Current Events :
Sikh devotees gather to pay obeisance at Bibi Chand Kaur gurdwara, to mark the birth anniversary of Guru Gobind Singh, in Jammu on Saturday; and (right) a devotee takes a selfie with Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar during his visit at Takht Sri Patna Sahib.
Using Armymen for diplomatic muscle-flexing, be it in the US, UK or India, has become commonplace. In the end, it diminishes the institution’s name and glory
Globally, ‘veterans’ naturally gravitate towards conservative parties as the Centrist and Left-of-Centre parties are traditionally perceived to be ‘soft on security’. The Republican Party in the US and the Conservative Party (the Tories) in the UK usually garner more support than the Democratic Party or the Labour Party, respectively. With politics assuming more nationalistic undertones, political appropriation and positing of the ‘soldiers’ and their ostensibly-related causes has become more blatant and commonplace. UK Prime Minister Theresa May had slammed FIFA’s decision to disallow English football players from wearing ‘poppy’ lapels (in remembrance of soldiers who died in wars) as “utterly outrageous”; whereas US President Donald Trump came back from the Bastille Day military parade in Paris, wanting to replicate and top the same with his own version of a grand military parade. Clearly, centering the ‘soldier’ makes for good politics.
However, beyond the immediate traction, overplaying the symbolic hand on this tact without doing anything concrete or meaningful has diminishing returns. Already, the unprecedented cuts in the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions, affecting the ‘veterans’, have made ‘ex-service personnel account for one in 10 rough sleepers across the UK’. Indeed, in the US, Trump’s shocking mock of the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-affected soldiers or the ‘privatisation’ of the veteran health services, militate against the professed concerns for the uniformed fraternity. The lazy perception that these men and women of honour could join the Administration of the ruling political dispensations as ‘trophy-candidates’ and loyal ‘yes-men’, to project militaristic muscularity, patriotism and decisiveness on the bankrolling party, is slowly coming undone. It is true that the institutional ethos and regimental/corps spirit bequeaths these combatants with certain outwardly machismo, steel and heroic ‘branding’, but beyond the razzmatazz of their medals, uniforms and swagger, lie decades of hands-on experience, blood-sweat-toil in disturbed areas and years of training and reflection that make these people amongst the most balanced and nuanced individuals who do not suffer from knee-jerk reactions.
Usually, what comes as a surprise to the politicos is the latent gravitas, inherent sense of self-respect and the undying spirit of speaking the truth (gently but surely), that ultimately make the political masters uncomfortable in their midst. The retired Marine Corps General James Mattis (who recently quit as the US Secretary of Defence) is famous for telling his troops: “You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before your weapon.”
The healthy institutional diversity within the ‘barracks’ and the societal bonhomie under the most trying of circumstances make these veterans life-long believers in plurality and ‘inclusiveness’ that is above the regressive divides that beset and define partisan politics.
Combatants are also hardwired into believing “dissent is not disloyalty”, albeit, expressed in a certain form with the requisite context, form and dignity. Thus, the unmalleable spirit of ‘brothers-in-arms’ that swears only to the hallowed Constitutional spirit of the nation, riles against the political necessities, compromises and bigotry that usually accompany partisan politics.
Contrary to some caricaturised perceptions, soldiers are not war-mongering or blood-lusting cadres, as the nobility of the soldiers code ensures a more professional, rationale and reasonable instinct that differentiates a soldier from a mercenary. The legendary General Douglas MacArthur famously said: “The soldier above all prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war”.
The recent case of a similar realisation dawned on the draft-evader, Trump, who, in order to inject some testosterone of muscularity that befitted his contours of ‘America First’, got carried over by the Captain America-like superhero image of the iconic, four-star General, James Mattis (popularly known as ‘mad dog’ and ‘warrior monk’), and inducted him as the Secretary of Defence.
Perhaps, unknown to Trump was the erudition, sagacity and profundity that also came along with the Pattonesque-persona, whose real-time combat experience was enhanced by the scholarship that came with a personal library of over 7,000 books, unlike the empty rhetoric and vacuous bluster of a Donald Trump. The officer-like conduct in Mattis had insisted on a certain decorum and dignity in engaging with the allies, and not in the fanciful flights of temperamental rants that define Trump. Mattis’ exit and inability to get along with Trump mirrored the similar fate that beset other veterans, like the previous National Security Advisor, Lt Gen McMaster.
