its soldiers quite likely stems from the outrage, within India and elsewhere, over the beheading and mutilation that so flagrantly flouts all international laws governing armed conflict between nations.
As India and Pakistan stare each other out over the latest incident, what happens to bilateral relations? “A strong message at the diplomatic level needs to be sent,” says Mansingh. He feels attempts should be made to keep the peace process on track, but New Delhi should decide on not engaging with Pakistan at the political level. But with both countries looking at impending elections, will domestic pressures force the two governments to embark on razor-sharp exchanges, resulting in similar bloody clashes, that could bring back another period of hostility in the subcontinent?
with Mariana Babbar in Islamabad
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.
I appreciate the sentiment, like a great ideal. But, when a bullet kills a person, it is also a disfigurement of the person killed. On the battlefield, people are supposedly to ignore this, to the greatest extent possible. Soldiers cannot do the disfigurement, if there is a cease-fire, even when the state of war is not defined, because of non-possibility. Civilians must also not make the situation within the border, represent mini-anarchy. The soldier practices anarchy, representing a democracy, with the enemy. Rules are supposed to intimate the enemy, that anarchy is about to prevail. The best situation would be, for an enemy to attack without intimation, and silently. There is no unfairness in the act. But, acts which even the actor considers barbarism, leaves the actor defenseless, as he had acted to return from where he came. This is the issue.
Manmohan singh is caught in a pincer move of a myriad of forces.
West/ USA does not want the present political setup in pakistan to return to power. However it looks like it will. If it does, then the political setup of pakistan will grow stronger and will be able to cut to size the USA/ UK controlled deep state withing pakistan. This will lead to phased betterment of ties between india and pakistan. Which if continues will acquire a dynamic of its own, which will then render USA/ UK irrelevant in the indo-pak scene.
The recent attacks by the pak army are infact the provocations grandfathered by USA/ UK, to destabilize indo pak relations, to destabilize pakistani civil government.
How will we hold our nerves? Becasue if we do and the present pakistani civilian government returns to power in pakistan, then the USA/ UK will effectively be fisted in their butt.
Lets not forget, that it was Zardari who told the US, to the face, that the attacks against security forces and civilian targets were the handiwork of USA itself via its presence in Afghanistan.
There is a serious gap in India about what "Pakistan " actually means! The incident on the LOC is a pointer like several other pointers in the past and they will continue in future. We fail to recognise that It is either Pakistan or India. There is not enough space for both. Pakistan understands this fully and hence no matter what the disposition of their government; their India specific policy will continue in the same vein by one name or the other. There might be some make up put on it once a while but essentially it will not change. Ever! As soon as we understand this , we can start basing our Pakistan policies on the facts as they are, rather than some fanciful ideas of "peace at all costs" that have not worked yet and have no chance of succeeding in future. A largely deniable; very active and substantial covert program must be directed not only at the borders but right into the heart of the Pakistani establishment . And we must keep at it for a very long time if we have to keep Pakistan in check. If you can not or will not do it....... Sad to say but be prepared for more such shockers because Pakistan is not stopping and India's meek, non lethal and token responses gives them further encouragement.
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