Don’t give the military total freedom
This is an abdication of political responsibility and opens the doors to future crises in conflicts
The violent skirmishes between India and China in eastern Ladakh have been disturbing. Someofthereactionsfromindian leaders have also been disturbing. In a civilian democracy, where the armed forces operate under the direction of the political leadership, to announce as the primeminister and defence ministerhavedone, that“theforceshavebeen given complete freedom to take necessary action” is an abdication of political responsibility andopensthedoortofuturecrisesinthe India-china relations and in other possible conflict situations.
It is alsonotfairtothrustthisresponsibility ontothearmedforces. Mattersrelatingtowar and peace are for the political leadership to decide on. Yes, once the leadership has decided that a military riposte is called for to counter a serious threat to the nation’s security, the armed forces must be given discretion in operational matters. They must act to defend our borders, but while actions at the local level and of limited scale and duration may be handled and resolved by them, any incident that goesbeyondacertainthreshold, with larger political and security implications, must be subject to careful assessment within the national security system and the political leadershipbeforeamilitaryresponse is considered.
The possibility of escalation is not just a military matter. It could have much wider ramifications, particularly if the adversaryis a nuclear weapon-state just as India is. Such seriousincidentscannotjustbehandledatthe local, on-the-spot military level. The diplomatic machinery must be activated without delay and in serious instances, such as the Doklamface-off in 2017, asummit-level intervention, even, may be necessary.
We have as many as four bilateral agreements with China on maintaining peace and tranquillity at the India-chinaborder. These were concluded in 1993, 1996, 2005 and 2013, over a period of 20 years. These are valuable agreements with important provisions to ensurepeaceandtranquillity, andshouldnot be unilaterally jettisoned or altered in an angry reaction to what happened in the Galwanvalley. Theyhave, byandlarge, kept the peace at India’s borders for the past several decades. That is an important achievement which should not be minimised.
The use of arms by Indian forces when engaging with Chinese counterparts will inevitably lead to similar action bythelatter. If wegivethecountry’ssecurityforcesthediscretion to usefirearmsinanangryencounter, abloodbathmuchworsethanthatwhichtook place at Galwancouldensue. Theconsequences of suchanincident wouldnotjust bemilitary. It wouldreverberaterightupthedomestic political and diplomatic space. India’s effort shouldbetoensurethatchinaremains committed to these important agreements and see how they can be strengthened.
Eveninthepresentcase, it is not clear why the skirmishes which took place at various points were not raised to the diplomatic and higher political level. The series of incidents at multiplepointsandtheearlierviolencewitnessed at the Pangonglakeareashouldhave beena warning enough that the country was dealingwithanewsituationontheborder. As a result of the violence in some of these encounters, we should have been aware of heightened emotions and anger among the Indian forces as also amongthechinese. The possibility of such anger leading to more violent clashesshouldhavebeenanticipatedand diplomatic engagement should have been intensified. It should have been raised to the level of the national security adviser and the external affairs minister. This would have also beenhelpful in reading Chinese calculations. If this wasdone, thenit hasnotbeenput out in the public domain.
Theagreementsarrivedatin1996and2005 committedthetwosidestoengageinaclarification of thelineofactualcontrol(lac). We knowwherelacliesandindia’sactivitiesare confined to the area within LAC. China contests this alignment at some locations but we do not know how China perceives LAC in its entire length. Both sides have agreed that clarifying LAC is essential to assuring peace andtranquillityattheborder, pendingthesettlement of the border question. The Galwan incidentoffers anopportunityforustoengage Chinaonthisagreedexerciseandimplement it expeditiously. China’s reaction will also demonstratewhetheritisreallyinterestedin maintaining peace on the border or whether it prefers to keep it ambiguous so that it can unilaterally advance its territorial claims at points andtime of its choosing. This will enable usto drawthenecessaryconclusions and respond accordingly.
Thereisnodoubtthatindia’srelationswith China have become more adversarial. The string of incidents at the border is asymptom of that, asis themountingevidenceofchinese activisminindia’ssubcontinentalneighbourhood. Theindiangovernment’sresponsehas to beacarefulmixofpolitical, diplomatic, economic and military measures. Engagement with Chinamustcontinuebutits termsmust reflect the changed context. Now, more than ever, weneedtostepbackandreconsiderour national strategy in all its dimensions. India has left that on the shelf for far too long.