Historically, in India, too, veterans-turned-politicians have been amongst the most respected, well-read and responsible leaders like the classic cavalier Jaswant Singh, Maj Gen Khanduri and Rajesh Pilot — each of who did imminent justice and service to their respective political parties and administrative responsibilities. However, in the last few years, a new phenomenon emerged of newsroom-warriors plumed in their regimental regalia, thundering political invectives and positions dominating the prime-time slots. Thankfully, time and tide forced some into introspection, reflection and realisation that the politicos appropriated and misused the imagery of the ‘soldier’ for their own partisan purposes and basically the institutional interests and concerns remained unanswered, as before.
Election time is always fraught with the risk of such tactical propping of veterans as ‘show-horses’ for posturing patriotism and political muscularity. Care must be taken to ensure that the apolitical-construct and wiring of the Armed Forces is respected, and no ‘firing from the shoulders’ of these veterans is done to justify political pettiness, nefarious designs and selfish electoral objectives.
Like the veterans of yore, no implied extension of their military service should be encouraged to suggest an ‘institutional’ preference towards any political party — the veterans should propagate their partisan preferences in their individual capacity and certainly not on behalf of the ‘institution. A delicate line must be maintained. Irrespective of the political parties, matters concerning the ‘soldier’ have remained unaddressed and in crunch situations, the discomfort of politicians with the perspective and concerns of the ‘soldiers’ — be it in the US, UK or India — has led to the steady diminishment of the ‘institution’ in the national narrative.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan army claimed to have shot down an Indian spy quadcopter in Bagh sector along the Line of Control on Tuesday. Defence spokesperson Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor, in his official twitter handle, also said that not even a quadcopter would be allowed to cross the Line of Control (LoC). “Pakistan army troops shot down Indian Spy Quadcopter in Bagh Sector along Line of Control. Not even a quadcopter will be allowed to cross LOC,” he tweeted along with a picture of the drone. PTI
Allahabad as Prayagraj gets Centre’s approval
NEW DELHI: A fortnight ahead of the ‘Kumbh Mela’, the Centre has approved the renaming of Allahabad as Prayagraj as sought by the Uttar Pradesh Government, officials said on Tuesday. The decision came more than two months after the state government, headed by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, took the decision to rename the historic city as Prayagraj. The Centre has given its consent for renaming of Allahabad as Prayagraj about 10 days ago, a Home Ministry official said. The ‘Kumbh Mela’ in Prayagraj will start on January 15 on ‘Makar Sankranti’ and will conclude on March 4 on ‘Maha Shivaratri’. PTI
New Delhi, December 21
A Delhi court today directed the CBI to cancel the lookout circular (LOC) issued against former IAF chief SP Tyagi, an accused in the VVIP chopper scam. Special Judge Arvind Kumar directed the probe agency to inform the authorities concerned about it.
The CBI had issued LOC — to check if a person who is travelling is wanted by the law enforcement agencies — against Tyagi in 2013.
The CBI on September 1, 2017, had filed a chargesheet in the case in which Tyagi and British national Christian Michel were named as accused along with others. Eight others were also named in the chargesheet in connection with a bribery case in the VVIP chopper deal.
Tyagi (73) is the first chief of the Indian Air Force to be chargesheeted in a corruption or a criminal case by the CBI and he has denied all charges against him. On January 1, 2014, India scrapped the contract with Italy-based Finmeccanica’s British subsidiary AgustaWestland for supplying 12 AW-101 VVIP helicopters to the IAF over alleged breach of contractual obligations and charges of paying kickbacks to the tune of Rs 423 crore by it for securing the deal.
The CBI has alleged there was an estimated loss of 398.21 million euro (around Rs 2,666 crore) to the exchequer in the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010, for the supply of VVIP choppers worth euro 556.262 million. — PTI
New Delhi: Army Chief General Bipin Rawat on Saturday said there are women officers engaged in exercises like mining and de-mining operations and also manning the air defence system, but cited difficulties in assigning them frontline combat role. He said that in frontline combat there are risks of officers getting killed.
“See, I am not saying a woman who has children doesn’t die. She can also die in a road accident. But in combat, when body bags come back, our country is not ready to see that,” Rawat said.
