There is something fundamentally repugnant about the
idea of a post-mortem of the Kargil War, premised as it is on the assumption
that the conflict has died. In reality, the war of the summer of 1999
is just part of a much wider conflict, driven by forces which are far
from spent.
Writing in 1990, with Jammu & Kashmir (J&K)
in the middle of a cataclysmic upheaval, analyst Sumit Ganguly addressed
the possibilities of a war between India and Pakistan. He argued, among
other things, that the Indian state would be able to contain the rise
of terror in the Kashmir Valley. It would, Ganguly pithily suggested,
"restore order, if not law". But the real danger he foresaw
was that an "extended insurgency in Kashmir is likely to lead to
continuing small-scale border skirmishes between India and Pakistan,
with the ever-present possibility of inadvertant escalation".2 Elsewhere
in his paper, Ganguly pointed out that escalation could well have nuclear
implications.
The Kargil War has some important, if depressing, elements
of preordination in it. This paper is an exploratory attempt to understand
why it came about, and what lessons need to be learned from it. It seeks
to examine the legitimacy of Indian claims that the Kargil War ended
in an unequivocal victory, as well as the broader political theatre
that drove the conflict. Above all, it argues that the Pokhran II nuclear
tests of March 1998 prepared the ground for the most serious military
engagement in South Asia since the war of 1971.
An important caveat, however, needs to be explicitly
stated. Much of the material for this paper was gathered during my work
as a journalist covering the war. In the absence of cogent and reliable
empirical data from independent sources, a preponderance of this material
is based on information made available by military and intelligence
agencies, as well as other informants. As more material on the facts
and events of the Kargil War emerge in the weeks and months to come,
some or many of these facts may prove to be incorrect. I believe, however,
that the fundamental thrust of this paper will stand scrutiny, as will
at least the contours of the information that has been compiled, if
not its ornamental details.
At the time of writing, an enquiry has been ordered
into the intelligence and military failures that enabled Pakistan to
occupy and hold some 1,000 square kilometres of Indian territory. It
is far from clear just what the scope of such an inquiry will be, and
whether it will serve any meaningful purposes other than generating
electoral capital. An insightful article by the scholar, A.G. Noorani
has pointed to the examples of the Shimon Agranat inquiry into the Israel-Arab
War of 1973, and the Franks Committee Report on the Falklands War, as
examples of the scale and independence of the investigation that is
desperately needed to examine the causes and conduct of the Kargil War.
The nation must stoutly refuse to give any respite
to men who have served it so badly. The only ones to emerge with credit
are the men of the armed forces who have performed bravely against heavy
odds. Their morale will not suffer, but will rise if the politicians
who put them in this situation on account of their incompetence are
brought to account. V.K. Krishna Menon resigned as Defence Minister
on November 7, 1962, even while the India - China War was on. At the
height of the First World War, Churchill was removed as First Lord of
the Admiralty on May 26, 1915, following reverses in the Dardanelles
campaign.3
The Three Phases of Battle in Kargil.
It is now fairly well established that the first physical
contact with Pakistani troops and irregulars in the Kargil sector was
established on the Jubbar heights, on May 3.4
Appropriately for a war characterised by the Indian security establishments
negligence, and on occasion incompetence, the contact had nothing to
do with military reconaissance or patrolling.
Tashi Namgyal, Morup Tsering, and Ali Raza Stanba,
three shepherds from the tiny village of Garkhun, had made their way
up the Banju heights with their flocks of sheep. Shepherds in the Kargil
mountains routinely pool their livestock together, assigning groups
of two or three villagers by turn to graze the animals on the high meadows.
Namgyal and his friends are a little coy about just what led them up
towards the Jubbar heights quite so early in summer, but the most plausible
explanation is that they hoped to use the time to engage in the regions
favourite sport, poaching mountain goats. Tsering carried with him a
pair of powerful field binoculars, purchased years earlier in Leh, a
tool of particular use for hunting.
By the morning of May 3, Namgyal had moved some 5 kilometres
up the Jubbar Langpa [nullah or mountain stream]. As he scanned
the mountain with Tserings binoculars, he saw groups of men in
Pathan suits, digging earth and putting up makeshift bunkers. Although
it was possible neither to establish their numbers nor strength, Namgyal
promptly informed officers of the 3 Punjab Regiment, stationed locally.
Initial reactions to Namgyals story appear, by local accounts,
to have been more than slightly blasé. According to 15
Corps Commander Lieutenant General Kishan Pal, two patrols subsequently
despatched on May 4 and May 5 to Yaldor and Kha Baroro detected seven
intruders on the Kukerthang ridge and two at Kha Baroro. Two further
patrols were sent up in the night on May 7. The one sent to Kukerthang
lost one man in an ambush, while the second patrol lost two soldiers
and suffered several injured in a second ambush in the morning on May
10. Clearly, the patrols had not gone out expecting serious resistance.5
Army officials have so far been less than forthcoming
about just when patrols were sent out in other areas of Kargil, and
what precisely their fate was. Lieutenant Saurabh Kalias ill -
fated patrol is now affirmed to have moved down the Kaksar Langpa on
May 14 although officials had first claimed it had, in fact, left on
its mission ten days earlier. There is as yet no verifiable account
of what other patrols were sent out and just where they encountered
or engaged Pakistani units. The scale and character of military response
to the information first provided by Namgyal is just one of many issues
that needs to be established through independent and rigorous inquiry.
All that is known is that by the middle of May, the Army was discovering
fresh Pakistan-held positions on an alarmingly regular basis, spanning
the entire Kargil sector fry om the Mushkoh Valley in the west to Chorbat
La in the east.
The 15 Corps Commander Lieutenant General Kishan Pal
has given at least some indication of the conceptual framework that
underpinned the Armys early responses. In his first press conference
on the Kargil War, called before air strikes commenced, Pal described
the territory occupied by Pakistan as "unheld areas". In a
subsequent interview, he explained just what he meant by this novel
formulation. "If I dont take notice of them", he said,
"it will make no difference
. If they come off the heights
in the summer, they will be slaughtered. And if they dont leave
them in the winter, they will freeze to death".6
The true significance of these observations has been little understood.
Evidently, the military leadership believed the intrusion at that stage
to be little other than a very localised nuisance, an abortive enterprise
to push in irregulars into an area of Jammu & Kashmir until then
unaffected by insurgent activity.
The middle of May, however, saw at least some degree
of unease set in. Pal ordered helicopters engaged in Wide Area Surveillance
Operations [WASO] to fly lower, an effort to locate small Pakistan units
entrenched on the mountains which would be undetectable from altitude.
Three helicopters engaged in WASO were shot at with machine guns. Two
were hit, but mercifully managed to return to base safely. Shortly afterwards,
Cheetah helicopters used for WASO began to be equipped with machine
guns mounted on their skids, a tactic first experimented with in Kupwara
in spring. By most accounts, this tactic was only of limited defensive
utility. Given the lack of a broad appreciation of the strength and
purpose of Pakistans thrust into Kargil at this stage, small numbers
of poorly-acclimatised troops with thin artillery support were pushed
up the mountains in a desperate effort to vacate its positions. No weekly
breakdown of casualties has so far been made available, but the figures
may cast interesting light on the results of Army strategy during this
first phase of its Kargil operations.
Both Union Defence Minister George Fernandes
glib pronouncements during the first phase of the Kargil War and the
fact that the first meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS)
was not summoned until May 25 say not a little about the chaotic management
and poor strategic appraisal that characterised this period.
The meeting of the CCS led to the commencement of the
second phase of the Kargil War. The morning after, Indian combat jets
bombed Pakistan-held positions throughout the arc from the Mushkoh Valley
to Batalik. For much of the media and public opinion, this signalled
the real begining of the Kargil War; but the initial air campaign provided
less than illustrious results. The loss of a Mig-21 fighter flown by
Squadron Leader A. Ahuja to a Stinger missile on May 27, minutes after
a Mig-27 flown by Flight Lieutenant K. Nachiketa went down accross the
Line of Control with engine trouble, was followed a day later by the
destruction of a Mi-17 helicopter fitted with rocket pods in the Drass
sub-sector, resulting in the death of all four crew. Indian planners
had clearly not anticipated the use of Stinger missiles by Pakistani
air defence. In the wake of the losses, combat aircraft were compelled
in general to fly at higher altitudes, using defensive measures to deflect
the heat-seeking Stinger missiles. The use of Mi-17 helicopters as weapon
platforms was subequently severely restricted.
What uses, then, did the air offensive serve? Chief
of Air Force Staff, Air Marshall A.Y. Tipnis, at a press conference
in Srinagar, made it clear that "the consequences of the restricted
use of air power had been made clear to the Government". By this,
Tipnis presumably meant that combat aircraft were not being used for
the tasks for which they were designated. Attacks on major Pakistan
supply, bases and artillery positions were ruled out by the fact that
such an offensive would have meant flying accross the LoC. None the
less, the use of air power had two significant consequences. First,
it signalled to Pakistan troops and irregulars on the Indian side of
the LoC that the battle had been joined in earnest. Any expectations
that an effette enemy could be held at bay until the winter began to
set in were now dispelled. Second, and perhaps most important, sagging
Indian troop-morale received not a little aid from the air strikes.
