SOURCE:
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/the-50-shades-of-grey-in-j-k/819908.html

      The 50 shades of grey in J&K 

                                BY

                 Manish Tewari

It is a well-known security canon that if a militant movement has popular people’s support, it is near impossible to contain it, much less neutralise it. Only by winning the hearts and minds of the people can it be contained. If you fail to drive a wedge between the populace and the insurgent, the insurrectionary would win.

Bifurcating J&K: It will challenge the resilience of the Indian state.

20 AUG 2019

Manish Tewari
MP and former union minister

By Balkanising the state of Jammu and Kashmir and reconfiguring its constitutional relationship with the Indian Union, the NDA/BJP government has entered into a grey area whose shades will challenge the resilience of the Indian state.

The Constitutional Grey: Beyond ignoring the letter and spirit of Article 3 and the repeal of Article 370, there are other constitutional issues that have also been disregarded. Before its accession, J&K was governed in terms of The Jammu & Kashmir Constitution Act promulgated in 1939. [https://ikashmir.net/historicaldocuments/65.html  ] This arrangement continued until the state adopted its own Constitution. Para 7 of the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh on October 26, 1947 stated, “nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future Constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution.” 

Though other princely states also signed similar covenants, given the prevailing state of hostilities with Pakistan, the situation in J&K was fraught with complexity. That is why a special mechanism was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949, in the form of Article 370 to cement the relationship between the Indian Union and Jammu & Kashmir to move it beyond the Instrument of Accession.

Article 370 became all the more germane, for, on November 26, 1949, Rajpramukhs of all the other Princely States that had acceded to the Union of India signed and adopted the Constitution in its entirety, except the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. 

To make J&K’s integration with India permanent, an elected Constituent Assembly was convened on October 31, 1951. It remained in session till November 17, 1956 wherein it adopted a Constitution that came into force on November 26, 1957. Article 3 of the said Constitution integrated the state inalienably into India by stating that J&K shall be an integral part of India. 

Now, with the government having bifurcated the state into two, what happens to the Constitution of the undivided state of J&K? For, no one can abrogate that Constitution and it has no self-destruct provision in its 12 Parts and 147 Articles. Even the Parliament cannot rescind it, for it has been framed by an elected Constituent Assembly much like the Indian Constitution itself. If one was to argue that with the bifurcation, the Constitution has become a dead letter, it can equally be argued that then the relationship between India and J&K is now back to the terms of the Instrument of Accession, dehors the constitutional sophistry of 2019. 

The Political Grey: Going all the way back to 1947, there is a sizeable section of people in Kashmir which has rooted for autonomy, self-rule, independence and merger with Pakistan. All these four strains are present in the body politic of Kashmir. They are intertwined and overlap and, therefore, the slogan of azadi means different things to different people. However, there are also the standard-bearers of the Indian Union in the vale of Kashmir, namely the National Conference and the Indian National Congress, stretching back, again, to Independence. Over a period of time, various other political outfits, like the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), founded in 1999, also joined this endeavour.

After the last round of intense militant activity in the mid-90s that saw the killings of leaders and cadres of mainstream political parties, they still persevered and between 1996 and 2019, over four Assembly elections and seven Parliament elections reaffirmed their faith in the Indian democratic system. The current bifurcation has completely cut the legs out from under the regional parties, namely the NC and the PDP. What was considered to be the political mainstream in Kashmir has effectively disappeared. It is ironical that three former Chief Ministers of J&K — Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti, till recently an ally of the BJP — and their families are in incarceration. The repercussions of the negation of the political mainstream would be grave in the years to come

The Security Grey: It is a well-known security canon that if a militant movement has popular people’s support, it is near impossible to contain it, much less neutralise it. The most contemporary Counter-Insurgency Manual authored by General David Petraeus in 2006 and applied in Iraq and later Afghanistan is premised upon certain fundamental principles that go to the heart of COIN (counter-insurgency) operations. Simply translated, it means winning the hearts and minds of the people. If you fail to drive a wedge between the populace and the insurgent, the insurrectionary would win. In the long war against militancy in Punjab, the inflection point came when a popular government, even on a thin electoral base, was restored in 1992. Currently also, the government is negotiating to end the decades old insurgency with the Nagas underground. It is obtuseness to remove the political buffer between Delhi and Srinagar and administer Kashmir from New Delhi. 

The Strategic Grey: Pakistan is back in the game not only in Kashmir, but also the region. The US needs Pakistan ever more if the US-Taliban deal has to succeed. Moreover, the Iranian issue is back on the front-burner. Pakistan will have a role to play in the US scheme of things. Whatever militant capacity the US-Taliban deal would free up will all come to Kashmir. Then, there is always the ISIS to fill in the vacuum if the demobilised Afghan fighters are unwilling to become guns for the Pakistani deep state. The government needed to apply the healing touch, rather than alienate them at this juncture.

