Three years ago, when suicide terrorists attacked an Army camp at Uri, close to the LoC, they killed 19 soldiers but kindled a flame that spread like a fire. There were terrorist attacks earlier with a higher body count. There were suicide squads that had wreaked havoc before. But somehow this time, it was different. Several high-profile incidents had taken place that year. Suicide attack at Pathankot Air Base in January, biggest hostage situation in six storeyed EDI Building in Pampore in February, Kashmir Valley on the boil after terrorist leader Burhan Wani’s elimination in July. Right timing an audacious military plan backed by bold leadership that not only took ownership, but also converged other instruments of power to multiply the pressure on Pakistan.&nbsp;

Swift retaliation at terrorist launch pads across the line of control (LoC) followed with a stated intent served a twofold purpose. One, India had found space below the nuclear threshold, which we colloquially hear as being said, ‘…called their nuclear bluff’. The second and more importantly, we had now established our stance of dissuasion. For over three decades Pakistan has been waging a proxy war and pushing in terrorists into J&amp;K across the LoC, inter alia. Our response has been largely defensive and restricted to the confines of the LoC. By following the concept of ‘hot pursuit’ we’ve taken the battle to the enemy’s territory, as we would say in military parlance. The doctrine of hot pursuit owes its origin to the law of the seas, at a time when smuggling and piracy were rampant, this customary doctrine emerged to empower a coastal state to pursue on to the high seas a vessel that had violated its laws within its waters.&nbsp;

Over the years, some countries have expanded the doctrine of hot pursuit on land, to justify the breaches of territorial sovereignty of foreign states as part of the ongoing pursuit of offenders. It started in 1986 when South Africa sought to justify its incursions into neighbouring African states against rebels. More recently, it has been employed by the United States regarding Taliban militants crossing into Pakistan or by Turkey regarding its attacks on Kurdistan Workers Party bases in Northern Iraq, also by Colombia regarding its raid on a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia camp in Ecuador in 2008.

Two years later when a similar high-profile suicide attack at Pulwama caused a larger number of casualties, the whole country expected another bold ‘surgical strike’, as the September retaliation at terrorist launch pads in POK had come to be known. Precise airstrikes were launched within 12 days, striking at the roots of terror far deep inside Pakistan. And like before, we announced to the world and to Pakistan, our intent and purpose. In both cases, India arguably found heartening international support against terrorist endeavours. The world has little patience for terrorism or its sponsors. India had firmly shed the soft-state tag.

Two other unconnected incidents have helped India cement it’s resolve and gain more confidence in initiating strong steps in support of bold decisions taken in the national interest, a veritable departure from the past practices notwithstanding. First, it was our operations against the Northeast insurgents camps in Myanmar, and second, was our standing up to China resolutely to defend the interest of Bhutan in Dolam Plateau in 2017. Is this the new normal? Has India announced a paradigm shift? Have we redrawn our red lines? And statedly so? These strong responses may seem like a one-off raid or strike, but a great deal of preparation and planning goes into it. Planning and execution of the operation itself is not the only facet. Planning and preparation for the possible enemy retaliation and being ready for all scenarios is the larger part. This includes diplomatic fallout as well. Mobilisation of international opinion against terrorism has to be balanced with other elements of state policy as well. Economic or commercial linkages were also leveraged.

India has taken a bold stand. Why must we continue to adopt such a strong response posture? Let us take a look at the emerging situation in Afghanistan. If USA pulls out soon, owing to its domestic compulsions, we may witness a situation like the nineties, with Pakistan in control (or not) of jihadis of different hues. And a there would natural inclination on their part to push them across the LoC, lest they destabilise their territory. It will also serve their agenda of reinvigorating proxy war in Kashmir. While we must prepare ourselves against this scenario, we must also take heart from the fact that India’s preparedness on the line of control today is far better than it was three decades ago. Our troop deployment, as well as weapon &amp; equipment profile, is much more robust now and there is an LC fence in place. However, our biggest card should be this new, bold response posture of taking the battle to enemy territory, if required. Therefore it is in India’s interest that this new dissuasive stand that we have started adopting must continue, the mode and modalities of dissuasion can change, must change actually. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-tackling-terrorism-smartly-2793140">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

Three years ago, when suicide terrorists attacked an Army camp at Uri, close to the LoC, they killed 19 soldiers but kindled a flame that spread like a fire. There were terrorist attacks earlier with a higher body count.