Soldiers struggling up the mountains now moved in the knowledge that
their adversaries, too, were facing sustained and lethal bombardment.
It is perhaps not coincidental that the first major
Indian victory, the capture of the Tololing heights facing Drass, followed
the use of air power. Troops of the Rajputana Regiment succeeded in
pushing their way up this 4,950-metre summit, and further on to the
highest summitt visible from Drass, Peak 4,510. The push, followed six
weeks of sustained artillery bombardment, and demonstrated to poorly
acclimatised and sometimes demoralised troops that the war in the high
Himalayas, could in fact, be won. The subsequent assault on Tiger Hills
west of Drass, and Peak 5,062 overlooking the Sando Langpa, the gateway
to the LoC at Marpo La, proved similarly successful. These victories
were the subject of considerable media hype. Officials claimed they
had considerable strategic importance, since Pakistani forward observation
posts overlooking the highway had now been vacated.
While there was some element of truth in this claim,
the fact remained that much of the war remained to be fought. In early
July, the picture in several other sectors was less comforting. The
body of Major Mariappan Sarvanan, killed in a May 28-assault on a Pakistani
position at Height 4,250 in Batalik, had yet, to be recovered. This
made it clear that Indian troops had yet to move to higher positions,
from where the enemy fire preventing Sarvanans body from being
collected could be engaged and neutralised. Mechanised Infantry officer
Major Rajesh Adhikari, killed in the Mushkoh Valley at a height above
4,000 metres, was also listed as missing, a similar indicator of Indian
progress. No significant success in Indias efforts to regain its
forward position on the LoC in Kaksar, Bajrang Post, had been reported
at all. In some areas, the Indian attack had faced severe reverses.
On June 10, troops of the 12 Jammu & Kashmir Light Infantry and
the Desert Scorpions Paracommando unit who had taken a commanding position
above the Yaldor Langpa found themselves sandwiched between two fresh
lines of counter-attacking Pakistan troops. This established that, contrary
to Army claims, Pakistans resupply lines were still open.
Despite slow progress in several areas, however, Indias
formidable military machine was clearly at work. This second phase of
the battle might best be described as one of consolidation. The 56 Brigade,
brought in early in the battle to relieve the 121 Brigade in the Drass
sub-sector, had begun to establish itself west of the Munar Langpa.
Initial logistics problems, which had on more than one occaision left
troops without adequate food, clothing and ammunition, had been resolved.
West of Tingel Langpa, another new formation, the 79 Brigade, had taken
charge of fighting in Mushkoh. Further troops were pouring in, and over
five additional Brigades were in position before fighting was to conclude.
At least some officials who were discredited in the early phase of fighting
had been removed from their positions. Artillery positions had been
reinforced with Bofors guns and Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launchers.
This phase of consolidation, mirrored by sustained
air and ground bombardment, prepared the way for the final push that
began in early July. Among the most spectacular victories were claimed
by soldiers from the Garhwal Rifles, the Bihar Regiment, the Gurkha
Rifles and the Grenadiers pushing their way along the flanks of the
Batalik heights. The 5,287-metre summit of Khalubar, east of Yaldor,
fell on July 2, and the entire mountain was cleared within three days
by the Gurkhas. West of the Urdas Langpa, Peak 4,812, which Indian soldiers
call Dog Hill, rapidly followed. Holding these flanks, troops could
now begin to cut off Pakistani reinforcements making their way down
from their rear base at Muntho Dalo, which had been hit by successive
waves of air strikes through the previous weeks.
Luck played a significant role in the capture of Jubbar.
Troops had succeeded in making their way up the Urdas Langpa to Banju,
the minor peak which guards the Jubbar ridge line. The final assault
up the ridge would have been murderous, had a shell not hit a massive
Pakistani ammunition dump near the Jubbar peak. The route up Jubbar,
on to Peak 4,924 and beyond, to Peak 4,927, was now clear. Progress
had been rapid on the eastern side of the Garkhun Langpa as well. The
push from the village of Yaldor, on the Yaldor Langpa, to Peak 4,821
on Kukerthang had been a protracted one, claiming heavy casualties.
But the mountain was finally taken, and the 5,103-metre Tharu followed
soon after. With the heights reclaimed, troops could now dominate the
Garkhun Langpa, and the villages of Baroro and Kha Baroro. Further Pakistani
movement to reinforce positions along the Gargurdu, Garkhun and Yadlor
Langpas was now near-impossible.
Interestingly, progress in the Batalik area provided
the first irrefutable evidence of Pakistans military presence
on the Indian side of the LoC. Naik Inayat Ali of the 5 Northern Light
Infantry (NLI), captured on July 2, told interrogators that his entire
unit of 200 had been wiped out in the course of fighting in the Batalik
area.7 Earlier evidence of such involvement
had emerged. The US-based magazine, Time reported that troops
"from the northern light infantry were used because of their high-altitude
experience and because they are from the region".
They were encouraged to look like mujahideen, and they
discarded their uniforms for traditional shalwar kameez, or tracksuits,
grew beards and wore traditional white religious skullcaps. The soldiers
say that when they reached the heights in February, some genuine mujahideen
were at the abandoned Indian positions. But these men left after a few
days because they could not survive in the high altitudes. They are
now used for reconnaissance and as porters.8
In an interview, one Pakistani soldier provided a lucid
account of his deployment in the Kargil sector, and of the Armys
logistical support.9 Much of what he stated
bears out Namgyals account of his May 3-sighting in Jubbar.
At the time Pakistan troop withdrawals were announced
on July 11, the battle for Batalik, and the third phase of the Kargil
War in general, was, contrary to official claims, far from over. Pakistan
troops retreating from Jubbar had been reinforcing at two heights over
a kilometre inside the Line of Control, Peaks 5,121 and 5,327. Assaulting
these heights could have proved costly. To the east of Yadlor lay Muntho
Dalo, the 5,065-metre pyramid which acted as Pakistans principal
supply base for the Batalik sector. Although Muntho Dalo had come under
sustained bombardment until at least July 9, the final physical occupation
could again have taken time. In the event, Pakistan's withdrawal from
Muntho Dalo allowed Indian troops to occupy the position almost without
resistance. No counter attacks appear to have been encountered from
the reinforcements that had begun to gather at Peaks 5,121 and 5,327.
Pakistans movement out of the Drass area also
prevented what could have been a series of small but bitter skirmishes
along the Tiger Hills belt. At least one Pakistani position on the western
face of Tiger Hills remained intact until the withdrawal, and there
had been concerted counter-attacks on Peaks 5,100 and 4,875. Interestingly,
the Tiger Hills area also appears to have received significant reinforcements
of Pakistani regulars until July 8. On that day, the bodies of at least
two Pakistani soldiers, Captain Imtiyaz Malik of the 12 NLI and Captain
Karnal Sher of the 165 Mortar Regiment, were reported recovered from
the hills. Pakistan continued to dispute claims that its soldiers were
there in the first place, a proposition that, by this point, was somewhat
ludicrous. But there is little doubt that the early withdrawal helped
India retake positions like Marpo La. Somewhat mystifyingly, the Army
announcement of the capture of Marpo La was preceeded weeks earlier
by a signed official claim that its positions there were already occupied
by Indian soldiers.10
But it was in the Mushkoh Valley and Kaksar that the
Pakistan withdrawal had its most significant impact. The assault down
the Mushkoh valley that commenced on 7 July claimed 23 soldiers the
next day, and heavy casualties were subsequently reported. Much of the
worst fighting came along the Mun Thang, the stream that drains Peak
4,342 above the Mushkoh Valley. The fighting was at an air distance
of between five and six kilometres from the Line of Control, but Pakistan
troops were not likely to be present at depth in the region since temperatures
in the glaciers north of the Mushkoh Valley would rule out holding positions
for any length of time. The counter attacks on Tiger Hills and Peak
5,100 appeared designed to relieve pressure on Pakistani positions in
Mushkoh.
Kaksar was also certain to see bitter fighting. At
least three attempts to storm the Pakistan-occupied Bajrang Post and
Peak 5,299 which dominates the Kaksar stream, had been beaten back since
fighting began. A major offensive that commenced on July 6 showed few
results until the withdrawal from the area commenced, and while Indian
troops had been engaged in virtual hand-to-hand combat a fortnight earlier,
Pakistan succeeded in reinforcing its positions. Officials had been
desperately petitioning New Delhi for a limited retaliatory incursion
across the Line of Control in this area, since the only local ridge-line-route
to Peak 5,299 and to Indias lost forward-area Bajrang Post lies
on the other side. The option was a succession of near-suicidal assaults
up the mountain face, certain to claim large numbers of soldiers.
Pronouncements of unconditional victory are clearly
problematic, made in the context of the ground situation at the time
of Pakistans withdrawal. Although Indian troops had made significant
advances, and Pakistan troops and irregulars had sustained significant
casualties, the fact remained that there was more than a little fighting
still to be done. The withdrawal saved time for India, and, inevitably,
significant economic and human costs. Yet, I shall argue, the structure
and conditions of the withdrawal have rendered what most likely would
have been an unconditional military victory into a profoundly complex
and problematic one. The war on the Kargil heights ended not as the
triumph the Union Government would have us believe it was, but as punctuation
in a larger conflict over the future of Jammu & Kashmir.