The International Grey: India’s whole case for the return of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the Northern Territories rests on the Instrument of Accession, an Article of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution and the two resolutions of Parliament. Article 4 of the J&K Constitution states: “The territory of the State shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State.” The two resolutions of 1994 and 2012 state that the only unfinished business of Partition are those parts of J&K illegally occupied by Pakistan and ceded to China. With the dismemberment of the original state of J&K, that claim becomes a non sequitur. For, in both bilateral and multilateral negotiations, India would not be able to say that we are wanting control over the original state of J&K as acceded to India on October 27, 1947, by Maharaja Hari Singh, for that state no longer exists. This unravelling of J&K has weakened our case in the chanceries and conference rooms of the world.

That is why I told the Home Minister in the Lok Sabha on August 6 that between black and white, there are fifty shades of grey in Jammu & Kashmir.

BANISHED FROM HIS OWN LAND (R)

SOURCE:
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/spectrum/banished-from-his-own-land/818375.html

VIDEO: Kashmir The Story | Full Documentary On The History & Timelines Of Kashmir Valley

           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SuNPI6Y6K8&t=302s

  BANISHED FROM HIS OWN LAND 

 

Maharaja Hari Singh acceded J&K to India but was expelled two years after the accession. He breathed his last in exile                                                                     BY                     Shakti S. Chandel

                                 Maharaja Hari Singh                                          took over the reins of J&K on September 23, 1925

         Maharaja Hari Singh and Vallabhbhai Patel
                       in Delhi on April 20, 1948

          Nehru and Maharaja Hari Singh in May, 1948.

Pt Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah

                                The Royal couple             : Maharani Tara Devi and Maharaja Hari Singh

June 20, 1949. It was the day when the government of independent India chose to exile the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir, who had acceded his state to India on October 26, 1947. The Jawaharlal Nehru-led government in Delhi, under the influence of Governor General Lord Mountbatten, did not accept the accession in full measure — it was accepted on the condition that the final accession would be decided by the people of Jammu & Kashmir by plebiscite. Maharaja Hari Singh had merged the state with India without any condition — none could have been attached as conditional accession was not warranted by the 1947 Act of Independence passed by the British Parliament. However, the strings of plebiscite attached by the Indian government now came in the hands of Sheikh Abdullah, who got himself appointed as the Prime Minister of J&K. He wanted to be the absolute head of the state if the Indian government wanted his favour for winning the plebiscite. So he bargained with Nehru and sought the exile of Maharaja Hari Singh from J&K. Both Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel succumbed to this man's design, according to Looking Back, an autobiography of Mehr Chand Mahajan, the Prime Minister of Maharaja Hari Singh and the third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India.

In 1857, the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was exiled to Rangoon for resisting a foreign power. In that case, a native was exiled by a foreign, occupying force — the Britishers. In the case of Maharaja Hari Singh, it was done by his own country's rulers in Delhi for no fault of his. Patel assured him that his stay outside the state would be a 'temporary phase' and he would return after a settlement with regard to the plebiscite was finalised. After signing a proclamation appointing his 18-year-old son, Yuvraj Karan Singh, as the Regent of Jammu and Kashmir, the Maharaja took a train to Bombay on June 20, 1949, and started living there. As events unfolded, the plebiscite never took place and only the ashes of the exiled ruler returned to Jammu in 1961.

April 26, 1961. The news of Maharaja Hari Singh's passing away was broken by the All India Radio on April 26, 1961, plunging the region and the Dogras into a state of shock and confusion. Shock, because he was loved across caste lines in the region; and confusion since they did not know where they should go for mourning. There was no one in the palace. Yuvraj Karan Singh and his wife were on a trip to Europe, and the Maharani was in Kasauli. The mourners marched to the residence of Pandit Prem Nath Dogra of Praja Parishad, hoping he would be able to guide them. No one knows how the decision was taken, but the mourners ended up forming a surreal funeral procession, which had neither the dead, nor the family of the deceased. The procession proceeded to the funeral grounds by the banks of Tawi, where the funeral rites were performed. No smoke came out of any hearth that evening as a sign of love and respect for the departed soul. However, the state government refused to share the grief of the Dogras. The radio station played songs and the state flag continued to flutter. This was provocative, and the demonstrating youth reacted. They marched to the civil secretariat and attempted to bring down the flag to half-mast, but the police responded by firing at them. 

Maharaja and the Great Game

The Dogra rulers had survived the intrigues of the Lahore Durbar, and theirs was the only dynasty to emerge out of the decay and destruction of the local kingdoms. Eventually, the Dogras succeeded in extending the boundaries of their state deep into northern areas of Gilgit-Baltistan, Ladakh, Trans-Karakoram Tract and Aksai Chin. By the time Maharaja Hari Singh took over the reins of the state on September 23, 1925, much had changed and much remained mired in the political games of the nineteenth century that came to be known as the ‘Great Game’. Most of his life was spent battling those forces, in addition to the newly emerging threat of communalism in the subcontinent.

