Pahalgam attack: PM Modi sets plan in motion to give Pakistan terror a crushing blow

A day after his return from Saudi Arabia, in the wake of the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack, Prime Minister Narendra Modi referred to it during his speech in Bihar on April 24. Addressing the nation in Hindi he expressed pain at the loss of innocent lives and said that India’s enemies had attacked the ‘soul’ of the country. He vowed that the terrorists would receive a punishment which they could never ever have imagined.

In addition to giving a message to India, Modi delivered a decisive signal to the world. To give it greater effect he did so in English. He said “India will identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backers. We will pursue them to the ends of the earth. India’s spirit will never be broken by terrorism. Terrorism will not go unpunished. Every effort will be made to ensure that justice is done. The entire nation is firm on this resolve. Everyone who believes in humanity is with us. I thank the leaders who have stood with us at this time.”

Five days after this speech, on April 29, PM Modi met the Defence Forces’ Chiefs along with the Raksha Mantri and the National Security Advisor. He gave clear instructions to them in line with his message to the nation and the world. He mentioned to them the nation’s resolve to deal a “crushing blow to terrorism”. Significantly, he gave the Defence Chiefs “complete operational freedom to decide on the modes, targets and timing” to achieve this objective. It was reported in the media that Modi expressed that he had full confidence in them and India’s defence forces.

There has been speculation if PM Modi has, by giving operational freedom to the Defence Chiefs, passed the buck on to them and thereby distanced himself from the objectives set out by him in his Bihar speech and the national resolve to deliver a “crushing blow to terrorism”. Such speculation betrays ignorance of how democratic systems function and especially how the Indian political system operates. It would be entirely wrong to interpret PM Modi’s words in this manner.

Whenever the security forces of a country act, they use force. The use of force has to be authorised by civilian and ultimately elected officials, in accordance with the law and prescribed procedures. The highest authorisation, especially in matters which relate to the use of force against a foreign country, has to be given by a Prime Minister. He/she has the mandate of the people to do so; he/she is also accountable to them for giving such a directive. That is what PM Modi has done in this barbaric case of terrorism where 26 Indians were killed on the basis of their religion.

It is noteworthy that PM Modi has given the Defence Chiefs a free hand to deliver a “crushing blow to terrorism”. It is particularly striking that all the three service Chiefs were present along with the Chief of Defence Staff. The fact that PM Modi has prescribed no ‘operational’ restrictions on the Chiefs would have been picked up by all the major powers. This is distinct from the instructions that were given by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to the Army and Air Force Chiefs during Pakistan’s Kargil misadventure. Vajpayee directed them not to cross the Line of Control (LOC).

The Air Force Chief told the political leadership that this direction imposed an almost impossible restriction on the pilots because of the terrain which they were expected to bomb. The pilots would lose maneuverability. The Army Chief was also unhappy with the decision but Vajpayee assured him that as the operation continued and if the need arose his decision could be reviewed. Vajpayee’s reason for giving directions not to cross the LoC was to demonstrate to the major powers that India was a responsible nuclear weapon state which would achieve its objective of throwing out the Pakistani forces from the Kargil heights without escalating the situation.

The context in which Vajpayee took the decision that Indian forces would remain within the Indian side of the LoC has to be recalled. India and Pakistan’s nuclear tests had taken place in 1998. The then nuclear countries imposed sanctions on both states. India entered into a sustained and fruitful dialogue with the US to convince it that it needed nuclear weapons for its security. That dialogue paved the way for the present transformation of India-US relations.

Contrary to India’s responsible conduct, Pakistan’s Kargil action coming in the wake of a decade long terrorist campaign in J&K, showed it up as an irresponsible country with an army which took decisions in a cliquish manner and endangered international peace and security. All the major powers pressured Pakistan to abandon its move. Of course, the Indian Defence Forces’ heroism in performing splendidly in the most difficult circumstances and at great cost of lives lost raised their global reputation and that of India too. The then US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, told the then External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh, that India did not take a single wrong step during the entire Kargil crisis.

The important lesson derived from the Kargil experience is that the country’s leadership can draw red lines within which the Defence Forces have to operate. Naturally, the political leadership leaves the professional management of military operations to the Defence Forces. They have the expertise in these matters and their professionalism and valour are of the highest standards. They are accountable for their actions. But as the ultimate accountability is that of the political leadership headed by the Prime Minister, the Defence Chiefs give it a clear indication of what is operationally desirable.

A famous instance arose in March 1971 when the Pakistan army began its bloodshed in the then East Pakistan. The Awami League sought India’s help covertly at the beginning and lakhs of refugees began streaming into India. India was outraged and the government came under pressure to take military action. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi asked Army Chief General (later Field Marshal) Sam Manekshaw about an attack on Pakistan. He told her that it would have to wait for the opportune season which would be after the monsoons. Indira Gandhi accepted that operational advice. It is also believed that when she asked if the Army would share its war plans with her, Manekshaw declined because that came squarely within the remit of the defence services.

Hence, based on the fundamental principles of the Indian polity, it can be anticipated that the Defence Chiefs who have been given the responsibility to “deal a crushing blow to terrorism” will broadly spell out the options to the Prime Minister. In doing so they will also give the positives of the various options and the attendant risks. The operational details of their actions for whichever course is decided will be within their remit. The political leadership does not intervene or interfere in the discharge of the Defence Forces’ professional responsibility relating to war fighting.

The international community is putting pressure on India not to take military action to crush Pakistani terrorism. However, the Modi doctrine now is clear: if there is an unacceptable terrorist attack from Pakistan, India’s response would not be restricted to diplomatic steps alone but force will be brought into play. This was done after the Uri attack of 2016 and the Pulwama attack of 2019. The Pahalgam attack falls clearly within the definition of an unacceptable terrorist attack.

All in all, PM Modi’s instructions to the Defence Chiefs have to be read correctly.

The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India’s Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.