Safe Passage: The Politics of the Victory That Wasnt
It is not entirely clear how the end of the third phase
of the Kargil War could be described, as it has been, as a glorious
triumph. Pakistans troops and irregulars were clearly under no
military compulsion to retreat at the time they chose to do so, although
they faced crippling losses. Nor did Indian military threats to other
Pakistan forces or territory bring about the withdrawal. Former Prime
Minister Chandra Shekhar is one of the few politicians who has had the
courage to strip the US-authored end of the Kargil War of its triumphalist
raiment which the Union Government had conferred upon it:
In the begining, the Defence Minister talked about considering
the idea to give safe passage to the intruders. It was ridiculed and
rejected. Now the same is being implemented. Whatever may be the claim,
in reality it is a ceasefire and safe passage.11
The spring of 1998 had seen the reinvention of George
Fernandes as a hands-on Defence Minister, suitably dressed in combat
fatigues and located on the Siachen heights an image carefully
manufactured for, and nurtured by, television. He was a fitting representative
of the defence policies of the new supposedly-nationalist regime that
had taken power in New Delhi. Playing out his role to the hilt, he visited
the frontlines to shore up morale, despatched recalcitrant bureaucrats
to oblivion, and finally fixed his lance and saddled his horse to charge
the evil dragon threatening Indias security, China.
Fernandes deservedly notorious Kargil War pronouncements
illustrate the complete surprise the governments strategic establishment
was taken by when combat broke out in early May. On May 14, the very
day Lieutenant Kalias patrol had disappeared and Indian reconnaissance
parties were encountering a plethora of Pakistani positions, Fernandes
visited Leh for a meeting of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development
Council. He described the shelling that had broken out in Kargil as
"sporadic", a somewhat curious description for a barrage that
claimed since the 121 Brigades Artillery Dump near Kargil along
with several other installations, and said the Indian Army was "well
prepared" to deal with the situation. At New Delhi the next day,
he promised intruders would be evicted "in forty eight hours".
One day later, the Indian news agency, UNI reported from Dhanbad that
Fernandes claimed the Army "had cordoned off the area entirely"
and that Indian objectives would be realised "within the next two
days".12
Given that the Indian Army had just commenced pumping
in additional troops, the charitable interpretation of the Union Defence
Ministers pronouncement is that it was a lie. A second possibility
is that Fernandes had been misinformed of the situation by the top leadership
of the Indian Army, a proposition rendered implausible since no one
has so far been punished for so outrageous a crime. The less generous
explanation was that neither he, nor the Ministry of Defence, had bothered
to investigate with any seriousness just what was happening in Kargil.
Nor, it is now evident, did anyone else in the BJP-led coalition government.
It was not until May 25 that the first meeting of the apex Cabinet Committee
on Security was called, a day after Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister
Farooq Abdullah visited New Delhi to beg the Prime Minister to take
the Kargil issue seriously. It was only after this meeting that the
Prime Minister recovered from his Lahore trance to realise the situation
in Kargil was "war - like". More than fifty soldiers were
by then dead.
Fernandes now attempted to cover up the errors of his
Ministry and the defence establishment. On May 29, he claimed that Indian
troops had flushed out infiltrators from the Drass sub-sector, and "restored
the sanctity of the line of control". This was an outright lie.
At the time of this statement, it is now clear, Indian troops were nowhere
near the top of the Tololing heights in Drass, let alone the lower saddle
of Tiger Hills. Marpo La, Indias key forward position on the Drass
sub-sector LoC, was only to be reached after Pakistan's withdrawal.
A day earlier, the Union Defence Minister had attempted to defend the
governments handling of the Lahore process. His effort was to
exonerate the governments dialogue partner, Nawaz Sharif. "In
this entire episode", Fernandes said on television, "the Pakistan
Army has hatched a conspiracy to push in infiltrators, and the Nawaz
Sharif government did not have a major role
. The Inter Services
Intelligence (ISI), which we know initiates such activities, has not
played any role".
Government confusion snowballed as criticism of its
handling of Kargil grew. On June 1, Fernandes made his infamous offer
of safe passage for Pakistani irregulars and troops back to their side
of the LoC, a statement that was to have an enormous impact on the structure
of the diplomatic dialogue that followed. "Get your troops out
of our soil", he proclaimed, "or watch them being thrown out,"
but adding that, if Pakistan Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz "wants
to discuss how the intruders are to leave, we can discuss their safe
passage". The Prime Minister, apparently oblivious to the outrage
Fernandes statement had provoked, endorsed this position while
commissioning INS Mysore in Mumbai on June 2. "We can discuss their
safe passage if such a request was made", Vajpayee said, and added,
"it could be considered". Both statements, despite subsequent
denials, served a purpose. They suggested that the diplomatic forces
set in place after Vajpayees bus journey to Lahore offered potential
for the resolution of the military conflict in Kargil.
At least two important assumptions could be detected
in the noises emanating from the Union Defence Minister and Prime Minister.
The first was that there was significant friction between Pakistans
military and civilian centres of power. Prime Minister Sharif and, indeed,
the ISI were deemed to have had nothing to do with the incursion, in
Fernandes view a purely Army-led maneouvre. The Kargil War was,
thus, the outcome of a struggle for supremacy between the centrist Sharif
and a Jehadi Army establishment, seeking to derail the process
of normalisation initiated by Prime Minister Vajpayees bus journey
to Lahore. This assumption, for obvious reasons, served the interest
of the Union Government in no small measure. But second, and more important,
the ascendancy of this interpretation ensured New Delhi had no cogent
notion at all of why Pakistan had carried out the incursion, and what
it sought to achieve by forcing a conventional engagement.
Fernandes assumptions, by his own account, were
founded in part by intercepts of conversations between Pakistans
Chief of Army Staff, General Pervez Musharraf, and Chief of General
Staff, Lieutenanat General Aziz Khan. It is unclear who made the conversations
available to India, but the transcripts have a strong element of authenticity.
They record conversations between Musharraf and Khan on May 26, 1999,
and May 29, 1999, while the Pakistan Army Chief was in Beijing. It is
unclear just how Fernandes, and the Union Government, arrived at the
conclusions they did on the basis of the conversations. Musharraf told
his subordinate, referring to Prime Minister Sharif, that "so many
times we had discussed, taken your blessings". "And yesterday
also I told him", he continued, "that the door of discussion,
dialogue must be kept open and [as for the] rest, no change in ground
situation". He also made clear that Pakistan Foreign Secretary
Samshad Ahmed had been briefed on the Kargil conflict, along with the
Corps Commanders, at a later stage.
Musharraf made explicit Pakistans objectives
in a second conversation on May 29, preceeding the initiation of a serious
diplomatic engagement on the war. This time, Aziz Khan told Musharraf
that he would ensure Pakistan Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz would give
"no understanding or no commitment on [the] ground situation"
during their imminent talks with New Delhi. Aziz would be instructed
to argue that "we have been sitting here for long". "Like
in the beginning, the matter is the same no post was attacked,
and no post captured. The situation is that we are along our defensive
Line of Control
On this line", Khan concluded, "we can
give them logic, but in short, the recommendation for Sartaj Aziz sahib
is that he should make no commitment in the first meeting on the military
situation". "And he should not even accept a cease-fire, because
if there is cease-fire, then vehicles will be moving [on the Srinagar-Leh
route]." In the May 26 conversation, he reported further that Sharif
was "confident, just like that":
Samshad [Haider] as usual was supporting. Today, for the last
two hours, the BBC has been continuously reporting on the air strikes
by India. Keep using this - let them keep dropping bombs. As far
as internationalisation is concerned, this is the fastest this has happened
[emphasis added]. You may have seen in the Press about United Nations
Secretary General Kofi Annans appeal that both countries should
sit and talk.13
Pakistan, then, was quite content to allow Sartaj Azizs
visit to New Delhi to collapse: indeed, failure was its very purpose.
As Aijaz Ahmad has pointed out in the second of his remarkable analyses
on the Kargil conflict, three alternate military outcomes had come to
be by mid-June.14 First, Indias
response would be compelled, for a variety of reasons, to be so restrained
that Pakistan forces would be able to sustain their positions until
the onset of winter, generally after October 15. Second, India would
be so resolute in its determination to retake the Kargil heights, a
resolve driven by the certainty of electoral disaster if they were not
regained, as to contemplate acceeding to requests by the armed forces
to cross the LoC, provoking a full blown war. This, as I have argued
earlier, is supported by the actually - existing ground position in
several areas in the Kargil sector, particularly Kaksar. Third, India
would seek some form of international assistance to ensure Pakistan
would vacate the Kargil heights, and Pakistan, in turn, would be able
to demand some kind of at least minimal quid pro quo on the larger
issue of the future of Jammu & Kashmir.