In hindsight, the history of the post-1947 subcontinent can’t be fully appreciated without critically examining the Maharaja’s role. So far it has never been adequately narrated. Even those who have made such attempts have judged him rather harshly through the eyes of other prominent forces of the time, without applying the test of objectivity and credibility to the sources from where they drew their arguments. Apart from not being fair to the Maharaja, historians have also been guilty of unfairly condemning the state forces for their role in the 1947-48 war with Pakistan. “Setting the record straight on both these counts was my stated purpose of writing the book Maharaja Hari Singh: The Troubled Years,” says author Prof. Harbans Singh.

The beginning of the Maharaja’s rule coincided with the rise of Mahatma Gandhi as a mass leader in India and the beginning of the awakening among the rural masses. Maharaja Hari Singh introduced many administrative and judicial reforms. At the very first durbar of 1925, he had declared: “Justice is my religion.” He stuck to this secular vision in letter and spirit all his life. He selected the ablest and experienced luminaries from British India as his prime ministers. He set up a responsible government with full provincial autonomy, and a Board of Judicial Advisors with the ruler as the constitutional head. The finances of the State were governed on modern principles. He promoted diverse cultural activities of the state and patronised performing artistes.

Secular outlook

Maharaja Hari Singh had worked hard for improving the lot of the Kashmiri Muslims. He made primary education compulsory for all subjects. Liberal stipends and scholarships were offered to Muslim students as an incentive for higher education. Sadly, the state had not taken sufficient measures to create a vibrant economic scene where jobs were created and these educated young men could have found opportunities. Therefore, if Sheikh Abdullah was a disgruntled schoolteacher after receiving a post-graduate degree in science, there was some reason for his resentment. The disgruntled thus found other channels to express their frustration. In a society that is largely uneducated and religious, the parables and words of saints come in handy to inspire as well as rouse. Since Sheikh Abdullah was adept at scriptures, he quickly succeeded in building a large following.

Then the developments of 1947 and the question of accession appeared.  The position of Jammu and Kashmir was quite difficult, situated as it was in contiguity to India and Pakistan as also to Afghanistan, Tibet and Russia. The state had several ethnic groups. The situation, therefore, required to be dealt with tact and foresight. The Maharaja waited in vain for the turmoil of the communal frenzy in neighbouring Punjab to settle down. And before that happened, Pakistan invaded Kashmir—resulting in hurried accession of the state to India.

Sidelined

After taking over as the Prime Minister, Sheikh Abdullah started usurping all powers, ignoring the existence of the Maharaja. He started issuing a series of statements intended to humiliate and malign the Maharaja, and painted him as unpatriotic. In order to avoid embarrassment, the Maharaja wrote to Patel on May 6, 1949, and proposed that the Government of India find a suitable position in Delhi where his services could be utilised in a befitting manner, but there was no response. Under pressure from Sheikh Abdullah, the Maharaja was called to Delhi and was asked to desist from returning to the state, and was finally exiled. Thus, the Maharaja was banished from his own land, which had neither the sanction of law nor of political morality. 

On June 20, 1949, the three members of the Dogra dynasty embarked upon their lonely journeys: the Maharaja took a train to Bombay; the Maharani took the road to Kasauli, and the newly appointed Regent, Yuvraj Karan Singh, flew to Srinagar to work with Sheikh Abdullah! This caused a strain on the relationship of the father and the son; 

the Maharaja mollified only after Yuvraj Karan Singh dismissed Sheikh Abdullah from the office in 1953 and put him in jail, where he was to spend 11 years.

In the last phase of his life, the Maharaja lived a forlorn life, with no complaint or grudge against anyone. Only his passion for horses and the turf of Mumbai kept him going!

— The writer is a former IAS officer

SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/no-doubt-army-for-people/399154.html



        PART TWO OF TWO PARTS

PART ONE :  

 [A]      

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2017/05/an-army-for-people-m-g-devasahayam.html

PART TWO:

[ B ]

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2017/04/no-doubt-army-for-people.html

***********************************************************************

       No Doubt, Army for People

                              by

         Lt Gen R.S Sujlana (retd)

IN LINE OF FIRE: Army personnel guard the Panzgam camp, 120 km from Srinagar, which was attacked by militants recently. PTI



The Oped titled, "An Army for the People?" (April 26, 2017) conveys a matter of serious concern as it expresses doubts that the Army it is no longer for the people of this country (specially in relation to the people of Jammu and Kashmir). It ends with the question: “Should our Army be different now?” 

