Sanjha Morcha

Western Sector: Military units on heightened alert post surgical strikes in Pakistan

ten by Man Aman Singh Chhina | Chandigarh | Published:September 30, 2016 4:31 am

Western Military, India Western sector Military, India news, India western Sector, Surgical strikes in India, India news, Latest news, India newsAir Force bases in Punjab and Haryana have already been on an increased level of alert due to an ongoing exercise of the Western Air Command. (Express Photo by Shuaib Masoodi)

ARMY AND air force establishments in the western sector have been put on a heightened state of alert following the strike at terror launch pads across the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir.

Highly placed sources told The Indian Express that leave of defence personnel had been canceled and the postings have been held in abeyance till further orders. Military units deployed in the region have been asked to remain in a state of preparedness, said a senior officer. Officially, there was no reaction from the Western Command Headquarters regarding deployment or on the Punjab government move of asking villagers within 10 km from the Indo-Pak border to evacuate.

Sources in the Border Security Force (BSF) informed that BSF personnel had been asked to step up vigil along the border as personnel of the Pakistan Army have been observed to be deployed on the international border to augment the Pakistan Rangers stationed there. “The deployment of Pakistan Army has been steadily observed for the past few days and has not been sudden. But we are keeping a close watch over their movements. We have also instructed our battalions deployed along the International Border to be vigilant,” a senior officer said. Meanwhile, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Western Command, Lt Gen Surinder Singh, visited the forward areas in Amritsar and Gurdaspur sector and inspected the levels of operational preparedness of the units stationed along the border. He also visited the Jalandhar-based Headquarters of 11 Corps during his visit.

Lt Gen Surinder Singh interacted with field commanders in the border areas and emphasised on the need to ensure a high degree of readiness at all levels with special reference to the areas adjoining J&K like Pathankot and Gurdaspur. He further reiterated upon greater coordination and co-operation with BSF and all intelligence agencies in the area for a better synergy. The Army Commander was also briefed by the GOC Vajra Corps on the operational preparedness of the Army in the region. An appraisal of the situation along the border in Punjab and Jammu is also learnt to have been undertaken today by the western army commander.

Meanwhile, Air Force bases in Punjab and Haryana have already been on an increased level of alert due to an ongoing exercise of the Western Air Command. After the cross-LoC strike by the Indian Army, the alert is continuing and special emphasis is being laid on perimeter security of air bases in Punjab.


Assam Rifles Major injured in ambush

Imphal, September 30

An Assam Rifles officer was seriously injured when insurgents on Friday ambushed a convoy in Manipur’s Ukhrul district. Major Mandip Singh, Commanding Officer of a company of 31 Assam Rifles, was injured in the attack between Kamjong and Kongtong.He was flown to the military hospital at Leimakhong, about 20 km away from Imphal, the state capital, informed sources said.The insurgents used explosives and automatic rifles in the attack. The troopers retaliated, leading to heavy exchange of fire for over 30 minutes. As additional security personnel rushed from a nearby Assam Rifles camp, the insurgents escaped. — IANS


Amid heightened tension, border remains vulnerable

Amid heightened tension, border remains vulnerable
A BSF patrol boat is moored along the banks of the Tarna rivulet close to the India-Pakistan border. Tribune photo: S Chandan

Vijay Mohan & Sanjeev Bariana

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 30

Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh today directed Central security agencies to be on high alert, especially in border areas. The direction came after he reviewed the security situation in the wake of anti-terror strikes by Indian Special Forces in PoK. Several key issues, however, continue to affect effective border management.Several projects initiated to enhance sanctity of the border are plagued with time and cost overruns and some stretches remain vulnerable to cross-border infiltration.The BSF initiated a project to install 45 “laser walls” to check intrusions three years ago. However, only 12 such systems have been installed so far.Out of 553 km international border that runs through Punjab, 489 km is fenced. The remaining 64 km could not be effectively fenced due to riverine terrain. The aim was to plug such ingress routes using laser walls, sources said.A review after the terror strike on the Pathankot air base in January this year revealed several shortcomings in border management. Parliament’s Standing Committee on Home Affairs had, in May this year, taken a serious view that only Rs 3,777.4 crore had been allocated to the Border Management Department against its projected demand of Rs 5,045.70 crore for 2016-17.While the Home Ministry is considering the construction of 1,426.7-km lateral and 752.48-km axial roads along the border in Punjab and Rajasthan, ongoing border road construction work is lagging, with 265 km out of the sanctioned 473 km being completed at the end of the last fiscal.

