INDO-PAK TENSIONS 
The new 'normal' at the border 
The gruesome beheading along the Line of Control should alert us that the intensity and the nature of the ongoing conflict with Pakistan is far worse than we are led to believe, writes Firdaus Ahmed. 


 http://www.indiatogether.org/2013/jan/fah-newnormal.htm


22 January 2013 - Media focus over the last month or so has brought into the open the secret brutality of the war in Kashmir. The beheadings have naturally revolted many, a few because of their very nature and most because some heads have been lost on our own side. To the former the revelations mean that there is more than meets the eye on the Line of Control. To the latter it only confirms that the other side does not merely require swift and stern response, but must be administered a disciplining time and again.

The ceasefire along the Line of Control in place since November 2003 is a tacit one, not contained in a written document. This is because there is no acknowledgement of a prior war on the LC. The LC has always had ordnance being traded across it, even prior to the outbreak of the insurgency in Kashmir. Some locations along its length have been more active than others. There was once largely a 'live-and-let-live' environment. However the onset of the insurgency made the LC an active sub-theatre.

FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE - http://www.indiatogether.org/2013/jan/fah-newnormal.htm

Since the army was answerable for the numbers infiltrating and fuelling the insurgency every summer, it resorted to innovative tactics to cope. These included laying mines, setting up posts in climatically hostile high altitude terrain, refining operating procedures for deployment ambushes, and bringing down firepower. The cover of the ceasefire enabled the construction of the LC fence. Higher defence budgets enabled by a rising GDP, input from the Israeli experience at their wall in the West Bank and greater literacy in the rank and file enabled the adaption of technology to the effort.

Pakistani handlers and the jihadi foot soldiers were not far behind. The inevitable contest between attack and defence involving will and wits of fighting men has played out across the wide front. The Pakistani innovation was in 'Bat' action by Border Action Teams. These groups watched the Indian routine, identified vulnerabilities and then speedily exploited these. The degeneration into inhumanity that has occurred is attributable to them. Proving their success to ISI minders required them to carry back a 'trophy'. They therefore cast the first stone in this saga of beheadings. Episodes such as the 'ketchup Colonel' and the controversial medal grab in Siachen may have prompted the Indian army to also ask for 'proof'.

The army chief has pointed out that the nature of the battlefield and battle on the LC requires commanders to be aggressive and proactive. There is the element of military morale and martial spirit at stake. He basically is echoing one of the insights of von Clausewitz, the doyen of modern military thinkers.

Clausewitz said that the first consideration of decision makers when embarking on a war is to understand its nature. Arriving at such an understanding helps in ensuring that the forces are not set on tasks beyond their capability, nor are demands made on them that they are unable to fulfil. Therefore, if there is an LC in place since 1949 that is the most heavily militarised portion of the earth, then surely it is unreasonable to expect peace to prevail along its length all the time.

While there is a case for regulating the nature of that contest, the nature of war itself - the second major insight of Clausewitz - needs also to be factored in. The nature of war is not for the faint hearted. It is, to adapt a classic phrase associated with Hobbes: 'nasty and brutal' though not necessarily 'short'. In other words, theory suggests that what passes for revelations today are actually quite unsurprising, and only to be expected.

Additionally, the LC was a site where the army could hit back hard at the Pakistani army, the bulwark behind their proxies. It could not be allowed to sit with impunity while the Indian army lost sleep and blood chasing after the designs of the ISI. Besides, an element of retribution would help with deterrence. Unwilling to pay a direct price, the Pakistani army would keep its jihadi proxies in check to an extent. This would keep a lid on the conflict and keep it manageable. In other words, the brutalisation could be worse, but for gruesome events like the beheadings.

This can indeed be taken as after-the-fact rationalisation. It is entirely plausible that hatred and a need to incite such hatred enable such decisions. There is a mirroring of religion-based distaste for the other side across the LC. There are also organisational factors. Just as along the Western front in the Great War, a 'christmas' truce cannot be allowed to prevail. This was made possible then by innovating Infantry tactics of ambush and raids across the 'no man's land' into the enemy trenchline. The army chief's statement echoes this sentiment across generations of military commanders.

A minor problem is when such negative perception influences military input into strategic decision making. The military would, based on such experience, naturally caution against any engagement with Pakistan. Institutional pushing and nudging that accompanies such decisions then results in hedging of bets, as has been the case over the past half decade. A similar consideration in Pakistan has kept the two states at odds. There cannot but be political consequences for both states.

As has been evident from India's reaching out in fits and starts to Pakistan over the past half decade, there is always an accompanying outbreak of negativity. There are forces in India who can do without a friendly neighbour. They have internal political utility for such a stance. They hope to construct a national identity in a particular way. Articulation of the 'internally abetted external threat', to paraphrase Chanakya, is a step in this process. Such forces need an enemy on the borders.

If this is the political consequence of having an LC and if this is found to be questionable, then there is a case to rethink the very existence of the LC. It is proving too costly. The costs are no longer economic and human resulting from forces along it, but more compelling. The LC is but part of a larger problem. The last paragraph suggests that the wider problem is not one of territory, resolvable through negotiations, but an identity problem requiring political attention.