A reference has been made to tying up of a stone-thrower in front of an Army jeep, evidently inspired by methods of the Israeli Occupation Force in illegal occupation of Palestine. Tellingly, it has also been conveyed that armed with the so-called draconian powers the Army has under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), instead of defending democracy, it has become oppressive at the whim of an autocratic state. 

Let me first address the episode of tying an individual (who was one among the many others pelting stones on the security force personnel performing their duty) in front of a jeep. This impromptu action by the quick-thinking commander at a critical juncture warded off a potentially dangerous situation, saved many lives and it needs to be commended. What were the options and expectations from the young Army officer? Realising the inadequacy of his small force to counter the large hostile crowd out to lynch the security personnel on duty, his first reaction could have been to pull back to safety, in which case he could be charged with dereliction of duty and cowardice. Another reaction could have been to open fire, leading to heavy collateral damage and civilian casualties and get charged for use of unwarranted force and fuelling the nefarious propaganda machine of the sponsors of terrorism sitting across the border. It would have been foolhardy to be at the receiving end of the hostile stone-pelting crowd, leading to many own casualties. Expectedly, the young Major did not choose to take any of the above options but showed presence of mind. His ingenuity ensured safe evacuation of all security personnel with no casualties to the rioting civilians or collateral damage and needs appreciation. It must be reiterated that this is a clear example of the Army advocacy and teaching of maximum constraint despite extreme provocation at the risk of even suffering own casualties. 

The credit and mastering (if these two words can be used loosely) the art of using humans as shields goes to the terrorists who shamelessly position women and children in front of them. The terrorists literally hid behind skirts (or rather phirans) and then from the safety of this screen of hapless citizens not only inflict casualties on the Army but make good their escape, leaving women and children in the lurch and in danger. Can anything be more unmanly and cowardly? Does it leave a doubt of what treatment the population will receive in the vaporous and no-longer- talked-of idea of "Azadi" but of radical Islam and world-wide jihad?

The very thought of the Army taking a leaf from the Israel Occupation Force is outlandish. The Indian Army is not an occupation force but operating in its own land. Moreover, operations are always launched ensuring minimum collateral and discomfort to the local population or giving a reason for any discord. The Army in its' over six decades of experience in battling insurgents/ terrorists/ anti-national elements has refined strategy and tactics to fight the terrorists, while interacting with and providing solace to the affected local civilian population. Such has been its' expertise that armies the world over (ranging from the US, UK, Russia, to Central Asian Republics, Japan to South-East Asia and South Asia) have sought joint training through exercises with the Indian Army at various levels to learn from its experience. Their outstanding contribution to effectively fight the scourge of terrorism has been widely appreciated. Yes, the armed forces does procure Israeli weapons and advanced technology but it does not need to import any lessons to fight battles.

In the Army's fight against terrorism, an important and well-structured thrust has been on being people friendly. Under the aegis of Operation “Sadhbhavna” in Jammu and Kashmir and Operation “Samaritan” in the North-East, the Army has earnestly taken up the duties of a failed civil administration and literally brought to the door steps of the population a range of elusive facilities: education and exposure to technology through institutions like “Good-will Schools”, medical, veterinary, sports and travel facilities etc. 

A question that may rankle: Why, despite all these measures the population is still hostile and the security forces are not appreciated? Resolving the Kashmir problem is a national challenge and not the sole prerogative of the Army. Rather, the latter has only a minor role which is restricted to controlling the hostile situation to enable the civil administration to take control of the reigns. Such a controlled situation was created in 2014 which enabled the conduct of peaceful elections and witnessed heavy polling, the terrorists sway was down. The yeoman service of the Army during the deluge and disaster caused by the waters of Jhelum and people-oriented actions added to the confidence of the locals. However, what followed was disastrous. The advent of winter saw the Darbar with all politicians and bureaucrats shifting to the salubrious environs of Jammu. Even the separatist leaders flew away and left the population in misery to fend for themselves. 

While the Army and other security forces had done their job, when the need was for the politicians and the civil administration to proactively perform they failed to do so. The Pakistan-based sponsors saw an appropriate opportunity and lashed out with every trick in perception management, while we failed to counter and exploit the success of elections. Just two years down, we witnessed the result of thumb twiddling and losing the narrative — a 7 per cent election turnout with smashed EVMs floating in the Jhelum. An integrated national effort, the need of the hour, is nowhere in sight.

The Army's resolve to ensure mission accomplishment, apolitical conduct and preserve democracy is no different today than the days of Emergency when all pillars of democracy — including the judiciary, bureaucracy and media — crawled to submission. It was left to the Army to stand sentinel over the citizens' liberty and rights. Like in the past, so too in the future, whenever the need arises even for any secondary task the Army will always endeavour to ameliorate any hardship that people may face. 

