Can Pakistan for once take the onus of peace initiative?
An old sleepy town famous for its mouth-watering "Palang Torh" sweetmeat, Pathankot has entered the lexicon of strategic planners - how did the attack happen and what to do to avoid another Pathankot? But of immediate focus is whether it would derail the India-Pakistan rapprochement that is hopefully underway.
Violence
Whether Maulana Masood Azhar is in custody or not, the fact remains that the threat of terrorist violence would stay for the coming decades. Hence, the question one needs to ask is - who would take the call not to walk away from the path of peace? Typically, the pressure has always come on the Indian leadership to make this decision, as was seen after the Parliament and Mumbai attacks and now after Pathankot. But the moot point is - does Pakistan not want peace?
Why is only India seen as the one hankering for peace? Why are first moves expected to be made only by us? Or, why should India be the party "tasked" to salvage the peace process? Remember, after the Parliament attack, literally all Western nations descended in Delhi in January 2002, and then again in May that year after the Kaluchak terrorist strikes, to dissuade India from going kinetic.
It is time that the onus to keep the peace process on track is transferred to Pakistan. Islamabad must give cogent reasons why it feels peace talks must continue. This would happen only when it genuinely desires to have peace or is forced to desire to have peace. Can India assist or force this turn over?
India can, as it is all a game of escalatory dynamics and who blinks first to diffuse the situation. India, after Pathankot, has wisely not gone up the escalatory ladder. Eminently thoughtful sound bites have emanated from New Delhi to indicate that Islamabad has to show whether it wants peace. The official statement issued by Islamabad after the meeting convened by Nawaz Sharif on January 8 and attended by the army chief has indicated that they would "investigate" the leads provided by India. Pakistani press has reported that "some" arrests had been made; late night TV anchors breathlessly informed us on January 13 that Maulana Azhar had been put in protective custody! So far so good, but time is of essence. The cause of all that Pathankot signifies lies with Pakistan and it should be made to realise that moves towards peace, or otherwise, would also flow from its subsequent actions.
Charade
Thucydides, the fifth century BC Greek historian, had said, "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Are we so weak that we must suffer, and is Pakistan so strong that it can do what and when it wants? For too long has the charade of being a victim of terror and not having control on anti-India "non-state" actors been enacted.
The faulty acceptance by India of the prevalence of a proxy war also has much to do with the prevalence of the present state of affairs. A proxy war is one in which two adversaries use other players to fight for their interests to avoid a direct confrontation that could lead to a major conflagration; it requires two principals and at least two surrogates.
Thus, the US and the erstwhile USSR engaged in proxy wars in Nicaragua, Angola, et al. However, Korea and Vietnam were not proxy war situations, as the US was itself involved in both. India is battling violence in Jammu & Kashmir, which is perpetuated by an extended arm of the Pakistani state. To draw an analogy from nuclear parlance, extended deterrence is afforded by the US to Japan and South Korea against China and North Korea. It is time that the salience of "extended" kinetic action of Pakistan against India is recognised as an act of an independent nation and not camouflaged under the garb of uncontrollable non-state actors. India must draw this distinction between proxy war and "extended" war and impress upon the fact that it is Pakistan that has to act first to bring in peace.
Diktat
So, the requirement of the moment is a one-line diktat from the Indian political leadership to our NSA - "Take steps necessary to shift the onus of making peace to Pakistan." Self-deterrence through the thought that it would mean going to war must be abandoned. There are enough diplomatic and other non-kinetic means available to convey the point - use of force, off course, is a watermark in the whole debate. The other side has to be made to wonder when India's patience will snap, making its offensive power emerge from its silhouettic existence. The Indian leadership must take steps to make Pakistan do the thinking. The dialogue offer, meanwhile, can stay open.
Will the terrorist attacks stop in the interim? A negative trend should show, if Pakistan plays ball; however, the odd assault can be expected. It is here that India's intelligence agencies need to show their mettle and provide timely actionable intelligence for the forces to act on pre-emptively. Loss of some lives can be expected in attacks that cannot be forestalled, but tragic as these losses would be, no nation has achieved great power status without sacrifices. They cannot but be triggers for stepping up our efforts to crush the monster of terrorism - Pakistan can choose on which side it stands.
(Courtesy of Mail Today.)