Tardy laser wall project

  • Out of 553 km international border that runs through Punjab, 489 km is fenced; while the remaining 64 km could not be effectively fenced due to riverine terrain
  • The BSF initiated a project to install 45 ‘laser walls’ to detect intrusions along vulnerable stretches three years ago, but only 12 such systems have been put in place so far

No mass deployment along border

Ajay Banerjee

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, Sept 25

Following the Army strikes on launchpads of terrorists in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) across the Line of Control, tension at the border persists. But there is no overt movement and no ‘Operation Parakram’ kind mass deployment on the Indian side, as this is not required.The Indian Army, the Air Force and the Navy have their launchpads fully stocked. Missiles such as the BrahMos — with a range of 300 km — are ‘forward’ located. These can shoot and scoot. Artillery guns with various ranges are deployed all along the border with Pakistan, some embedded at pre-designated fortifications.Three of the four strike corps of the Army, backed by tanks, face Pakistan. Frontline fighter jets such as the Sukhoi 30-MKI, each one of which carry a weapons load of nine tonnes, are stationed at bases in Halwara, Punjab, and Sirsa in Haryana. The Soviet-era flying machine, the MiG 29, is based at Adampur in Punjab.Specialised planes, such as the IL-76 fitted with high-resolution radars, can pick up movement across the entire breadth of Pakistan and direct fighter jets to launch missiles or provide information to ground-based troops for an attack.The forces have their own dedicated satellite that provides live feed to forward locations. The ‘Cold-start’ doctrine has been tweaked over the past one decade. This does not require the armed forces to make any visible preparations to move. The doctrine was established following ‘Operation Parakram’ launched in December 2001 after the terror attack on Parliament.


Armed forces are answerable to govt, or it would be martial law: SC

Armed forces are answerable to govt, or it would be martial law: SC
The plea sought action against Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar. ANI

Legal Correspondent 

New Delhi, October 28 

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking prosecution of ruling politicians on corruption charges for allegedly trying to take credit for the surgical strikes carried out by the Army on September 29 on terror camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) areas along the Line of Control (LoC).

(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)

A Bench comprising Justices Amitava Roy and UU Lalit did not agree with the contention of the petitioner — advocate ML Sharma — that the armed forces were only under the control of the President and the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister should not have any access to information pertaining to the surgical strikes.

“Armed forces are answerable to the government. Otherwise, you will have martial law in the country,” the Bench told Sharma.

The Bench also did not accept the petitioner’s plea that the PM and the Defence Minister talking about the surgical strikes amounted to corrupt practice requiring criminal proceedings against them.

“We do not find any merit in the petition,” the court remarked while dismissing it at the admission stage.

 


Border dwellers want state-of-art bunkers

Border dwellers want state-of-art bunkers
Border residents take shelter in a bunker on the outskirts of Jammu after ceasefire violation near the international border. Tribune Photo: Inderjeet Singh