By mid-June, it was clear to Indias government,
with military experts warning of a prolonged conflict on the Kargil
heights, that the first of these possibilities was dangerously close
to realisation. That, in turn, had made the second possibility, of a
full scale Indian assault accross the LoC, dangerously imminent. Chief
of Army Staff General V.P. Malik had begun to drop dark hints about
approaching the Cabinet for permission to mount an attack into Pakistan,
and at his June 13-press conference in Srinagar, Prime Minister Vajpayee
refused to rule out crossing the LoC, saying only that he could not
be expected to discuss strategic issues in public.15
Some pretence of avoiding international intervention was made, with
India rejecting United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annans offer
to despatch an envoy. But finally, while proclaiming the somewhat vapid
communiqué emerging from the Cologne G-8 Summit a grand victory,
though it only called for an end to hostilities without naming Pakistan
as an aggressor, India asked for measures to be taken against its neighbour,
including a blockade on economic asssitance from the International Monetary
Fund (IMF).16
It seems clear in restrospect that this was also the
stage where the Indian government made its finally decisive and desperate
appeal for US assistance. The contents of Prime Minister Vajpayees
letter, conveyed by India's National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra
to his US counterpart, Sandy Berger, on June 16, are not known, but
it is probable, as the Washington Post reported, that it made
it clear that an assault accross the LoC could not be delayed further:
While President Bill Clinton was in Geneva in June making a speech
to the International Labour Organisation, his National Security Adivsor
Samuel R. Sandy Berger slipped out to receive an alarming
letter from Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.
Vajpayees message was that India might have to attack inside
Pakistan if Pakistan did not pull back troops who had seized Indian
outposts in the disputed territory of Kashmir.
It stoked already high US fears that India, which has lost more than
100 troops trying to dislodge the Pakistanis, would storm accross
the ceasefire line that divides Kashmir or open a second front elsewhere
on its border with Pakistan, widening the first armed conflict between
the rivals since both tested nuclear weapons last year.17
If Clinton had now chosen to squarely involve himself
in the Kargil War, he had no intention of marginalising Sharif, or of
opening the way for the even more rabidly chauvinist elements to come
to power in Pakistan. Nor was Pakistan as isolated as India wished to
believe. On June 29, well before the Pakistan Prime Ministers
fateful journey to Washington was announced, State Department spokesperson
James Rubin made it clear the US did not intend to influence the IMF.
China had earlier announced plans to build a factory to produce combat
aircraft in Pakistan, and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference
(OIC) had sprung to Sharifs defence.
The Indian media reported it all, but in the small print
as it were, refusing to draw the conclusion that in virtually every
respect and in all the usual quarters it was business as usual and
that Pakistans "great isolation" in the "international
community" was restricted to the scale of its operations in Kargil
beyond the LoC, which of course even the Pakistan government must
have anticipated before launching the operation. For them, the
question had always been how far will the condemnation go, in material
terms, and what else, other than the condemnation, could they get
[my emphasis].18
In retrospect, the weekend of June 2627 was central
to the diplomatic resolution of the Kargil War. After concluding intense
discussions with the Commander-in-Chief of the United States General
Command, Anthony Zinni, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Gibson
Lanpher, who had been in Islamabad over the preceding week, Pervez Musharraf
told journalists in Karachi that Sharif would soon be meeting Clinton.
The Sunday Telegraph reported on June 27 that the structure and
timing of a Pakistani withdrawal had been the central thrust of the
discussions between Zinni and Musharraf. And Dawn, in turn, went
on to assert that Pakistan had insisted on reciprocity, demanding a
time-bound process of discussions with India for the resolution of the
Kashmir problem in return for "assisting the mujahideen
to (return to) home bases".
Pakistan, on its part, would be prepared to consider as
part of the permanent solution the inclusion of the entire Valley
and the Muslim parts of Jammu in the Azad Kashmir territory
a settlement on the line of the Owen Dixon plan.19
Whether something of the kind was, indeed, discussed
when Sharif and Clinton met on July 4 is not known. Certainly, the wording
of their joint statement does promise that Clinton would "take
a personal interest in encouraging an expeditious resumption and intensification
of those bilateral efforts [for resolving all issues dividing India
and Pakistan including Kashmir] once the sanctity of the Line of Control
has been fully restored".20
It is also now known that Lanpher and Sharifs special envoy, Niaz
Naik, had spent time in New Delhi conferring with both Prime Minsiter
Vajpayee and Brajesh Mishra, who were presumably told of the content
of the MusharrafZinni meeting. Consider the subsequent sequence
of events. Naik left New Delhi for Islamabad on June 27, the same day
Musharraf announced his Prime Minister would shortly be leaving for
Washington. Sharif, in turn, abruptly terminated his visit to Beijing
the next day, having concluded the most important of his meetings with
the Chinese leadership. Clinton, finally, altered the dates of his planned
vacation to enable the final meeting with Sharif at Blair House.
Though Vajpayee, under intense domestic pressure, refused
to travel to Washington, the Blair House summitt was, nevertheless,
nothing short a USengineered summitt on South Asia. Pakistan and
US officials sat together accross the table to hammer out an agreed
text, based on the crucial MusharrafZinni negotiations. Berger,
meanwhile, constantly discussed the wording of the emerging joint statement
with Brajesh Mishra, as the Indian Prime Minister waited to receive
a final telephone call from Clinton. It is also now clear that some
of the exploratory work for the Blair House text may have been concluded
during the three visits to Pakistan by R.K. Mishra, editor of the Ambani-owned
Business and Political Observer, who was acting as a back-channel
emissary of the Vajpayee government.
Indian officials and BJP leaders have been as desperately
claiming a diplomatic victory as a military one. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Pakistans alleged isolation notwithstanding, the
fact remains that it has secured its core objective of bringing the
US into a strategic dialogue on the larger question of J&K. Notably,
the US has not, in the course of the entire conflict, had a word to
say about the fact that, for the past ten years, Pakistan has been routinely
violating the LoC by sending terrorists accross it, with tragic consequences
for the peoples of J&K. Continued terrorist violence, with enormous
losses of civilian lives, is evidently acceptable to whatever constitutes
the international community: the holding of fixed territory,
and the prospect of a frontal conventional engagement with the concomitant
possibility of nuclear engagement is not.
An escalation of violence within J&K is now inevitable
(an issue I will return to below). How the Indian establishment will
cope with this, however, remains to be seen.
Kashmir as the Context of War and Peace in Kargil
Indian bureaucrats and officials appear to have no
plausible explanation for Pakistans objectives in the Kargil War.
Persistant claims that Pakistan sought to cut-off Siachen by disrupting
the Srinagar-Leh highway are less than cogent. Indias has another
perfectly usable route to Leh and on to Siachen, the highway from Kulu
over the Rohtang pass. Nor is it probable that Pakistan would have provoked
a full-scale conventional engagement simply to secure a territorial
bargain of some kind. Broader political objectives were clearly at play,
impelled by developments both in Pakistan and in India, objectives which
Indias political and security establishment failed to comprehend
and engage with.
It has passed largely unnoticed that the Kargil War
intervened in an ongoing political dialogue on the future of J&K.
Pakistans own perception has been that the US-authored withdrawal
from the Kargil heights would lead to some kind of progress towards
a second partition of J&K. This demand for the logic of Partition
to be taken to its inevitable conclusion has structured
Paksitans recent policy. Aijaz Ahmad has perceptively noted, regarding
negotiations between Musharraf and Zinni:
Dawn, the oldest of English dailies in Pakistan, went
further and wrote: "Pakistan had insisted on reciprocity. For example,
a promise by the Indians for time-bound discussions on Kashmir in return
for assisting the mujahideen to home bases. Pakistan, on its
part, would be prepared to consider as part of the permanent solution
the inclusion of the entire Valley and the Muslim parts of Jammu in
the Azad Kashmir territory a settlement on the line of the Owen
Dixon Plan.... That "the Valley and the Muslim parts of Jammu"
should be included "in the Azad Kashmir territory" is of course
Pakistans maximum demand which India is most unlikely to concede.
But that some variant of this solution, interim and much softer, is
being prepared seems beyond doubt, as we can surmise from the contours
of the plan for the reorganisation of Jammu & Kashmir that Farooq
Abdullahs Regional Autonomy Committee had released already, on
April 13..."21
Chief Minsiter Farooq Abdullahs Regional Autonomy
Report lies at the core of recent events, and underlines more vividly
the reality of the threat to a democratic and secular J&K than Pakistans
pleadings to the US. Released by the Regional Autonomy Committee (RAC),
the Report calls for the historic regional formations of Kashmir, Jammu
and Ladakh to be broken down into new entities. In some important senses
this holds out more fundamental threats to the prospect of a secular
and democratic J&K than any number of Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists.
The RAC recommended the creation of eight new provinces,
each of which would have an elected Provincial Council. In Kashmir itself,
if the RAC has its way, there would be three new Provinces. The Kamraz
Province would be made up of the districts of Baramulla and Kupwara,
the Nundabad Province of Budgam and Srinagar and the Maraz Province
of Anantnag and Pulwama. Although all of these three Provinces have
some historic resonance, their coming into being makes little sense.
The people of the districts have, indeed, been arguing for more local
power, but not for new administrative boundaries built along non-existant
faultlines.
Ladakh, if the RAC has its way, would be subject to
a brutal application of the National Conferences communal cleaver.
