Home Contact Us  

J&K - Articles

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
#4098, 23 August 2013

IPCS Special Commentary

From Jalalabad to LoC: Interpreting Pakistan Military’s Objectives behind the Offensive
D Suba Chandran
Director, IPCS

Suddenly there is an offensive against India by Pakistan’s military – both on its eastern and western fronts. If the suicide attack on the Indian embassy across the Durand Line, using its proxy came as a warning against India, subsequent attacks along the Line of Control has confirmed – that there could be a larger design in action by the military in Pakistan and the attacks against India across the Durand  and along the LoC is a strategy.
Both the attacks against India (Jalalabad and LoC) and the primary objectives need to be investigated and understood in the larger context, and not just responding to Pakistan on an ad hoc basis based on a jingoistic media and unruly opposition aiming to score cheap points at the Parliament. The Indian response – political and military has to be measured, keeping in mind long term interests of the country, and the larger designs of Pakistan, especially its military vis-a-vis India, and its non-military arms – the Lashkar and the Taliban.

At the outset, it is perhaps essential to make a differentiation between Nawaz Sharif and the military, in terms of who is the primary factor behind the recent anti-Indian offensive. Though Nawaz Sharif may have been elected with a majority within Pakistan, when it comes to Afghanistan, US, China, Kashmir (and India), Nuclear Weapons and the non-State actors in Pakistan (from Hafiz Saeed to Dawood Ibrahim), the military and its ISI will call the actual shots. Neither the Parliament (with majority or otherwise) nor the judiciary (proactive and selective) in Pakistan have the powers and the reach to make any dent on military’s thinking, when it comes to the above issues. The much debated civil society and a ‘free’ media in Pakistan will be forced to fall in line with the thinking within the armed forces. Military in Pakistan has remained, and will remain the primary actor on the above issues.

The suicide attack on the Indian Embassy in Jalalabad, though could not succeed in terms of breaching the security cordon, the objective is clear. The following questions are irrelevant, for they are obvious: Was Taliban behind it? Did Taliban carry the attack under the instructions from the ISI. This would not have happened within Islamabad nudging the Taliban; perhaps, a section within Pakistan would want to see this as an Indian and Afghan conspiracy!
Rather, what needs to be probed is: what are the objectives behind the attack on Indian embassy? Does this signal the strategy that Pakistan is likely to pursue vis-a-vis India in Afghanistan, using its proxy – the Haqqani network?
Pakistan’s Objectives: More the Same, and Perhaps Worse
While Pakistan’s larger objectives in Afghanistan have always been clear and well understood, there was a general belief, atleast within Pakistan, that it needs a revision. With the deadline in Afghanistan approaching for the American exit in December 2014, there has also been an expectation at the international level at the international levels, that the region should play a positive role in contributing to the Afghan stability before and after 2014.
What does the attack on the Indian consulate in Jalalabad signify, in terms of Pakistan’s approach? First, it clearly identifies, there is no shift in Pakistan’s strategy towards Afghanistan, despite the general call for a revision within its own strategic community. It appears, Pakistan would like to treat Afghanistan as its geographic backyard and strategic harem. There is unlikely to be any revision to Pakistan’s original vision of having Afghanistan as its strategic depth. 
Second, Pakistan does want India to be in Afghanistan. Period. The general perception is, why should India be in Afghanistan, especially when it does not share a boundary with the latter? This is a myopic view, that only country that shares border should have a closer relation with another. If that is the case, why should US be in Pakistan? Or, why Pakistan should be in Nepal and Sri Lanka? 
Of course, there will always be an excuse, projected as a fact that India is using Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan, especially Balochistan and its Pashtun areas. Any objective analysis of Pakistan’s approach to the Pashtun and Baloch questions would reveal, they do not need any foreign intervention to make it worse. 
Though a section in India may believe in using Afghanistan as a base against Pakistan in Balochistan and KP, this view does not have widespread support within India. Nor would such a strategy help India achieve its long term interests in Afghanistan. India should focus all its efforts and resources within Afghanistan, and not attempt to waste any portion of it vis-a-vis Pakistan. India does not have to do anything in Balochistan; Islamabad’s strategies towards Balochistan, KP and FATA are damaging enough, that there is no need for any external intervention.
Third, and more importantly, Pakistan does not want India to be seen as a friend by Karzai’s administration and the larger Afghan nation.  Thanks to history and the people to people relations, the linkages between Afghanistan and India at the State and Society levels are absolutely positive and unparallel. Pakistan do not want this, for it would make Karzai and the Afghan people to look beyond Islamabad. Pakistan would prefer Afghanistan to be its satellite, and perhaps the unofficial fifth province, if not an extension of FATA.
India’s great strength in Afghanistan has been its ability to strike a right chord with the political elite and the larger nation. Unfortunately Pakistan does not have a good reputation in Afghanistan, despite hosting a huge refugee population. Pakistan also has incurred a huge economic and political cost due to its involvement in Afghanistan. Hence, Islamabad expects Afghanistan to be thankful and reliant on Pakistan.
Relationships between the neighbours in South Asia have always been less positive. In fact, this has been a regional curse; India is witnessing the same vis-a-vis Nepal and Sri Lanka. Pakistan is experiencing the same vis-a-vis Afghanistan. If India can live with Pakistani presence in Nepal and Sri Lanka, why cannot Islamabad live with an Indian presence in Afghanistan?
Finally, is there an understanding between the US and Pakistan on the latter’s role in Afghanistan? Though the attack followed immediately after the visit of Kerry to Pakistan, the period is too short to link the two. However, is Indian role in Afghanistan, an agenda in US-Pakistan strategic dialogue? How far will the US go to accommodate Pakistan’s concerns vis-a-vis India in Afghanistan, when the dialogue resumes? This question needs to be debated in detail.

