It is inexplicable that after such an attack the government is still diffident to call on China by name to stop its backing Pakistan on the Masood Azhar issue. The struggle against Pakistani terrorism will be long drawn and the withdrawal of MFN status is not an answer; it will neither impact Pakistan nor terrorist groups

by Vivek Katju

As the pyres are lit and the nation mourns the Pulwama martyrs, it must channel its anger to demand that the political and security classes rise above partisan politics, evolve a firm consensus on the way to end Pakistani sponsored terror and thereafter relentlessly walk that path. That would be fitting honour not only to the Pulwama braves but also the thousands who have lost their lives in almost three decades of Pakistan’s calibrated low intensity war.

But can all round farsightedness be expected especially at this stage, when the country is moving towards Lok Sabha polls? How long will Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s assurance of opposition standing with the government hold?

Of all its important though divergent aspects what is of immediate significance is this Jaish-e-Muhammed (JeM) attack’s timing. It has put enormous pressure on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to manifestly and purposefully respond. The defence forces can only give him options. The political decision has to be his against this challenge, which is especially provocative for it has led to the largest loss of life of security forces in a single attack in Jammu & Kashmir. Also, because of its tactic – the detonation of an explosive laden motor vehicle by a suicide bomber to deadly effect.

The International Court of Justice hearing on the Kulbhushan Jadhav case will take place from February 18. That too would further inflame passions. Modi has already given an indication that he will act strongly both in his tweets and his speech after the CCS meeting yesterday. At this time senior political personalities should refrain from inflammatory comments and let Modi decide on the exact nature of response.

Thus the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat’s call for “tit for tat” action, which was indicative of the Sangh Parivar’s feelings, cannot be the guide for Modi. It may not be surprising that newly appointed Congress party general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has “demanded” that “this government” takes “concrete steps” to ensure that such attacks are not repeated. It is good that Congress president has for the time being reined in such carping criticism. 

The last major attack on the security forces was at Uri in 2016. Have the surgical strikes after that attack set the benchmark for India’s responses to large terrorist acts that emanate from Pakistan? The Pulwama attack, even if its perpetrator was from J&K, is a Pakistani origin strike. Separately, Indian security managers will have to find ways to address the causes that made at least one boy from the Valley (if this is true) become a suicide bomber on the instigation of a Pakistani terrorist group.

While dwelling on the surgical strikes at length in a recent interview, Modi spoke of appropriate strategies, not kinetic action, after every major terrorist attack. For over the past two and a half decades the Indian political class has not considered Pakistani origin terror as a strategic challenge. It has clearly felt that the cost of terror extracted from the country in lives and material can be absorbed without damaging India’s growing global economic and diplomatic heft.

Consequently, it has handled spectacular terrorist strikes through international diplomatic engagement and political management of Indian public opinion. Modi pursued this matrix after the Pathankot terrorist attack of January 2016 but not after Uri. Will he revert to the old ways or craft a Uri like kinetic response? Pakistan was able to take it in its stride and deny it. It had assuaged Indian anger too. Pakistan has to be aware that it cannot allow JeM and other terrorist groups a free hand and worse use them and then expect that India will not react kinetically.

The ministry of external affairs statement on the Pulwama attack holds the JeM responsible and does not ascribe it to Pakistani state agencies. It correctly demands that Pakistan should give up its support for terrorist groups. More significantly, the MEA statement reiterates an appeal to all members of the international community to support Masood Azhar’s designation as a UN terrorist. This is a clear hint to China. It is inexplicable that after such an attack the government is still diffident to call on China by name to stop its backing Pakistan on the Azhar issue. This can only be construed as unworthy weakness.

It is noteworthy that the Pulwama terrorist attack has come as the United States is negotiating the end of the Afghan war with Taliban. It has secured a measure of Pakistani goodwill for this purpose. Hence, for all their correct statements on Pakistan and terror the US and its Western allies are likely to press Modi not to take any action that will divert Pakistani attention from the Afghan front. India’s decision to launch a diplomatic campaign against Pakistan will have to factor this in.

Indeed, Modi does not need so much to take the international community along with him as the entire Indian political and strategic classes. It would be prudent for him to consult on the broad options with the opposition so that the nation is united as one on whatever action he takes. In all this the one fact that should be remembered is that the people of Kashmir are part of the Indian whole.

The struggle against Pakistani terrorism will be long drawn and the withdrawal of MFN status is not an answer; it will neither impact Pakistan nor terrorist groups.