Vikram Sharma

Tribune News Service

Jammu, October 24

In the wake of continuous shelling on the border and frequent displacement of residents to safer places, a demand for state-of-the-art bunkers has been raised so that residents can take shelter nearby instead of moving far from their homes for safety.Due to renewed heavy shelling by Pakistani forces on Sunday night in RS Pura, Arnia, Abdullian, Gajansoo and Marh, residents were forced to leave their homes around midnight and take shelter in nearby bunkers or run to safety.While a six-year-old child and a BSF jawan were killed, residents alleged that the border was getting frequently volatile after the September 29 surgical strikes had left them on the run every now and then.“Since we can’t leave home for good, we want construction of state-of-the-art bunkers by the state government. Those should include bedding for women, the aged and children and provision for cooking so that we don’t have to panic and run,” said Mohan Singh Salathia.The 65-year-old farmer of Arnia owned a large chunk of fertile land near the international border. Over 20,000 concrete bunkers would be built along the Line of Control and international border for the safety of residents living in border areas.A proposal was submitted to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs for the construction of 20,125 community type bunkers at various places along the Line of Control and international border in the Jammu division.The residents added that while the state government had been contemplating handing over five-marla plots at safer places, community bunkers were an immediate need which could solve problems of residents.“In the wake of firing, we can take shelter in such bunkers and can remain near our houses and livestock. If simple bunkers for livestock are built, those will add to safety,” said Trilok Dass, another farmer at Arnia.The Union Ministry of Home Affairs had released Rs 3 crore in December last year for the construction of 60 modernised bunkers for residents of border areas while giving its nod to thousands of bunkers in Jammu, Samba, Kathua, Rajouri and Poonch districts.“We are looking into problems of border dwellers in the wake of firing from Pakistan and will raise this issue with Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh. We will ensure that community bunkers are built with requirements for safety and security of all, including the aged, children and women,” said state BJP chief Sat Sharma.Rajya Sabha member Shamsher Singh admitted that the demand raised by border dwellers were genuine and should be given due attention.“I will take it up with the Union Home Ministry and ensure that community bunkers with security pickets are sanctioned and work started immediately,” he said.


Government likely to restore disability benefits to veterans

By Ajai Shukla

Business Standard, 18th Oct 16

Facing severe criticism from serving soldiers, veterans and civilians alike for slashing the military’s disability pensions, top government officials tell Business Standard they are reviewing the decision and could soon roll back at least some cuts.

As this newspaper reported (October 10, “While ‘surgical strikes’ were under way, govt cut Army’s disability pensions”) the government issued a notification on September 30 — a day after announcing the army’s successful strikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir — that slashed allowances that soldiers receive for injuries/disabilities that are attributable to military service, or aggravated by it.

In that notification the government accepted the recommendation of the 7th Central Pay Commission (7th CPC) to calculate disability pension according to a “slab system”, based on rank. This significantly reduces disability pensions for the army, compared with the “percentage system” instituted by the 6th CPC.

The government first reacted by claiming (through “government sources” cited by several newspapers) that disability pensions had actually been increased, not cut.

Thereafter, the government backtracked on October 13, announcing that it had referred the decision on disability pensions to a committee for review.

Said a government statement: “Service Headquarters have represented that the percentage-based system should be continued under the 7th CPC for calculating disability pension for defence services at par with their civilian counterparts. The Ministry has referred the representation of the Service Headquarters to the Anomaly Committee of the 7th CPC for consideration”.

A senior government official told Business Standard: “We are not wedded to any position. We want to ensure that disabled soldiers do not suffer. If our review finds that the earlier ‘percentage based’ system was more beneficial than the ‘slab system’ that has now been implemented, we will revert to the earlier system.”

A partial or complete revocation of the “slab system” by the Anomalies Committee would have to be also cleared by the cabinet.

With the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) itself spearheading this re-evaluation, the Director General of Defence Accounts (DGDA) has been asked for detailed figures to justify its earlier contention that the “slab based” system would benefit a larger number of disabled veterans — something the army flatly denies.

Earlier, the DGDA had incorrectly stated that more than 85 per cent of soldiers drawing disability pensions would benefit from the new “slab system”. Now it is telling the government that about half of all disabled pensioners would benefit.

The army strongly rebuts those figures. Its detailed calculations suggest that 90-95 per cent of all disabled pensioners stand to lose by the new system (see chart).

Army’s calculations

Until the September 30 notification, any officer or soldier who suffered 100 per cent disability that was “attributable to military service, or aggravated by military service” would get 30 per cent of his/her last pay drawn as disability pension. In addition, they would draw a “service component” of pension, which amounted to 50 per cent of their last pay drawn.

Under the new rules, which come into effect retrospectively from January 1, 2016, the “service component” remains unchanged, but a “slab system” has been introduced for disability pension — Rs 27,000 per month for officers, 17,000 for junior commissioned officers (JCOs), and Rs 12,000 for other ranks (ORs).

The army calculates that only those soldiers would benefit who are invalided out in the early stages of their careers — a small minority. Those who have served a few years, and all those who have earned pensions, would lose financially.