Three years ago, when suicide terrorists attacked an Army camp at Uri, close to the LoC, they killed 19 soldiers but kindled a flame that spread like a fire. There were terrorist attacks earlier with a higher body count. There were suicide squads that had wreaked havoc before. But somehow this time, it was different. Several high-profile incidents had taken place that year. Suicide attack at Pathankot Air Base in January, biggest hostage situation in six storeyed EDI Building in Pampore in February, Kashmir Valley on the boil after terrorist leader Burhan Wani’s elimination in July. Right timing an audacious military plan backed by bold leadership that not only took ownership, but also converged other instruments of power to multiply the pressure on Pakistan. Swift retaliation at terrorist launch pads across the line of control (LoC) followed with a stated intent served a twofold purpose. One, India had found space below the nuclear threshold, which we colloquially hear as being said, ‘…called their nuclear bluff’. The second and more importantly, we had now established our stance of dissuasion. For over three decades Pakistan has been waging a proxy war and pushing in terrorists into J&K across the LoC, inter alia. Our response has been largely defensive and restricted to the confines of the LoC. By following the concept of ‘hot pursuit’ we’ve taken the battle to the enemy’s territory, as we would say in military parlance. The doctrine of hot pursuit owes its origin to the law of the seas, at a time when smuggling and piracy were rampant, this customary doctrine emerged to empower a coastal state to pursue on to the high seas a vessel that had violated its laws within its waters. Over the years, some countries have expanded the doctrine of hot pursuit on land, to justify the breaches of territorial sovereignty of foreign states as part of the ongoing pursuit of offenders. It started in 1986 when South Africa sought to justify its incursions into neighbouring African states against rebels. More recently, it has been employed by the United States regarding Taliban militants crossing into Pakistan or by Turkey regarding its attacks on Kurdistan Workers Party bases in Northern Iraq, also by Colombia regarding its raid on a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia camp in Ecuador in 2008. Two years later when a similar high-profile suicide attack at Pulwama caused a larger number of casualties, the whole country expected another bold ‘surgical strike’, as the September retaliation at terrorist launch pads in POK had come to be known. Precise airstrikes were launched within 12 days, striking at the roots of terror far deep inside Pakistan. And like before, we announced to the world and to Pakistan, our intent and purpose. In both cases, India arguably found heartening international support against terrorist endeavours. The world has little patience for terrorism or its sponsors. India had firmly shed the soft-state tag. Two other unconnected incidents have helped India cement it’s resolve and gain more confidence in initiating strong steps in support of bold decisions taken in the national interest, a veritable departure from the past practices notwithstanding. First, it was our operations against the Northeast insurgents camps in Myanmar, and second, was our standing up to China resolutely to defend the interest of Bhutan in Dolam Plateau in 2017. Is this the new normal? Has India announced a paradigm shift? Have we redrawn our red lines? And statedly so? These strong responses may seem like a one-off raid or strike, but a great deal of preparation and planning goes into it. Planning and execution of the operation itself is not the only facet. Planning and preparation for the possible enemy retaliation and being ready for all scenarios is the larger part. This includes diplomatic fallout as well. Mobilisation of international opinion against terrorism has to be balanced with other elements of state policy as well. Economic or commercial linkages were also leveraged. India has taken a bold stand. Why must we continue to adopt such a strong response posture? Let us take a look at the emerging situation in Afghanistan. If USA pulls out soon, owing to its domestic compulsions, we may witness a situation like the nineties, with Pakistan in control (or not) of jihadis of different hues. And a there would natural inclination on their part to push them across the LoC, lest they destabilise their territory. It will also serve their agenda of reinvigorating proxy war in Kashmir. While we must prepare ourselves against this scenario, we must also take heart from the fact that India’s preparedness on the line of control today is far better than it was three decades ago. Our troop deployment, as well as weapon & equipment profile, is much more robust now and there is an LC fence in place. However, our biggest card should be this new, bold response posture of taking the battle to enemy territory, if required. Therefore it is in India’s interest that this new dissuasive stand that we have started adopting must continue, the mode and modalities of dissuasion can change, must change actually. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

India has taken the battle to enemy’s territory through surgical strike

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to appoint a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) is yet another bold step by him. The CDS will be a game-changer, a veritable force multiplier.&nbsp;

Since the announcement, there have been a spate of articles on the subject with varying views, ranging from less informed ones like ‘Can the CDS be a civilian officer?’ or ‘Can this lead to a coup?’ to overzealous ones like ‘CDS should replace Defence Secretary/NSA’. This stems from having had a CDS in the discussion stage for far too long.&nbsp;

Here is a simplified analysis of the role that the CDS can play in the national security architecture, as well as his military functions as Chief of Defence Forces.&nbsp;

A disclaimer before proceeding ahead — the Prime Minister did not pull a rabbit out of the hat. The CDS has been in the recommendation stage of several committees since as early as the 1965 war.

The most notable among them were the LK Advani-led GOM after the Kargil war and the Naresh Chandra Task Force (NCTF) of 2012. Much has been written about them in detail, and hence, I will desist from repeating those facts.

All major militaries in the world have integrated their armed forces, and even the smaller ones have higher defence organisations to include CDS or an equivalent.&nbsp;

India is the only major military power which has neither. We still ‘make do’ with a collegiate system of Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC), with the senior-most as a rotational head, however, short his stint may be. This is ill-suited for the security needs of our country, with two active borders and two nuclear-capable countries.&nbsp;

The CDS will render a single-point military advice (like a single-window system) for the leadership, instead of the service chiefs either carrying their differences to the high table or rendering weak advice, based on the least common denominator, much like a common minimum programme of political alliances.

Immediately, on coming into being, it can take more effective control of all tri-services structures and processes that the HQ Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) is handling, most notably the force modernisation of the three services. In time, the CDS will synergise all aspects between the Army, Navy and Air Force. &nbsp;

This assumes importance when the fiscal budget restricts defence procurements and priorities have to be drawn between the competing interests of the three services.&nbsp;

For a developing country like India, it’s important to ensure that while there are no gaps, it is even more important not to have overlaps. For instance, all three services fly helicopters of all sizes, including attack helicopters; the Army and Air Force both have air defence capabilities that merit harmonising. Resource optimisation will be a welcome spin-off of effective synergy and firm military decisions under the CDS.&nbsp;

As military chief, the CDS will not control operations, at least to begin with. We have two active borders and we cannot afford to be off-balance at any time.&nbsp;

The CDS will be assigned the task of drawing up a road map for integration of the three services over time, by which time he can assume an operational role.

