Part 2: Future of India’s Military Operations and Lessons from the Past

 

PART 2: First War of Kashmir 1947

Change in Mind

When I first sat down to write the article, I believed I could finish it in three parts. After all, I had studied these military operations, and all it needed was putting things in an easily readable form. Once I started reading up on the material I collected, I realised, my knowledge had been confined purely to the military perspective. The canvas on which each of the military operations was conducted stretched far beyond matters of arms. Their beginnings rested in complex geopolitical vortices, and the battlefields stretched far back and far ahead. To my horror, I also realised that we find ourselves repeatedly in a state of déjà Vu, moving forward linearly but in circles. This aspect shall be discussed in the concluding part of the article, dealing with “what lies ahead for us.” 

Each operation India has undertaken demands deference. It is that deep respect and admiration for those involved in the operations that compelled me to discuss major operations one by one and share with my readers across the world the political events that led to the military interventions and outcomes.

Keeping in line with the enhanced scope and coverage, I took the liberty of changing the title of the article from “Operation Sindoor and Other Unparalleled Operations” to “Future of India’s Military Operations: Lessons from the Past.”

 

A Lingering Question

The spectrum of political issues behind the First Kashmir War is seldom discussed and therefore remains hidden. Whenever the First Kashmir War comes up for discussion nowadays, it is always served on politically coloured plates, to serve the needs of the election hour. The WhatsApp university does the rest, providing fertile grounds where half-truths, hearsay, assumptions, and lies thrive, infecting anyone in the proximity. Reluctance or inability to do serious reading, aided by the rampant presence of visuals ridden with political messaging, helps proliferate untruths, burying truth in fathomless depths.

The question that resonates most in highly charged contemporary political debates, in an ignorant, ill-informed, or misinformed environment, with outcomes on expected lines, is “Why was the military operation against the raiders in Kashmir not allowed to continue till the entire territory of Kashmir under Maharaja Hari Singh was retrieved?” The question is invariably followed up with the expression, “if only…”

To answer that all-important question, we must understand the complex political events leading up to the war and those that unfolded thereafter on both sides of the border. Armed with hindsight, seated accusingly in the knowledge of the present, and ignorant of the compulsions of the past, it is easy to judge. To be fair to the people who led the government then, I have relied on works published by authors whom I consider unbiased academics, unfettered by political compulsions, to bring to you the conditions under which the leaders of India, emerging into independence, took decisions. 

Consolidation of Territory

The years preceding or succeeding independence were unbelievably tough on the administration. According to information available in the public domain, India in 1947 had about 565 princely states within the current geographical limits of India. These states/regions were not part of British India but were semi-autonomous territories ruled by local leaders under British Suzerainty.  A sovereignty, where a state had absolute authority over all its affairs without any external interference, is different from a suzerainty, where the state and the ruler could only make local laws and were under the rule of another state or ruler for all major decisions.

The Indian Independence Act 1947, as interpreted then, gave these states the freedom to join India or Pakistan or even remain independent, once the British Suzerainty ceased. It was left to the leaders of the Indian freedom movement to motivate these rulers to join India. The process involved tough and long-drawn negotiations, assurances and promises of safety, status, income, and such other things. It is very important to understand that the process of integration was a cauldron of boiling contradictions, requiring deft handling. 

According to the information available in the public domain, states like Baroda, Bikaner, and others from Rajasthan were the first among princely states to join the Indian Union. Manipur and Jodhpur are said to have acceded to India on 11 August 1947, and Tripura on 13 August 1947. Piploda joined after March 1948, and Bilaspur on 12 October 1948. Interestingly, a few of the principalities that initially opted to join Pakistan were motivated and convinced to accede to India.  Some required a different motivation.

Sir, CP Ramaswamy Iyer, the Dewan of Travancore, the southernmost Kingdom within the boundaries of India, we now know, declared, on 11 June 1947, that Travancore would stay independent after the British left. The Indian National Congress launched the civil unrest protesting the ruler's decision. Travancore finally agreed to the accession on 30 July, but not before an assassination attempt on the Dewan. They finally ceded to India on 15 August 1947. 

Nawab Hamidulllah Khan, the Muslim ruler of Bhopal, a Hindu-majority state, reluctantly agreed to join after public unrest.  He signed the Instrument of Accession on 30 August 1947. Hyderabad, also a Hindu-majority state with a Muslim Ruler, opted for independence, but was annexed through Operation Polo in September 1948. 