As evident from the chart, the new system would only benefit those jawans whose pay at the time of release from service is less than Rs 40,000 [Rs 34,800 (basic pay) + Rs 5,200 (military service pay, or MSP)] under the 7th CPC. At higher pay grades, 30 per cent disability pension would amount to more than Rs 12,000.Very few jawans retire before serving 15 years, when they become eligible for pension. Most retire after at least 17-19 years, which they have signed up for. By that time, they have been automatically promoted to Naik (two stripes), and their emoluments are Rs 41,100 (Rs 35,900 + Rs 5,200 MSP).

Most jawans actually attain the rank of Havildar (three stripes), which means they are eligible for 26 years of service, and a pay grade of Rs 50,100 (Rs 44,900 + Rs 5,200).

Hence most retirees at the jawan level (except those rare cases who are invalided out early in their careers) earn well above the level below which the slab system yields greater benefits. They, therefore, stand to benefit from the percentage system.

Similarly, JCOs would only benefit from the slab system if their pay grade at retirement is below Rs 56,200 [Rs 51,000 + Rs 5,200 (MSP)]. Above that grade, the disability pension of 30 per cent would be greater than the slab rate of Rs 17,000. In fact, most JCOs start retiring as Subedars, with 28 years of service, when their pay grade is Rs 57,200 (Rs 52,000 + Rs 5,200).Calculating similarly, commissioned officers only benefit from the slab system if their pay at release is less than Rs 90,000 [Rs 74,500 + Rs 15,500 (MSP)]. That is because 30 per cent of any pay grade above this would be greater than the slab rate of Rs 27,000. At seven years of service, officers pay grade rises above that level. Most officers retire after 20 years of service, when they become eligible for pension.The army askes: if the “slab system” was indeed beneficial for lower ranks, why hasn’t it been made applicable to other services like the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs)? In fact, there is no demand from CAPFs for extending the slab system to them.

With the military strongly arguing for a reversion to the “percentage system” of calculation, all eyes are now on the Anomalies Committe


Varun under attack over defence ‘leaks’

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, October 20

The Swaraj Abhiyan today accused the government of “deliberate inaction” over the past defence scams and alleged it was shielding arms dealer Abhishek Verma by not allowing the CBI to file an FIR despite ample evidence against him.At a press conference, Swaraj Abhiyan leaders Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav released a letter written by US-based Edmond C Allen, a whistleblower and a one-time partner of Verma, which alleged that BJP MP Varun Gandhi had been honey-trapped to leak sensitive defence documents. The purported letter was written by Allen to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in September this year and it also named a couple of Navy and IAF officers who had been honey-trapped and compromised to leak sensitive data and details. Gandhi denied allegations, saying “Have they (Bhushan and Yadav) substantiated any of these insane claims. They have not provided an iota of evidence in their press conference, rather they did not have the courage to take my name.” He said he had not meet Abhishek Verma since 2004. “I shall be filing a criminal defamation case against Bhushan and Yadav. I have clarified that the parliamentary committee on defence holds no sensitive documents,” he said.Earlier in the day, Bhushan questioned the government, saying “Why does the current BJP government not take any action against the corruption that took place during the Congress regime.” He was referring to the Scorpene submarine deal inked in 2005, adding the CBI sought closure in the case and the Delhi High Court accepted it in January 2016. “To date neither any inquiry has been ordered nor any action has been taken at least against the persons who are readily identifiable for compromising national security,” he said.


No, Generals Do Not Want To Corner Disability Claims; Here’s The Complete Picture

No, Generals Do Not Want To Corner Disability Claims; Here’s The Complete Picture 

SNAPSHOT

A letter written by a retired Director General of the Armed Forces Medical Services in 2014 is doing the rounds in media circles, and the insinuation is that retired Generals of the forces are wrongly claiming disability benefits.

That is blatantly wrong. Here’s the complete picture.