No doubts need to be raised and no witnesses are needed, their selfless conduct, with thousands having made the ultimate sacrifice, bears testimony to this. The Army led by gallant soldiers and officers at all levels will continue to outperform the enemy within and without. The nation must  TRUST  them. A start would be to raise a National War Memorial, which remains a pipedream despite repeated promises

including one by the present 56"-chest 

regime. 

The writer is former Commandant, IMA & ex-Chairman, PPSC. 
The Army in J&K, facing hostile stone-throwers and cross-border terrorism, needs to be supported by proactive political measures. Paramilitary forces in the Naxal-affected areas too need to be backed by technology, synergy and development on the ground.

An Army for the people? M. G. Devasahayam

SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/an-army-for-the-people/397454.html



  
                             PART ONE OF TWO PARTS




  

PART ONE :  

 [A]      

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2017/05/an-army-for-people-m-g-devasahayam.html

PART TWO:

[ B ]

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2017/04/no-doubt-army-for-people.html

***************************************************************
DONT TAKE INDIAN ARMED FORCES  FOR GRANTED. ARMED FORCES ARE THE CUSTODIAN OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION  
                                                 &
 LOYALTY OF ARMY IS GUARANTEED AS LONG AS THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS RESPECTED  AND INTEGRITY  OF THE NATION IS  ENSURED                                                                                         - VASUNDHRA

Powerless?Farooq Dar tied to the Army vehicle as a human shield. Former Chief Omar Abdullah took to Twitter to display his anguish and attached the video screenshot of Dar.

             An Army for the People?

                                     BY

                      M. G. Devasahayam

Army’s healing touch:The Army was the saviour for people devastated by the floods. Army doctors provide medicines to the flood-hit people at a medical camp in Srinagar. PTI

Next Image

L’affaire  Human Shield’ of the Indian Army tying a stone-thrower on their jeep in Kashmir has evoked mixed reactions. Many, including Army veterans, are defending it as a tactical means to avoid stone-throwing and thus permit operations with minimal bloodshed of protestors and Army personnel alike. Many others condemn it vehemently.

Among the latter are those who call it part of "D doctrine" that draws its inspiration and ideology from the state of Israel. While this can be the Standard Operating Procedure for the Israeli Occupation Force in illegal occupation of Palestine, it cannot be an SOP in the Indian Army or any other self-respecting military. 

For the moderate objectors, the Army personnel who used the tactic are clearly at the end of their tether in being deployed in internal security operations with no end in sight. They feel soldiers on-the-ground would not have used the tactic had they not been frustrated with having to take the blame for failures and the bullets and grenades from militants over the decades, for pulling politicians' chestnuts out of the fire, a job that the police are not quite up to.

Those who defend the "human shield" quote paragraph 305 of the "Regulations for the Army" for deployment of troops on duties in aid of civil authorities: "The strength and composition of the force, the amount of ammunition to be taken and the manner of carrying out the task are matters for the decision of the military authorities alone." 

Paragraph 306 (d) provides immunity to officers if they act in good faith which is held to mean "with due care and attention". For them, the young commander in Budgam faced with a hostile crowd of over 900 and the option of opening fire undoubtedly acted in good faith, exercising due care and attention, thereby averting a potential catastrophe.

Both sides have merits in their argument. But the problem is with the common denominator-the prolonged and endless deployment of the Army in internal security duty which is the job of the police and at best of the para-military forces for a short period. As per the Army Doctrine-2004, the Indian Army's primary role is to preserve national interests and safeguard the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of India against any external threats by deterrence or by waging war. To perform this role, the Army keeps aloof from the civilian crowd, concentrating on their training and battle readiness.


 Relegating the Army to its secondary/tertiary role by prolonged troop deployment on internal security duties, dilutes the Army's authority, corrupts ranks and compromises efficiency through lack of training. 

Besides, over time the Army is looked upon merely as another state force with its soldiers losing the respect and mystique they traditionally enjoyed. Familiarity breeds contempt and military men find themselves at the receiving end. This is precisely what is happening in Kashmir. Since the civilian population is directly involved, politics and politicians come in. Power games begin and wittingly or unwittingly the Army becomes a pawn. 

In the case of Kashmir, the endeavour of power-mongers has been to create a situation of intense hostility, inextricably miring the military into it forcing it to resort to excessive force. To perform this "task," the Army is vested with draconian powers under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). In a July 2016 verdict, the Supreme Court ripped open the cloak of immunity and secrecy provided by AFSPA to security forces for deaths caused during encounters in disturbed areas. 

Earlier, Commissions headed by former apex court judges have found serious human rights violations by the security forces and have recommended the scrapping of AFSPA or making drastic changes in it. 

