Author: Varsha Bhosle
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: June 3, 2002
URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/03varsha.htm
Distance lends perspective. Keeping
that in mind, I'm willing to believe that Indian Navy personnel cruising
the seas, or better yet, ensconced in their armchairs post-retirement,
develop a hard-nosed and detached approach to wars fought on land. I'm
willing to accept that career sailors, be they midshipmen or former admirals,
totally empathise with the steadily bleeding jawans who've been facing
bullets in glacial temperatures day in and... well, year in and year out.
I even accept that high rhetoric has raised our thirst for revenge to a
fever pitch. However, what I do not understand is, why does a former Chief
of Naval Staff make public statements like:
* In fact, India will be a major
loser if it resorts to any military misadventure.
* Unlike 1971, India lacks sympathy
and international support for its cause.
* India's cozying up with Israel
these past few years has lost it support among the oil-producing countries.
* Well, we called their bluff once
with disastrous results (re. Pakistan's nuclear tests).
* Pakistan had an edge over India
in both the accuracy and quality of delivery systems (re. an "impartial
reporter's" comparisons).
* Whatever goodwill India had in
the world community has dissipated subsequent to the happenings in Gujarat.
I ain't questioning the basis of
these statements - yet. All may well be true. Hell, Praful Bidwai and gang
have been going hammer and sickle about it non-stop. Thing is, such fringe
lunatics are taken with a bagful of salt by anyone aware of his/her country's
defence exigencies; but when an admiral says the same, it is noticed. Therefore,
I question the ethics involved in a former CNS's publishing such during
an extremely delicate moment when India is seeking to convince the world
of her grim determination to halt jihadi infiltration. After all, only
the real threat of war can shake our masters to haul ass and do what we
really want - ie, help us win the war without our fighting a war.
I don't understand: for whom was
the article, Towards an unwinnable war, written? Is it a paper meant for
circulation among think tanks? Is it for shaping the opinions of NRIs?
Is it for motivating the Nagpur reader to force the government to de-escalate?
Or is it for the benefit of our friendly neighbourhood ISI surfer...? Beats
me. Which is why I ask again, what are the ethics -- not "rules" -- in
a former naval chief's lending his military designation to an "analysis"
that does nothing but harm the country he once served?
I'm all the more baffled since the
Admiral wrote in December 2001: "Fortunately for India, the nation is today
blessed with astute military leaders... and Army chief Gen S Padmanabhan's
retort that he will not be stampeded into foolish action are extremely
reassuring. Rhetoric may be suitable for public consumption and for winning
an election, but it cannot be a substitute for cold appraisal and a sensible
appreciation of the situation."
May I remind the Admiral that it
is the COAS himself who said in May, "The time for action has come. But
the Army is not the body to make decision in this regard. The decision
will be taken by the entire nation." In January: "If we have to go to war,
jolly good." And: "The more we talk, the less we will act. We should not
play to the gallery any more. As far as I am concerned, I'm ready for any
kind of action." And: "We are ready for a second strike" And: "When you
talk of a sufficiency of nuclear weapons, take it from me, we have enough."
So, within 6 months, has the "astute"
Gen Padmanabhan degenerated into a jingoistic vote- monger? And is that
because his words may lead to events that could incinerate a certain comfortable
armchair in Pune...?
When Mrs G had asked Gen Maneckshaw
to march into East Pakistan in the summer of 1971, the General "refused
to be browbeaten by the political leadership. He demanded and got six months
to organise his forces, to make up the deficiencies in weapons and equipment,
and to deploy his divisions." So wrote the Admiral in December... Today,
our COAS is straining at the bit and the PM is holding him back! Besides,
hasn't George had enough time to prepare since Kargil? Ask the CAG!
Here's a bit from The Economic Times
of May 31: "India has plugged the chinks in its military armour even as
diplomatic efforts to avert a confrontation with Pakistan continue apace.
Hectic shopping by defence teams in the global arms bazaar has seen the
government successfully sourcing UAVs, hand-held thermal imagers, night
vision devices and weapon locating radars. A fast-track mechanism put in
place by PM Vajpayee has been clearing purchase orders at a breakneck speed
and has brought to the armed forces equipment that they always longed for."
And from Jane's: "It is estimated that India probably has between 50 and
150 nuclear warheads available. Analysis from some sources suggests that
there is sufficient weapons grade uranium and plutonium available to India
to build more warheads."
Exactly how much time is required
for our forces to rise to the standards set by our nay-sayers? Nobody ever
tells us that. Methinks, they envision our troops riding in air-conditioned
tanks à la the US Army. Ain't gonna happen. We just have to do with
what we got and that's that.
Incidentally, has the Admiral given
a thought to the number of "accidental" fires and blasts in ordnance depots
in Shakurbasti, Bhopal, Bikaner, Jabalpur, etc, etc? Has he measured the
damage in terms of the ammunition, money and time lost? Does he know that,
at least in 2 cases, ISI agents and their Indian jihadis were arrested
for links to the "accidents"? Does he really believe that without a decisive
war, Pakistan will stop...? If so, he's a candidate for LaLa Land.
Actually, the rest of the reasons
are an eyewash - it's all about dem nukes and dat armchair. For instance,
what "sympathy" and "international support" did India have in 1971...?
Didn't Nixon send the Seventh Fleet into the Bay of Bengal? And this was
because the redoubtable Mrs G refused to give the US an assurance that
India would not attack Pakistan. Yes, it's an "unfinished business," all
right.