It was bewildering to see the circulation of a letter purportedly written in 2014 by the then Director General Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS) to the Defence Secretary insinuating that Generals of the Army were wrongly claiming disability benefits for personal gain. Of course it got wide coverage, and amongst others, the following points were raised in the said communication:

  • Generals present themselves with disabilities at the fag end of their careers and doctors working in hospitals under their command find themselves constrained to oblige “these officers”.
  • The provision of post-discharge claims is being misused for claiming benefits for disabilities such as corns, eczema and hearing loss.
  • That Generals should be examined at a central place and not under establishments under their command.
  • That disability pension claims should be decided two years prior to retirement and tax benefits should be abrogated.
  • Concept of a disability arising in a peace area or field should be done away with and any disability occurring in any area should be taken as connected with service and entitling a person to disability benefits.

One by one, let me attempt to clear this muddle:

Generals presenting themselves with disabilities at the fag end of their careers and doctors obliging them

The DGAFMS should have known that medical science is not mathematics wherein disabilities can be controlled or planned. Generals retire at the age of 58 onwards and the likelihood of incurring certain disabilities is higher at such an age profile and merely because a person attains a higher rank cannot be considered a disqualification from flow of benefits entitled under the rules. The rules do not discriminate between a Sepoy or a General and even this author is personally aware of many instances wherein senior officers developed diseases towards retirement, including Coronary Heart Disease, Ischemic Heart Disease necessitating angioplasty and even open heart surgery, and also back problems.

So, is the DGAFMS implying that a senior rank shields a person from disease? It should be absolutely clear that unless it is shown that a person has feigned a disability (used to happen in the times of yore when diagnostic tools were not advanced- with hearing loss and backache being the most commonly faked disabilities which could not be objectively discerned), there is no question of discriminating a person based on rank. Interestingly much water has flown from the date this letter was written by the DGAFMS since this very issue had been deliberated upon by a Committee of Experts constituted on the directions of theRaksha Mantri, of which this author too was Member and which recorded its conclusion on this subject in the following words:

“…The Committee notes that the rank of a claimant is immaterial for claiming disability pension if admissible under the rules, however cases of feigning disabilities where none exist should be dealt with strongly and medical boards should also be extra careful in examining cases where individuals have reported with a medical condition just before retirement.”

Hence, instead of scandalizing the issue out of proportion, the DGAFMS could have simply written to all medical authorities to exercise due care. Moreover, if medical boards, in the opinion of the DGAFMS, were being pressurized by senior officers, then the fault lies with those medical boards which are under the overall command of the DGAFMS for being so fickle. Also, if the DGAFMS felt that officers were declaring themselves fit during the most part of their careers and disclosing their disabilities just before retirement, then it is again the fault of the annual and periodic medical boards for not being able to identify disabilities and lowering the medical categorization of officers at the correct time. It was an issue that could have been resolved in-house and the Defence Secretary had nothing to do with this malaise, if any. Also, it is none of the concerns of the DGAFMS about the relationship between career advancement of officers and their disabilities and the medical board cannot go beyond certifying the disability and its connection with service.

Post-discharge claims for corns, eczema and hearing loss

This is a surprising averment. Firstly, the rules provide for the system of post-discharge claims for both civilians as well as defence retirees. Secondly, merely submitting such a claim does not result in grant of benefits and a proper medical board is still held to confirm whether the disability was such that could have had a basis in service but fully manifested itself after retirement and whether it had a service-connection or not, and the said exercise is to be conducted by the office of the DGAFMS itself. Floating a claim by a General does not mean the automatic grant of such a benefit. Moreover, medical documents of the disability under consideration initiated during the course of service are always required to be produced for any such claim to be accepted.

Regarding eczema and corns, it seems that the two medical conditions have been mentioned in the letter just for effect, and I would be surprised if any person after retirement has been granted disability benefits for these two disabilities at all or the number would be negligible and if my hunch is correct then the argument of the then DGAFMS self-destructs.

However, to add, if such instances are true, I agree that disability benefits for such minor ailments giving rise to no functional problems should not be considered after retirement.

On the point of hearing loss, I think that the then DGAFMS should have been in a better position to understand that noise above 85-90 decibels is harmful to the ear and even a single gunshot over 140 decibels can damage the ear. The 5.56 shot of the standard issue infantry weapon produces a sound of over 150 decibel and there is no system of using hearing protection devices in the Indian Army. All troops of all ranks undertake regular firing practices all throughout their careers and hence cases of hearing loss should not have been broad-brushed in such a manner by the highest medical authority of the Armed Forces in such a casual manner unless there was diagnostic evidence to prove that a particular General had faked his disability. The office of the DGAFMS should restrict itself to commenting whether a disability exists or not and if a person is faking a disability, it should raise the red flag, nothing more, nothing less.

