Hold your horses cowboys, India-Pak not same as Pak-US

‘Surgical operation’ goes well with macho diplomacy. No wonder then, after the killing of Osama bin Laden by the US Navy Seals in a clinically perfect action in Abbottabad in Pakistan on Monday, television channels are busy throwing up questions on the possibility of India exercising a similar option to hunt down and eliminate fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim and anti-India hate-monger Hafeez Sayeed. And, there’s is support for it. After all it reflects the virility of a nation and satisfies its craving for instant justice, Israel-style. [caption id=“attachment_4282” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Bullet bang: Surgical strike may not be the best form of diplomacy. Desmond Boylan/Reuters”]  [/caption] ‘Hot pursuit’—pursuing targets to their camps in the enemy territory—was another option debated in detail in the immediate aftermath of the 26 November 2008 Mumbai attack. The BJP recommended it as a strategy to deal with terrorism and terrorist attacks on India. It gelled with the party’s advocacy of aggressive diplomacy, but its own track record while in power is a dampener. Traditional diplomacy, with the careful nuance is indeed boring and these, are most certainly interesting option. Moreover, diplomacy appears to have delivered little. Terrorist outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Jammat-ud-Dawa continue their anti-India activities and rant from Pakistani soil. Dawood, the prime accused in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, remains in a safehouse under the nose of the Pakistani authorities. The plotters of the 26/11 attack roam free, as do their handlers in the Pakistani army. Terrorist camps in Pak Occupied Kashmir keep churning out hardcore jehadis to fight India. Infiltrations in Kashmir, of course, are reportedly, routine. The efforts to engage the establishment across the border through Track Two informal diplomacy and Back Channel diplomacy has not quite worked. It’s easy to get frustrated. But is a ‘surgical operation’ a real option? First, let’s examine the ground realities. To start with, India is not the US. It does not have the diplomatic clout, military prowess or economic superiority to overwhelm countries. The US can leverage its liberal financial aid to Pakistan to browbeat Pakistan. Second, the Americans do not have the geopolitical burden in the form of an internally fragmented country with a confused command and control structure as neighbour. Love it or hate it, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh admitted a few months ago, India has to do business with Pakistan on a regular basis. Any ‘surgical’ or ‘hot pursuit’ operation would be construed as an attack on the sovereignty of Pakistan tantamount to declaration of war. The consequences could be devastating. The nuke weapons at the disposal of Islamabad does not make war a viable option. Elements within the Pakistan army who nurse a deep-seated hatred for India would be happy to let loose the nuke arsenal at their command. Further, the economic repercussions on India would be staggering. India’s diplomatic initiatives so far have been mindful of these constraints. With Pakistan unapologetic about having terrorism as an instrument of state policy, India has reason to be doubly careful. Osama or Al Qaeda did not pose any direct challenge to India. The real threat came from its loose affiliates like LeT, JuD and Jaish, outfits bred on anti-India hatred. These were not controlled by Osama. Powerful elements within Pakistan, who would love a war against India, managed them. They would welcome a surgical operation from across the border to which they could retaliate in full and disproportionate measure. Where does that lead us? To more sober thinking. Pakistan is a complex country with several power centres connected by a network of interests. The more visible civilian government may actually be the weakest power centre in terms of actual authority. That’s where the challenge for Indian diplomacy lies. It must engage all power centres at different levels and leverage its proximity with the US to its advantage. Manmohan Singh’s cricket diplomacy during the cricket World Cup was a positive move. The subsequent foreign secretary level talks are a move forward. The effort may not mean much but it reflects maturity. Macho diplomacy is good for the ego but leads nowhere.