The office will add unprecedented value of providing a capability audit of the services, joint policy planning, joint doctrines and joint intelligence. Joint operational planning and integration will follow later.

CDS and NSA

CDS will head military structures, gradually increasing his span of control. NSA coordinates various elements of power to include diplomatic, economic, intelligence agencies, cyber, space and more. These elements form part of different ministries and the NSA is the adviser to the PM on security issues, just like CDS will be the single-point adviser on military matters.&nbsp;

Military is unarguably the most significant part of a country’s security paradigm, yet security includes other facets like energy and water security, among others. In fact, the Defence Planning Committee set up in May 2018, seeks to fulfill this role at a functional level of secretaries.

CDS and MoD

CDS will be the professional head of the armed forces and, as a strategic military commander, translate national objectives into military objectives and create military capabilities accordingly.&nbsp;

He will also be the seniormost military adviser to the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister. The Defence Secretary will continue to be the government’s principal civilian adviser on defence, responsible for policy, planning, finance and administration as well as coordination between defence production, R&amp;D and finance.

Like any new structure, the CDS will have a challenging task at hand. It helps that a HQIDS is already in place for the last 18 years.&nbsp;

So, besides taking over the existing functions of controlling all tri-services structures, he will be given a mandate by the leadership to draw and implement a road map for gradual integration of armed forces in a stipulated time frame.&nbsp;

It is to the credit of the Prime Minister that he is creating a CDS and not an interim office of the Chairman, COSC, as suggested by NCTF. This is in keeping with his propensity for bold steps, rather than half measures.&nbsp;

The CDS must be strengthened with a strong mandate, to enable him to set the stage for synergetic integration of the armed forces, leading eventually to setting up of integrated theatre commands. These steps will propel India to realise its rightful place in the world order.

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-single-window-military-advice-2783484">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to appoint a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) is yet another bold step by him. The CDS will be a game-changer, a veritable force multiplier.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to appoint a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) is yet another bold step by him. The CDS will be a game-changer, a veritable force multiplier. Since the announcement, there have been a spate of articles on the subject with varying views, ranging from less informed ones like ‘Can the CDS be a civilian officer?’ or ‘Can this lead to a coup?’ to overzealous ones like ‘CDS should replace Defence Secretary/NSA’. This stems from having had a CDS in the discussion stage for far too long. Here is a simplified analysis of the role that the CDS can play in the national security architecture, as well as his military functions as Chief of Defence Forces. A disclaimer before proceeding ahead — the Prime Minister did not pull a rabbit out of the hat. The CDS has been in the recommendation stage of several committees since as early as the 1965 war. The most notable among them were the LK Advani-led GOM after the Kargil war and the Naresh Chandra Task Force (NCTF) of 2012. Much has been written about them in detail, and hence, I will desist from repeating those facts. All major militaries in the world have integrated their armed forces, and even the smaller ones have higher defence organisations to include CDS or an equivalent. India is the only major military power which has neither. We still ‘make do’ with a collegiate system of Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC), with the senior-most as a rotational head, however, short his stint may be. This is ill-suited for the security needs of our country, with two active borders and two nuclear-capable countries. The CDS will render a single-point military advice (like a single-window system) for the leadership, instead of the service chiefs either carrying their differences to the high table or rendering weak advice, based on the least common denominator, much like a common minimum programme of political alliances. Immediately, on coming into being, it can take more effective control of all tri-services structures and processes that the HQ Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) is handling, most notably the force modernisation of the three services. In time, the CDS will synergise all aspects between the Army, Navy and Air Force. This assumes importance when the fiscal budget restricts defence procurements and priorities have to be drawn between the competing interests of the three services. For a developing country like India, it’s important to ensure that while there are no gaps, it is even more important not to have overlaps. For instance, all three services fly helicopters of all sizes, including attack helicopters; the Army and Air Force both have air defence capabilities that merit harmonising. Resource optimisation will be a welcome spin-off of effective synergy and firm military decisions under the CDS. As military chief, the CDS will not control operations, at least to begin with. We have two active borders and we cannot afford to be off-balance at any time. The CDS will be assigned the task of drawing up a road map for integration of the three services over time, by which time he can assume an operational role. The office will add unprecedented value of providing a capability audit of the services, joint policy planning, joint doctrines and joint intelligence. Joint operational planning and integration will follow later. CDS and NSA CDS will head military structures, gradually increasing his span of control. NSA coordinates various elements of power to include diplomatic, economic, intelligence agencies, cyber, space and more. These elements form part of different ministries and the NSA is the adviser to the PM on security issues, just like CDS will be the single-point adviser on military matters. Military is unarguably the most significant part of a country’s security paradigm, yet security includes other facets like energy and water security, among others. In fact, the Defence Planning Committee set up in May 2018, seeks to fulfill this role at a functional level of secretaries. CDS and MoD CDS will be the professional head of the armed forces and, as a strategic military commander, translate national objectives into military objectives and create military capabilities accordingly. He will also be the seniormost military adviser to the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister. The Defence Secretary will continue to be the government’s principal civilian adviser on defence, responsible for policy, planning, finance and administration as well as coordination between defence production, R&D and finance. Like any new structure, the CDS will have a challenging task at hand. It helps that a HQIDS is already in place for the last 18 years. So, besides taking over the existing functions of controlling all tri-services structures, he will be given a mandate by the leadership to draw and implement a road map for gradual integration of armed forces in a stipulated time frame. It is to the credit of the Prime Minister that he is creating a CDS and not an interim office of the Chairman, COSC, as suggested by NCTF. This is in keeping with his propensity for bold steps, rather than half measures. The CDS must be strengthened with a strong mandate, to enable him to set the stage for synergetic integration of the armed forces, leading eventually to setting up of integrated theatre commands. These steps will propel India to realise its rightful place in the world order. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Chief of Defence Staff will be a veritable force multiplier