Junagadh, a Hindu-majority state under a Muslim ruler, Nawab Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III, opted to join Pakistan. The choice did not please Delhi. There were severe protests in Junagadh. India imposed economic sanctions and cut off access to the state. On 24 October 1947, the Nawab fled to Pakistan, leaving the administration to the Dewan, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, father of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. On 7 November 1947, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, considering the deteriorating law and order situation, invited India to take over the administration of Junagadh. The Indian forces annexed Junagadh on 9 November 1947. In February 1948, when a plebiscite was conducted, 99% people wanted to join India. Separate polls in other areas too, found most opting in favour of India. It took many more years for India to reach the present boundary configuration. There was a lot more to consolidate.

In 1954, Indian nationalist volunteers, supported by residents, through a non-violent movement, wrested control of Dadra and Nagar Haveli from the Portuguese. These territories were administered by a local body under India’s oversight from 1954 to 1961. The Portuguese also refused to cede Goa, Daman, and Diu, the colonial territories on the western coast of India. Intense diplomatic efforts throughout the 1950s failed. India launched Operation Vijay on 18 December 1961 and annexed Goa, Daman, and Diu on 19 December 1961. After the annexation of Goa in 1961, Portugal relinquished claims, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli were formally integrated as a Union Territory in 1961.

The French agreed to cede Chandernagore, also called Chandan Nagar, a French colony, situated on the west bank of the Hooghly River, 35 km north of Kolkata, after the referendum on 19 June 1949, with 114 voting to stay with the French and 7473 voting to join India. The process was completed in 1950. In 1954, the French handed over de facto control of Pondicherry (now Puducherry), Karaikal, Mahe, and Yanam to India following negotiations and local referendums. The “de jure” (legal) transfer was formalised through the Treaty of Cession signed on May 28, 1956, and ratified by France in 1962 after parliamentary approval.

Sikkim remained an autonomous monarchy under the Chogyal, with special protectorate status under India as per the Indo-Sikkim Treaty of 1950, with external affairs, defence, and communication controlled by India. Dissatisfied with the monarchy, political unrest, led by the Sikkim National Congress and other democratic parties, erupted in Sikkim in 1973, demanding democratic governance. In 1974, elections were held after a new constitution was drafted. The Sikkim Assembly, now pro-India, passed a resolution seeking full integration with India.  This led to serious turmoil in the area. In April 1975, the Indian Army entered Sikkim, disarmed the palace guard, and placed the Chogyal (King) under house arrest. A referendum was held in Sikkim on 14 April 1975, in which over 97% of the population voted in favour of joining India. The Indian Parliament, on 16 May 1975, amended the Constitution (36th Amendment), making Sikkim a full-fledged state of India.

Territorial consolidation of India started earnestly in 1947 and, in the form we know now, was completed only in 1975. The process went far beyond the lives of many who initially led the freedom movement or the territorial consolidation immediately after independence. Irrespective of when it happened, it required a lot of negotiation, mediation, motivation, manoeuvring and even the military. Kashmir presented a different matrix altogether.

Kashmir

Kashmir, the territory between India and Pakistan, consisted of three distinct areas. The Jammu region was predominantly Hindu, the valley predominantly Muslim and Ladakh mostly Buddhist. The kingdom was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu. He wanted independence from both India and Pakistan. He signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan, but India did not sign the agreement. Pakistan sensed that Maharaja Hari Singh could deliver Kashmir to India and went on the offensive on 22 October 1947. A careful reading of the history books of that time would give a clear picture of the complex and peculiar political situation Kashmir presented to Delhi. Some leaders who are now projected as having strongly wanted Kashmir in India are said to have initially told Lord Mountbatten otherwise. 

With the raiders almost at his doorstep, Maharaja Hari Singh fled Srinagar on the night of 25 October 1947 and reached his palace in Jammu. Aware of the territorial losses suffered, he signed the instrument of accession in the afternoon of 26 October 1947. A decision was immediately taken to airlift troops to Srinagar. The civil and military authorities were busy the entire night of 26 October, getting together the required number of planes, pilots, and supplies to be lifted. By the morning of 27 October, they managed to get about 100 planes. These big and small aircrafts were used for airlifting 329 soldiers of the 1 Sikh led by Lieutenant Colonel Ranjit Rai and the load required for the operation. They took off from Willingdon Airfield, Delhi, as and when each one was loaded. The authorities were not sure if the airfield at Srinagar had already fallen to the enemy.  The Colonel was therefore under instructions to circle the airfield and, in case of doubt, not land but return to Jammu. By 10:30 in the morning, Delhi received the much-awaited message that the planes had landed safely.

