domestic issues. Another objective may well be to signal India’s willingness to play its role in containing China. Nevertheless, the continued silence by the international community on India’s behaviour reflects the tacit approval of India’s offer of playing the role of a spoiler in the region.
Instead of challenging this irresponsible behaviour demonstrated through leader-level statements against Pakistan, some very responsible western scholars have embarked upon building justification for India’s covert activities against Pakistan. In a recently published paper titled ‘Modi’s Strategic Choice: How to Respond to Terrorism from Pakistan’, two well-respected US-based scholars have concluded that since India does not have any options to deal with Pakistan, therefore it could possibly consider “more symmetrical and covert operations [that] would yield a better ratio of risk to effectiveness.”
Notwithstanding the merits of the arguments, it is for the first time that a serious scholarly pursuit has come out so openly with a recommendation suggesting the possible use of terrorism as state policy. This would lead to further chaos. If sponsoring terrorism could be justified for India, other states could also build a similar justification, and ‘terrorism’ could become an internationally acceptable norm. Several major powers are often accused of indulging in covert activities against smaller states for their own political interests, but none has ever tried to build a justification so blatantly.
Terrorism remains a global challenge and threat to international security. Pakistan has remained the biggest victim of this menace and has suffered more losses than any other country in the world. Ironically, most ‘non-state academics’ (NSAs) remain fixated on a fictitious Mumbai-II scenario. The barbaric and gruesome killings of 147 young children at a school in Pakistan last December was a much bigger loss but fails to get due empathy at the international level. Instead, such incidents are exploited to unjustifiably pressurise Pakistan by showing its internal security and its capacity to secure nuclear assets in a negative light.
One such concern was recently highlighted by India’s State Minister for Defence Rao Inderjeet at the last Shangri La Dialogue held at Singapore: “With the rise of Isis in West Asia, one is afraid to an extent that perhaps they might get access to a nuclear arsenal from states like Pakistan.” Those who understand the complexities involved in handling of nuclear weapons would know better that the Isis claim was no more than mere rhetoric, but using it at a prestigious forum to bring negative spotlight on Pakistan exposes the real intent of such claims.
Pakistan can live without talking to India for another Modi term – since we do not aspire to be a global power. But can India de-hyphenate itself from the region without addressing the core disputes with its only neighbour that really matters? One year in office is significant time for PM Modi to assess his policies with respect to India’s ‘projected’ and ‘actual’ potential. So far Modi has very little to show in terms of his leadership credentials, and is therefore being increasingly touted by the Congress as only a ‘suit-boot ki sarkar’ – a cynical metaphor for Modi’s penchant for his personal image.
The writer has a PhD in security studies and is currently a Visiting Research Fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), London. The views expressed are his own. Email: adilsultan66hotmail.com