“We have women officers as engineers, they are doing mining and demining work. In air defence, they are manning our weapon systems. But we have not put women in frontline combat because what we are engaged in right now is a proxy war, like in Kashmir,” he said.
He cited logistical reason also behind not posting women on frontlines. “Our orders are that a lady officer will get a hut in the COB, then there are orders that we have to cocoon her separately. She will say somebody is peeping, so we will have to give a sheet around her,” Rawat said.
Rawat questioned whether a women officer with commanding responsibilities can stay away from her post for long. “I am ready, it is not that army is not ready (for combat role for the women). Will she command? Ok, so now I make her a commanding officer. She is commanding a battalion. Do I put a restriction on her to say that in that command tenure you will not be given maternity leave? If I say that, there will be ruckus created?” he added.
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, December 13
Armies of India and China on Thursday participated in ‘Combat Skill Live Firing’ exercise as part of the seventh edition of Sino-Indian joint military exercise ‘Hand-in-Hand 2018’, currently under way in China’s Chengdu.
Aimed at achieving synergy and interoperability, both contingents took turns to participate in the exercise. The exercise involved shooting static and impromptu targets while on the move.
‘Hand-in-Hand 2018’ began on December 11, and will go on until December 23.
Company size contingents of 11 Sikh Light Infantry from Indian Army and a regiment from Tibetan Military District of People’s Liberation Army are participating in the exercise.
The Indian contingent is commanded by Col Puneet Paratap Singh Tomar, Commanding Officer of 11 Sikh Light Infantry, while the Chinese contingent is led by Col Zhou Jun, Commanding Officer from Infantry Battalion of Tibetan Military District of PLA, according to an official Indian Army statement.
The celluloid depiction of the bravery of defence personnel in India has been lacking soul by being belligerent and loud
Nonika Singh
A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of coloured ribbon. Napoleon Bonaparte
And Indian soldier even more so. The Indian Army and its high morale on battlefield or even off it, has never been a subject of dispute. Alas, the same can’t be said of the celluloid depiction of the bravery of the men in uniform. In a society increasingly turning insular towards the sacrifices its defence forces make, a cinematic tribute ought to be the proverbial knock on the head. But with a few exceptions what makers offer is more like a thud, loud and belligerent.
No doubt men in uniform have never looked more dashing as on our silver screen. For a long time, the Indian cinema has flirted with the image of a defence officer, portraying him in the best of colours — suave, intelligent and undeniably handsome. Be it in fleeting parts as in Sangam, Aradhana or plum roles (Hindustan Ki Kasam, Hum Dono, Border, Rustom), the list of heroes who have donned the uniform and rocked the look runs long and impressive.
But then wearing a uniform on screen is easy. Finding them a matching and equally sterling and inspiring story, however, is easier said than done. No wonder, war movies are not exactly a staple diet of our filmmakers. Except for JP Dutta, whose heart beats for defence personnel, a few have dared to replicate the daring feats of our war heroes. Fewer still make the reel world credible and visceral. If old-timers swear by Haqeeqat whose song ‘Main yeh soch ke’ continues to ring through corridors of time, in more recent memory, the movie that flashes is Border. Based on the Battle of Longewala during the Indo-Pakistan War in 1971 and starring handsome Sunny Deol as Punjab’s very own war hero Major Kuldip Singh Chandpuri, Border went on to win the National Award for National integration. Till date it is rated as the best movie by Dutta, who went on to direct LOC Kargil later.
Depicting the Indian Army’s valiant win on the highest battlefield, LOC, which opened to mixed reviews, had the standard Dutta tropes. Burdening each character with a pining wife and lover is the only way our directors deem fit to create an emotional core in such films dripping with overt sentimentality.
Patriotism, too, is an over used card with which they try to hook and hoodwink the viewer. Films like Anil Sharma’s Ab Tumhare Hawale Watan Saathiyo, touted as the first film on Indo-Pak friendship for instance indulged in blatant Pak bashing . Be it 1971 Beyond Borders or just 1971, which was about six prisoners of war, the directors and scriptwriters rarely push the envelope and, at best, fall in “good effort well intended” category.
