Debating Hot Pursuit

31 Dec, 2001    ·   674

Arpit Rajain suggests that India should build world pressure on Pakistan rather than considering hot pursuit
Arpit Rajain
Following the US attack on Afghanistan , Israel ’s action in Gaza Strip, the attacks on the Srinagar Legislative Assembly and the Indian Parliament, there seems to be a growing belief that military retaliation can be extended to other problem spots. The debate in India has inclined towards crossing the LoC and undertaking ‘hot pursuit’ with several voices in the Indian government, Omar Abdullah, LK Advani and George Fernandes not ruling it out. 

 

 

In international law the ‘right of hot pursuit’ on land is recognised as the chasing of armed infiltrators across international borders. Congo and Uganda approached the International Court of Justice in June 2000 when the Ugandan army undertook hot pursuit and entered Congo . International law rejects the right of hot pursuit on the high seas, outside the 200 mile exclusive economic zone, a norm stated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, in Article 111 There is a growing consensus in the international community that any person or group perpetuating violence against innocent civilians is a terrorist and not a freedom fighter. There also is a growing understanding that terrorism cannot be eradicated by a single country-indeed the US will find it difficult to muster the mandate required to take action against suspected other ‘harbourers’ of terrorism like Iraq or Iran.

 

 

Should India cross the LoC? The answer to this question becomes more difficult when one takes into account the number of factors that impact on any such decision. Below are four such factors:

 

 

Politically, if India crosses the LoC, launches a ground or air offensive (to minimise ground casualties), Pakistan might retaliate by launching a ground or air offensive against India in other sectors. The Pakistani response may not be limited to one sector or region. General Musharraf is already facing a strong anti-establishment sentiment domestically; a war against India (started by India -or so would be his reasoning) maybe in his best interests to serve as a rallying point.

 

 

India will also have to think of its military objectives. The Indian Army does have the military capability to undertake a hot pursuit operation, but would its aim be limited to destroying the training camps, most of them like Oghi village, Ojheri camp, Para Chinar, Saidgali and Sargodha have already shut down operations. Or would hot pursuit envisage ‘salami slicing’ of PoK territory. Would India therefore occupy and retain any territory or would closing down training camps be its only objective, these camps can, obviously be quickly established elsewhere.

 

 

If India crosses the LoC and Pakistan decides that it is threatened and issues a warning that it would contemplate its nuclear option, what would be the Indian response? Would India stop the air strikes/ recall its troops and call off the operation? Or would it go ahead and continue in the hope that Pakistan will not escalate the war to a higher or nuclear level An element of strategic uncertainty obtains here..

 

 

Further, India will lose the moral high ground that it gained after Kargil by exercising restraint and not crossing the LoC. Also the US and other countries will immediately put diplomatic pressure on India to halt its operations. It could lead otherwise to India ’s diplomatic isolation and prejudice its chances of getting a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

 

 

India should consequently finesse its diplomatic moves by highlighting Pakistan ’s role as a perpetuator of violence in Kashmir to the world and build up political pressure on Pakistan to stop aiding crossborder terrorism. This may be a wiser strategy than contemplating hot pursuit, which could lead to military escalation and diplomatic isolation.

POPULAR COMMENTARIES