Successive governments and the Army top brass have been defending AFPSA with all their might. Over the years, the effort of ruling politicians has been to make the Army an instrument of an increasingly autocratic state. The question arises: What is the mandate of the Indian Army — to defend democracy or oppress the people at the whim of an autocratic state? This poser came up when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency in June, 1975 turning a vibrant democracy into enslaved autocracy. Putting the entire blame on Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) and the movement led by him she made specific reference to JP calling upon the Army not to obey any order, which they considered wrong: "You have not sold your conscience and honour for the sake of your bread", JP had said and challenged the Home Minister to try him for treason. Response to the poser came from the international media in a lengthy article titled “Ruler of 600 million arid alone”-Indira Gandhi is unmaking a democracy to save it," in the New York Times of August 10, 1975 — written by Claire Sterling, [http://www.nytimes.com/1975/08/10/archives/ruler-of-600-million-and-alone-indira-gandhi-is-unmaking-a.html?_r=0 ]                                                       a columnist for Atlantic Monthly, Washington Post and International Herald Tribune after extensively visiting India.  After analysing the situation on the ground and presenting the alternatives before Mrs Gandhi — becoming a real dictator or sending the country into the Soviet orbit — Claire opines that neither development is likely to leave the Indian Army unmoved:

[  ]

“India's standing Army of nearly a million men has been resolutely non-political since Independence. But it is also sensitive to the smallest slight to its honour, dignity and military independence, not to mention the nation's sovereignty; and it is steeped in loyalty to constitutional principles. It was altogether her Army when she enjoyed unquestioned legitimacy of constitutional rule. It may not be should its ranking officers conclude that she has become something else. More than ever now her fate hangs on the Army's loyalty.” 

Claire concludes the article with touching poignancy: "One thing worse than governing India by democratic persuasion would be trying to govern it by force. Yet that is how Indira is trying to do it now. Depending on how fast and how far she goes in changing from a traditional Prime Minister to the one-woman ruler of a police state, the Indian Army, the one group with the power to stop the process, could intervene. If it were to do so, it would almost certainly be not to replace her with a military dictator, but to restore the institutions of democracy it has been drilled into defending since birth." The Army lived up to this faith and Emergency ended with Indira Gandhi's defeat in the 1977 elections. The Army did not intervene but remained a bulwark of India's democracy and its institutions. I was a witness. Should our Army be any different now? 

The writer is a former IAS officer

L O C JAMMU & KASHMIR : BATTALION ACTION TEAM [BAT]

SOURCE:

http://strategicstudyindia.blogspot.in/2013/10/loc-downside-of-bat-actions.html?m=1

      

     BATTALION ACTION TEAM [BAT]
                                    OF
       PAK INFANTRY BATTALIONS 

LOC: The Downside of BAT Actions        

Editor

Lt Gen (Retd) Syed Ata Hasnain

October 5, 2013 

Updated 05 May,2017.

The recent ongoing Pakistani intrusions on the Line of Control must be understood in the larger perspective of the Pakistan’s philosophy of keeping the LC alive by Border Action Teams(BAT). Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain explains the nuances to clear misconceptions about the LC dynamics.

During the 06 Aug 2013 flare up on the LC (LoC) in the Poonch Sector and the beheading incident in Jan 2013 the common string of information was that the targeted killing of Indian Jawans on the LC was executed by BATs. Even in the Army, not many would boast of knowing what BATs are, how do they function (modus operandi), what effects they have and how the Indian Army handles the threat. In the typical lackadaisical way that the public treats matters military not many sought more information on BATs, preferring to leave them to our professional Army to handle.

In a way that is a positive because the world of the LC is the domain of just a few who have had the honour and the ‘sugar high’ of serving in the razor sharp environment that presents itself daily in the ‘border areas’ of Jammu & Kashmir. It may be appropriate to clarify some of the basic ingredients of this high drama environment.

What is the LC?

The LC is different to the LAC (Line of Actual Control), different to the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) and much different to the Working Boundary (a term used only by Pakistan). The LAC alludes to the land boundary between the areas currently held by China and India along the Northern borders and the AGPL refers to the un-demarcated area north east of NJ 9842. To detail these aspects would be to digress from the main issue the LC, which is quite often called LoC by the media but the Army prefers to shorten it to the more colloquial LC.

The LC is an imaginary line running along the current frontier between India and Pakistan in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. Although the Instrument of Accession of 26 Aug 1947 and Joint Resolution of the two Houses of Parliament of Jul 1994 place the whole of Jammu and Kashmir with India, the actual ground position has emerged over the last 65 years commencing with Pakistan’s invasion in 1947 the conflicts of 1965, 1971 and 1999 (Kargil), as also the proxy war launched by Pakistan since 1989. The LC runs well east of the actual International Boundary (IB) and is the alignment along which the operations of 1947-48 came to a halt thus creating Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK-often referred as Azad Kashmir, or AK, by Pakistan). Unlike the IB there are no boundary pillars (BPs) delineating the LC, however, there are a series of mostly unrecognizable landmarks such as boulders, trees and nullahs which have undergone change over years. The Indian and Pakistan Armies are in eyeball contact in their various pillboxes and picquets all along the alignment but at places terrain constraints may separate the two by two or more km.