While the attack on the Indian embassy in Jalalabad can be interpreted in simple terms – of Pakistan’s intention to keep India away from Afghanistan, its military’s objectives of the ongoing intrusions along the LoC seems to be a combination of internal, bilateral and external relations.
Though Nawaz Sharif was a product of the military and its ISI to serve a political purpose in the 1980s to keep Benazir Bhutto and her PPP away from the political architecture of Pakistan, in the late 1990s Nawaz Sharif and the military fell out following the Kargil War. In fact the differences between the two – military and the Prime Minister started much before the Kargil War, with the starting of bus service, composite dialogue and the back-channel diplomacy between Sharif and Vajpayee. 
The military in Pakistan will never allow an elected Prime Minister to define the agenda between India and Pakistan. For Nawaz Sharif, it is important that there is an independent political dialogue with India led by him and outside the purview of what his military chief wants. For him strong Indo-Pak relations, would perhaps strengthen his position vis-a-vis the military, by getting the approval of the people as well. The silent majority within the Pakistani civil society, given a “normal environment” would prefer a better Indo-Pak relations, as be the case in India.
For military, both cannot be acceptable. Can the military in Pakistan allow Nawaz Sharif to take the Indo-Pak relations forward, as he has mentioned during and immediately after the elections? More, importantly, can the military afford a “normal environment” in which the majority within Pakistan craving for a better Indo-Pak relations?
The intrusions along the LoC for Pakistan’s military serve two specific purposes within. First, it certainly vitiates the “environment” within Pakistan; neither Nawaz Sharif can have a free hand now in pursuing a positive agenda vis-a-vis India. Nor he will get the public support for better Indo-Pak relations. At least not now. Any reading of the debates within Pakistan would easily conclude the public mood is certainly not in favour of a positive Indo-Pak relations. Clearly, the military has served an important message to Nawaz Sharif, that they will remain the final authority when it comes to Indo-Pak relations. And this has also changed the nature of environment, in terms of general mood of the civil society within Pakistan. Majority consider that India is on a warpath and without restraint!
At the bilateral level, the intrusions also have served two purposes. First, it has clearly indicated the Indian leadership, who the real power is within Pakistan. Any debate within India on Pakistan clearly asks the vital question: whom should we speak to? And what is the point in engaging Sharif, if he will not be able to deliver? Second, the intrusions has also vitiated the atmosphere in India; the debates in the Parliament and the media is equally jingoistic and is not in favour of any Indo-Pak rapprochement. Why should India talk about a dialogue with Pakistan, when its military is violating the ceasefire, and killing our soldiers at will? This question is emotional and difficult to answer.
Finally, the above is an important question we need to find out. Is there a belief within the military that the international environment from Kabul to Beijing, and perhaps all the way up to Washington DC is in its favour? Perhaps.
As mentioned above, certainly the US needs Pakistan more now, than other way around. The inward looking Obama who wants to get out of Afghanistan as fast as he can, with minimum blood at the ground and body bags in the US. From the Doha process to Kerry’s visit few weeks earlier, one could easily sense that the Obama administration perceives Pakistan as a part of the American solution. The forthcoming visit of Hamid Karzai to Pakistan should also be a part of this exit strategy, pressurizing Kabul to work with Islamabad. The road map for the US in the Af-Pak region is clear: Abandon Afghanistan. Come what may, get out of the region before 2014.
Ironically, and fortunately for Pakistan, China’s larger strategy towards the region also fits very well with them. Fearing the American Pivot and the Rebalancing is essentially targeted against China, Beijing is trying to counter Washington’s initiatives. It is unfortunate, that New Delhi has been unable to convince Beijing that the Indo-US nuclear deal and the strategic partnership with the US is not against China. As a result, China has been following a strategy to contain India within South Asia. The recent border intrusions in Ladakh should be seen in this perspective. For Pakistan, especially the military, it fits very well to be a Chinese stooge in the region and help Beijing to contain India within the region. 
More importantly, if there is a flare up between India and Pakistan, is the US likely to come heavy on Islamabad or Rawalpindi, even if there is an open mis-adventure? Perhaps, the Pakistani military thinks the pressure will be more on India; else, they could blackmail the US with shifting the troops from the Durand Line to LoC. Even in the long run, perhaps the new thinking within the Pakistan military is, after 2014, Taliban will have a major role in Afghanistan, hence they can shift the military focus to the east.
Finally, perhaps there is also a belief that the Manmohan Singh government is at its weakest point and is unlikely to give a befitting reply. Perhaps the Pakistani military mind thinks: we have got the Indians trapped now! Return of the 1965 syndrome. 1971 as well. And also 1999.

