After the attack in Uri Army Base, there is a lot of public outrage. There are civilian groups demanding direct offensive against Pakistan. Lately, a lot of civilian groups from all across the nation are organizing candle marches and condemning the alleged involvement of the hostile neighbour, Pakistan. There are Facebook and Whatsapp messages asking for 1 million likes for our martyred soldiers. There are also viral posts in the social media about nuclear attack on Pakistan. However, this is the obvious reaction of any public in any country. But one country’s decisions cannot be decided like this by public opinion.
The government has preferred to keep quiet on the course of action that it is going to take on this. This shows the political maturity of our present government. However, there were some comments by some regional party in Maharashtra claiming that terrorist attacks had increased even more than the UPA government’s time. It’s useless to discuss about these.
I was following a debate in a prime time today where the experts were in the favour of carrying out surgical strikes on Pakistan, similar to those carried out by USA to eliminate Bin-Laden. There were few, who favoured to put economical bans on Pakistan and declare it a terrorist state.
While the opinions that I am about to describe below are my own and I am open for a debate on it, India can do neither of the two. The reason why I say so is not because India is not competent militarily, but because it can have some very serious repercussions. I will analyse why both the alternatives are not feasible for India.
- Carrying out surgical strikes inside Pakistani territory.
Pakistan is now backed by China and military intrusion by India can annoy both the neighbours. Moreover destroying terrorist camps in PoK and some nearby areas can handicap terrorist activities for few months to maximum fo a year, but it is not a permanent solution. So when compared with return v/s risk, there is low return and high risk involved.
The reason why I say this is because the problem is not with the number of terrorists killed; the problem is with the ideology. Somehow unfortunately, Pakistan has beensuccessful to create similar ideology in Kashmir. If surgical strikes need to be done, first “surgically eliminate”the “liabilities” that India has inside its border and save Kashmir from being ideologically vulnerable to the terrorist ideology.
Also the emanating source of this anti-India ideology has support from Pakistani Army and Political setup. I mean let’s be practical; in no way can India carry out surgical strikes so deep inside Pakistan to eliminate Hafiz Saeed or Maulana Mazood Azhar. So this alternative is very unlikely to do permanent solution on the cross border terrorism problem.
- Declaring Pakistan a terrorist state and putting financial bans on it
This one may sound feasible to you, only if you are high or live in dreamland! Okay jokes apart, the reason why this alternative is also not feasible is:
To put sanctions on Pakistan a resolution needs to be passed in the UN Security Council. If you are unaware of the permanent members then let me remind you of them. They are as follows:
- Russia
- France
- United Kingdom
4.USA
- China
While there is no problem with the 1st three countries, the last two will use their power of VETO to ensure there are no sanctions on Pakistan. You may wonder; China’s love for Pakistan can be understood! But how can USA not put a ban on Pakistan after pouring love for India?
Let me explain this to you. First I will explain how Pakistan had been USA’s lapdog for years.
USA spends around USD 35 million as foreign aid. The top 5 recipients include Pakistan. India has been constantly lodging its protest to USA that this fund is used by Pakistan to create unrest in India. Sounds strange, No?
No, it is not at all strange. The money that Pakistan receives as foreign aid from USA is used to buy weapons from US arm manufacturers. Recently USA sold 9 AH-1Z helicopters and F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan.
Again you might wonder how it makes a lot of sense.
Yes it does make sense, because the American senate is influenced by the lobbyists from the arms industry. It is the easiest way to convert black money to white money. The taxpayer’s money is given to Pakistan as aid. From the aid the Pakistan buys weapons from private weapons manufacturers and the politicians have their cut in the deal. Sounds like easy money, eh?
The US media has a similar view:
“Some 61 senators received no official funds from the gun lobby or related individuals during 2014 election.”
Source: www.nonprophetnews.com
Also putting financial and ban and declaring Pakistan a terrorist state means Pakistan will no longer be able to buy weapons from USA. And this is only one chapter of the whole story. There are many more things that USA will lose if sanctions are placed on Pakistan.
Let’s hypothetically say USA supports India and cast its vote against Pakistan, but what about China? There is no way China will put a ban on Pakistan and use its power of veto. Now after both the infeasible options you might call me a pessimist and argue, so should India sit and lodge protest after protest? This brings to the final segment of the article
What should be done by India in this case?
Firstly, India should increase the security of the border areas and ensure much lesser infiltrations by Pakistan bred terrorists. Secondly, India should eliminate Pakistani sympathizers by hook and by crook (yes I am aware it’s the wrong usage of the idiom). You may argue that India is a democracy and everyone has a right to form an opinion. But, if that opinion threatens the sovereignty of our country, we should not think twice to eliminate them from the backdoor.
Again this is my personal opinion and I am open to ideas suggested by you. However, our opinions are of very little value to the actual political establishment, this should not stop us from forming opinions.