Frankly, I've no clue why people
count nuclear warheads and delivery systems - who's going to be around
to fire the fourth or fifth?? Even so, I do want to know which "impartial
reporter" said that Pakistan was better off than India. The last I heard
of it was from Brigadier Vijai K Nair in the August issue of Strategic
Affairs. About Pakistan's nuclear capabilities outstripping India's, he
wrote, "at the very best, this report can only be described as garbage.
For reasons best known to the Pentagon, it appears to be part of a badly
thought out 'disinformation' plot to meet the psychological requirements
of maintaining a semblance of balance of power in the region and also enable
Gen Zinni's Southern Command to maintain control within its theatre of
operations."
Next, what "disastrous results"
accrued from our calling Pakistan's bluff? According to the Admiral, "within
a month of our nuclear explosions the other side had shown us theirs."
THAT'S the disaster?! Like, Pakistan was sitting peacefully and yet, just
weeks later, as Abdul Qadeer Khan said, "Pakistan has now the complete
know-how of the long-range missile, including engineering, designing, manufacturing
and assembly" and would carry out a nuclear test "within no time." Like,
the Indian test was the impetus for the Na Dong route to nukedom...
Ya, let's talk about the "support"
of our friends, the oil-producing countries. During the 1999 hijacking
crisis, neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE came to our aid. The Saudi cabinet
discussed it on December 29, but didn't issue even a statement after the
meeting, and the UAE denied our ambassador access to the airbase while
the hijacked aircraft was parked in Dubai. Even as Riyadh talked about
building a "special relationship" with India, our home ministry and intelligence
wings fretted over dubious Saudi funding activities here. Furthermore,
the OIC, since its inception, has never failed to "reaffirm its support
to Kashmiris' right to self-determination" and say that "sham polls could
not be a substitute for a free and impartial plebiscite in the disputed
Kashmiri territory." (BTW, have you guys seen the MORI International poll?
The "majority in J&K want to remain as Indians," hehehe...)
Ergo, what "support"? It's the Israelis
who've come to our assistance by providing critical weaponry, including
the UAVs - even at the cost of invoking US ire. It's the Israelis who've
said that India can count on them even for man-power in anti-terrorism
ops. Sure, that's a thorn in the Arabs' sides, but do remember, a seller
ain't worth shit without a buyer. Besides which, the world ain't the same
since 9/11.
Oh ya, Gujarat... LOL, that's a
right honourable zinger - one geared to draw the wavering centrists into
the pacifist folds. By "centrists," I mean Indians who are horrified by
the murders of Hindus in Godhra and Muslims in Naroda-Patia, and who are
neither leftists nor BJP supporters - but all of whom are thirsting to
settle scores for Kaluchak and countless other slaughters by Paki jihadis.
What better an evocation can there be to link the mayhem in Gujarat to
bloodshed at the frontiers...? After all, it was done by the Chief Mohajir
himself in his latest version of truth. Not to forget Elle Duce's wringing
the last drops from the ignominy: "The NDA government has failed to crush
the internal and external forces trying to destabilise the country and
PM Vajpayee was holidaying at Manali when the nation was threatened by
clouds of war and Gujarat reeling under communal violence."
The chattering classes can and will
go on and on about Gujarat - in India. But the fact is, Arafat and Musharraf
have booted out Gujarat from the front pages all around the world. As Stephen
Robinson wrote in The Telegraph, "Arundhati Roy has watched the nuclear
stand-off over Kashmir with a growing sense of despair, partly because
it has distracted international attention from the ruling BJP's connivance
in the recent Gujarat massacres of Muslims." Sure, Amnesty International
made a studied appearance at a crucial juncture... but, when does it not??
Except for the usual doomsday wailers,
support for and understanding of the government's strategy has cut through
ideological barriers:
* Finally, the option we adopt could
range from dialogue resumption, to diplomatic offensive, to economic squeeze,
to war. But that option should be of our choosing. If the Americans don't
like it, that's their problem - Outlook's Vinod Mehta!
* Indeed the time for India to take
punitive military action against Pakistan is now - Vice-COAS Gen (retd)
VK Sood.
* Given developing circumstances,
there does not seem to be any alternative to act decisively in operational
terms against Pakistan's activities in J&K - JN Dixit!
* The more realistic the threat
of war in this case, the more likely it is that it will be averted. If
that happens, thank the BJP for once - Indian Express' Shekhar Gupta!
* If a war does break out in South
Asia this summer - and even if it does not go nuclear - many thousands
of Indian lives will be lost... It will not be a glamorous Top Gun-kind
of war. But at least it will be a genuine war against terror - Hindustan
Times' Vir Sanghvi!
Nobody really wants a war. And,
the blind hatred nursed by Pakis won't allow a "limited" war. Everyone's
hoping that our maay-baaps will clamp down hard on Pakistan. But if that
doesn't happen - and it won't - all that remains is the TINA factor - there
is no alternative. India will *not* cede Jammu & Kashmir, and Pakistan
will not shed its imagined right over it. Meaning, "bilateral dialogue"
is a non-starter. The bitch of it is, through it all, Pakistan will continue
to bleed us - in J&K, in the northeast, in Gujarat, in Maharashtra...
Perhaps that's Ok for the Admiral. But it's NOT Ok for Lt Gen Satish Nambiar,
and it's not Ok for the rest of us.
And yes, before some doofus pipes
up, let me say this: Bruce Reidel, in a strategically timed "leak" - which
strengthened the scenario of a nuclear exchange in the subcontinent - wrote,
"One well- informed assessment concluded that a Pakistani strike on just
one Indian city, Bombay, with a small bomb would kill between 150,000 and
850,000 alone." It goes without saying that India's financial capital will
be targeted first, and Bhosle could well be the first to fry. But you know
what, I don't really like my armchair all that much, I'd rather my neck
be incinerated held high.