Meanwhile, Mohammed Ali Jinnah had already moved from Karachi to Lahore, waiting for a triumphant entry into Srinagar on 26 or 27 October, only to learn that Srinagar had been taken by the Indian forces. Jinnah immediately instructed Sir Francis Mudie, Governor of West Punjab, to telephone General Gracey, Acting Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistani army, ordering him to move the Army towards Kashmir. Sir Francis Mudie obeyed Jinnah, but Gracy did not obey Mudie, telling him that he required the permission of General Auchinleck, the Supreme Commander, in Delhi, who remained in charge of all the British officers on both sides. On 28 October, General Auchinleck flew to Lahore and met Jinnah and told him that while India was entitled to send troops to Kashmir, a part of India, Pakistan could not. He also told Jinnah that if he sent troops, British nationals in the Pakistan Army would not participate. Meanwhile, Indian troops were bloodying the encroachers.  

The Elusive Answer

It is said that the military wanted permission to go ahead and capture the entire area of Kashmir that belonged to Maharaja Hari Singh before signing the instrument of accession. There are reasons to believe it, too. The battalion that landed at the airport after securing the airport advanced towards Baramulla to stop the raiders there. When they contacted the enemy, they realised that the raiders “had expert commanders, modern weapons and were in great numerical superiority.” He decided to withdraw to Pattan. Unfortunately, he was killed in action during the withdrawal.

Three more battalions of the Indian Army landed in Srinagar to defend the state's capital. About 700 raiders made a sneak attack on Srinagar on 3 November 1947. The Attack was repulsed, but not without losses. The locals also turned against the raiders because of the cruel loot, plunder, and rape they had inflicted on them. By December 1947, Indian forces were gaining ground against the tribals and Pakistani forces in Jammu and Kashmir. This led to serious discussion in Delhi about pushing the offensive further into Muzaffarabad, Mirpur and other areas held by the Pakistan forces. There were problems.

Both India and Pakistan had retained British officers in the top military positions when they gained independence. General Auchinleck was the Supreme Commander of both Indian and Pakistani forces. The supreme command was dissolved on 30 November 1947, and both countries had their own separate National commands from 1 December 1947. General Sir Francis Robert Roy Bucher, who was the Deputy Commander-in-Chief under General Auchinleck, became the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army on 1 January 1948 and served till 15 January 1949 to hand over the reins to General KM Cariappa, the First Indian Army Chief of free India.

Meanwhile, there were differences of opinion between Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Deputy Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on how the state should be ruled. The issue became so intense that both Patel and Nehru offered to resign. The interaction between the two by way of letters was, however, dignified and with immense respect for each other. In the end, Vallabhbhai, as Minister of States, gave the reins of shaping India's Kashmir policy to Nehru. Nehru continued to take Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's advice and consent on most issues regarding Kashmir. 

General Sir Francis Robert Roy Bucher advised Nehru against pursuing the offensive because he felt that the Indian Army was not yet logistically or organisationally ready for a full-scale war with Pakistan. He also cautioned the Prime Minister about the harsh winter in the Kashmir region and its impact on already-strained supply lines, which could prolong the operations and increase casualties. He advised the Prime Minister to stop the offensive and refer the case to the United Nations. It is possible that the advice was also to avoid the British officers from the unpleasant situation of being on both sides of the conflict.

Most of the negotiation with the ruler of Kashmir was based on the advice of Lord Mountbatten. The decision to approach the United Nations on the issue of Kashmir was also based on the Governor General’s prescriptions. Sardar Patel was against the reference of Kashmir to the UN and preferred timely action on the ground. While he held that idea, he did not insist because Kashmir was being handled by Nehru, who had the consent from Gandhi.

The Connected Question

Another question connected to the decision to stop the military offensive against Pakistan in 1947 is, “Why did Nehru take the Kashmir issue to the United Nations?”

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, following the end of the Second World War, with the noble aim of preventing future global conflicts. India, still under British colonial rule, was among the 51 founding members of the United Nations, which ratified the charter that came into force on 24 October 1945. It was those heady days when peace was romanticised and everyone thought that the UN would deliver peace from situations of conflict. There was a strong precedent suggesting effective conflict resolution by the UNSC. 

