‘Aggressive’ Posturing is an End in Itself

A 230 per cent increase in ceasefire violation in 2017 compared to 2016, along the Line of Control as well as the International Border in Jammu and Kashmir between Pakistan and India is a major cause for concern. India accuses Pakistan for 881 instances of ceasefire violations in which 12 civilians and 17 Army and BSF personnel lost their lives and 79 civilians and 67 soldiers suffered injuries. Pakistan on the other hand has accused India for 1300 instances of CF violations in which 52 persons lost their lives and 175 suffered injuries.

A J&K police advisory on January 20 said that “Villages on the border area of Jammu province are dark and deserted. The area is being continuously shelled. The people fled to safety. Innocents are being killed for no fault of theirs. No doubt, in the present scenario, the situation is sensitive, the government is alert and things are taken care of at the government level.”

According to BSF around 35,000 persons living close to the IB and LoC in J&K have moved to safer places and 300 schools and other educational institutions have been shut down.

Recently, in early January the Indian Army chief Bipin Rawat while claiming that India will continue to maintain an “aggressive strategy”, nevertheless, also clarified that Indian does not want to militarily “finish” Pakistan because it could then become another Afghanistan. While it is comforting to know that there is a threshold beyond which the two armies will not escalate the point is what purpose does the “aggressive strategy” serve? When a country goes in for an aggressive posturing the underlying assumption is to compel the other side to mend its way and/or desist from carrying out acts lest they end up paying a heavy price for their folly. In this case whereas ceasefire violations have escalated and casualties have risen there has been no corresponding sign of parley between the two countries to ease the tension. ON the contrary rhetoric from both sides suggests that neither of the sides exhibits any desire to bring the shelling to a halt so that civilians living close to the IB and LoC can get on with their lives.

Question is does this aggressive posturing portent an end in itself or there is more to it than meets the eye?  Union Minister for Home Affairs, Rajnath Singh insists that India’s decision to strike against Pakistan inside its own territory has made country’s “image” that of a “strong nation” and went on to claim that the “world was now aware that we can attack our enemy not only on our soil, but also in their territory”. But the point is that such claims will remain an empty boast if it does not result in any appreciable change on the ground. If ceasefire violations persist, casualties keep occurring then the message conveyed is of military impasse and diplomatic logjam and not of resolve.

The upshot of this approach is that precious lives are lost, disabilities caused, education disrupted and livelihood of people affected adversely. So much so that the Government is more keen to spend resources on providing “safe accommodation” for 54,000 residents of border areas and construction of 4918 individual and 375 community bunkers, rather than opt for bringing the life threatening situation to a negotiated end. As a result Government of India is preparing for prolongation of this dismal state of affair where civilians and soldiers become mere ‘cannon fodder’.