Pakistan to release IAF pilot: Ahead of LS polls, national security must not become hostage to electoral politics

Pakistan’s decision to release Indian pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman is the first significant step in the de-escalation of the India-Pakistan crisis. Whether the crisis abates will depend on everyone in India taking a deep breath and resisting the temptation to comment on the India-Pakistan crisis, whether from dovish or hawkish positions. Everyone here includes the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, the Opposition, prime time TV anchors, social media warriors of varying ideological persuasions, the urban middle class that has a penchant to take to streets with candles on every conceivable issue, and even peaceniks decrying war. It might seem a surprise to ask peaceniks to refrain from speaking out. Yet India stands so ideologically polarised that the advocacy of restraint in escalating the India-Pakistan tension fans the fury of those who feel the response to the 14 February bombing of the Central Reserve Police Force convoy in Pulwama, in which over 40 died, must include military options. Conversely, the group rooting for strikes against Pakistan to teach it a lesson is accused of behaving irresponsibly, of having scant regard for human life. War is not a sport, counter the critics of those pushing for an aggressive response. To hammer their point, they will now point to the anxieties that the family of Abhinandan must have undergone during the two days he was in Pakistan’s custody. [caption id=“attachment_2542628” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File image of Imran Khan and Narendra Modi. Twitter @MEAIndia[/caption] Like schoolboys, both groups — call them pro-escalation and anti-escalation — feel the other is teasing or mocking them for their position. This, in turn, has them raise their pitch to a higher level in support of their respective stances. The din of the debate has serious repercussions because 2019 is not just another year — a month or so from now, India will have its Lok Sabha election. Members of both schools of thought are also voters. Ostensibly, the anti-escalation group is unlikely to vote for the BJP. This is because it has always been askance at the claims of BJP leaders that only they have the spunk and audacity to teach Pakistan a lesson for fomenting terrorism in India. Yet the anti-escalation group has rarely spelt out what other methods are there of dissuading Pakistan from using non-State actors as an instrument of foreign policy. The advocacy of restraint in dealing with Pakistan miffs BJP voters. They interpreted the Pulwama incident as a goal scored by Pakistan, so to speak. India’s strike on the Jaish-e-Mohammed terror camp in Balakot, deep inside Pakistan, signified to them that India had equalised the score 1-1. But Pakistan, in their perception, went 2-1 up because it shot down India’s MiG-21 fighter and took the Indian pilot in custody. Will they see the impending release of Abhinandan as 2-2 between India and Pakistan? Very unlikely, largely because they feel India missed the chance to teach Pakistan a fitting lesson for supporting terrorism. Their disappointment could still mount pressure on the Narendra Modi government to act, not least because the pro-escalation group comprises members who are principally the BJP’s voters.

This is why it is vital to delink national security from elections. Decisions in this domain cannot and should not be determined by electoral gains and losses.

For instance, BJP leader BS Yeddyurappa was guilty of waving a red rag at the Opposition through his comment that India’s air strikes in Pakistan would fetch his party 22 out of 28 Lok Sabha seats in Karanataka. Although Yeddyurappa claimed his remark was twisted out of context, yet it is just the kind of statement that will have the Opposition argue, rightly or wrongly, that no gains accrued from India’s air strikes in Pakistan. As such, 21 Opposition parties issued a statement on 27 February decrying the “blatant politicisation” of the sacrifices made by the forces. The onus is on the BJP and Modi to desist from turning national security into an electoral issue. For sure, the Pulwama terror attack did demand a comment from Modi. Yet, as big powers, particularly the United States, intervene to de-escalate the India-Pakistan crisis, of which the release of Abhinandan is the first step, it is incumbent upon the BJP to desist from going rah-rah over crossing the LoC to launch strikes in Pakistan. Or boasting of how the strike pressured Pakistan to take action against JeM, in case it eventually does under international pressure. Such talk will only compel the Opposition to raise several disquieting aspects of national security — for instance, the intelligence failure in Pulwama and the extent of damage India’s air strikes inflicted in Balakot. The BJP cannot exploit the emotive issue of national security and not expect a riposte from the Opposition. In his Independence Day speech of 15 August, 2014, Modi had spoken of putting a moratorium on communal and casteist activities for 10 years. He had then said, “Friends, look behind and you will find that nobody has benefited from it. Let’s resolve for once in our hearts, let’s put a moratorium on all such activities for 10 years, we shall march ahead to a society which will be free from all such tensions.”

Although BJP leaders have often violated the spirit of Modi’s 2014 statement, it is certainly the kind of attitude he and his colleagues need to display over national security.

But this is unlikely to happen as long as many of TV anchors thirst for war, in the process becoming a factor the ruling party must take into account. They are already claiming that Pakistan decided to release Abhinandan under international pressure, did not have much of a bargaining power, and that Imran Khan took the decision only because he wanted to bolster his credibility. The media has not even paused from insisting that Pakistan must crackdown on the terror network. That it must do, but the announcement of release of Abhinandan was just the occasion where Khan’s gesture should have been appreciated. It is this kind of media narrative that roils international relations and compounds the problem of taking decision on national security. India’s media behaviour is not unique to the country. For instance, the Vietnam War was fuelled by the American media and high income groups. In his magisterial A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present, the late historian Howard Zinn cited Richard F Hamilton who, on the basis of a 1968 survey, concluded, “Preferences for ’tough’ policy alternatives are most frequent among the following groups, the highly educated, high status occupations, those with high incomes, younger persons, and those paying much attention to newspapers and magazines.” After citing Hamilton and surveys of others, Zinn wrote, “It seems that the media, themselves controlled by higher-education, higher-income people who were more aggressive in foreign policy, tended to give the impression that working-class people were superpatriots for the war.” Zinn’s observation of the America of the 1960s is as true of India of 2019. TV anchors root for war because it does not imperil them or their children. So it is not just about India and Pakistan de-escalating the crisis, but also about everyone in India realising and ensuring that national security does not become hostage to electoral politics. Follow all the latest India-Pakistan updates here