The first complaint to the United Nations Security Council came from Iran on 19 January 1946. Iran complained that the Soviet Union, which was supposed to withdraw its troops, had not done so and was interfering in its internal matters by supporting separatists. The dispute was resolved through discussion, and the Soviet Union withdrew troops in May 1946. In September 1946, Greece accused Bulgaria of a border attack and military aggression. This matter was also discussed and defused. In October 1946, the UK brought the case to the Security Council, the Corfu Channel incident, where British naval ships hit mines in Albanian waters. The UK accused Albania of laying the mines or failing to warn. It also took the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Incidentally, this became the first case ever heard at the ICJ.  ICJ ruled in favour of the UK in 1949, awarding compensation. In July 1947, the Netherlands launched a military action against Indonesian independence forces. When India and Australia raised the issue in the Security Council, the UN called for ceasefires and negotiations, eventually leading to Indonesia’s independence in 1949. With such strong precedence and India being a responsible nation, going to the UN seemed to be the right thing then. After all, the UN had not become the lifeless entity that it has become now.

On 1 January 1948, India submitted its complaint to the president of the Security Council, and it read,

“Under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations, any Member may bring any situation whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security to the attention of the Security Council. Such a situation now exists between India and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders, consisting of nationals of Pakistan and of tribesmen from the territory immediately adjoining Pakistan on the north‑west, are drawing from Pakistan for operations against Jammu and Kashmir, a State which has acceded to the Dominion of India and is part of India. The circumstances of accession, the activities of the invaders that led the Government of India to take military action against them, and the assistance which the attackers have received and are still receiving from Pakistan are explained later in this memorandum. The Government of India request the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance, which is an act of aggression against India. If Pakistan does not do so, the Government of India may be compelled, in self‑defence, to enter Pakistan territory to take military action against the invaders. The matter is, therefore, one of extreme urgency and calls for immediate action by the Security Council for avoiding a breach of international peace”

Ours to Judge

The crown of authority comes with the pain of accountability. Weighed down by fear of consequences and unimaginable imponderables, placed in an endless sea of ambiguity, and the possibility of having to eternally bear the cross for the outcome, decision-making is not easy. The hallmark of strong leaders is their ability to take bold decisions with the hope of success, knowingly pushing aside the fear of failure.  The agony of decision-making does not guarantee them kindness in judgment by future generations, especially when it is about political dividends. The toast of the town today could be burnt at the stake tomorrow, even in absentia. It is far easier to evaluate, criticise, and suggest a better way out, without having to bear the cross at all, many decades after a decision was taken. In hindsight, stopping the military advance or going to the UN did no good to us. But did they have the luxury of hindsight?

If the success of an operation is measured by outcomes, given the ambiguity and complexity of the prevailing situation, the First Kashmir War was a resounding success. If peace between India and Pakistan is still a mirage, there are other reasons. The decision to go to the UN is insignificant. In the process of understanding the evolution of modern India’s territorial boundaries, I also realised that knowledge humbles arrogance empowered by ignorance.

(Coming up in the next part -1962 Operations)

PS: 

1. The Picture  is representative of soldiers in 1947 and AI-generated.

2.  For those wanting to clarify dates and inference request post query in the comments section. I shall happily share the details and sources.

 

 

Pixels of an Emerging Picture: Understanding Operation Sindoor (Part – 2)

 

Anatomy Of The Act And Its Retribution

 

The Pahalgam Carnage and Its Retribution

Only on 15 April 2025, General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s Army Chief, speaking at the first annual convention of Overseas Pakistanis in Islamabad, reminded the audience of the two-nation theory that brought Pakistan on the map of the world and the unbridgeable gap between Muslims and Hindus.  In his speech, filled predominantly with anti-India rhetoric, he called Kashmir the jugular vein of Pakistan. Whether Munir’s remarks triggered the incident or it was the go-ahead signal for a preplanned carnage will remain debatable, but it was a sign of something sinister cooking. In just seven days, it became visible.  

On 22 April 2025, four terrorists appeared from the shadows, in Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam in J&K, approached unarmed tourists enjoying the time of their lives, asked them to recite the Kalma, the Islamic declaration of faith, and shot point blank those men who could not, and told the shocked ladies accompanying them to tell the authorities what happened. The terrorists vanished into the shadows after taking the lives of 26 innocent Indian men, 25 of them non-Muslims. The lone Muslim, a local, who resisted them was killed. 

Shocked beyond words, and emotions flaring, Indians called for retribution. The Government of India, having delivered what was considered an “appropriate military response” on two occasions before, had no option but to deliver an even more spectacular, visible, and harsher response. The Prime Minister promised the Nation the Government’s resolve to pursue each man involved in the act and those who abetted or aided ‘to the ends of the earth,’ and bring them to suffer the consequences. The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed responsibility and cited its opposition to India allowing non-local settlements in Kashmir. Pakistan immediately washed its hands of the incident, calling it a freedom struggle. Pakistan reminded the Indians and the world at large that they were a nuclear power and ready to face any military challenges. The TRF retracted their claim, saying that their account had been hacked. The nation waited eagerly for the retribution to unfold. Meanwhile, television channels and social media were on fire with propaganda and counterpropaganda from both sides. A showdown was inevitable. 