The mountain region would be broken up into two new provinces consisting
of just one district each, those of predominantly Buddhist Leh and predominantly
Muslim Kargil. Already sundered by the exclusion of Kargil from the
Ladakh Autonomous Council set up in 1989, a decision for which no cogent
explanation has ever been forthcoming, the transfiguration of the two
districts into Provinces would serve only to sharpen communal and ethnic
boundaries. Had protests by local chauvinists in Kargil been disregarded
in 1989, the deepening fissures between Buddhists and Muslims in the
region may have been averted. As things stand, voting in the region
since 1996 has largely been on communal lines, and many political groups
in Leh have been calling for a united Buddhist nominee to contest this
year. Indeed, Buddhist chauvinists in Leh even opposed the use of the
district to house refugees from Kargil, a sign of the depth of communal
bitterness that has already developed.22
But the most dramatic impact of the RAC recommendations
would be on Jammu. Here, the RAC Report makes no effort to hide its
authors motives. The district of Doda, and the single Muslim-dominated
tehsil of Mahore from the adjoining district of Udhampur, would
be made into a new Chenab Valley Province. Largely Hindu Jammu, Kathua
and Udhampur districts would become the Jammu province. Poonch and Rajouri
districts, for their part, would form the Pir Panjal province. The existing
Province of Jammu would, thus, be turned into three provincial blocks
divided along the geographical faultlines of Hindu and Muslim majorities.
Perhaps the best index of the RACs deep communalism is that not
a sentence in their Report even seeks to explain these decisions. All
that exists by way of reason, if it can be called that, is a suggestion
in paragraph 32 that "the prevailing classifications of Provinces/Divisions
are hampering the processes of social/human development... The Committee
is also of the view that this arrangement is coming in the way of democratic
participation at the grassroots level within the state".
On more fundamental issues, the Report offers even
fewer insights into the RAC members thinking. Why development
could not be achieved within the existing district and Province boundaries
is nowhere explained. On how the creation of new Provinces would aid
development, there is no serious discussion at all. Indeed, the RAC
only calls for changes to be made to the Constitution of J&K to
enable the new Provincial or District Councils to be made, without spelling
out what they might be. Nor are the powers of the new Councils and their
specific responsibilities spelt out. Since this was presumably the purpose
of setting up the RAC Committee in the first place, it is hard to escape
the conclusion that it did not do its work.
The history of the RAC offers not a little insight
into how some of its more outrageous recommendations came into being.
The RAC was set up shortly after the National Conference government
came to power in October 1996, with Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah as
its chairman. Academic Balraj Puri was appointed as its working chairman.
The members consisted of Finance Minster Mohammad Shafi Uri, Members
of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) Syed Mushtaq Bukhari and Mubarak Gul,
and Ladakh representative Pinto Narbu. The raison dêtre
of the RAC was to ensure that National Conference demands for greater
autonomy for J&K as a whole did not alienate minorities in the State,
since they would be given guarantees of regional autonomy.
Puri was, however, besieged with demands from National
Conference leaders and other politicians for both new Provinces and
Districts. He flatly refused. The RACs terms of reference said
simply nothing about new Provinces, asking only for recommendations
which would "promote better involvement and participation of people
in different regions for balanced political, economic, educational,
social and cultural development (and the) evolving of instrumentalities,
like local organs of power at all levels". The RAC was also to
examine the powers that local organs of power were to be vested with,
and "whether any changes in the State Constitution would be needed
to bring them about". Late last year, Puri circulated his proposals
for regional autonomy, which essentially consisted of strengthening
existing institutions at the Panchayat, block, district and regional
level. Much of the emphasis in his Report was on removing the State
Governments powers to nominate members to local bodies. One third
of all Panchayat members, for example, are government nominees,
along with representatives of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
and what state laws describe as Other Classes. District
Development Councils, in an institutional arrangement unique to the
State, have an entirely nominated leadership. Puri sought to replace
this burlesque with real democracy.
But National Conference members on the RAC, although
they had expressed no reservations with drafts that were circulated,
rapidly distanced themselves from Puris Report, claiming it did
not have their support. On January 21 1999, Puri was informed that his
term, along with that of the RAC, had expired. Then, on March 4, the
State Government issued orders retrospectively extending the term of
the RAC. The order revived the terms of all members except, mysteriously,
the working chairman. In just three months, the new Report was assembled.
Curiously, the final RAC Report tabled in the J&K Assembly, bears
neither the signatures of its chairman the Chief Minister
nor of Narbu.
The strange history of the RAC, and its equally bizarre
recommendations, suggest that meaningful democratic change is the last
thing on the National Conferences mind. Indeed, the proposal to
set up smaller Provinces will erode the powers of the existing ones,
since each in itself will simply not have the resources to engage in
large-scale developmental work. Nor will local bodies like Panchayats
and block-level bodies be democratised and empowered. The sole outcome
of the RAC proposals will be to enable National Conference politicians
in the Jammu region to represent themselves as defenders of local Muslim
communities against a largely fictional hegemony of Jammus largely
Hindu urban trading communities.
What then, was on the RACs mind? In the wake
of the Pokhran nuclear tests in 1998 May, and the subsequent ill-fated
romance between Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Atal Behari Vajpayee,
the US political establishment offered some insights into its vision
of a final settlement on J&K. This came in the form of a report,
Kashmir: A Way Forward, circulated by a high-profile think tank,
the Kashmir Study Group. The Kashmir Study Group is controlled by a
non-resident Indian, Farooq Kathwari. Two Indian establishment figures,
former Foreign Secretary N.K. Singh and retired Vice Admiral S.K. Nair,
have been associated with the Kashmir Study Group, although both deny
they endorse the reports thrust. The Report advocated that
"a portion of the former princely state of Jammu & Kashmir
be reconstituted as a sovereign entity enjoying free access to and from
both India and Pakistan". Widely circulated among politicians in
the State, the Report said the new entity would have its own legislature,
citizenship and internal law and order force, with its defence guaranteed
by both India and Pakistan. The portion referred to was self-evidently
the Kashmir valley itself, that being the area under most bitter dispute.
Interestingly, Kathwari visited India shortly after the report was released,
and met a wide spectrum of the political hierarchy.
The Kashmir Study Group-proposals in effect meant a
sundering of Kashmir from Jammu, and a division of the State on communal
lines. In 1950, Owen Dixon, the United Nations mediator on Kashmir,
had suggested an essentially similar plan. The Dixon Plan called for
the international border to run broadly north of the Chenab river, cutting
apart predominantly Muslim Doda, Rajouri and Poonch from Jammu, and
joining them to the Kashmir valley. Hindu Kathua and Jammu would have
stayed with India. The proposal, for a variety of reasons, and not all
of them predictable ones, in the end proved unacceptable to Indias
political establishment. The United States revival of the idea
had obvious significance in the context of a meeting between two right
wing Prime Ministers. Shortly afterwards, Pakistan Foreign Minister
Sartaj Aziz chipped in with an intriguing off-stage performance calling
for a district-wise referendum in J&K, a sharp but little-noticed
departure from his countrys historic position.23
Finally, figures on the Hindu Right, ranging from Dogra royal family
patriarch Karan Singh to Ramesh Gupta, businessman and brother of Udhampurs
Bharatiya Janata Party Member of Parliament, Chaman Lal Gupta, called
for varying forms of seperation of the Province of Jammu from Kashmir.24
Significantly, former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir
Bhutto has been making express what appears to be a USapproved
formula for what she describes as a "deliberate, incremental advances"
for a final settlement in J&K. Bhutto advocated that "the two
sections of Kashmir should have open and porous borders", a proposition
remarkably similar to that advocated by Kathwaris Kashmir Study
Group. Prior to a final period when "the parties commence discussion
on a formal and final resolution to the Kashmir problem, based on the
wishes of its people and the security concerns of both India and Pakistan":
Both sections would be demilitarised and patrolled by either
an international peace-keeping force or a joint Indian-Pakistani peace-keeping
force. Both legislative councils would continue to meet seperately
and on occasion jointly. The people on both sides of divided Kashmir
could meet and interact freely and informally. None of these steps
would prejudice or prejudge the position of both countries on the
disputed areas.25
But as important as national and international-level
sponsors of the enterprise to create a US-backed protectorate in J&K
are actors firmly entrenched in the States own political apparatus.
Since at least 1996, influential figures in the National Conference
have been pushing hard to transform the character of Jammu, a communally
diverse but culturally coherent region which is the principal barrier
to Kashmir-centred secessionist claims. Rajouri MLA and School Education
Minister Mohammad Sharief Tariq, Surankote MLA Mushtaq Ahmad Bukhari,
Mendhar MLA and Agriculture Minister Nisar Ahmad Khan, and Uri MLA and
Finance Minister Mohammad Shafi Uri are among the powerful figures who
have been arguing for a restructuring of the basis of regional identity
in the State. All the four National Conference leaders come from the
predominantly Muslim areas of Jammu broadly north of the Chenab river,
slated to be part of Pakistan had the Owen Dixon plan succeeded. In
1996, National Conference leaders from the region demanded the creation
of a new Pahari (mountain) region, separating the predominantly
Muslim Rajouri-Poonch belt from Jammu province, and integrating it with
Uri to the north in the Kashmir province.