It is an environment little known to the outside world, where the notion of ‘Grabbers, Keepers’ exists. Translating this into reality it means that any side grabbing a piece of ground for a tactical advantage gets to keep it unless forcibly evicted (recall Kargil 1999).

Events Leading to Current Status

All was well on the LC till 1989 or so except the sporadic shootouts of lower intensity which took place for the sake of ‘moral ascendancy’. A much misunderstood term, ‘moral ascendancy’ remains even today a task for the wily infantrymen and encompasses a range of sub tasks primary being the sanctity of the LC, (no loss of ground) and prevention of rogue actions by Pakistan.

In 1989 things started to change drastically with the belief among the Kashmiri populace that ‘Azadi’ or merger with Pakistan was becoming a reality. The proxy war within the Valley had to be sustained by Pakistan through induction of terrorists, explosives, military hardware and finances. The LC became the obvious conduit through which all this happened. Much against the common belief that the LC is manned metre to metre the ground reality is that there are large gaps dictated by terrain factors, logistics and climatic constraints. It is these gaps which were exploited and converted to ‘highways’ (a terrorist term) for movement of terrorists, potential terrorists(recruits), hardware, explosives and finances.

The Army was forced to redeploy and selectively reinforce at the cost of its counter terrorist operational grid in the Valley floor. This left many of its LC picquets weaker as a new dimension was added to the task of ‘sanctity of the LC’ this was Counter Infiltration. Sensing a great opportunity the Pakistan Army commenced selectively targeting Indian picquets with a mix of regular troops and well trained terrorists (those who had undergone Daura-e-Khas training). The purpose force back Indian Army counter infiltration ambushes, located between picquets and thus create the gaps needed for infiltration. Unprovoked firing by Pakistani posts further forced the creation of gaps. All this occurred in the Nineties and progressive lessons learnt by the Pakistan Army refined the BAT concept.

Characteristics of BATs

Border Action Teams comprise a mix of Pakistan Army regulars, Pakistan Special Forces elements and high profile terrorists (Jihadis) who are trained to cross the LC to execute raids on Indian picquets, ambushes and patrol parties or logistics elements. Strength has mostly been experienced to be 15 to 20. Beheading has been one of the modus operandi adopted by these teams to cause scare and impose immense caution on their targets. The immediate effect of information about concentration of a BAT opposite a particular segment of the LC is an inevitable strengthening of the defensive stance; stronger patrols, more protection for logistics elements such as mule trains which carry advance winter stocking stores; all this at the cost of the counter infiltration grid. The situation can then be exploited for strong infiltration bids through gaps. Quite obviously BAT actions are in the mold of terrorist acts launched with the intent of imposing caution and creating the tactical conditions for terrorist infiltration.

The Coming of the LC Fence

The inevitable question does the Indian Army sit on its haunches waiting to be attacked; far from it. Indian infantry units are known to have wreaked revenge and delivered telling blows on the Pakistan Army and terrorists. In years before the Cease Fire came into place on 26 Nov 2003 exchange of Arty Fire and direct firing heavy weapons was common place. Many an ingenius Indian gunner and infantry commander innovated and caused much destruction on the Pakistan Army. Among others the name of Brigadier Jasbir Lidder (later Lt Gen), Commander of the high profile 12 Infantry Brigade (Uri) is well known for his famous quip “When Uri rumbles, Chakhoti (PoK town opposite Uri) crumbles”. The ingenius LC fence constructed along the 16 & 15 Corps frontages under the outstanding leadership of then COAS Gen Nirmal Vij greatly altered the odds of infiltration. This needs to be understood in the right perspective as the annual reconstruction of the Fence (an expensive exercise in men and material) is very often questioned within the Army and the less informed bureaucratic circles. 

The LC Fence

The LC Fence changed much more than just the awe inspiring landscape of the Pir Panjal and Shamshabari ranges. It altered what we call the ‘mathematics of terror’ in Jammu & Kashmir. Prior to 01 Jul 2004 (the date the Fence officially came in existence) Pakistan successfully infiltrated 2000-3000 terrorists across the LC each year. On an average 1400-1500 were killed in engagements with the Indian Army on the LC or in the hinterland. The residual figures were always in favour of Pakistan. Then came General Nirmal Vij who led the construction of the Fence from the plains to the obscene heights of the Shamshabari, flaying the ‘nay sayers’. It altered everything. The Indian Army now had an obstacle to concentrate upon and converted it from a mere line of barbed wire to a system comprising steel, lead, electronics, ether and human beings.

