No one can underscore the vital security concerns of Kashmir. Several mediations followed. Several machinations later, no solutions were near to the Kashmir dispute. UN interventions did not yield any solution either. Hostilities continued and only grew to waging full-fledged wars again in 1965 and in 1999. In 1962, troops from the People’s Republic of China too, quickly annexed the region that they call Aksai Chin, another sore point that continues till date. The hegemonistic aspirations of our neighbours have queered the political and the on-ground pitch to an extent that scars left behind were difficult to wish away. The deep divide and mistrust that grew with every passing day that was fuelled from across the borders, influenced by the Soviet-Afghan jihad and the Islamic Revolution in Iran acted as catalysts to the rise in militancy in the 1980’s in the valley. With no conceivable and credible body owning up or trying to diffuse tensions, the militancy grew to one of low intensity war. It is only natural that such conflagrations are fuelled by vested interests, political parties, religious bigots and politicians. The political fight was hence being portrayed as a conflict between the Central Government and its efforts to impose its will in the State and the State of Kashmir, represented by politico-religious leaders.
Low intensity warfare depends on intelligence gathering and a surprise element. Both sides are privy to this and depending on the existing boundary conditions and the environmental sensitivities, one side gains control of the other. Unfortunately, there is no permanent winner or a permanent loser in this game. Unfortunate because, the war is never fought to finish. It only gains a strategic and psychological advantage over the other for a limited period. The regularity with which the altercations tend to happen, leave deep scars on the psyche of the people, who may not be a part of such brawls at any given time. Both are left to count their dead at the end of the day.
Our Army and other forces, brave as they are, anywhere in the World, have lost many an able bodied and young men in the past 70 years waging futile wars. The cost of a low intensity war is often much more than a conventional one, both in terms of men and material. Bleeding to death is neither a site to behold, nor an act to cherish. It is sickening to see young men draped in tricolour arriving every day to their mothers, wives, brothers and sisters and the country saluting them and shedding a tear, until the next lot arrives. How much more insensitivity will the people of this country endure? How many more, this country will lose, before peace arrives? The collateral damage is even more frightening. “Subhashita” extols, “Reactions to calamities should be considered well in advance. It is no good to start digging a well when the house is on fire”.
The main strategy and tactics today, of terrorists and separatists, tend to involve the use of small attacking, mobile forces which seem to be largely or entirely organized in small units that are dependent on the support of the local population. Tactically, the arms wielding separatists from across the border, make repetitive attacks far from their centre of gravity, with a view to keeping their own casualties to a minimum and imposing a constant debilitating strain on our army and civilian areas. Armed forces have had to even endure stone pelting by young boys and girls in schools and colleges in the last decade. Though stone pelting, as a means of agitation has had a mention from the times of King Akbar, the stone pelting incidents in the recent past, have come to being ugly altercations between the youth and the armed forces. A deep psychological divide that seems to permeate within the society has to be nipped before it takes colossal proportions. A comatose polity does not infuse confidence.
In such a miserable scenario, is it not worth exploring a full-fledged technological warfare as a strategy, that keeps the causalities low, but would turn in maximum returns, not only completely annihilating the extremism in the valley, but also would bring back the occupied land? War remains a matter of life and death, and although defined by violence, war is a rational tool of policy. The process by which military power is translated into policy effect, is strategy. Sri Lanka, another country that fought extremism, though must be faulted on the genocide that it indulged in, did find a much lasting solution, Sometimes, the means may not justify the end, but all the same, it ends the requirement of any further means later. It is time, development agenda is given a leg to stand and grow. A festering wound would debilitate the entire body till the body collapses and dies. Should we be waiting for the day, when the Country has to endure something similar? People have often parried such options countering with nuclear capabilities across the border that can destroy humanities. Admittedly, such an intervention could prove horrendous. But then this is highly unlikely, since modern day logistics based on business and commerce not only between warring factions but with the other countries nearby, will never allow it to become a reality. The bluff needs to be called now. We owe it to our children and our forces who defend us. Our defenders are not paid to die.
Alex Roland, a Professor of History Emeritus at Duke University and author of “War and Technology” proposes that technology, more than any other outside force, shapes warfare, conversely, war, not warfare shapes technology, that Military technology is, not deterministic, rather that it opens doors, and, finally, that these characteristics of military technology are easier to see in the modern period than previously, though they have always been at work. A military intervention may not be out of focus in the current milieu.
Focusing on insecurity in the contemporary world, we need to examine the nature of strategy and how it relates to both policy and action in a fast-evolving and volatile neighbourhood. This is a world, where questions are constantly being asked of traditional institutions and those who disrupt established norms. There is a pressing need for creative, disciplined thinkers able to turn their ideas into action. We need to seriously look at national, international and human security, ranging from interstate conflicts to more diverse contemporary security challenges, like terrorism, separatism, organised crime, resource denial and cyber security and integrate instruments of strategy, such as diplomacy and strategic communications into our policies.
Until then, can the current dispensation of a Government give way to an empowered body of say, 21 members, including representatives of the intelligentsia, Political representatives of the main parties, the so called separatists, career bureaucrats, eminent Judges, accomplished academicians, CEO’s of Industries, clerics of both communities, students and representatives of the civil society, headed by the President, to run the affairs of the State, based on decisions carved out of 2/3rd majority? Obviously no one would be able to hijack a development agenda of employment and decent living for its people. Any battle can be won if personal agendas are replaced with those of institutions. The flip side is, it could even toggle as a representative plebiscite. Such an empowered body could manage strategic responses to crises, considering how decisions are made and the miscalculations of causes and consequences being explored along the way.
It is also vital that armed interventions must follow studied attempts to mitigate trauma, conflict and followed up with peace strategies, often devoting special attention to the relationship between international politics, geo-strategy, international diplomacy, international economics, and the military power. The role of intelligence, diplomacy, and international cooperation for security and defence cannot be more underscored in a Kashmir context. Strategies must return Kashmir to its pristine beauty and eternal peace, before a point of no return sets in. Years of strife cannot be allowed to be institutionalised.