Contrast this with the West where films delve deep into the psychology of the battles, what soldiers have to grapple with. Directed by Clint Eastwood, American Sniper — a biographical war drama film — followed the life of Kyle, who became the deadliest marksman in US military history with 255 kills from four tours in the Iraq War. Then there is Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker, yet another Iraq war film described as spellbinding and gut-wrenching. Universally acclaimed, it won six Academy Awards, including Best Film and Best Original Screenplay, making Bigelow the first female director to win Best Film award.
Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan is undisputedly on everyone’s favourite list of war films. Set during the invasion of Normandy in World War II, it asks how important one person’s life is and entails the sacrifices in the line of duty without even once uttering the word. It simply yet emphatically tells the story of a war veteran who sacrifices his life to save yet another soldier, Ryan.
Hollywood succeeds in portrayals that are poignant, gritty and moving in equal parts. These are films where silence speaks and not just the sound of guns. In comparison, desi war dramas only jump the gun and rarely touch a raw nerve.
Invariably, Bollywood does not go beyond paying lip service to the gallant. Jingoism might make Dutta see red, but when he forces unnecessary bravado on us as in his latest Paltan, no other word comes to mind. Prior to the release of this movie based on the Nathu-la military clashes of 1967, which took place along the Sikkim border, he promised that there won’t be a single dry eye. Alas, the only heartfelt moment in the film was the line “Tum 100 crore ke ehsason mein zinda ho”.
Indeed, every once in a while there is a film that demands and commands attention. Shoojit Sircar’s Madras Cafe for instance. Delving into India’s role in Sri Lanka’s ethnic strife and the presence of the IPKF in Sri Lanka, it encapsulated the cycle of events through the eyes of iArmy Intelligence officer Vikram (John Abraham). Despite certain flaws, it did manage to take you into the thick of things. Never mind that it married fact with fiction, it was on point as far as research and authenticity (real names of course were changed) were concerned. Sans item songs or any other digression, it remained close to the subject. Peppered with dialogues like “We lost our Prime Minster and Sri Lankan Tamils their future,” it was indeed an intelligent take on wars, portraying these as essentially what they are — a human tragedy more than anything else.
Dutta, too, asserts that war movies are essentially anti-war. Yet despite his noble intentions, India is yet to make a world class war film, a feat achieved by smaller nations such as Israel whose two films Waltz With Bashir and Foxtrot, dealing with dilemmas of soldiers won critical appreciation worldwide.
Will the upcoming Kesari that tells the story of Battle of Saragarhi, in which an army of 21 Sikhs fought against 10,000 Afghans in 1897, might tilt the scales and give us a cinematic treat that has eludedus so far? In near future we will also get to see movies on Uri attacks and on Captain Vikram Batra who died in the Kargil War and was awarded the Param Vir Chakra posthumously. To what extent will the film on Batra will do justice to the gallant officer, remains to be seen. Uri: The Surgical Strike takes a leaf from the very recent retaliatory ‘surgical strikes’ in the wake of Uri attacks.
Will these movies reverse the tide and rise above clichés? Without doubt these are stories waiting to be told. However, the trick lies in not merely recounting heroic tales but delving deep and going beyond the Mera Bharat Mahan rhetoric too.
he presence of Pak army chief and a Khalistani leader gave the game away
Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (retd)
Chancellor, Central University of Kashmir
Prime minister Imran Khan just completed hundred days in office. His pre-power utterances did not inspire much confidence as he mouthed only words that the security establishment of Pakistan (the Deep State) was happy to hear. However ever since coming to power, he has been trying too hard to draw India into a dialogue, even as there is no let-up in the proxy war his country relentlessly pursues in J&K. Either he is not smart enough to appreciate India’s concerns or the Deep State hopes to escape some of the vilification which comes its way time and again from the international community, by forcing an Indian refusal. Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s subsequent mischievous statement that Imran Khan delivered a googly and India sent two ministers to Pakistan reveals the immature attitude of the Pakistan government promoted by the deep state.
While yet a cricketer, Imran was popular in India. He seems to think that the same popularity has accompanied him into the murky world of politics. The relationship of his country with India is on a different plane than what it was in the 70s and 80s. The terms then too were not friendly, but people-to-people contact existed. The LoC was quiet except for an odd infringement of the ceasefire agreed in 1971. The Siachen issue was beginning to heat up relations. But there existed an accepted idea that the military domain involving trans-LoC exchanges should not come in the way of bilateral relations. It was only after 1987 that things started to change in J&K and came to a head in early 1990. Imran was then captaining his team for the World Cup in 1992. Navjot Sidhu played for India and a goodly relationship had developed between them and other team members. The friendship continued, unmindful of the changes. This is what the two bring to the table today, frozen in time. Both are idealists while the time today is of realists.