Indian response was measured, proportional, and calibrated with increasing severity. The first ones came in the form of diplomatic moves. India suspended the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 until Pakistan stopped its support for cross-border terrorism. The treaty had survived all the wars and turbulence between the neighbours till then, and its suspension had the colours of a military-like swift counterattack.  India also imposed a travel ban for Pakistani nationals under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme, cancelled all existing visas, and issued a 48-hour departure order for Pakistani nationals in India. It also expelled Pakistan's defence attachés from the Pakistani High Commission in India and reduced the diplomatic staff strength from 55 to 30. On their part, Pakistan asked India to share the evidence to support the allegations and proposed an international inquiry by a third party. India rejected the call.  

In response to the Indian action, Pakistan suspended the Shimla agreement (1972), closed its air space to Indian Airline companies, reduced the Indian diplomatic strength, suspended all trade with India even through third countries, and declared that any diversion of water from the Indus water would be considered as an act of War. In the meantime, the two armies started to exchange heavy artillery fire at the border. Thereafter, events unfolded one after the other, unlike ever before. 

India imposed a temporary lockdown in Pahalgam, deployed army helicopters to track militants in the Pir Panjal range, and demolished the residences of two suspects linked to the attack. On 27 April, the local media in Muzaffarabad, PoJK reported flooding in the Jhelum River due to India’s unannounced release of water from the Uri Dam. The Chenab River in Sialkot, Pakistan, also saw a sharp decline in water levels, with satellite imagery showing a drying riverbed. Independent observers called it the first water war between the two neighbours.

As temperatures between the two rivals rose, the United Nations and the USA, besides other countries, called for restraint. India rejected mediation offers made by other countries. With each passing day, the call for military action against Pakistan became louder in India. The military response took time. On 5 May, India’s Ministry of Home Affairs announced a nationwide civil defence drill for May 7 across 244 districts, the first since 1971, involving air raid sirens, blackout measures, and civilian evacuation training. Pakistan closed schools in its Kashmir region and Punjab province. Pakistan announced that an Indian military action was imminent and vowed to teach India a lesson if it dared to. The element of surprise in any military action revolves around the quantum and type of force, geographical point of application, the mode and precise time of its delivery. 

Some experts opine that, by giving reaction time to Pakistan, India allowed the adversary to move its vulnerable terrorism assets away from all the likely points of response. The optics around the intended countermeasures certainly raised hopes amongst the domestic audience, but some experts feel that it gave away the surprise. If the initial advantage was with the aggressor, the respondent had the choice of time on targets. Armchair experts from the comforts of their cocoons debated for and against every aspect of the likely response while those in the real hot seats busied themselves shaping the response. Surprise was the key, and surprise was achieved.

On 7 May, Indians woke up to Operation Sindoor, the name conspicuous enough to indicate revenge for the lost vermilion of widowhood. Past midnight of 6 May, India rained missiles on 24 targets in nine locations, all in a matter of 25 minutes. India targeted the terrorist infrastructure in Muzaffarabad, Kotli, Bhimber, Gulpur, Chak Amru and Bag, located in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Indian munitions also reached mainland Pakistan. In Pakistan’s Punjab province, India targeted Markaz Subhan Allah, the JeM headquarters, and a significant economic hub in Bahawalpur, besides Markaz Taiba, a critical operational base for LeT located in Muridke, Mahmoona Joya facility linked to Hizbul Mujahideen in Sialkot, and a JeM facility in Sarjal Tehra Kalan. 

Indian missiles, glide bombs, and loitering munitions penetrated Pakistan’s elaborate air defence cover to find and decimate designated targets. India declared that its response was categorically against terrorist infrastructure, and claimed no Pakistani military facilities were hit. India also made it clear that the conflict would not escalate if Pakistan did not climb the escalatory ladder. That was not to be.

Pakistan called the Indian retaliation a “violation of international law.” It reported more than 30 civilian deaths, including a three-year-old girl and alleged that India targeted civilian areas, including mosques and a hydroelectric dam. Pakistan also claimed that it shot down three Indian Rafale jets, one Mig-29, one Su-30 MKI, and 77 Israeli-made Harop drones. India denied losses, claiming Pakistan’s jets were intercepted outside Indian airspace. This engagement was unlike any before. The military hardware mostly remained within its own borders, but payloads went deep within. Drones swarmed the skies at night from both sides, luring the adversary to expend valuable air defence resources. On 8-9 May night, Pakistan launched Operation Bunyan al-Marsus targeting Indian cities, including Amritsar, with drones and missiles. India successfully neutralised all of them. India successfully carried out SEAD/DEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence / Destruction of Enemy Air Defence) operations targeting deep into Pakistan and crippling its air defence resources and airfields.  