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
IPCS Columnists
Af-Pak Diary
D Suba Chandran
Resetting Kabul-Islamabad Relations: Three Key Issues
Can Pakistan Reset its Relations with Afghanistan?
The New Afghanistan: Four Major Challenges for President Ghani
Big Picture
Prof Varun Sahni
Understanding Democracy and Diversity in J&K
When Xi Met Modi: Juxtaposing China and India
Pakistan?s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: The Inevitability of Instability

Dateline Colombo

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera.
Sri Lanka: Moving Towards a Higher Collective Outcome
The Importance of Electing the Best to our Nation's Parliament
Sri Lanka: Toward a Diaspora Re-Engagement Plan
Dateline Islamabad
Salma Malik
Pakistan's Hurt Locker: What Next?
IPCS Forecast: Pakistan in 2015
India-Pakistan Relations in 2015: Through a Looking Glass
Dhaka Discourse
Prof Delwar Hossain
IPCS Forecast: Bangladesh in 2015
18th SAARC Summit: A Perspective from Bangladesh
Bangladesh in Global Forums: Diplomacy vs. Domestic Politics
Eagle Eye
Prof Chintamani Mahapatra
India-US: Significance of the Second Modi-Obama Meet
Has President Obama Turned Lame Duck?
Modi-Obama Summit: Criticism for Criticism?s Sake?

East Asia Compass
Dr Sandip Mishra
India-Japan-US Trilateral: India?s Policy for the Indo-Pacific
China-South Korea Ties: Implications for the US Pivot to Asia
Many ?Pivots to Asia?: What Does It Mean For Regional Stability?
Himalayan Frontier
Pramod Jaiswal
Nepal?s New Constitution: Instrument towards Peace or Catalyst to Conflict?
IPCS Forecast: Nepal in 2015
Constitution-making: Will Nepal Miss its Second Deadline?

Prof Shankari Sundararaman
IPCS Forecast: Southeast Asia in 2015
Indonesia's Pacific Identity: What Jakarta Must Do in West Papua
Modi in Myanmar: From ?Look East? to ?Act East?
Sushant Sareen
IPCS Forecast: Pakistan in 2015
Islamic State: Prospects in Pakistan
Pakistan: The Futility of Internationalising Kashmir

Looking East
Wasbir Hussain
Myanmar in New Delhi's Naga Riddle
China: ?Peaceful? Display of Military Might
Naga Peace Accord: Need to Reserve Euphoria
Maritime Matters
Vijay Sakhuja
Indian Ocean: Modi on a Maritime Pilgrimage
Indian Ocean: Exploring Maritime Domain Awareness
IPCS Forecast: The Indian Ocean in 2015

Nuke Street
Amb Sheelkant Sharma
US-Russia and Global Nuclear Security: Under a Frosty Spell?
India's Nuclear Capable Cruise Missile: The Nirbhay Test
India-Australia Nuclear Agreement: Bespeaking of a New Age
Red Affairs
Bibhu Prasad
Countering Left Wing Extremism: Failures within Successes
Return of the Native: CPI-Maoist in Kerala
The Rising Civilian Costs of the State-Vs-Extremists Conflict