Evidence that Imran has not been able to shed the sportsman’s persona comes from his utterances about Sidhu in his recent speech. Referring to the possibility of peace with India if and when Sidhu would be the PM of India exposes his naivety. If it was a statement at the behest of the Deep State, it is even worse because Gen Bajwa must know that evoking a positive response from India won’t happen by instigating the BJP. Perhaps that was the intent; irritate the Indian leadership to such an extent that even with a goodwill gesture such as the Kartarpur corridor, it would be forced to respond negatively and thereby hopefully remain open to international criticism.
In the sensitive world of India-Pakistan relations, every gesture is under the scanner for potential negativity, howsoever positive the intent. The moment Imran learnt that the Indian Government was playing ball up to a point and had no intent of treating a religious-cultural initiative as a political initiative, he should have changed tack. He should have spoken of the event being a major one in the people-to-people field which hopefully would transform to the political field. Mentioning the futility of war was fine, but implying mutual assured destruction due to the nuclear capability of both countries was like baiting India.
We are at a stage in the mutual relationship where to break the negativity in the political diplomatic sphere, sensitivities have to be kept in mind. Pakistan’s general election is over, India’s general election is away, but crucial state elections are on. This is a sensitive time for the ruling dispensation. A major decision in foreign policy would surely not be taken now. Even the acceptance of the corridor by India at this stage surprised many analysts.
But getting a Khalistan protagonist to attend the ceremony was inappropriate. India’s major concern about the corridor has been about the potential influence by Khalistan separatist leaders on pilgrims who may visit the shrine. This aspect by itself appears to cast a doubt on the eventual success of this initiative.
Was Gen. Bajwa’s presence at the ceremony necessary? Gen. Rawat was nowhere near the Indian ceremony. Our Army kept itself away from it. Since the Indian event preceded the Pakistani event, someone on the Pakistan side did not do his homework. Its officialdom has some very smart people, but my impression gets diluted with the unnecessary presence of their army chief. Bajwa’s presence reinforced the perception that Pakistan army is the key controller. Sending a local commander to attend it would have conveyed a positive message. Someone who is looking to improve a political relationship from a position of relative weakness (in this case in two domains, the economic and international opinion) does have to bother about public perception across the border.
Sidhu is a superb speaker, but it seems he chooses the wrong themes to speak about. He was aware that his Chief Minister was conveying an important strategic message by staying away from the Pakistani event. Very few have actually complimented him for that. He was expressing a national concern without any political baggage. Sidhu could have won brownie points for the nation, for his Chief Minister and himself by conveying to his hosts, in the sweetest way that only he can convey, that India had concerns and addressing those concerns was important in order to make the initiative work. He should have thanked Imran profusely, but also cautioned him appropriately. These are times when political parties come together to play a strategy, as did the BJP and the Congress in 1994. Captain Amarinder Singh’s gesture smacked of the maturity of 1994. Unfortunately, Sidhu’s gest
On the morning of Friday, 23 November, 2018 three gunmen attacked the Consulate of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) at Karachi. In an hour-long gun battle, the Sindh Police managed to thwart the attack, killing the three gunmen while losing two of their men. All 21 Chinese citizens were safely evacuated. Prime Minister Imran Khan called the Karachi incident a “failed attack which was clearly a reaction to the unprecedented trade agreements that resulted from our trip to China. The attack was intended to scare Chinese investors and undermine the CPEC. These terrorists will not succeed.” Imran Khan was referring to his recent visit to China to plead more economic assistance for Pakistan’s failing economy, but nothing concrete emerged amid reports that he had raised issues concerning the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and its less than effective dividends for the people of Pakistan.
A terror attack in Pakistan with no Islamist link is a rarity. This one was by the Baloch Liberation Army and carries the sentiment of the demand for separation and creation of the independent state of Balochistan. However, there is more to it than just that sentiment, as the Baloch strongly feel the presence of the Chinese in Pakistan, and more specifically in their region, is inimical to their interests. They vehemently oppose Chinese projects in the western province that borders Iran and Afghanistan.
