17 Indian Army soldiers have been killed in Uri in what is apparently a fidayeen attack. Fedayeen attacks are different from suicide bombings; militants involved in these attacks attack military targets or vital installations and engage forces till they are neutralized. What is key or important about these attacks is the “news value” they carry.
The context to the 18 September, 2016 fidayeen attacks is the ongoing protest movement in Kashmir, and the upcoming meetings of heads of state at the United Nations. In this schema, Pakistan has gone on a diplomatic offensive against India and India has voiced its protest against offensive.
While no one has claimed the attacks, the media has already blamed Pakistan for these attacks. This is a clear instance and case of attribution given the nature of the attacks and extrapolation thereof. On the face of it, the attacks benefit the Indian state given that these render the “cross border terrorism” formulation emphasized by India in terms of Pakistan credible.
Moreover, the attacks render into the background the rather indigenous nature of protests in Kashmir after Burhan Wani’s killing. The focus now has shifted elsewhere.
The question then is: how will the Indian state react now? This question assumes saliency given that Ajit Doval- India’s national security advisor- has promulgated what is called the “Doval Doctrine”.
The Doval Doctrine makes no bones about the use of power and what may be called “aggressive defense” vis a vis adversaries. Moreover, there is a precedent involved here. Following the Doval Doctrine in both letter and spirit, India last year went for a quasi pre-emptive strike against militant sanctuaries in Myanmar in an unabashed use of force. Given this, what will the Indian state’s response to the Uri attack be?
If the Doval doctrine holds, then the answer is clear cut: India will strike at targets within Pakistan. But this scenario is under cut by several factors: one, Pakistan is no pushover. While the country may be a “weak state” but its hard and military power is oriented against India and there is a state of “near war preparedness” against India that defines the Pakistani Army. Second, a quasi or a near pre-emptive strike in Pakistani territory carries nuclear risks.
If India does attack Pakistan, then the deterrence paradigm between India and Pakistan could break down. This “ nuclear break out point” or even posturing will bring in outsider powers into South Asia and the Indo Pak dynamic will get internationalized. Third, while the attack undercuts Pakistan’s diplomatic offensive against India and pushes the country onto the back foot, a pre- emptive strike will nonetheless have politico-diplomatic connotations that could go anywhere.
Unless the ruling party in India wants to reap domestic political dividends from the attack, there are then obvious risks in carrying out and implementing the Doval doctrine.
What then will happen?
Prognostication and prediction about Kashmir and the Indo Pak dynamic is a mug’s game. This question then cannot be definitively answered but the odds are against a military strike against Pakistan. What can be delineated as a prescriptive solution to the overall conditions that obtain in Kashmir and the Uri attacks is that confrontation between India and Pakistan should and must be avoided. It will come at the expense of lives and of course economic development and growth- something that both India and Pakistan would or should be wary of. The most prudent way to respond to the attacks and the conditions that have obtained in Kashmir –historically and contemporarily- is a dialogue informed by a multi stakeholder approach.
While this may sound counter intuitive, there really is no way out of the morass. A game of recriminations, accusations and counter accusations and truculence will merely harden positions and render the task of diplomacy and statecraft creating negative conditions and holding hostage the future of the peoples of the sub –continent.
What the Uri attacks must do is create space for robust and prudent diplomacy instead of a militarized relationship and dynamic between India, Pakistan and, of course, Kashmiris. A diplomatic solution, to repeat, might sound counter intuitive against what many might believe to be grave provocations but, as the wit has put, “ all war is bad politics”. Let this be taken to heard and a politico- diplomatic initiative be taken over and instead of a militarized one. This is what wisdom and statecraft dictates.
Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now
Be Part of Quality Journalism |
Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast. |
| ACT NOW |
| MONTHLY | Rs 100 |  |
| YEARLY | Rs 1000 | |
| LIFETIME | Rs 10000 | |