Similar demands for separation from Jammu province
have come from the National Conference in the sprawling district of
Doda. Indeed, in the wake of last years tragic massacre of Muslim
villagers at Karara in Doda, local MLA Khalid Suhrawardy chose to share
a platform with the Jamaat-e-Islamis Sayyidullah Tantrey.26
Both parties are bitter enemies in the Kashmir Valley. These alliances
are in part driven by short term political considerations. The demand
for a Pahari region, for example, was designed to undermine the
influence of Gujjar and Bakerwal leaders in the region, communities
who have traditionally backed the Congress (I). But they also rest on
the wholly ridiculous proposition that these regions have no common
culture with Jammu. Clearly, events since 1998 have driven political
forces committed to some variant of the Owen Dixon plan to believe that
it was possible to engineer a renewed partition of J&K. The string
of communal massacres that has exploded on the landscape of J&K
over the past two years forced new movements of population accross the
river Chenab, preparing the grounds for such a partition.27
These developments had serious military and strategic consequences.
In New Delhi, however, there was little comprehension of these events,
and even less interest: what passed as Indias Kashmir policy in
the spring of 1999 could, at best, be described as a polite bureaucratic
yawn.
From Pokhran to Kargil, via Lahore
It has strangely been little commented upon that US
diplomacy was placed firmly in the context of international concern
on J&K in the wake of the Pokhran II tests. Indeed, the blast of
hot air that emanated from Pokhran II, nuclear and polemical, blew firmly
north towards Kargil.
On June 4 1998, not many weeks after Pokhran II, a
Joint Communiqué of the five permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council addressed for the first time in decades the
question of J&K. If Indian observers were elated by the fact that
the Security Council did not make explicit reference to the need for
third-party mediation in the Kashmir conflict, or to Kashmiri representation
in the India-Pakistan dialogue, US diplomats made it clear that Kashmir
had de facto been made a subject for international attention.
After the release of the Communiqué, for example, US Defence
Secretary William Cohen suggested that multilateral discussion on India
was necessary, despite the fact that "India has strongly objected
to any kind of international consideration of that issue". All
Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) chairperson Syed Ali Shah Geelani,
in his second post-Pokhran address at Jamia Masjid in Srinagar, displayed
a clear understanding of what was to follow. "Whenever there was
international pressure on it", he argued, "New Delhi agreed
to bilateral talks
. But when these were held, New Delhi made these
exercises purposeless by repeating that Kashmir is an integral part
of India
. Now that there are apprehensions of a nuclear war, the
world powers must intervene".28
Those apprehensions had not a little to do with Union
Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani's curious decision to make a linkage
between the Pokhran II tests and the future of J&K. On May 18, after
emerging from the governments first major policy meeting on J&K,
Advani argued that Indias "decisive step to become a nuclear
weapon state has brought about a qualitative new state in India-Pakistan
relations, particularly in finding a lasting solution to the Kashmir
problem". "Islamabad", he said, "has to realise
the change in the geo-strategic situation in the region and the world"
as a consequence of the Pokhran II tests. Although "we adhere to
the no-first-strike principle", Advani continued, "India is
resolved to deal firmly with Pakistans hostile activities".29
Several secondary BJP leaders followed in their leaders footsteps,
with former Union Minister Madan Lal Khurana inviting Pakistan to join
battle "at a place and time of its choosing". Such machismo
evaporated rapidly after Pakistans own nuclear tests at Chagai,
but the ideas that generated it continued to shape policy.30
Pakistan's military strategists clearly understood
that Pokhran II offered them an opportunity to force a conventional
military conflagration in J&K, and ensure international intervention
on the issue. Indias security establishment, by contrast, largely
refused to even engage with this possibility. In some senses, it could
not. To acknowledge that the Pokhran tests had been a strategic misjudgement
would have been to admit the absurdities of the BJPs core politics.
Under pressure from the US, both the Pakistani and Indian governments
began what has come to be known as the Lahore process this February.
At the outset, it was clear the Indian government was considerably more
desperate for results from the dialogue than Pakistan. Pakistani Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharifs famous half hug greeting stood
in sharp contrast with his Indian counterpart, Atal Behari Vajpayees
soap-opera mawkishness. Pakistan Army Chief Parvez Musharrafs
absence at the Wagah border along with his service colleagues, too,
made it clear the military establishment he represented was less than
enthusiastic about the new dialogue. As one observer noted of bus diplomacy
in the wake of the Kargil War, the "hawks in India have clearly
been taken for a ride by the hawks in Pakistan".31
This political blindness to Pakistans emerging
objectives had several military consequences. In the autumn of 1998,
Pakistani shelling along the LoC escalated to levels unknown since the
war of 1971. Kargil town itself was devastated, and 17 civilians lost
their lives. In a desperate effort to ensure the conflict did not escalate
to the point where it would sabotage nascent efforts for a rapprochement
with Pakistan, V.P. Malik is believed to have been instructed to ensure
his troops did not retaliate to Pakistan-fire with heavy calibre guns,
including 155-millimetre Bofors howitzers. Pakistan Army Analyst's in
all probability, drew the obvious inference. If India was both unwilling
and unable after Pokhran II to risk an escalation along the LoC despite
deliberate and escalating provocation, larger enterprises could now
be considered by Pakistans military establishment. By at least
some accounts, a limited territorial incursion by Pakistan to force
an international intervention on J&K had been considered, and rejected,
several times in the past. No conventional restraints now operated.
Events from August 1998 underlined the absence of a
strategic paradigm within which Pakistans post-Pokhran II objectives
could be read. In the autumn that followed the Pokhran II series of
tests, credible reports emerged of Pakistan-backed terrorists having
acquired shoulder-held surface-to-air missiles (SAM). The then Air Force
Chief, M.K. Sareen, offered the use of Jaguar aircraft with photo-reconnaissance
kits for surveillance. Perhaps driven by a misplaced sense that J&K
was his forces exclusive concern, V.P. Malik declined the offer.
Both Vajpayee and Fernandes, the sources said, believed that intelligence
inputs on the SAMs were fiction. While the SAM story may perhaps have
been dubious indeed, events after Pokhran II should themselves have
made the case for heightened surveillance. Had use of the Jaguars been
institutionalised last year, the first movements of irregulars and troops
across the LoC would almost certainly have been picked up early.
For reasons which have still to be explained, no preparations
appear to have been made in the Kargil area even for the kind of shelling
seen in 1998. Heightened exchanges of artillery continued throughout
the winter of 1998 - 1999, and several Indian forward posts faced sustained
bombardment. Yet, no special stocking of supplies and ammunition appears
to have been carried out. Had the Zoji La Pass, which blocks the route
from Sonmarg to Leh, not opened early this year, India would have faced
serious logistics and troop problems in Kargil. While Malik bears some
responsibility for these failures, he appeared to have been facing his
own problems. Through last year, some officials say, the Indian Army
Chiefs repeated calls for upgrading signal intelligence capabilities,
and for the introduction of new direction finding and interception facilities,
met a wall of Defence Ministry disinterest. The new equipment Malik
asked for arrived late, and in very small quantities.32
There has been no denial of this sequence of events by Army authorities
so far.
The Research and Analysis Wings Aviation Research
Centre [ARC] also proved generally hostile to requests for cross-LoC
area surveillance through this period, saying it needed political clearance
for such use of its 40-aircraft fleet, which includes an especially
fitted Boeing 707 and several twin-engine Beechcraft. These aircraft
are designed to fly at extremely high altitudes to avoid detection.
It is unclear whether any specific request for surveillance in the Kargil
area or elsewhere along the LoC was made. The fact that no such flights
were carried out in itself raises several questions.
Within J&K, the ARC had proved more co-operative.
In October and November 1998, just as training for the Kargil offensive
was underway at Olthingthang, ARC aircraft were stationed at Jammu to
verify reports that large numbers of terrorists had gathered on the
mountain heights of Doda. The photographs obtained, police officials
engaged in the operation say, were "extremely useful". But
no flights were carried out along the Line of Control, presumably because
the ARC was not ordered to do so.
What this set of events makes clear is that in the
wake of Pokhran II, there was no cogent understanding of the new strategic
opportunities for Pakistan. After the initiation of the Lahore process,
the political establishment in New Delhi and an often submissive military
leadership concurred that Pakistans sustained aggression in J&K
would now be slowly subverted. US pressure, business interests, and,
above all, the a priori assumption that nuclearisation would
ensure conventional peace were among the many asinine reasons offered
for the ridiculous assumption that Pakistan would choose to ignore the
best opportunity it had in two decades to force an international initiative
on the future of J&K. This postively imbecilical faith in nuclear
deterrance rested on profoundly flawed assumptions. As N. Ram has pointed
out:
Claims that peace, in terms of preventing major conventional
conflicts, has been assured in the sub-continent have become stock-in-trade
with the champions and apologists of Indias nuclear weaponisation,
especially following the first successful foreign secretary - level
meetings and the Lahore exercise. Kargil seems to demonstrate precisely
the opposite: given nuclear weaponisation, esclation is built into
a bilateral situation marked by tension, animosity and distrust; a
crisis can escalate into a conventional conflict; and a conventional
conflict poses the risk, unless very great care is exercised, of going
out of control and escalating further.33
Predictably, officials in New Delhi responded with
disdain when hard reports first came of a major offensive being planned
by Pakistan in the Kargil area. It has now been widely reported that
the Leh station of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) sent out two specific
warnings in the third week of October 1998. The head of the Bureaus
Leh office said in his first report that irregulars were being trained
at two camps adjoining Pakistans forward headquarters at
Olthingthang. The group, his report made clear, planned to cross the
border in April 1999. The Leh reports were based on information provided
by a Skardu-based informant reporting to the young and well regarded
in-charge of the IBs Kargil post. The Leh stations second
report, again based on field intelligence from the Kargil post, pointed
to the use of remotely-piloted photo-reconnaissance vehicles by pilots
along the Srinagar-Leh national highway. Both reports, IB officials
say, reached the office of the their Director, Shyamal Datta, and were
presumably passed on to the Prime Ministers Office (PMO). While
there has been no denial of the existance of the reports, there has
been a studied silence from the high quarters they eventually reached.34
Emerging and plausible evidence suggests the Kargil
field operative of the IB shared the information from Olthingthang with
the Kargil-based 121 Brigades Military Intelligence (MI) apparatus.