By 2006 the Indian Army had acquired the knowledge and experience of exploiting the LC Fence which was leaking just a few hundred terrorists annually while the Army eliminated double the number in its CI/CT operations. The mathematics were now reversed leading to the situation in 2011-12 when less than 300 terrorists roamed the Valley and 19 top terrorists leaders were eliminated with focused CT operations. The transformational ‘Heart Doctrine’ combined with this approach almost brought Kashmir to the doorstep of conflict stabilization awaiting conflict resolution.

The media and the public have often questioned how BATs can enter 400 500 meters into our side and conduct an operation. There is a simple answer to this. In 2003-4 when the LC Fence was constructed there was no ceasefire for most of the period; hence the Fence had to be constructed well away from the LC at most places. Where ever we were/are in domination the construction was well forward, hugging the LC. The Fence gives natural protection against rogue actions but where it is aligned well inside we per force have picquets/posts/detachments ahead but not necessarily on the LC as long as the area ahead can be dominated by fire. Small patrols are used to dominate this space and these are the patrols which are vulnerable to BAT actions. BATs can therefore enter minefields with considerable risk but no other obstacle prevents them from accessing the Indian Army’s patrol bases or routes of patrolling near (400-500 metres) the LC.

To expect Pakistan Army to use BATs more extensively after the Indian Army’s successful handling of the situation in J&K in 2011-12, is to state the obvious. We often hear of the phrase ‘keeping the pot boiling’ in Kashmir while Pakistan handles the Afghan border and its internal security threats. To execute this concept Pakistan requires its terrorist foot soldiers (boots on the ground) in J&K; to allow the fast dwindling strength to reduce even further would be a catastrophe for the ISI’s post 2014 strategy in J&K. Hence the necessity to once again force creation of gaps on the LC to facilitate infiltration.

Many veterans of the Army would recall some of the well known BAT actions which were launched against Indian Army units and the counter actions taken by the same units. The Indian Army has foiled many more BAT actions than the ones which have succeeded. Only a year ago 16 PUNJAB foiled a major action in the Tangdhar Sector. 

Handling BATs at Different Levels

In my long years handling the LC from unit to a Corps Commander I always found the threats from BATs as the most challenging and relished countering these. In 2008 a Pakistan Army unit decided to send a 15 man officer led team across the LC to dislodge a small detachment of my brave Rajputs who had temporarily occupied a patrol base to dominate an area of the LC not usually visited or patrolled. In the ensuing clash between four young Rajput soldiers without a senior leader and the 15 Pakistanis the Rajputs lost one soldier and killed 7 Pakistanis. All hell broke loose on the LC in a frontage of about 3 to 4 Km. My orders to the CO were crystal clear “’the night is yours, I do not want the Pakistani bases, from where the soldiers had emerged, to remain standing”. The Rajputs shocked me next morning when they reported the destruction caused to the Pakistan Army posts. The last hurrah was when a Pakistan Army helicopter emerged late the next afternoon and took away the Pakistani Brigade Commander; it was later learnt that he was removed from command; so much for the moral ascendancy achieved by the Rajputs. As the General Officer of the division I asked no one and no one advised me. It was my calling and the risk was also mine.

The above example displays just how Pakistan Army’s proactive and provocative stance on the LC needs to be handled. The offensive response by Indian Army units has to be reflected in their attitude from the moment they step into their area of responsibility. Most BAT actions take place during handing/taking over between units when command and control is supposedly loose. Infantry units do not realize that each action of theirs even before they arrive in their AOR is under surveillance. Many units having fearsome reputation will never be tested; others with lesser credentials and poor body language of their troops would get tested early. The first engagement if handled with professional aggression will allow a unit a tenure with little turbulence. Destiny has brought many units of both Armies from the Kargil war once again face to face on the LC. 

The reader must not go away with the impression that the Pakistan Army and terrorists rule the roost on the LC, far from it. Yet, it is imperative that our commanders be bold, trust their instinct, train their troops hard and wargame contingencies regularly. This is 24 x 7 soldiering where every movement has to be controlled and reactions kept ready; most important of all — time is the worst enemy of effectiveness on the LC. As a sector cools down so does the vigil and then one fine day it happens; there is only one solution to this constant reminders to all at the oddest time of the day or night. There is no rest on the LC; those who rest seldom live to tell the tales.

About the Author

Besides the optimum combination of ground soldiering, staff work and academics, Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain, the scholar warrior, is best known for his path breaking tenure as Corps Commander of the high profile 15 Corps in the Kashmir Valley, where he employed the most unique methods to stabilise the turbulence that the Valley had experienced giving it the best chance for a return to peace. He remains the only officer of the Army to be decorated six times by the President of India and was recently honoured by the Vice President with the Capital Foundation Society’s award for excellence in the field of military leadership. This article first appeared in South Asia Defence and Strategic Review defstrat.com.