While scrapping Article 370 means different things to different people, there’s no denying that things will never be the same again. The status quo has been changed.&nbsp;

A strong government has called Pakistan’s nuclear bluff while launching surgical strikes in Jammu and Kashmir (J&amp;K) in 2016 and aerial strikes in Balakot this year.&nbsp;

It is important to see these developments from the prism of security. Despite barriers created by Article 370, some provisions did exist for investment from companies from outside the state, but when India’s growth story was taking a leap in the 1990s, the security situation in J&amp;K was bad enough to scare away the most stout-hearted.&nbsp;

Meeting the growth aspirations of the youth needs private sector participation as the government and public sector are not enough. Any number of incentives cannot help bring in investment if there is no peace in the Kashmir Valley. Therefore, it does boil down to providing a safe and secure environment to foster development. &nbsp;

Purely from a security perspective, whittling down of Article 370 in J&amp;K is a welcome step. Security concerns can be addressed better than before, without local pressures.

What are the security implications now? The UN response has been cautious, while making expected diplomatic observations. The US and most other countries have, by and large, taken a stand that it is an internal matter and differences, if any, must be resolved through dialogue peacefully.&nbsp;

What is more important here is the response and attitude of our immediate neighbours, whose territories run contiguous with J&amp;K and Ladakh.

China has somewhat diplomatically, asked India and Pakistan to exercise restraint, saying they should avoid actions that “unilaterally” change the status quo and exacerbate tensions between them, even as it voiced “serious concern” over the situation in Kashmir.&nbsp;

Beijing has, however, expressed its opposition to India’s move to create a separate Union Territory of Ladakh. There has been an exchange of statements and counter statements, but their attitude stops short of being belligerent.&nbsp;

De-hyphenating Ladakh from J&amp;K has its parallel in change of status of Gilgit-Baltistan vis-à-vis Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK). Sino-Indian dialogues that include Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang will now have Ladakh added on.&nbsp;

The moves seem to have taken Pakistan completely by surprise, putting it at a loss for a suitable response. But Islamabad has no choice. It has to express solidarity with Kashmir as it’s the glue that binds their country together and enshrines the importance of the Pakistan Army. &nbsp;

Despite an encouraging dole from the US last month, Pakistan is in a tight spot at this point of time to consider the option of an all-out war. The FATF re-categorisation comes up for renewal in October and its economy is precariously placed for any misadventure. The world reaction, too, &nbsp;has been muted.&nbsp;

So, what other options do Pakistan have after diplomatic steps have been taken, air flights and train services suspended and trade sanctions imposed? &nbsp;

First, Pakistan can increase the heat on the LoC in both genres - cross-border firing and attempt pushing in more terrorists into the valley. Second, they can engineer an increase in terrorist activities in the hinterland. Third, they can encourage local stone-pelters to step up their agitational dynamics to protest against this reorganisation of the state.&nbsp;

The Indian Army grid on the LoC and security forces deployment in the hinterland is fully geared to meet these contingencies, more so with recent reinforcements. A unified command structure without any interference from local pressures will strengthen the Indian hand greatly.&nbsp;

Political resentment is likely to lead to spilling of anger on the streets in the form of protests and agitations. Some of these may turn violent and lead to stone-pelting. The security forces have to handle this firmly, yet with the sensitivity that it deserves. It cannot be allowed to spin out of control.

However strong our posture on the LoC and comprehensive security grid in the hinterland is, there could always be that small chance of a lone-wolf attack, or one fanatic suicidal terrorist who can create a ‘Pulwama’, pushing India into operational brinkmanship again.&nbsp;

It is, therefore, necessary to retain a stated and bold offensive punitive response option to deter any misadventure, as Pakistan has started appealing to terrorist groups to express solidarity with their Kashmiri brethren.&nbsp;

Information and psychological warfare is another dimension of security that merits mention here. We have had our shortcomings in building up a good narrative so far, a space which has ben quickly filled up by the other side, with its hate narrative.&nbsp;

This is our chance to reverse it. Since there has been no explicit consultative process before scrapping Article 370, the state must build a good, robust, factual narrative and take it to the people in every way possible. This strategic communication is needed to dispel uncertainty and the fear of the future in the minds of the people, creating hope instead. It is important to use the narrative to counter alienation and radicalisation as well. We must get back into the mind space of the youth, as they are the key to integration.

Now that J&amp;K is a Union territory, to be administered in significant part by the Centre, the central government must ensure that this change leads to a better state in all aspects, taking the people together. This will not be easy, but is not insurmountable.&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-hobson-s-choice-for-pakistan-2781549">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

While scrapping Article 370 means different things to different people, there’s no denying that things will never be the same again. The status quo has been changed.

