CAN BALAKOT AFFECT THE 2019 ELECTION?
With the election dates announced I would reckon there’s one question that’s probably on everyone’s lips: have the Pulwama terror attack and the Balakot airstrike that followed it changed the political landscape and altered electoral calculations or is that just a passing impression which will fade with time? My initial answer was to agree with the first half of the question. But the more I reflect the more I realise that’s not as obvious as it first seems.
There’s no doubt that as of today, a mood of nationalism and anti-pakistan feeling has superseded earlier issues such as joblessness, rural distress, Rafale, the continuing impact of GST and demonetisation and, perhaps, even identity and religion. At its heart is India’s traditional yearning for a strong decisive leader capable of teaching Pakistan a lesson. Like Indira Gan- dhi in 1971, Narendra Modi in 2019 fits that description. So will a euphoric and grateful nation vote for him?
Possibly. After the surgical strikes of 2016 the Bharatiya Janata Party swept to victory in Uttar Pradesh (UP) in 2017. Could it happen again? Perhaps. Of the 40 CRPF jawans killed in Pulwama, 30% came from this one state. Beyond that, the largest percentage of recruits to the three armed forces is also from UP. So here the impact of national fervour could be most pronounced. However, a contrarian view is also possible. In 1999, in Kargil, Atal Bihari Vajpayee only won the same number of seats as he did in 1998. In 2009, after 26/11, the Congress didn’t lose seats but gained over 60. And then there’s the famous example of Winston Churchill, who won the Second World War only to badly lose the election a few months later. This means there’s no clear correlation between national- ist sentiment and election results. At best it can be argued both ways.
Now, there are good reasons for believing the electoral impact of Balakot could be different to that of the surgical strikes. First, rural distress and farmer suicides have progressively worsened since 2017. Maharashtra may be the worst affected but, remember, 60% of India is rural. When they vote, won’t the issues of immediate concern and suffering determine how they do so? It’s hard to believe the PM’S Kisan Scheme has adequately allayed Daniel Pearl in 2002, he gave himself up to his former handler from the ISI, by then a senior government official.
There is a case for the terror designation for the ISI, or its personnel. But who is going to litigate it? India has considered and dismissed proposals to designate Pakistan a State-sponsor of terrorism because it does not want to shut down avenues for talks to normalise the relations, according to multiple national security officials. But what about the ISI? A retaliatory pronouncement from Pakistan will surely follow. But is that really such a bad thing?
The US toyed with the idea of designating Pakistan a State-sponsor of terrorism in the 1990s, but did not go through with it, though a number of lawmakers and experts continue to press for it. The suggestions to list the ISI a terror organisation is several decades old now. It may be the time now for the US to take another look at those proposals.
The US does target departments of foreign governments. It sanctioned Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards this concern.
The other factor is joblessness. Admittedly, in 2017-18, unemployment was at its worst in 45 years at 6.1% but since then the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy says it’s considerably increased to 7.3%. Youth unemployment is even worse. The Centre for Sustainable Employment at Azim Premji University suggests it’s an astonishing 16%. The unemployment rate for rural males aged 15-29 jumped over three times to 17.4% by 2017-18. The rate for rural females of the same age increased nearly three times to 13.6% by 2017-18. The young may be fans of Mr Modi and euphoric after Balakot but, surely, the pain of not having a job will trump any rejoicing over the strike?
A lot, of course, depends on how the opposition plays it. Rather than question the success of Balakot or accuse the government of intelligence failure in Pulwama or continuing to whip the over-flogged Rafale horse, the opposition needs to stir the cauldron of unemployment, rural distress, Dalit and minority mistreatment and the general intolerance of the Modi government. If it can do this successfully, Balakot may not dominate on voting day. But can it? So far I’m not convinced the answer is yes.
THE ISI’S ROLE IN SPAWNING TERRORISM HAS BEEN A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD FOR LONG, ACKNOWLEDGED EVEN BY PAKISTANIS SUCH AS PERVEZ MUSHARRAF
Corps as a terrorist organisation in 2017 for less, it can be argued.
Just a few weeks before Lisa Cutis joined President Donald Trump’s national security team in 2017, she wrote a paper with Husain Haqqani, former Pakistani ambassador to the US, urging the new administration to adopt a new and tougher approach to deal with Pakistan for its continued support of terrorism.
The Trump administration’s objective must be, the authors argued, to make it “more and more costly for Pakistani leaders to employ a strategy of supporting terrorist proxies”. Among their many suggestions was the option of declaring Pakistan a State-sponsor of terrorism, though they had then cautioned that it would be unwise do so in the first year of the administration. It’s the third year now.
They had also recommended holding Pakistani military and ISI officials accountable. “The US should consider compiling a list of Pakistani military and ISI officials, current and former, who are known to have facilitated acts of terrorism — including supporting the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network — and barring them from travel to the US.” Blacklisting by the US for links to terrorism could impact their travels to other countries as well. And that would be good start, with sanctions on individuals and entities to follow.