That Generals should be examined at a central place and not under hospitals under them

Wonderful idea that should be acceptable to all stakeholders since it would reflect objectivity in the entire process and offset any conflict of interest. The letter of the DGAFMS should have restricted itself to this aspect instead casting aspersions on senior ranks of the defence services. Going a step further, medical boards could be held at hospitals of other services. For example, if a Major General of the Army is being examined, the board could be held at an Air Force establishment and vice versa.

That disability pension claims should be decided two years prior to retirement and tax benefits should be abrogated

A suggestion ridiculous, to say the least, which unfortunately also shows the lack of knowledge of basic disability law by the highest medical authority. As per law, disability benefits are determined based upon Release and Invalidation Medical Boards at the time of release from service and the medical condition persisting at the time of severance from service and not earlier. Also, why should a General be held responsible only because a disability emerges at the later stages of his career? While calling for abrogation of tax benefits, the then DGAFMS has transgressed all limits of his jurisdiction. What is he? The Chairperson of the Central Board of Direct Taxes?

Concept of disability arising in a peace area or field should be done away with and any disability occurring in any area should be taken as connected with service entitling a person to disability benefits

Very pertinent suggestion and to support the DGAFMS I would forcefully state that this is already provided under the rules which prescribe that the incurring of a disability in a peace or field area has no implication on disability benefits. However, there is a twist to this. Despite this rule and various High Courts and the Supreme Court adversely commenting upon the peace/field distinction perpetrated by military medical boards, it is the same office of the DGAFMS which has illegally, and in contravention of rules, issued personal and Demi Official letters to medical establishments asking them not to consider cases of certain disabilities arising in peace areas. The same office of the DGAFMS has also illegally omitted to reproduce the beneficial disability rules to the said effect while compiling its “Guide to Medical Officers, Military Pensions”. It is therefore ironic that after issuing illegal communications to its lower formations and also issuing guidelines contrary to rules, the senior most authority of the same office makes a somersault and talks of something that his own office is responsible for. In fact, this suggestion, though very much relevant and correct, is contrary to the first part of the DGAFMS’s communication to the Defence Secretary. The DGAFMS therefore is suggesting that though all disabilities incurred in service should (rightly) qualify for disability benefits, if the disabled officer happens to shoulder a heavier brass, he or she should be disentitled. In any case, the issue has been decided in detail by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and any aberration suggested would not just be unethical but also contemptuous. The entire length and breadth of the issue has already been deliberated upon in much detail in the Paragraph 2.2.1 of the ibid Committee of Experts which thrashed out the subject from all corners.

To conclude, I would only say that the issue of disability benefits to our soldiers of all ranks is much too sensitive to be discussed without due background or with little knowledge and such matters which involve precious rights of our troops concerning their health, irrespective of their rank, cannot be held hostage to a short three page note which turns the entire law and practical realities upside down. Also, assuming that there had been a few undeserving cases, which could anyway be counted on our fingertips where disabilities were supposedly faked, which is not quite an agreeable proposition, the responsibility of letting such disabilities pass rests squarely on the multiple medical boards which allowed the same to happen and then the medical authorities who approved them- all of whom function under the office of the DGAFMS.

The letter therefore clearly appears to have been written with a background, and dare I say it, with a foreground. It is yet another matter of concern that the subject that should have been addressed to the three Chiefs of the Defence Services was endorsed to the then Defence Secretary who had no role in the subject thereby providing a leverage to many elements within the system to inject further chaos in the matter.

Major Navdeep Singh is a practicing Advocate at the Punjab & Haryana High Court. He was the founding President of the Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association at Chandigarh. He is Member of the International Society for Military Law and the Law of War at Brussels.