While scrapping Article 370 means different things to different people, there’s no denying that things will never be the same again. The status quo has been changed. A strong government has called Pakistan’s nuclear bluff while launching surgical strikes in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) in 2016 and aerial strikes in Balakot this year. It is important to see these developments from the prism of security. Despite barriers created by Article 370, some provisions did exist for investment from companies from outside the state, but when India’s growth story was taking a leap in the 1990s, the security situation in J&K was bad enough to scare away the most stout-hearted. Meeting the growth aspirations of the youth needs private sector participation as the government and public sector are not enough. Any number of incentives cannot help bring in investment if there is no peace in the Kashmir Valley. Therefore, it does boil down to providing a safe and secure environment to foster development. Purely from a security perspective, whittling down of Article 370 in J&K is a welcome step. Security concerns can be addressed better than before, without local pressures. What are the security implications now? The UN response has been cautious, while making expected diplomatic observations. The US and most other countries have, by and large, taken a stand that it is an internal matter and differences, if any, must be resolved through dialogue peacefully. What is more important here is the response and attitude of our immediate neighbours, whose territories run contiguous with J&K and Ladakh. China has somewhat diplomatically, asked India and Pakistan to exercise restraint, saying they should avoid actions that “unilaterally” change the status quo and exacerbate tensions between them, even as it voiced “serious concern” over the situation in Kashmir. Beijing has, however, expressed its opposition to India’s move to create a separate Union Territory of Ladakh. There has been an exchange of statements and counter statements, but their attitude stops short of being belligerent. De-hyphenating Ladakh from J&K has its parallel in change of status of Gilgit-Baltistan vis-à-vis Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK). Sino-Indian dialogues that include Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang will now have Ladakh added on. The moves seem to have taken Pakistan completely by surprise, putting it at a loss for a suitable response. But Islamabad has no choice. It has to express solidarity with Kashmir as it’s the glue that binds their country together and enshrines the importance of the Pakistan Army. Despite an encouraging dole from the US last month, Pakistan is in a tight spot at this point of time to consider the option of an all-out war. The FATF re-categorisation comes up for renewal in October and its economy is precariously placed for any misadventure. The world reaction, too, has been muted. So, what other options do Pakistan have after diplomatic steps have been taken, air flights and train services suspended and trade sanctions imposed? First, Pakistan can increase the heat on the LoC in both genres - cross-border firing and attempt pushing in more terrorists into the valley. Second, they can engineer an increase in terrorist activities in the hinterland. Third, they can encourage local stone-pelters to step up their agitational dynamics to protest against this reorganisation of the state. The Indian Army grid on the LoC and security forces deployment in the hinterland is fully geared to meet these contingencies, more so with recent reinforcements. A unified command structure without any interference from local pressures will strengthen the Indian hand greatly. Political resentment is likely to lead to spilling of anger on the streets in the form of protests and agitations. Some of these may turn violent and lead to stone-pelting. The security forces have to handle this firmly, yet with the sensitivity that it deserves. It cannot be allowed to spin out of control. However strong our posture on the LoC and comprehensive security grid in the hinterland is, there could always be that small chance of a lone-wolf attack, or one fanatic suicidal terrorist who can create a ‘Pulwama’, pushing India into operational brinkmanship again. It is, therefore, necessary to retain a stated and bold offensive punitive response option to deter any misadventure, as Pakistan has started appealing to terrorist groups to express solidarity with their Kashmiri brethren. Information and psychological warfare is another dimension of security that merits mention here. We have had our shortcomings in building up a good narrative so far, a space which has ben quickly filled up by the other side, with its hate narrative. This is our chance to reverse it. Since there has been no explicit consultative process before scrapping Article 370, the state must build a good, robust, factual narrative and take it to the people in every way possible. This strategic communication is needed to dispel uncertainty and the fear of the future in the minds of the people, creating hope instead. It is important to use the narrative to counter alienation and radicalisation as well. We must get back into the mind space of the youth, as they are the key to integration. Now that J&K is a Union territory, to be administered in significant part by the Centre, the central government must ensure that this change leads to a better state in all aspects, taking the people together. This will not be easy, but is not insurmountable. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Article 370 abrogation in Jammu and Kashmir puts Pakistan in a tight spot

“Sir I want to be with the boys,” said a 24-year- old officer, declining to go home on sick leave at the Base Hospital at Srinagar. I was Corps Commander in Kashmir and had gone to meet some of our soldiers and officers wounded in operations there. 
 
This young officer, Capt Pawan Kumar, had his jaw smashed by a stone pelting crowd, as he was returning with his team after a successful encounter with terrorists. Bemused, I looked at this 24-year-old, who wanted to return to his ‘boys’, each of whom were trained Special Forces soldiers, all older than him and more experienced. This is the indomitable spirit of the young officers of the Indian Army, who always lead from the front.&nbsp;

Within a week, I saluted his mortal remains in a casket. It was overwhelming! In the biggest hostage situation during my tenure as Corps Commander in Kashmir, terrorists had occupied the Skill Development Centre, a six-storeyed building in Pampore, on the outskirts of Srinagar.&nbsp;

These brave hearts rescued over 60 hostages safely, all Kashmiri men and women. But they paid a heavy price for it, with their own lives. Captain Pawan Kumar, Capt Tushar Mahajan &amp; L/Nk Om Prakash, all commandos, were martyred.&nbsp;