Balochistan is Pakistan’s poorest and least populous province despite a number of development projects Islamabad initiated there in the past. Baloch are 14 percent of Pakistan’s population residing in 40 percent of its land area. Rebel Baloch groups have waged a separatist insurgency in the province for decades, with the demand that the central government and the richer Punjab province unfairly exploit their resources. In 2005, Islamabad reacted to the insurgency by launching a military operation that resulted in the death of Nawab Akbar Bugti a respected Baloch leader; that operation had a profound effect in cementing separatist sentiments.
The CPEC in which China has invested more than 62 billion USD runs through the heart of Baluchistan. It aims to expand China’s influence in Pakistan and in conjunction with other initiatives of the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) across Central and South Asia in order to counter US and Indian influence. The CPEC links Pakistan’s southern Gwadar port in Balochistan on the Arabian Sea to China’s western Xinjiang region. It also includes plans to create road, rail and oil pipeline links to improve connectivity between China and West Asia. The Baloch perceive that this project will give them nothing, exploit Balochistan’s abundant natural resources and give even more confidence to Islamabad to subjugate their people. Pakistan has raised a 15,000 strong force to secure the corridor against rebel attacks and other activities which hamper the completion of the project.
There is another angle to the militant attack. It, in fact, obliquely assists Pakistan in its quest for greater assistance to bail it out of its precarious financial position. Down to the last 8 billion USD in foreign exchange reserves, equivalent to approximately six weeks’ worth of imports, Pakistan has been seeking bailouts from different quarters. 3 billion USD promised by Saudi Arabia has seen only a billion USD reach its account and another 3.3 billion USD worth of energy credits again from Saudi Arabia gives it a temporary reprieve. Simultaneously, a 9 billion USD bailout from the International Monetary Foundation (IMF) has been sought, but is mired in transparency issues regarding the terms and conditions of the CPEC (relatively unknown) which the US as one of the major controllers of the IMF wants laid out bare. Prime Minister Imran Khan made a trip to Beijing to reinforce the longstanding existing relationship with China. However, even with the signing of many trade agreements, the visit did not produce any immediate financial relief, with China insisting that more talks were needed. Imran Khan was also seeking to renegotiate the Chinese terms as well as the priorities of the CPEC. In fact, lack of success in this direction has forced Pakistan to reinvigorate the pursuit of the IMF bailout but has run into the US demand on greater transparency.
To add to it is the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) demands on Pakistan to do more on dismantling financial networks that support transnational terror to get any reprieve in financial support. Pakistani newspaper Dawnreported that the delegation of the Asia Pacific Group of the FATF was not impressed with the progress made by Pakistan so far as it found the legal framework insufficient and the institutional arrangements weak.
People from Balochistan further charge that the province’s local population has no stake in the CPEC and chafe at China importing materials from China, needed for projects, rather than purchasing them locally and also employing Chinese rather than Pakistani labor; all actions which give no boost to the local economy.
The militant attack in Karachi could turn all this around if the Chinese perceive a serious security threat to their flagship project. It could see a change in the Chinese approach towards securing more support for the project and therefore a rejigging of the terms and conditions, exactly what Imran Khan was seeking during his visit. It could also lead to an assuaging release of loans under negotiation. The Chinese are known for their “no free lunch” approach to financial assistance. Beijing’s release will be for the strictest purpose of effect. It will include terms for enhancing the security and making the CPEC project more viable. The experience with Malaysia is only too recent to fritter away the long term gains at the altar of short term losses.
India was right in condemning the attack, although many in India will decry the lack of support for a Baloch militant group in light of Pakistan’s proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir. Pragmatism demands that perception be reinforced about the difference between India’s stature as a responsible nation battling transnational terror and of Pakistan which is repeatedly accused of supporting it; the latest being President Trump’s responses in a recent interview.
The Karachi militant attack may seed more such actions by Baloch rebels and nationalists unless Pakistan is able to convince the Chinese to re-examine the CPEC and its local dividends. Failure to do so by the Chinese is likely to lead to more instability astride the Corridor and its consequent failure.
The author is a retired lieutenant-general and former general officer commanding 15 and 21 Corps
