Are We On the Road to War?

After encouragingly restricting action to strong arm diplomacy between India, Pakistan and the US, the response to the attacks by India seems to be increasingly heading in the direction of war between the two neighbours. After initial giving in by the Pakistani establishment followed by assurances of concrete action against suspected elements within their country, Pakistan has failed to undertake any concrete steps in fulfilling its promises. Instead, what has ensued on both sides is a heated rhetoric tilting in favour of a military confrontation between the two countries. Both countries have slowly but surely begun to up the preparedness of their respective armies and have ensured that their rhetoric has captured the same. Thus, what seems to have begun is a troubling journey down a road leading us to war.

The prospect of war between India and Pakistan brings forward the ultimate concern, that of a nuclear attack. Logically speaking, a war between the two countries should end with either dropping a nuclear bomb on the other. Victory is the sole aim of any party in a war and in this case there should be no reason why either should not consider attacking the other with a nuclear bomb in order to ensure the same. Agreed that both countries probably consider this as a last option, but there is little doubt that should the dynamic shift to the point of demanding nuclear action, neither country would desist. With the increasing prospect of war, can we then assume that there is an increasing prospect of a nuclear war ahead of us?

This writer would like to fantasise that such an outcome is unlikely. However, I do believe it would be unlikely only if actual war did not break out between the two sides. We then need to understand if war is imminent at this point or not. Going by the present situation, war seems more or less imminent. However, there have been moments in the past where both countries have resisted going to war despite military tension being much more hightened than at present. India and Pakistan managed to avoid war despite the clear intentions of India after the Parliament attacks in 2001. Without going into the dynamics of that outcome, one can atleast understand that there are circumstances within which war can still be avoided between the two countries.

However, lets assume that India, while not engaging in war, would perceive military action as the only solution to effectively tackle terrorist elements in Pakistan in order to ensure that no further attacks take place on Indian soil (a proposition similar to what the US adopted post 9/11). It would then appear prudent that India conduct surgical air strikes against specific targets in Pakistan. It is another matter if India is actually capable of undertaking such high precision and covert engagments. However, such action would ensure that India achieves its objectives of ensuring its security without engaging in an all out war against Pakistan. It is also a matter of concern (and speculation) as to what would be Pakistan's response to such attacks. Does such an option then suggest that we are in for a long drawn out proxy war with Pakistan on the same lines as the one being undertaken by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq? More importantly, would it be practical, both politically and strategically, for India to consider such an option?

Taken for a Ride

Going by everything the newspapers and news channels are reporting, it would seem that the authorities are playing a really nasty joke on us. Either they think that we are extremely devoid of any intelligence or they think that they can take us for a complete spin. With people of authority in the government changing their position on facts pertaining to the Mumbai attacks almost every third day, I certainly feel like they take us for complete idiots.

To begin with, the Marine Commandos stated that, going by the behavior of the terrorists, they were certain that the terrorists had complete knowledge of the hotel and the area around the Taj. They had thus presumably undertaken a thorough recce of the area in the days leading up to the attack. This point had been contradicted by the Mumbai Commissioner of Police Mr. Hasan Gafoor who had, for the record, stated that there was no recce done by the terrorists. The reports on the amount of RDX found and the locations at which it was found were also contradictory. Also we cannot forget the utterly contradictory statements made by heads of various forces taking part in the operations. The General from the Army had a different idea of the number of terrorists than the head of the NSG who further differed from what the CP Mumbai Police had to say (mind you, they were all on TV or in the newspaper saying this, so its not about media speculation).

There are two ways to rationalize the ongoing mockery. One, that there is complete failure of coordination and information sharing between the various agencies and none are sure about the facts themselves (this, we all know, is to a large extent true). Two, that the government is actually well in control of these agencies and is forcing them to alter the facts as it deems fit. The government’s motive presumably being to alter the truth so as to suit the position and actions it would find convenient in the days and weeks to come.

Assuming the second rationale to be true, we have grave reasons to be worried. There is no doubting the strategic and political benefits available to India if it maintains its current position of blaming the attacks on Pakistan (or elements in it). In such a scenario, we as citizens need to question and understand that, in the name of national interest, are we being taken for a ride?