Claims, counterclaims, threats, and counter-threats flooded the entire spectrum of media. Citizens from both sides joined the battle with fake videos and propaganda on their own. While the armies fought for military supremacy, common people, skilled in the use and misuse of the internet, lugged it out against each other in web space. The mere scale of web activity might turn one day be reported as unprecedented. Prolongation of the battle would have turned Pakistani airspace unusable for its own air force. An even bigger surprise was in store!

Mr Donald J Trump, the President of the USA, suddenly announced on Truth Social, his own SM platform handle, that the two countries would stop hostilities and cease fire. Soon after that, both countries announced cessation of military activities with effect from 5 PM IST that day. India made it clear that Operation Sindoor has not been concluded, but it was merely a cessation of military activities, subject to how Pakistan conducted itself, adding a caveat that any further acts of terror would be considered an act of war. India also categorically stated that the agreement was bilateral and initiated with the call of the Pakistani DGMO. However, it is widely believed that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia played a major role in the cessation of military activities. 

One group of defence analysts feel that the USA intervened after Pakistan raised concerns about India potentially targeting its nuclear command infrastructure. Some analysts feel that Pakistan had significantly lost its war-waging capability and  requested the USA to intervene. Many theories, including a few rooted in conspiracy, are floating around on social media. The media is full of debate on what prompted Trump to do it and what events led to it. The truth might emerge later in time. Everything in the realm of conjecture, the only thing certain is that the ceasefire was the answer to the prayers of people at the border. 

(To be continued in Part 3)

 

Pixels of an Emerging Picture: Understanding Operation Sindoor (Part -1)

 

Terrorism in Kashmir 

India saw the horror of terrorism once again when the face of a newly married lady sitting desolate next to the body of her husband, shot dead in Kashmir, because he could not recite the Kalma, filled the TV screens. 22 people died there. Operation Sindoor was the reply, the retribution India had promised in revenge. The killing was not the first and might not be the last. The revenge was not the first and might not be the last. It was a new, horrific chapter with roots from the past and tentacles into the future. Let us delve into the past and crystal-gaze and attempt to understand a picture with ever-evolving pixels.

Background

Pakistan-sponsored terrorism visibly infected Kashmir first in 1987. How can anyone conclusively accuse Pakistan of complicity in terrorist violence in Kashmir? India has presented proof on multiple occasions to establish the complicity of the state of Pakistan in terror activities inside India. It has been of no use since no amount of effort can awaken one who is pretending to sleep. However, Pakistan itself has on many occasions made it publicly clear that it supports, finances, and provides logistics for terrorism in Kashmir.

Since 1987, Kashmir has swayed between flare-ups and Army intervention-induced lows, the lull, giving time and opportunity to terrorists to regroup and replan. The local population, always part of it, were victims, collateral damage, not-so-silent spectators, and facilitators. Successive governments focused on ‘Winning the Hearts and Minds’ (WHAM) of the local population through Operation- Sadbhavana, building infrastructure, schools, and providing means to earn steady incomes. When the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), promising stronger measures to curb terrorism,  rode to power at the Centre, with Mr Narendra Modi being sworn in as the PM on 29 May 2014, India looked forward to finding an end to terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). 

Political Process

Elections to the Legislative Assembly of J& K were conducted in five phases, from 25 November 2014 to 20 December 2014. The election, marked by high-decibel emotions, saw 65.23% voter turnout. The results declared on 23 December 2014 did not allow any party to form the government independently. Protracted political negotiations between various parties continued until the People's Democratic Party (PDP) and the BJP, two fierce political rivals, formed an unexpected coalition government to rule the state based on a Common Minimum Programme (CMP). On 01 March 2015, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed of the PDP became the CM for the coalition. However, he passed away on 07 January 2016. After a brief spell of President’s rule, Ms Mehbooba Mufti, daughter of late Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, took over as the CM on 04 Apr 2016 and continued till the BJP withdrew its support on 19 Jun 2018.