Officials claim Major Bhupinder Singh of the Brigade Intelligence Teams
(BITS) and Major K.B.S. Khurana of the Intelligence and Field Security
Unit [IFSU] were kept aware of the IBs flow of information. BITS
and IFSU are belived to have set up two reports on the Olthingthang
build-up, the first in September 1998, classifying the information as
non-reliable, and a second, later in the winter, marking it as highly
reliable. Despite flat denials by the Army that it was made aware of
the IBs reports, these claims appear plausible, since field-level
information is routinely shared among several concerned agencies. If
Khurana and Singh did indeed send up such reports, it is certain they
would have been received both by the 15 Corps Headquarters in Srinagar,
and by Army Headquarters. With what seriousness they were taken is,
of course, another business altogether.35
More corroborative evidence was to follow. Azhar Shafi
Mir, a Hizb-ul-Mujaheddin operative, was arrested by Border Security
Force (BSF) troopers in the Poonch area on December 20 1998. What he
told BSF interrogators was enough to arouse an unusual interest in the
intelligence community in Srinagar. Mir had tired of a long career as
a Hizb-ul-Mujaheddin footsoldier, and set up shop as an auto-rickshaw
driver in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
His vast experience in J&K, however, led the ISI to push him back
into the State. In mid-1998, he was picked up in Muzaffarabad on fabricated
charges of rash and negligent driving. Mir was then offered a simple
choice: spend an indefinite period in jail, or head back into India.
By August, Mir was completing his training in a camp on the Munshera-Gilgit
road. The camp, he said, housed 110 Hizb-ul-Mujaheddin recruits,
some 30 of them Pakistani and Afghan nationals. On September 1, 1998,
five sections from this camp were launched across the LoC at Athmuqam.
After a somewhat precipitate retreat, provoked by fear, Mir was launched
again, this time with a stern warning that cowardice would mean death.36
Mirs group was in itself unexceptional, but its
objectives were startling. It was tasked, in the words of his interrogation
report, "to cause extensive damage to the Bandipore-Gurez road,
and to ensure the isolation of the Army Division in Gurez so that a
full-fledged front could be opened against them
. Similarly, the
group would cause extensive damage to the Kangan-Leh road to prevent
vital supplies from reaching forces in the area". This left little
to doubt. It hardly served the interests of terrorists in the Uri-Gurez
area to cut off the Indian Armys 19 Division, since those soldiers
would continue operating against them locally. The objective, clearly
stated, was to prevent reinforcements from being moved from the Gurez
area and elsewhere into "somewhere on the Kangan-Leh road".
This could only have meant the Dras and Kargil areas. Maps of these
areas had been found on the body of Ali Mohammad Dar, a Hizb-ul-Mujaheddin
commander killed in Srinagar by the J&K Polices Special Operations
Group on August 9, 1998.
Sadly, there was no effort to interpret and act on
this body of information. While some officials did express concern,
with the Officiating Commander of the 15 Corps, Major General A.S. Sihota,
warning on January 11 of the "possibility of Pakistan trying to
capture some of our posts", no institutional introspection took
place.37 Posts that were not engaged
in returning Pakistan fire fire appear to have been vacated in winter,
as they had been for years, with no sense of the bitter consequences
that would follow. Army officials have been obfuscatory in the extreme
about just when posts were vacated, resorting, on occaision, to crude
and easily falsifiable claims. Some transparency on this issue, like
others, is desperately needed. In the absence of hard evidence, however,
it seems probable posts were held in most areas until relatively late
this winter. The first snows fell in the Kargil sector on October 16,
1998, just one day after the formal closure of the Zoji La for civilian
movement. But after two days of moderate snowfall, there was a respite
until the night of January 4. January and February saw only light and
intermittent snow, not enough to force positions off the Kargil heights.
March 8, however, witnessed severe weather, and it is plausible that
most high-altitude positions, like the Bajrang Post in Kaksar and others
around Marpo La in Drass, were starting to run short of supplies by
this time and were probably vacated with an intention to reoccupy them
in summer. This would have been the time the intrusion began to be put
in place.38
Interestingly, high-altitude positions in the Drass
sub-sector, where fighting had been among the most bitter seen through
the Kargil region, were routinely held through the winter until 1982.
Troops of the BSF had been assigned control of the Drass sub-sector
until that year. Even positions like Marpo La at 5,353 metres and Sando
at 4,268 metres were occupied by BSF soldiers despite near-impossible
operating temperatures. An altered political and strategic environment
appears to have led the Army, which replaced the BSF in 1982, to decide
that no significant purpose would be served by holding on to high altitude
pickets in the winter. Despite growing border tensions, and regular
artillery exchanges in the Kargil area from 1997, a certain inertia
of the imagination evidently ensured that there was no review of the
earlier policy. Had troops been positioned on Marpo-La and Sando through
the winter, intrusions by Pakistani irregulars and troops could have
been detected early. Equally important, Indian troops would have then
held commanding positions, making it difficult for Pakistan to supply
its positions on Tololing, the Tiger Hills and the Mushkoh Valley.
Significantly, the BSF appears to have continued with
its pre-1982 policy in areas it was assigned in the Kargil area. BSF
troops remained on the Bravo-1 post on Chorbat-La through the bitter
winter cold. Positions over 4,500 metres at Alpha Tekri and Punjab Tekri,
both in the Kargil sector, were also held. Had BSF troops not been at
Chorbat La, Pakistans effort to cut off Turtok by moving a brigade
down the Mian Langpa gully may well have met with success. The BSF troops
at Chorbat La were under sustained fire, but have succeeded in repulsing
attacks. For reasons which are not entirely clear, Army regiments to
which the BSFs companies are attached chose not to stay up at
their positions in the winter. The 3 Punjab Regiment, to which the BSF
company at Chorbat La is attached, does not for one appear to have separately
held any significant number of posts in the area. While the soldiers
and officers of the regiment can in no way be held responsible, their
top leadership clearly has some questions to answer. Secondly, while
a succession of alleged experts have been claiming special Siachen -
style equipment will be needed to sustain such winter positions, it
is worth noting that the BSF uses no special equipment at its posts,
and supplies them using little other than mules and porters.39
Writing in The Sunday Times, defence journalist
Manoj Joshi has argued that the mere fact of reports having being filed
means little "because they are couched in generalities" and
that only a high level probe can "determine whether there indeed
was forewarning of what was to come".40
Leaving aside the minor point that the field offices of RAW have made
no claims that they detected plans of a Pakistan instrusion, Joshis
argument requires consideration. It is, indeed, true that the flow of
intelligence is neither tidy nor unidirectional. But this, rather than
being a failure of some kind, is inherent in the business of intelligence
gathering. Disparate intelligence flows acquire coherence only when
analysed through ideological, strategic and political filters. Those
clearly did not exist. Joshi cites the opinion of a former special secretary
with RAW, V. Balachandran, stating that the problem may not have been
so much as an "absence of intelligence" as inadequate "strategic
assessment". To put it simply, information might have been there
in bits and pieces, but there was no one to put it together and make
sense of the larger picture.41
But why was there "no one to put it together and
make sense of the larger picture"? Observers have been curiously
reticent to place blame where it belongs. The deeply held ideological
beliefs of the political and bureaucratic establishments have not been
understood with clarity. These ideological beliefs shaped the filtering
of information, and the process of vesting certain inputs with importance
and consigning others to the dustbin. For the political hierarchy of
the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP, nuclear deterrance
has been something of a credo. In his March 15, 1999, statement, Vajpayee
outlined a not-so-new doctrine for India.
Now both India and Pakistan are in possession of nuclear
weapons. There is no alternative but to live in mutual harmony. The
nuclear weapon is not an offensive weapon. It is a weapon of self
defence. It is the kind of weapon that helps in preserving the peace.
If in the days of the Cold War there was no use of force, it was because
of the balance of terror.42
This was the body of beliefs that cost India more than
a thousand casualties dead, injured, or maimed for life. Ahmed
has pointed to the actual and profound implications Pokhran II had for
the Right-wing political establishment in Pakistan.