Since getting troops off the trenches has proven impossible over the past half century, in the absence of political vision, outraged opinion must regrettably reconcile to the 'new normal' and assimilate what it means for the 'idea of India'.
⊕

Firdaus Ahmed 
22 Jan 2013

http://www.indiatogether.org/2012/nov/fah-kargil.htm

A KARGIL MARTYR? 
The strange case of 2nd Lt. Kalia 
The story of a heroic soldier captured by the enemy and tortured to death stirred strong emotions during the Kargil war. Why, then, is there a lid of secrecy around his death, wonders Firdaus Ahmed. 
 
30 November 2012 -

The father of Saurabh Kalia, a Kargil martyr, has moved the Supreme Court asking for its directions to the government to take up a case of war crimes by the Pakistani army during the Kargil War. Kalia was leading a patrol to ascertain reports on Pakistani occupation of Kargil heights when it is alleged he was captured by Pakistanis who had infiltrated and occupied Indian winter vacated posts on 14 May 1999. The charge is that Pakistani troops then subjected him to torture that killed him. His brutalised body was returned to India on 9 June, along with those of five of his comrades.

For full article see indiatogether.org

The International Criminal Court at The Hague can undertake such trials but since the war took place prior to its formation, and neither India nor Pakistan is a signatory to the Rome Statute, cannot take up this case. Nor can the International Court of Justice; its jurisdiction is limited to cases brought before it if both parties agree to it. The ICJ remit is on contentious cases over which there is disagreement over issues of law or fact, a conflict or a clash over legal views and interest; not in criminal cases.

Therefore, with the ICC and ICJ ruled out, there is only the 'universal jurisdiction' clause of the Convention. The problem would in this case be of ascertaining the facts. India's case is that this is a straight-forward war crime. This can easily be established in case the autopsy report is made available. However, India has kept this confidential. It is not certain if India has shared the report with Pakistan either.

For full article see - indiatogether.org

Kalia's patrol - which had been sent up to ascertain reports of Pakistani forces being sighted in Indian defence posts vacated over the winter - would certainly have been at least a section strength. Since only six men were reported captured and killed, the fact of their capture must have been made known to Indian authorities once the remainder of the patrol returned to base. Also, since Kalia had only recently been commissioned, the patrol would most certainly have had a Junior Commissioned Officer, familiar with the terrain and defence layout, as his deputy. The debriefing report of this official and the patrol report would establish whether Kalia was captured.

Indeed it is not certain from India's remonstration with the Pakistan then that India was aware of the details of the case. The press release goes on to state: 'It is further requested that a full account of the date, place and circumstance of capture, period of detention and particulars concerning the wounds and cause of death are communicated to the Government of India immediately.' It is clear that the patrol report had little to say on circumstance of capture, for if this was so India did not have to ask Pakistan to clarify the circumstance.

It is possible that the patrol separated under the impact of the ambush, and those who made it back had little clue as to what happened to those who did not. This is not surprising, given that the patrol was perhaps not duly prepared for such an encounter - as the dimensions of the Kargil intrusion were very vague at the time. This uncertainty is clear in the diplomatic note. To infer that they were captured, tortured and killed is therefore to stretch a possibility. India should have pressed for an investigation, and made its case stronger by sharing with Pakistan the reason for its stand: the autopsy report.

The circumstantial evidence does not help India's case. It begs imagination as to why Pakistan would return the bodies in case they bear marks of evidence of torture and mutilation. They would not have admitted to having them in first place. That they did so indicates that any disfigurement could be attributable to the effects of cold from exposure for the duration of two to three weeks at high altitude, type of wounds suffered in the firefight and even wild animals as they lay there unattended. This is possible in case the bodies were out in the open where they came under fire. This permits the alternative possibility that the patrol was not captured as the Indian case makes out.

Further, it is now well-known that the Pakistani troops in occupation of the heights were of the paramilitary, Gilgit Scouts, largely locals from Northern Areas. They are of the Shia community and not known to be fundamentalist or anti-India. Earlier reports of Kashmiri 'mujahedeen', as projected by Pakistan for plausible deniability, in league with extremist allies in Pakistan as being the forces on the heights were soon proven false. It can be surmised that only extremists filled with hatred may have had any reason to torture the officer and his patrol members. Since such elements did not form part of the troops participating in the war, the motive is difficult to substantiate.

Lastly, the lack of clarity in India's case suggests the reason why it has been less than full throated in its pursuit. Indeed, the allegations could well have been part of whipping up national feelings in the build up phase of the war in early June 1999. It helped firm up national support for India's reaction in the form of a localized border war. As a counter factual, the case could have been taken further in the event there was a need to expand the war.

Nevertheless, Pakistan is bound by the Geneva Convention to investigate the allegations. The role of its army can be established if there are reports of capture of Indian troops by their troops in their daily situation reports. In case such situation reports are accessed by an inquiry then Pakistan would be hard put to explain the deaths of the officer and the soldiers in their custody as demanded by India.

While India's taking up of the case with Pakistan is in public knowledge, Pakistan's reply is not known. Pakistan would do well to clarify, for in doing so it could put the ball back in India's court, compelling India to review its allegations. However, the levels of trust between the two states being such, neither Indian allegations nor Pakistani clarifications are likely to be credible to the other side.

Truth is said to be the first casualty in war. Propaganda of yore, and lately, information warfare, have ensured this. The cliche stands proven by the nature of the first casualty of the Kargil War, Second Lieutenant Kalia. Hopefully, the case will ensure that next time around, international humanitarian law is respected better. The unfortunate part is that the nationalist hysteria unleashed by Kalia's return to the headlines suggests that there is no guarantee against another such chance.