Regional Economy
Amita Batra
India and the APEC
IPCS Forecast: South Asian Regional Integration
South Asia: Rupee Regionalisation and Intra-regional Trade Enhancement
South Asian Dialectic
PR Chari
Resuming the Indo-Pak Dialogue: Evolving a New Focus
Defence Management in India: An Agenda for Parrikar
Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: Implications for Asian Security

Spotlight West Asia
Amb Ranjit Gupta
Prime Minister Modi Finally Begins His Interaction with West Asia*
A Potential Indian Role in West Asia?
US-GCC Summit: More Hype than Substance
Strategic Space
Manpreet Sethi
India-Russia Nuclear Vision Statement: See that it Delivers
Global Nuclear Disarmament: The Humanitarian Consequences Route
Nasr: Dangers of Pakistan's Short Range Ballistic Missile

The Strategist
Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar
Jihadi Aggression and Nuclear Deterrence
The Blight of Ambiguity
Falun Gong: The Fear Within

OTHER REGULAR contributors
Gurmeet Kanwal
Harun ur Rashid
N Manoharan
Wasbir Hussain
Rana Banerji
N Manoharan

Ruhee Neog
Teshu Singh
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Roomana Hukil
Aparupa Bhattacherjee

Related Articles
Salma Malik,
"Ten Years of Ceasefire along the LoC: Through Elections and Media Ratings," 27 December 2013
Shujaat Bukhari,
"DGMOs Break the Ice," 26 December 2013
Muhammad Faisal,
"Ten Years of Ceasefire along the LoC: Recent Violations," 20 December 2013
D Suba Chandran,
"Next Steps Across the LoC: The DGMO Meeting," 19 December 2013
KD Maini,
"Ten Years of Ceasefire along the LoC: Perspectives from Poonch," 3 December 2013
PR Chari,
"Ten Years of Ceasefire along the LoC: An Evaluation," 30 November 2013
Lt. Gen. Arvinder S Lamba,
"Pakistan and the Killings across the LoC: Tactical Offensive or a Strategic Defensive?," 8 August 2013
D Suba Chandran,
"Cross-LoC interactions in J&K: So Far, Yet Much More," 1 August 2013
Ali Ahmed,
"India and Pakistan: Azm-e-Nau as a Response to the Cold Start," 28 July 2013

Browse by Publications

Issue Briefs 
Special Reports 
Research Papers 
Seminar Reports 
Conference Reports 

Browse by Region/Countries

East Asia 
South Asia 
Southeast Asia 
US & South Asia 

Browse by Issues

India & the world  
Naxalite Violence 
Suicide Terrorism 
Peace & Conflict Database 
Article by same Author
Will the Genie Want to Go Back?

The Fall of Rajapaksa: Why Democracies Fail Strongmen

Pakistan: The Military Courts

From Kashmir to Kabul

A Fractured Mandate: The Big Picture

And Now, They Are Coming For Our Children

Pak-Afghan Reset: Will the Taliban and al Qaeda follow?

Resetting Kabul-Islamabad Relations: Three Key Issues

Rise India, avoid regional pitfalls

Foreign Fighters of Pakistan: Why Pashtuns and Punjabis?

Can Pakistan Reset its Relations with Afghanistan?

The New Afghanistan: Four Major Challenges for President Ghani

Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping: Strong Leaders, Hard Issues

Pakistan: The Coup that didn’t take

Pakistan: Crouching Democrats, Hidden Khakis

Processes at the cost of peace?

Cost of Peace

Rise of Democratic Anarchists

Don’t steal the election now

Mullah Fazlullah: Challenges to the “Eliminate or Extradite” Approach

The Tahirul Qadri Affair

Dhaka as the Gateway to India’s Look East Policy

Modi, Sharif and the Cross-LoC Interactions

Region by Sub-regions

Civil-Military Equations in Pakistan: Que Sera Sera

Y! MyWeb
Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
Year 2017
 January  February  March  April  May  June  July  August  September  October  November  December
 2016  2015  2014  2013  2012  2011  2010  2009
 2008  2007  2006  2005  2004  2003  2002  2001
 2000  1999  1998  1997

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map
18, Link Road, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi 110014, INDIA.

Tel: 91-11-4100-1902    Email: officemail@ipcs.org

© Copyright 2017, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.