WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2024
The minister said the goal of overall development in the twin Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh will be achieved "after reaching Gilgit and Baltistan" -- parts of PoK.
This indirectly indicates that somehow at some level India perhaps is thinking in that line. People may assume that Central Minister of the cabinet rank, that too the Defence Minister is unlikely to make such igniting comment unless it is deliberated at the highest level.
If this wasn’t enough, India’s Northern Army Commander Lieutenant General Upendra Dwivedi in press interaction, reacted to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh's statement by hinting at retrieving parts of Kashmir illegally occupied by Pakistan. Lt Gen Dwivedi had underlined that a parliamentary resolution exists on the subject and that it is 'nothing new’.
"As far as the Indian Army is concerned, it will carry out any order given by the government of India. We are always ready for it,” he was quoted as saying.
Generally, such high explosive comment having a direct impact and repercussion between the two neighbouring countries, when other one is directly involved, is likely to be indicative of government’s likely intention, if not, then it may perhaps be violating the government media policy.
At the same time, such rhetoric violates one of the basic military principles that is ‘achieving surprise in the battle’. The enemy gets to know your mind and has ample opportunity to make necessary preparations!
In the art of war, surprising the adversary, keeping him guessing your intentions and not exposing your thinking to him and not giving him chance to get prepared helps you a long way to win the war at a cheaper cost in terms of man and material.
It is more important today to achieve surprise when likely destruction may not be worth of the objective. Your intention should only become evident when action is taken upon it and by then situation to the adversary is largely out of hand. In fact the concerned country instead of making such remarks must keep the mind of the adversary away from actual intention by taking diversionary measures and take the action when time ripens.
However, this particular statement by the Defence Minister and the Army Commander is perhaps more rhetoric than actuality. Intention of grabbing either part of Kashmir occupied territory is in the minds of both the countries. Pakistan had made three unsuccessful attempts in the past to grab this area. For India, thinking about it cannot be taken as something offensive. In fact India is the legal owner. However it is expressed mainly may be for the consumption of the people of the respective country, especially now when elections at different levels are round the corner.
Now the issue gets more intricate if a top Army Commander of the formation, which will have a major part to play should the operation takes place, makes some comment on the same issue. It is likely to make the situation little more attention seeking.
Each army has to be ready to follow the order given by the respective government. Army cannot question as ultimate responsibilities lie on any government giving such orders.
Besides, there is nothing new in it. This issue co-exists since the day both the countries were born. It must have been directly or indirectly discussed and referred many times over in past.
But the journalists and interested political parties and adversaries for increasing their Television/Target Rating Point (TRP) or political mileage respectively have made it an issue.
But the point to ponder, which is the main issue of this controversy as to analyse as up to what point a higher military commander or for that matter even a bureaucrat/diplomat can speak in any sensitive issue without raising an eyebrow.
Could this point be tackled differently? Perhaps so, it could have been expressed in a more diplomatic fashion than being candid. Problem is the defence people are yet to become diplomat and as one gathers impression from the media, our country is more vocal than the adversary.
However, control must be exercised at all level starting from top.
At times speech is silver, silence is gold: there may not be any need to touch sensitive issue even if there is a likely political mileage.
War mongering doesn’t suit military commanders. Leave that to politicians. The job of military leadership is to plan, strategise and keep the forces equipped and ready for any eventuality.
We already have a volatile neighborhood. There’s no reason for adding more fuel to fire through rhetoric. We have more problems in our platter than we can chew. So, instead of behaving like pseudo politicians, military commanders should focus on securing the national security. Don’t count your eggs before they hatch.
