(NSI News Source Info) December 27, 2008: India's refusal to rule out a military response to the Mumbai attacks is a diplomatic strategy that hides the limited options open to the government, analysts say.
Under intense domestic pressure to take decisive and forceful action over the attacks -- which it blames on Pakistan-based militants -- India faces numerous problems in formulating a proportionate plan of action. 
An Indian Army soldier shows a rocket launcher during an exhibition at Akhnoor, about 28 km (17 miles) northwest of Jammu December 27, 2008
Topping the list is the knowledge that a cross-border strike of any nature runs the risk of a swift and highly dangerous military escalation between the nuclear-armed neighbours.
Another key question is who would be the target of any such operation.
There is a growing international consensus that the Islamist gunmen who killed 163 people in Mumbai came from Pakistan, but there are fewer takers for the charge that the government in Islamabad played a direct role.
For the moment at least, India seems to favour a policy of "coercive diplomacy" -- aggressively mobilising world opinion against Pakistan for providing a safe haven for militant groups.
But on Monday, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee made it clear that New Delhi's patience had limits.
Noting that India had so far acted with the "utmost restraint," Mukherjee said it could not afford to just stand back and rely on others.
"While we continue to persuade the international community and Pakistan, we are also clear that ultimately it is we who have to deal with this problem," he said.
Asked whether a military response was being considered, he stuck to the line that India was exploring "all options."
Despite the threat implicit in that statement, analysts including retired Indian army general Afsir Karim doubt that "unilateral military action" is either a realistic or productive option.
It could, on the contrary, "provide a fillip to insurgency" Karim said, pointing to the example of US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Any military action has to be deliberate, its political goals and objectives clear," Karim said, arguing that India's "best bet" was to forge a global coalition that could pressure Pakistan "to dismantle the infrastructure of terror."
Analyst C. Uday Bhaskar agreed that India's options were restricted.
"Concerted global diplomatic action is the only way to defeat terrorism. No one country has the answer to it," he said.
The pressure on the government to do something is compounded by looming general elections in which the national security issue is sure to figure prominently.
Former foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh said the government had "lost a lot of credibility" for its failure to prevent a series of attacks on Indian soil this year that have claimed more than 400 lives.
A government source, meanwhile, told AFP that India's response to Mumbai "will be a carefully calibrated one" with investigations into the November 26-29 siege yet to be completed.
New Delhi has been sharing communication intercepts and information gleaned from the lone surviving gunmen with the United States and Britain.
India has demanded stern action against Islamist groups based in Pakistan, as well as the arrest and extradition of individuals it accuses of planning attacks on Indian soil.
So far, however, the only concrete consequence of the attacks has been to freeze the peace dialogue that India and Pakistan launched in 2004 -- a process that was making only limited progress before the carnage in Mumbai.
An Indian Army soldier shows a rocket launcher during an exhibition at Akhnoor, about 28 km (17 miles) northwest of Jammu December 27, 2008
Topping the list is the knowledge that a cross-border strike of any nature runs the risk of a swift and highly dangerous military escalation between the nuclear-armed neighbours.
Another key question is who would be the target of any such operation.
There is a growing international consensus that the Islamist gunmen who killed 163 people in Mumbai came from Pakistan, but there are fewer takers for the charge that the government in Islamabad played a direct role.
For the moment at least, India seems to favour a policy of "coercive diplomacy" -- aggressively mobilising world opinion against Pakistan for providing a safe haven for militant groups.
But on Monday, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee made it clear that New Delhi's patience had limits.
Noting that India had so far acted with the "utmost restraint," Mukherjee said it could not afford to just stand back and rely on others.
"While we continue to persuade the international community and Pakistan, we are also clear that ultimately it is we who have to deal with this problem," he said.
Asked whether a military response was being considered, he stuck to the line that India was exploring "all options."
Despite the threat implicit in that statement, analysts including retired Indian army general Afsir Karim doubt that "unilateral military action" is either a realistic or productive option.
It could, on the contrary, "provide a fillip to insurgency" Karim said, pointing to the example of US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Any military action has to be deliberate, its political goals and objectives clear," Karim said, arguing that India's "best bet" was to forge a global coalition that could pressure Pakistan "to dismantle the infrastructure of terror."
Analyst C. Uday Bhaskar agreed that India's options were restricted.
"Concerted global diplomatic action is the only way to defeat terrorism. No one country has the answer to it," he said.
The pressure on the government to do something is compounded by looming general elections in which the national security issue is sure to figure prominently.
Former foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh said the government had "lost a lot of credibility" for its failure to prevent a series of attacks on Indian soil this year that have claimed more than 400 lives.
A government source, meanwhile, told AFP that India's response to Mumbai "will be a carefully calibrated one" with investigations into the November 26-29 siege yet to be completed.
New Delhi has been sharing communication intercepts and information gleaned from the lone surviving gunmen with the United States and Britain.
India has demanded stern action against Islamist groups based in Pakistan, as well as the arrest and extradition of individuals it accuses of planning attacks on Indian soil.
So far, however, the only concrete consequence of the attacks has been to freeze the peace dialogue that India and Pakistan launched in 2004 -- a process that was making only limited progress before the carnage in Mumbai.
No comments:
Post a Comment