In the meantime, Jaish-e-Mohammed, a terrorist organisation based in Pakistan, had started finding supporters in the Kashmir Valley. They recruited a social media-savvy young local lad named Burhan Wani. He exploited the power of social media, appearing without any hood or mask, and publicly called on the Kashmiri youth to rise against the Indian state. A neighbourhood lad for many, he became the new identifiable and relatable face of homegrown terrorism. Wani helped his handlers across the border find more local unemployed and disillusioned lads willing to be recruited, radicalised and used for terrorist activities in Kashmir. Kashmir now witnessed a new face of insurgency. 

The locals, in open defiance of law and seemingly unafraid of consequences, uncovered their faces while throwing stones at the army convoys and patrols. They even actively participated in facilitating the escape of terrorists trapped in the cordons established by the Army. 

Fresh Wave of Attacks

Belying expectations, terrorist attacks started getting more audacious.  On 5 December 2014, militants attacked an army camp in J&K, killing 11 security personnel. On 20 March 2015, two LeT militants attacked the Rajbagh police station in Kathua, Jammu. India accused Pakistan of supporting cross-border terrorism; however, showing restraint, India did not initiate any direct military action against Pakistan in either incident.  On 30-31 December 2015, a group of 6 JeM terrorists from Pakistan entered India, hijacked a Police officer's SUV, and reached Pathankot. On 2 January 2016, they attacked the air base at Pathankot. All of them were neutralised in due course.  India, asking Pakistan for action against the perpetrators, shared dossiers of the attackers and demanded action from Pakistan. Unhappy with the response, India suspended peace talks with Pakistan till they took visible measures to contain terrorism. The Prime Minister promised a strong response, and the Home Minister assured the country of a befitting reply to the terrorists. However, India demonstrated restraint, and no military action was taken against Pakistan. Terrorism is a persistent ailment, but terrorists, however smart they might be, cannot persist for long. They have a short shelf life. Burhan Wani met his bullets on the 8th July 2016, in an encounter with Indian security forces in Kokernag of Anantnag. The Valley saw violent protests. 

Crime and Punishment

On 18 September 2016, four heavily armed terrorists of the Jaish-e-Mohammed attacked an Indian Army Brigade headquarters in Uri, killing 19 soldiers. India accused Pakistan of supporting the terrorist organisation, boycotted the SAARC meeting, and retaliated with pre-emptive military strikes across the line of control in Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir on the intervening night of September 28-29, inflicting death on more than 150 terrorists. Even though it was widely believed that India had undertaken cross-border actions before, this was the first time that the Government of India publicly declared military action against Pakistan across the LoC. The Indian establishment believed that the publicised military action, widely known as the “Surgical Strike”, across the LoC would deter Pakistan from further sponsoring terrorism in India. The action satisfied the Indian public and bolstered the strong image of the Prime Minister, Mr Modi, who had vowed an appropriate response to the Uri attack. It also set a new benchmark for India's response to terrorist attacks on its soil. Pakistani soil, however, continued to nurture and promote cross-border terrorism relentlessly.

On 03 October 2016, terrorists attacked a Border Security Force camp in Baramulla, killing one BSF Soldier. On 29 November 2016, terrorists mounted an attack on an Army base in Nagrota, killing seven soldiers.  India did not take any military action across the border but intensified the counterinsurgency operations within Jammu and Kashmir. India accused Pakistan of fostering terrorism. Pakistan steadfastly refused its involvement in terrorist activities and stonewalled investigations into terrorist incidents in India, attributing those to non-state actors and calling themselves victims of terror. On 10 July 2017, militants attacked the Amarnath pilgrims, killing seven. Worse was yet to come.  

On 14 February 2019, Adil Ahamed, a Local Kashmiri youth and a Jaish-e-Mohammed operative, drove a Mahindra Scorpio SUV loaded with approximately 350 kg of explosives that included RDX and other high-grade explosives into a bus that was part of a CRPF convoy, killing 40 CRPF personnel. It was the deadliest terrorist attack since terrorism raised its head in Kashmir. The Government of India had no option but to respond. Having set the benchmark in the Uri incident with the Surgical Strike, the response had to be more severe and more visible than before. 

On the 26th February 2019, the Indian Air Force swung into action with what India called a non-military pre-emptive Strike, targeting terrorist facilities and taking care to avoid civilian and military assets. The attack resulted in the killing of 300 to 350 terrorists, mostly recruits being prepared for fidayeen attacks, their trainers and even senior terrorist commanders. Pakistan, however, denied having suffered any such losses. The Government of India, in one of the boldest political moves in Kashmir, revoked Article 370 through a Presidential order on 05 August 2019 and followed it with the passage of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019 in the Indian Parliament, effectively trifurcating J&K. India revoked the most favoured Nation status of Pakistan, imposed a 200% custom duty on Pakistani goods, and suspended cross LOC trade and bus services. 