A strategy that marks a paradigm shift::::——– Maj Gen Raj Mehta (retd)

This is a moment in history where we have put Pakistan on the backfoot. India now needs to shift its centre of gravity to Pakistan’s troubled western borders and keep it engaged there in fire-fighting even as the ground lost in Kashmir is regained

A strategy that marks a paradigm shift
India quietly demonstrated that it can access ambiguous space under the “nuclear fence” as the Army protected the idea of India. PTI

SET the gushing words aside and you suddenly realise that not so much has happened that merits such euphoric recall. There have been similar operations in the past whose impact was felt but hardly spoken about. Yet — and this is key — enough has been done this time around to compel Pakistan to pause to re-strategise and recalibrate its future conduct of proxy war. Enough has been done to induce serious paralysis of the Pakistani decision-making (read Army) apparatus as they struggle with the reality that an India they presumed incapable has actually called their bluff. Posturing fuelled by the Chagai nuclear tests worked for them to limit the Kargil War. Yet again, in 2001 India mobilised post the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament under Op Parakram but then failed to walk its talk.   This time around, the standard, brazen, implied “we-will-go-nuclear” threat has fallen flat. This, for Pakistan, is worrisome. More significantly, Pakistan, used to calling the shots, has been suddenly caught unprepared in a maze of uncertainty. It does not know how to handle the fallout of the Indian riposte in order to bolster its image domestically as well as internationally. This is evident in its current “did-not-happen” strategy with indignant bluff, not incontrovertible proof, as its main platform. The Northern Command’s surgical strikes negated Pakistan’s huge strategic advantage by taking out several trans-LoC terror launch pads astride Haji Pir in both 15 and 16 Corps zones. This had not happened before at this scale. Another major difference was the joint military and diplomatic declaration of the strikes. The Indian DGMO spoke in open-ended military syntax and the MEA spokesman used diplomatic finesse of a rare kind. Keeping the Pakistani DGMO informed (and announcing that too publicly) was another well- thought-through coup de main which Pakistan must have found galling. This happened because Pakistan had failed to upgrade Guevara 1.0 of 1987 and Guevara 2.0 of Kargil 1999. Pakistan’s proxy war of a 1000 cuts suddenly became irrelevant on the night of 28/29 September 2016. Complacence made Pakistan in Uri made Guevara dated and in need for ditching or serious review and Pakistan isn’t prepared to make the transition. The details are irrelevant. What is clear is the shallow insertions were not helicopter driven. The weapons do not matter either. What matters is that the mission was carried out by skilled, professionally tasked troops. What matters is that the targets had been assiduously studied over time; attacking troops had access to comparative photo cover. What mattered was what was delivered by troops sworn to win.Gains and areas of concernFirstly, India quietly demonstrated that it can also access ambiguous space under the “nuclear fence.” as skillfully as Pakistan. A subtle spin-off message is that PoK is Indian territory and entering it to impart “lessons” to terror-promoters is perfectly legitimate. Secondly, India has upgraded its response strategy to publicly owned retribution. Thirdly, Army’s professionalism has been subtly highlighted. Fourthly, the Indian Army has proved that the forces are programmed for unlimited liability to preserve and protect the “Idea of India”. Death has no place in this equation at all. It is just a hazard that the forces face with equanimity and calm acceptance. The implication is as blunt as the messaging. A time has come to put the grim war time Chief Gen Ved Malik’s signalling: “We will fight and win with what we have” to rest. Soldiers need weapons and unqualified support in pay, allowances, societal respect and attendant prestige to uphold India’s sovereignty against external threats, regardless of who the enemy is.

Afterword

The subcontinent’s immediate future does not look bright. Pakistan has to take a call on what it must do next. The easier decision here will be to conduct strikes to reclaim its lost “moral” ascendancy over India. The harder part will be to cope with the equally certain Indian response; this time of a higher order. This is a moment in history where, we have nevertheless put Pakistan on the back foot. India now needs to shift its centre of gravity to Pakistan’s troubled western borders and keep it engaged there in fire-fighting even as the lost ground in Kashmir is regained, Burhan Wani and his legacy must be put to rest by seriously addressing the problems of young that Kashmir is facing. This is a call Prime Minister Narendra Modi needs to take: Do a Vajpayee in Kashmir while Pakistan is kept sweating on its western borders. That is the Idea of India that people across party affiliation will unhesitatingly accept and the military cheerfully die defending — with unlimited liability.The writer commanded an LoC Division in North Kashmir