Pokhran II was a gift to Sharif as the Afghan War had been
for Zia ul- Haq. Since 1971, Pakistan had been trying, unsuccessfully,
to overcome its strategic inferiority in conventional warfare. By opening
the way for nuclear parity and competetive weaponisation, the Vajpayee
government gifted to Pakistan a strategic parity that it could not otherwise
achieve. To the extent that the possession of nuclear weapons capability
by both sides tends to put serious constraints on a full-scale conventional
war, to that same extent it facilitates the institutionalisation of
low-intensity, localised wars. The more the two countries move toward
nuclear weaponisation, the more Kargils we shall have. In this sense,
the present reality in Kargil is not only the other face of the rhetoric
of Lahore, it is also a precise, necessary, repeatable consequence of
Pokhran II.43
The Kashmir War After Kargil
The real war is the one in J&K: in this larger
conflict, Kargil is just something of a footnote. But Kargils
impact on security in the rest of J&K might be mildly described
as a calamity. 58 battalions of the Army engaged in counter-terrorist
operations have been withdrawn for border deployment in the wars
wake. 36 of these have been withdrawn from Kashmir and 22 from the Jammu
Province. Just 14 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and 6 BSF battalions
have been moved in to take their place. A further six have been sent
in for the Amarnath Yatra, and these may stay on until the 1999 Lok
Sabha elections. With the prospect of a permanent manning of the LoC,
no one has any cogent idea of just how the shortfall will be met in
the long-run. During the 1998 Lok Sabha elections, moreover, 354 additional
companies, each of approximately 125 men, had been deployed in J&K.
This time round, at least 500 companies will have to be brought in to
even meet the 1998 security levels.44
At least two significant elements of the war in J&K
have already become evident. First, since last summer, the mountain
heights of the State, areas of little political significance, have seen
large concentrations of Pakistani and Afghan terrorists, as well as
an assortment of other "freelance seekers of martyrdom".45
Received military wisdom has it that these groups lack the motivation
or resources to fight a losing battle in the Kashmir Valley. But a more
plausible possibility also exists. By building-up numbers on the heights
dominating Doda, Banihal, the Rajouri-Poonch belt and Kupwara, terrorist
groups will dominate the principal lines of access to the Kashmir Valley.
Read in the context of recoveries of increasingly heavy weapons in recent
months, ranging from mortar and anti-aircraft guns to a Grail anti-tank
missile launcher, some argue that current deployment patterns suggest
terrorist groups are preparing to support Pakistan troops in a conventional
engagement.
The second key element of terrorist activity in months
to come is certain to be the engineering of a deterioration in communal
relations, pushing Muslims out of Hindu-dominated areas south of the
Chenab river, and Hindus from the predominantly Muslim areas to its
north. Such migrations will give a de facto demographic legitimacy
to Pakistans objective of securing some variant of the Owen Dixon
plan. These processes have been in place at least since 1997, although
they gathered momentum after the Pokhran II tests and Advanis
promise of a "pro-active" policy in J&K. In a broader
sense, revanchist groups in Pakistan believe the communal war they are
engaged in is merely part of a larger struggle against supposedly-Hindu
India. These faultlines, ironically but unsuprisingly, are precisely
those that shape the mentalité of the Hindu Right.46
Even as much of J&K finds itself without security
cover, there is substantial evidence that cross-border infiltration
of terrorists has been unusually high in summer 1999. Field intelligence
officials in Kupwara and Baramulla estimate that at least six hundred
terrorists have moved in since March, often occupying positions at heights
above 4,000 metres. Anantnag, too, has seen sharp rise in the numbers
of Pakistan and Afghan terrorists active in the district, with over
two hundred reported to be based in the district. While most groups
of terrorists have been avoiding frontal engagement with state forces,
there is little doubt that the period since the Kargil conflict broke
out has seen a marked escalation in violence in the State.47
A secondary thrust of terrorist activity 1999 summer
unveiled itself with the murder of Deputy Inspector General S.K. Chakravarty,
Joint Director G-Branch Mahendra Raj, and Sub Inspector K. Bhaskar during
a raid on the BSFs Sector Headquarters at Bandipore on July 13.
Evidently, the increased targeting of security force personnel represents,
at once, a shift in strategy as well as a radical enhancement in weapons
capabilities and the proficiency of the foreign militants who have come
to dominate the movement in J&K. This has been a progressive trend
of the past three years, as the steadily worsening ratio of security
force personnel to militants killed demonstrates. This ratio has declined
from 1:5.79 in 1997, through 1:4.54 in 1988, to 1:3.20 in 1999. Worse,
with the thinning out of security forces in the wake of Kargil and the
escalation in Pak-backed militant activity, this ratio fell to 1:2 in
June 1999 year, as compared to a ratio of 1:5 in June 1998.
If the massacres and violent attacks this summer mark
a vertical escalation in the conflict in J&K, there are also signs
of a generalised horizontal escalation in the Leh region. Last months
arrest of a twenty-five member terrorist cell from the Turtok area of
Leh, led by local resident Ali Bhutto, has made it clear that conflict
can be expected in this until-now quiet region. Bhuttos arrest,
outside Leh, has been treated with little concern. But terrorism had
similar low-key origins elsewhere as well. In Poonch, the first sign
of an offensive was the arrest of Ayub Shabnam in May 1990. Shabnam,
who went on to spend five years in jail, was believed to be responsible
for the training and distribution of weapons to several local operatives.
But he, like Bhutto, had little knowledge of Pakistans broader
objectives. Few took the incident seriously, until Poonch went up in
flames after 1993.
Bhutto was picked up along with his cell, which included
two police constables, in a series of raids that began on June 7. The
group had hidden 25 Kalashnikov assault rifles, one heavy machine gun,
one general purpose machine gun, a sniper rifle, a rocket propelled
grenade launcher and several kilogrammes of explosive material, brought
in by Bhuttos Skardu-based brother, Ibrahim Sangsang. Sangsang,
interrogators of the Turtok cell discovered, had made several trips
accross the LoC in 1998, handing over weapons to relatives and associates
in five villages. All the five villages, Turtok, Pachathang, Thakshi,
Thang and Chalungpa were captured by India in the war of 1971. Bhuttos
father had been instrumental in asking villagers, against Pakistan Army
advice, to stay in India on the grounds that it was wrong to leave the
land of their birth. Interestingly, dozens of villagers in nearby Bogdang
village were issued rifles by the Pakistan Army in 1971 to wage a guerilla
war against advancing Indian troops. Few complied, and the rifles were
instead put to use poaching mountain goats.48
Ibrahim Sangangs story illustrates the rich relationship
between broad ideological factors and purely local issues in the emergence
of terror. Sangsang had, by local accounts, been intimate with local
officials and the military authorities, even having been sponsored to
visit New Delhi for a Republic Day parade in 1987. But by 1994, Sangsang
found himself embroiled in a series of legal disputes. Most emerged
from a criminal assault on a police officer, the outcome of a violent
dispute over the use of a diesel generator set that powered several
villages. Under pressure from the criminal justice system, Sangpapa
fled accross the LoC, where the ISI appears to have offered him a better
deal as against several years in jail. But several larger factors appear
to have been at play in the five villages. The Noor Baksh sect
that historically dominated the region, an eclectic Sufi-inspired
faith drawing both from Sunni and Shia custom, has been
under sustained seige from ultra-conservative Ahl-e-Hadis prosletysers.
The Ahl-e-Hadis have been closely associated with terrorist groups
in J&K, notably the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Tehreek-ul-Mujaheddin.
The near-unchallenged growth of revanchist religious
groups both in Pakistan and in J&K is certain to prepare the real
ideological agenda of events to come. In J&K, as the RAC Report
illustrates, the National Conference has begun to tear away from its
historic character as a secular, modernising force, and recast itself
as a Muslim communal formation. The tendency has been most marked in
Jammu where, as I have pointed out earlier, leaders of the far-Right
Jamaat-e-Islami have shared platforms with the National Conference.
These trends will be reinforced from across the border as, most disturbingly,
the future of Pakistans establishment elite has never been more
unsure than in recent years.
Back home, economic hardship and the inability of a corrupt
government to bring relief has made Pakistans Islamic fundamentalists
more popular with ordinary folk and crucially with the
military, which for decades has helped the Westernized elite to curb
Islamic fervour. As Jamaat [e-Islami] leader Qazi Hussain Ahmad pointed
out at a well-attended convention in Islamabad in October, the income
gap between junior and senior officers has been widening as the economic
crisis worsens.49
In the first of his seminal articles on the Kargil
War, Aijaz Ahmad had written, "The Pakistan we are dealing with
was born not once but twice". He outlined the crisis of identity
that emerged from the creation of Bangladesh, and the reinvention of
Pakistan not as the home of sub-continental Muslims, but of a mythically
pure Islam, subsidised by West Asian wealth.
Nothing worked as magically in restoring the self-confidence
of the Pakistani state and its privileged classes as the infusion
of petrodollars. But this new sort of money brought with it a new
and curiously effective commodity as well: petro-Islam. A hybrid thing,
born of centuries of ferocious conservatism so characteristic of the
desert, but also of the unprecedented levels of wealth that was newly
gained but was the product neither of a settled history nor of accumulated
labour but of chance, that the black gold flowed here rather than
elsewhere. It was a curious kind of Islam, equally ferocious in its
piety and in its consumerism.50
To those who have noted the organic links between the
emergence of a new middle class through the 1980s, and the rise of the
Hindu Right through India, Ahmads description of petro-Islam will
be disturbingly familiar. In both India and Pakistan, the forces of
reaction are far from spent, driven, as both now are by nuclear power.
The end of the war on the Kargil heights, it is almost certain, is profoundly
unlikely to mark the begining of peace.