Kashmir: The Way Ahead – V

07 Oct, 2001    ·   598

Interview with T Ananthachari, former Director General, Border Security Force
Where does Kashmir stand today, in the aftermath of the Agra Summit , with Pakistan making it very clear that without any progress on Kashmir , there can be no progress elsewhere?

 

 

Kashmir stands where it was. In fact, the situation on the ground has got aggravated with the open invitation by Musharraf himself to continue the violent terrorist movement inside Kashmir , all in the name of ‘Azadi’ or ‘liberation’ or ‘Jihad’. As events have proved, there is a stepping up of (terrorist) activity after Agra . Not only have the security forces been earmarked and there are more attacks on them but there is also an attempt to frighten the population – not only the minority – but also target the majority population. Even school children have not been spared. Women are being asked to wear the burqa and a deadline has been given for that. It seems the terrorists are losing their patience and are resorting to desperate measures to keep their tempo alive. It is obvious that Pakistan is determined to demonstrate to the world that Kashmir is the real thorn in developing friendly relations with India though this is not the reality. The fact that the Kashmir dispute is being given religious overtones exposes the real intentions of Pakistan in seeking a long term relationship with India . Further, perpetuating the ‘two-nation theory’, wreaking vengeance for the dismemberment of erstwhile East Pakistan to give birth to Bangladesh – all these and more are built into the Pakistani plans in Kashmir .

 

 

How do you view the insurgency situation today, as compared to two years back or five years back?

 

 

First of all I would like to make clear one thing: what is going on in J&K is not an insurgency situation; it is a regular war. It is not even a proxy war. I think the whole game plan of Pakistan stands exposed. The involvement of the local people, if at all it is there, is very minimal. The core elements that are fighting are from outside India and are perpetrating violent activities with the active and open support of the Pakistani Administration. We are dealing practically with a regular, large scale, organized military action by foreign elements against us and on our soil. We have to take this to its logical end. We have to deal with it in a straightforward manner and crush it as we would in a war. We should make sure these elements are eliminated and driven out of the country without any further loss of time.

 

 

Have the government’s efforts in tackling militancy been satisfactory?

 

 

Government’s policies, especially its directives to the Forces that are in the field, should be very clear and consistent with our ultimate objective and the threats we are facing on the ground. I am not sure if the government has given consistently clear directives to the security forces. One often gets the feeling that the desire of the government is not matched by its willingness to give shape to its desire by enunciating appropriate policies. We seem to be very much bothered about international opinion, which tends to hamper our style. There is a danger of no one taking us seriously unless we act decisively and in time to safeguard our security interests. Such action should be swift and result-oriented.

 

 

What directives do you feel should the government give to the security forces?

 

 

First of all, we should make sure that terrorist activities which are taking place are not fought on our soil. We should contain them on the border or across the border. To do so is logical since the threat to the country is emanating from the other side of the border – in terms of moral, physical, material and political support by the ISI, Pakistan Army and the Administration of Pakistan. So we should have a policy which would make sure that the infiltration is stopped right at the border at all costs. Further, if required, we should not hesitate to go across the border and demolish all the infrastructure and logistics that promote terrorism on our soil; after all, Pakistan is openly supporting terrorist activities within India . We know where the bases are. We have to act. We have waited and pondered for far too long – more than a decade and half. It is time for…

 

 

... a hot pursuit?

 

 

Not only hot pursuit, but also proactive action aimed at demolishing the bases in Pakistan that are acting against our national interests. Notwithstanding our desire to have a dialogue with Pakistan , this should go on.

 

 

There seems to be significant change in militancy in Kashmir in terms of the weapons used and the targets chosen. The target is well chosen either to have a political or military significance. Given this changed strategy, how could the security force deal with this new situation?

 

 

I would like to make a correction. What we are facing is not militancy. Militancy means the local people militating against the government on account of certain grievances. The militancy phase in Kashmir has passed long ago. For quite some time now, it has been a proxy war. It is a war by foreigners on our soil. Therefore, political aspects should not be allowed to dilute our efforts to deal with the terrorists. Our security forces, whether army or paramilitary, should act firmly and should not bother about the political consequences. After all, there can be no politics when the territorial integrity of the country is threatened. At the same time, what is important is for the political leadership, comprising all shades of political opinion, to see reason in a consensus to act on these lines. Without such a backing it will be difficult for the security forces to act on their own.

 

 

What is the role of the paramilitary forces fighting the militancy/proxy war in Kashmir ?

 

 

The paramilitary forces have to fight the terrorists and prevent them from disturbing the peace and order. If this is not done, the normal life of people will be affected adversely and the effectiveness of the Administration to look after the welfare of the people will be considerably weakened. In contrast, it is the responsibility of the political and other streams of the society to deal with terrorism. It is important to recognize the subtle difference between ‘terrorists’ and ‘terrorism’.

 

 

The sources and brains, besides all kinds of support – physical, financial, logistics etc., etc., are located across the border. The Army and the Border Security Force (BSF) which man the borders with Pakistan will naturally have a major role to play, all the more so, in the light of what I have said earlier about containing the terrorists at the border and taking the war against terrorism to the camps located across the border. If they do not contain the intruders at the border, the local population will become, whether wittingly or unwittingly, victims. This will bring in its wake, issues of human rights and is bound to divert the attention of the security forces from their operational priorities.

 

 

Is there any need for clear demarcation of functions among the security forces, especially between the paramilitary forces and the Army?

 

 

Everything is already there – the unified command etc. The Army, which is equipped to cater for higher capabilities, should augment the efforts of the local police and the various paramilitary forces deployed on the ground. It is perhaps necessary to highlight the fact that we have got used to clubbing all kinds of forces as ‘paramilitary’. In fact, the capability, capacity, organization, training, professional skills and structure vary widely among the various non-military organizations like the BSF, ITBPF, CRPF, CISF etc. Therefore, it is necessary that while utilizing them, each of these forces should be tasked strictly according to their inbuilt capability and capacity. These forces are not interchangeable as seems to be impression generally prevailing.

 

 

Are the security forces – both paramilitary forces and the army – being adequately supported by the government in fighting the proxy war?

 

 

In terms of actual day to day support, there is no problem – they are being supported. But we have allowed the proxy war to prolong too long. The decision to curb and finish the proxy war should be taken at the political level. In this aspect, I think there is not adequate support for the security forces.

 

 

There is a perception that a prolonged ceasefire, without adequate political support, has negated the gains made by the security forces in the last couple of years. How do you view this?

 

 

The ceasefire is basically for the benefit of the people and is not for those perpetrating activities against the country. If it has benefited the people then the ceasefire is justified. This does not mean that we will give a free run to the foreigners on our soil.

 

 

What about the continued criticism about human right violations in Kashmir ?

 

 

There can be no debate about the need to uphold human-rights. But the rules should be the same for all, including those who are waging a war against the country. Human rights standards should be enforced not only on the security forces but also on all those anti-Indian elements who come inside and engage in killing and injuring innocent people. The rules of the game in Kashmir should be like when you fight a war. Unfortunately, civilians are being affected – no doubt, but this is no more a civilian situation. There is a need to protect the security forces as you would protect them in a war. Any measure which discourages or impairs the security forces will tell upon their ability to counter the ongoing proxy war and therefore, their ability to protect the territorial integrity of the country. It is good to quote Lord Denning, the famous Lord Chief Justice of England : “the freedom of the individual must take second place to the security of the Stateâ€Â
POPULAR COMMENTARIES