BJP’s needless posturing

India is not strong enough to muscle its way over Pakistan because BJP has made the sub-continent nuclear battleground


Aakar Patel November 29, 2014
BJP’s needless posturing

Pakistan experts in India's media can be divided into two broad groups. The first are those who are seen by the other side as 'soft'. They advocate constant dialogue with Pakistan's government under all conditions. They think the military-politician rift in Pakistan is real and this rift affects India. It is in India's interest, according to them, to ensure that Pakistan's politicians are on the side of peace and progress. This means remaining engaged with them even when there is an irritant, such as the Pakistan high commissioner's talks with Kashmiri individuals and groups. This means remaining engaged when there is a genuine outrage, like the attacks by Lashkar-e-Taiba in Mumbai.

The second group is seen by the other side as 'hard'. It consists of those who think of Pakistan's polity as monolithic. Their belief is that the Pakistan Army will always dominate opinion and policy towards India. In this framework, the Pakistani politician is either complicit or irrelevant, and the assumption is that Pakistan will be permanently hostile towards India. Since this is the case, we should ignore Pakistan when we can, teach it a lesson when possible and avoid engagement at all times because there is no real benefit.

In the last two decades, the second group has dominated the thinking of India's establishment, and with a couple of exceptions (most notably in the terms of the Punjabis I K Gujral and Manmohan Singh), India has not had leaders who thought in 'soft' terms. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been hard in its approach, though this has not produced positive results. In fact, it can be said that the BJP policies have worked against Indian interests in some ways.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee is thought to have been soft towards Pakistan till he was betrayed at Kargil. But the fact is that India weaponised its nuclear programme under Vajpayee, because his thinking was from the 'hard' school. It must be admitted that the second series of Pokhran explosions under Vajpayee has brought no real dividend to India. In fact, the opposite. It forced Pakistan to weaponise immediately and cost India the advantage it had in conventional terms. Under this nuclear umbrella, militant mischief continued till it was ended by former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf. The data supports this. Fatalities in Kashmir fell from 4,507 in 2001 to 117 in 2012 of whom 84 were militants. The total numbers of those killed last year was 181 and this year 147. These are the lowest fatality numbers since 1990. This means that militant violence in Kashmir is all but over. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said strong words condemning those who allow terrorism, but the fact is that Pakistan-backed violence against India has more or less ended. Unless we assume that all Kashmiri violence originates from Pakistan, we must accept that such levels will remain till we resolve the matter politically.
Modi, who is the leader of the 'hard' school of thought, broke off talks with Pakistan without thinking his steps through, in my opinion. He said tough things about Pakistan but this week he was embarrassedly forced to shake hands with an enemy, Nawaz Sharif, despite his decision on breaking off talks. But why was he forced? Because this was inevitable, as some had predicted, since Modi's policy was neither here nor there. It was merely posturing. Acting tough and inflexible when this was not affordable and was impractical. What benefit has this sulking brought us Indians?

Nobody in the BJP and none of its 'hard' supporters in the media can explain this. Defence Minister Arun Jaitley claimed he taught Pakistan a lesson through killing more of its civilians in border shelling than they killed ours. Assuming this was a lesson, and many Indians will disagree with this, can he guarantee that the shelling has ended forever? If he cannot, what was the point in not talking to Pakistan instead of working towards cooling things when they become heated?

The hard school of thinking has nothing substantial to offer and this has become clear over the last 20 years. The facts show this. India is not strong enough to muscle its way over Pakistan because the BJP has made the sub-continent a nuclear battleground. India refuses to have international mediation on Kashmir, and, at least at the moment, India will not talk to Pakistan. This situation will change and it is going to have to be India and the hard group that will have to bend.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 30th, 2014.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (26)

csmann | 9 years ago | Reply

Pakistan will never use nuclear weapons against India since that will spell the end of its existence

Unfortunately if Pakistan were to be pushed into a corner in a conventional war,and that will end its existence anyway,it will have no choice but to use nuclear weapons.And it will do it massively and drop all of its bombs before India could come and destroy its nuclear arsenal.And off course,India will launch its in full force.Pakistan will lose its existence,and India won't have much of an existence. So bravado from both sides should stop,and they should work towards Peace.There is no other way.

Gp65 | 9 years ago | Reply

@Bewildered "The biggest possible posturing, conventional and non-conventional, India could ever do has already been done in 2002, which turned out to be the biggest eunuch show ever staged in the history of mankind resulting in insurmountable embarrassment to India."

As a result of that, India forced Pakistan to sign the LOC ceasefire treaty of 2003. It also forced Musharraf to write a written statement that Pakistan wold not allow its land to be used against India. Additionally, it gave India to create the space to build the fence which has in turn has siginficantly reduced infiltration in India and peace and tourism are returning to the valley.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