During the operation, it did not matter that some of the locals they were rescuing were those who hate the Army, with many pelting stones at them. They just did their duty, saved the lives of Kashmiri hostages at the expense of their own. The only thing that mattered was the honour of the country and the duty at hand.&nbsp;

Capt Pawan Kumar is not the only one. I’ve met several other victims of this intifada style of ‘unarmed’ protest, stone pelting. Some of these fighters have narrowly missed losing an eye, some have had their jaws smashed, and suffered many injuries. So unarmed that these stone-pelters are, they are certainly not non-violent. In fact, they are viciously violent.&nbsp;

Off late, there is another trend. We have had soldiers belonging to Kashmir who have been kidnapped and killed by terrorists. Lt Ummer Fayaz, who went home in Shopian to attend a wedding in the family, a JAK-LI jawan Mukhtiyar, who went to attend his son’s funeral, or Md Yasin Itoo, who simply went home on leave, were all killed by terrorists.&nbsp;

Besides, hundreds of soldiers have lost their lives while fighting terrorists in these areas over the last three decades. Ever so often, soldiers and officers have been wounded, maimed or crippled.&nbsp;

While there is a raging debate on whether AFSPA is being too harsh and draconian, there is scarcely any concern about the human rights of soldiers.

While NGOs and several organisations like the NHRC vie to fight for the human right of terrorists, there’s no such institutional support for the army man, who goes to fight in the line of duty. &nbsp;

Just because he voluntarily signs up for an unlimited liability contract, doesn’t the soldier enjoy some legal rights as well?&nbsp;

Last month, two young women, barely out of their teens, Preeti Kedar Gokhale and Kajal Mishra, petitioned the Supreme Court to safeguard basic human rights of their soldier fathers.&nbsp;

The petitioners said they are “greatly disturbed by the incidents of unruly and disruptive mobs” pelting stones at soldiers and army convoys in Jammu and Kashmir and sought formulation of a policy to curb human rights violations of security force personnel who come under attack by mobs while performing their duty. &nbsp;

In August last year, over 300 army personnel approached the Supreme Court challenging registration of FIRs against them for operations in disturbed areas such as Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir, where the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is in force.&nbsp;

The apex court admitted their plea on the grounds that army personnel are being “persecuted” and proceeded against for performing duties in disturbed areas.&nbsp; 
 
This problem needs to be nipped in the bud. The army personnel, in their petition, claimed that they “are now facing confusion and countering questions from the soldiers under their command, as to whether they are supposed to continue to engage the proxy war and insurgency with their military training, principles, standard operating procedures, operational realities, valour and courage or act and operate as per the yardsticks of peacetime operations, law and order issues and CrPC.”

It is a very pertinent question to ask. Should officers and soldiers have to knock the gates of justice individually to do what are their bonafide duties? Since the army, obviously, cannot take recourse to legal action, should the courts take suo moto notice of the issue or can the legal fraternity help?

The soldier risks his life for the nation and for the people. It is grossly unfair if some of them have to defend themselves in courts even after retirement, for some action that he may have allegedly committed while performing his duties, which needless to say, involved grave risk to his life and limb. In return, the least a soldier deserves is the support of the country that required of him to make sacrifices, and the countrymen he risked his life for. That is not asking for too much, is it?

 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-soldiers-and-civil-liberties-2745050">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

“Sir I want to be with the boys,” said a 24-year- old officer, declining to go home on sick leave at the Base Hospital at Srinagar. I was Corps Commander in Kashmir and had gone to meet some of our soldiers and officers wounded in operations there.

“Sir I want to be with the boys,” said a 24-year- old officer, declining to go home on sick leave at the Base Hospital at Srinagar. I was Corps Commander in Kashmir and had gone to meet some of our soldiers and officers wounded in operations there. This young officer, Capt Pawan Kumar, had his jaw smashed by a stone pelting crowd, as he was returning with his team after a successful encounter with terrorists. Bemused, I looked at this 24-year-old, who wanted to return to his ‘boys’, each of whom were trained Special Forces soldiers, all older than him and more experienced. This is the indomitable spirit of the young officers of the Indian Army, who always lead from the front. Within a week, I saluted his mortal remains in a casket. It was overwhelming! In the biggest hostage situation during my tenure as Corps Commander in Kashmir, terrorists had occupied the Skill Development Centre, a six-storeyed building in Pampore, on the outskirts of Srinagar. These brave hearts rescued over 60 hostages safely, all Kashmiri men and women. But they paid a heavy price for it, with their own lives. Captain Pawan Kumar, Capt Tushar Mahajan & L/Nk Om Prakash, all commandos, were martyred. During the operation, it did not matter that some of the locals they were rescuing were those who hate the Army, with many pelting stones at them. They just did their duty, saved the lives of Kashmiri hostages at the expense of their own. The only thing that mattered was the honour of the country and the duty at hand. Capt Pawan Kumar is not the only one. I’ve met several other victims of this intifada style of ‘unarmed’ protest, stone pelting. Some of these fighters have narrowly missed losing an eye, some have had their jaws smashed, and suffered many injuries. So unarmed that these stone-pelters are, they are certainly not non-violent. In fact, they are viciously violent. Off late, there is another trend. We have had soldiers belonging to Kashmir who have been kidnapped and killed by terrorists. Lt Ummer Fayaz, who went home in Shopian to attend a wedding in the family, a JAK-LI jawan Mukhtiyar, who went to attend his son’s funeral, or Md Yasin Itoo, who simply went home on leave, were all killed by terrorists. Besides, hundreds of soldiers have lost their lives while fighting terrorists in these areas over the last three decades. Ever so often, soldiers and officers have been wounded, maimed or crippled. While there is a raging debate on whether AFSPA is being too harsh and draconian, there is scarcely any concern about the human rights of soldiers. While NGOs and several organisations like the NHRC vie to fight for the human right of terrorists, there’s no such institutional support for the army man, who goes to fight in the line of duty. Just because he voluntarily signs up for an unlimited liability contract, doesn’t the soldier enjoy some legal rights as well? Last month, two young women, barely out of their teens, Preeti Kedar Gokhale and Kajal Mishra, petitioned the Supreme Court to safeguard basic human rights of their soldier fathers. The petitioners said they are “greatly disturbed by the incidents of unruly and disruptive mobs” pelting stones at soldiers and army convoys in Jammu and Kashmir and sought formulation of a policy to curb human rights violations of security force personnel who come under attack by mobs while performing their duty. In August last year, over 300 army personnel approached the Supreme Court challenging registration of FIRs against them for operations in disturbed areas such as Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir, where the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is in force. The apex court admitted their plea on the grounds that army personnel are being “persecuted” and proceeded against for performing duties in disturbed areas. This problem needs to be nipped in the bud. The army personnel, in their petition, claimed that they “are now facing confusion and countering questions from the soldiers under their command, as to whether they are supposed to continue to engage the proxy war and insurgency with their military training, principles, standard operating procedures, operational realities, valour and courage or act and operate as per the yardsticks of peacetime operations, law and order issues and CrPC.” It is a very pertinent question to ask. Should officers and soldiers have to knock the gates of justice individually to do what are their bonafide duties? Since the army, obviously, cannot take recourse to legal action, should the courts take suo moto notice of the issue or can the legal fraternity help? The soldier risks his life for the nation and for the people. It is grossly unfair if some of them have to defend themselves in courts even after retirement, for some action that he may have allegedly committed while performing his duties, which needless to say, involved grave risk to his life and limb. In return, the least a soldier deserves is the support of the country that required of him to make sacrifices, and the countrymen he risked his life for. That is not asking for too much, is it? (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Soldiers and civil liberties: Terrorists have more human rights defenders in this country

Over the last few years, we have been witnessing a debate on the subject of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Sadly, it is becoming more strident as media channels have multiplied, as have activists and ‘experts’.&nbsp;

Now with the social media, no channel is needed. Suddenly, everyone has a view and a platform to express it. So the debate has got high on rhetoric and low on content. There are frequent references to phrases like ‘draconian law’, ‘licence to kill’, ‘free hand to Army to rape and murder’, and much more.&nbsp;

Are we talking about our Indian Army, the simple soldiers who risk their lives day after day for country and countrymen? Or are we talking about characters from a James Bond movie? Why have the debates got so shrill? Partly because it is fashionable to talk about human rights (in that case, one needs to make a case about the human rights of soldiers as well, but I will leave it for a subsequent day). &nbsp;

The rights part have got discussed threadbare and the legal mores analysed to the hilt. Knowledgeable in their fields as they might be, these experts have no idea of how to operate in these tricky situations, where there is risk to life and limb.

The Indian Army, on the other hand, barely comes out openly in support of its stand on the AFSPA and has always been reluctant to put forward its views in public. The result is the public has got a one-sided and distorted picture. &nbsp;

Recently, this subject gathered additional momentum as a major political party suggested changes in their position on the AFSPA in their election manifesto. Once again, there was a flurry of activities, speeches and debates. Given the poll climes, there was the obvious political tilt, as can be expected. &nbsp;

But the Indian public deserves better. The purpose of this piece is to put forward the facts simply, correctly and directly, so that we can aspire for more informed debates.

Let us first understand what AFSPA is. It was first promulgated in its present form in 1958 in North East India when the army was called in to control the Naga insurgents, as the Naga National Council had declared independence.&nbsp;

Normally, a district magistrate hands over any given situation to the army by actually signing a form. But in remote, high altitude and thickly forested mountains, there is no habitation, let alone any representative of the civil administration. Hence the army officer in charge is empowered to take a few actions himself, such as searching a bunker or hideout without warrant, destroying illegal equipment, explosives and armament in situ, arrest anti-national elements without warrant (but hand them over to the police within 24 hours), and lastly stop anyone from doing anything that may be illegal and against the interests of the state, to the extent of opening fire, if needed. &nbsp;

Additionally, if an army man commits a wrong while operating under AFSPA, he can be prosecuted in a court of law, for which an approval of the central government is needed. &nbsp;

Later, when AFSPA was made applicable to Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir in 1990, two more provisions were added, namely authority to search a vehicle without warrant and to search an individual.&nbsp;

These checks have become commonplace in our lives these days. We open the boot of our cars and get body searched very readily by a security guard at a movie hall or a mall. Hardly ‘draconian’ or ‘licence to kill’! Here, we seem to understand that these checks are required for our own security and safety.&nbsp;

Let us also appreciate that the Army is the instrument of last resort. It is called in when the civil administration, the police and the central armed police forces have not been able to bring any given situation under full control. 
 
When the Army is called in, it should be empowered or enabled to operate effectively. If Army is also not effective in controlling the situation, who else will the country turn to?&nbsp;

Hence, to operate effectively in a disturbing situation, in the absence of policing powers, the Army needs an enabler in the form of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.&nbsp;

The Act, as well as the deployment of the army, is temporary. As soon as the situation normalises, both will go and the army will be most happy to return to its primary duties. When conditions improve, and situation permits, the govt revokes AFSPA in consultation with the army and other stakeholders.&nbsp;

In the past, on the recommendations of the army, AFSPA has been revoked from Mizoram in 1987, Punjab in 1997 and Tripura in 2015.&nbsp;

Selective revocation of AFSPA is fraught with immense danger. It gives terrorists the latitude to operate from their safe sanctuaries. The failed model of Imphal is a case in point.&nbsp;

Revoking or diluting AFSPA should only be done in light of the security situation, after giving due consideration to views of all stakeholders. It will be highly dangerous if extraneous pressures come to dictate such sensitive decisions.&nbsp;

If it is so done, the situation is likely to worsen and slip back by a few years. And then Army will be called in again, and so the cycle will go on.

&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The ZeeNews. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-not-a-james-bond-movie-2738011">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Over the last few years, we have been witnessing a debate on the subject of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Sadly, it is becoming more strident as media channels have multiplied, as have activists and ‘experts’.

Over the last few years, we have been witnessing a debate on the subject of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Sadly, it is becoming more strident as media channels have multiplied, as have activists and ‘experts’. Now with the social media, no channel is needed. Suddenly, everyone has a view and a platform to express it. So the debate has got high on rhetoric and low on content. There are frequent references to phrases like ‘draconian law’, ‘licence to kill’, ‘free hand to Army to rape and murder’, and much more. Are we talking about our Indian Army, the simple soldiers who risk their lives day after day for country and countrymen? Or are we talking about characters from a James Bond movie? Why have the debates got so shrill? Partly because it is fashionable to talk about human rights (in that case, one needs to make a case about the human rights of soldiers as well, but I will leave it for a subsequent day). The rights part have got discussed threadbare and the legal mores analysed to the hilt. Knowledgeable in their fields as they might be, these experts have no idea of how to operate in these tricky situations, where there is risk to life and limb. The Indian Army, on the other hand, barely comes out openly in support of its stand on the AFSPA and has always been reluctant to put forward its views in public. The result is the public has got a one-sided and distorted picture. Recently, this subject gathered additional momentum as a major political party suggested changes in their position on the AFSPA in their election manifesto. Once again, there was a flurry of activities, speeches and debates. Given the poll climes, there was the obvious political tilt, as can be expected. But the Indian public deserves better. The purpose of this piece is to put forward the facts simply, correctly and directly, so that we can aspire for more informed debates. Let us first understand what AFSPA is. It was first promulgated in its present form in 1958 in North East India when the army was called in to control the Naga insurgents, as the Naga National Council had declared independence. Normally, a district magistrate hands over any given situation to the army by actually signing a form. But in remote, high altitude and thickly forested mountains, there is no habitation, let alone any representative of the civil administration. Hence the army officer in charge is empowered to take a few actions himself, such as searching a bunker or hideout without warrant, destroying illegal equipment, explosives and armament in situ, arrest anti-national elements without warrant (but hand them over to the police within 24 hours), and lastly stop anyone from doing anything that may be illegal and against the interests of the state, to the extent of opening fire, if needed. Additionally, if an army man commits a wrong while operating under AFSPA, he can be prosecuted in a court of law, for which an approval of the central government is needed. Later, when AFSPA was made applicable to Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir in 1990, two more provisions were added, namely authority to search a vehicle without warrant and to search an individual. These checks have become commonplace in our lives these days. We open the boot of our cars and get body searched very readily by a security guard at a movie hall or a mall. Hardly ‘draconian’ or ‘licence to kill’! Here, we seem to understand that these checks are required for our own security and safety. Let us also appreciate that the Army is the instrument of last resort. It is called in when the civil administration, the police and the central armed police forces have not been able to bring any given situation under full control. When the Army is called in, it should be empowered or enabled to operate effectively. If Army is also not effective in controlling the situation, who else will the country turn to? Hence, to operate effectively in a disturbing situation, in the absence of policing powers, the Army needs an enabler in the form of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. The Act, as well as the deployment of the army, is temporary. As soon as the situation normalises, both will go and the army will be most happy to return to its primary duties. When conditions improve, and situation permits, the govt revokes AFSPA in consultation with the army and other stakeholders. In the past, on the recommendations of the army, AFSPA has been revoked from Mizoram in 1987, Punjab in 1997 and Tripura in 2015. Selective revocation of AFSPA is fraught with immense danger. It gives terrorists the latitude to operate from their safe sanctuaries. The failed model of Imphal is a case in point. Revoking or diluting AFSPA should only be done in light of the security situation, after giving due consideration to views of all stakeholders. It will be highly dangerous if extraneous pressures come to dictate such sensitive decisions. If it is so done, the situation is likely to worsen and slip back by a few years. And then Army will be called in again, and so the cycle will go on. (This article was originally published on The ZeeNews. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Selective revocation of AFSPA is fraught with immense danger

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Satish Dua

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.