Experts felt that India had finally established a credible deterrence against its persistent adversary, Pakistan and was seen to be willing to use it without remorse or hesitation. The red lines for India had been redrawn, and the threshold for retaliation redefined. It is widely believed that the incidents of terror have come down ever since. The Government declared that normalcy had finally been restored in Kashmir. While facts and figures provided by the Government may be contested, the fact that the tourism industry picked up and gained momentum in Kashmir remains unequivocal and uncontested, even by the government's harshest critics. The thriving tourism industry provided assured income to locals and largely weaned the youth away from becoming terror fodder. Peace seemed to have finally descended on Kashmir.

(To be continued in Part 2)

A Bridge to Nowhere

 

Colonel Kochu Koshy Panicker, my colleague in the army, hero of many an action, and rightfully a gallantry award winner, organised the day-long contributory cruise in the Ashtamudi Lake.  ‘KK’ is an excellent organiser. Once he takes on something, expect nothing less than the perfect. As his boss, I fearlessly delegated tasks to him and sat back without worries. I attribute my rise in ranks to teammates like him.  KK is special. He smiles even when under severe work pressure. Dr Santy, his wife, an academic, is his strength. With them around, possibilities are endless.  

On the 4th of May, I drove 95 KM one way from my home with my wife and two of my grandchildren and stayed the night with the Panickers. The next morning, my wife, grandchildren, and Dr Santy travelled with me another 21 KM to join the cruise, KK and his team had organised. KK had left early to tie up things. There are a lot of houseboats in Kumarakom, that offer similar daylong cruises. This cruise, I knew would be special. 

I wanted my grandchildren to see, feel and learn first-hand, the camaraderie and oneness amongst us, the veterans. KK, Colonel CRM Nair, Colonel Madhu, and Major Rajendran did a great job organising it. Some people who promised to be on the boat did not join. It put a bit of additional monetary pressure on those who landed up but nobody complained. The juniors enjoyed every bit of the day and have not stopped talking about it ever since. They learned to conduct themselves, offer a helping hand to the elders, and be good community members. I came back with more than a cruise. 

“Look at that bridge,” someone called out aloud. There was a bridge, jutting out a long way from the land into the water but it had no signs of landing anywhere. “Must be under construction,” I said. “No,” someone replied. “It is the “bridge to nowhere.” Some of my fellow veterans, chipped in. Most of them settled in and around knew better. “A bridge that led nobody nowhere,” I thought. I took a close look and even clicked some photographs. “Appacha[1], why doesn't that bridge go anywhere?” asked my grandson. I told him that there must have been some constraints. 

I was curious to find out. I scoured the web for other brave engineers and authorities who made similar bridges to nowhere. I came across an Arch Bridge built in 1936. It spans the East Fork of the Gabriel River and was meant to be part of the road connecting the San Gabriel Valley with Wrightwood, California. The project was abandoned due to a flood.  Trekkers enjoy using the bridge even now. There was also the mention of an old Bridge in Kentucky. When the bridge was made, it connected two pieces of land and people used it. It is now in disuse.  There was yet another Bridge. It was proposed to connect the town of Ketchikan in Alaska with Gravina Island which had an International Airport and housed 50 residents. The proposal was also called the ‘bridge to nowhere. Initially expected to cost the exchequer $398 million, it was finally cancelled in 2015 on allegations of ‘pork barrelling[2]. Not even one brick was laid for this bridge. I also came across a movie with the same name. The 1986 New Zealand horror thriller is about a group of teenagers who fight for survival after encountering a mysterious hermit.  

The ‘Bridge to Nowhere’, near Thevally, Kollam is class apart and without parallel. I am not competent to discuss how this engineering marvel came into existence, the political reasons behind its creation, and the allegations surrounding its existence. What saddens me to no end, is that despite my search, I could not come across any proposal to mitigate this problem or to bring it into use at least for tourism purposes. Three things are clear. Firstly, it is a colossal, thoughtless, and criminal waste of public money. Secondly, it showcases the impotence and inability of the public to hold their representatives to account. Thirdly, it shows the rot and deterioration that has infected contemporary society with the “Why should I? Let someone else do it” attitude[3].  Till they demolish it or find ways to use it, ‘The Thevally Bridge to Nowhere’ shall remain a monument to the unquestioned lack of accountability authorities enjoy due to the public’s attitude to gross irresponsibility. 

It is just one of the very few visible ‘bridges to nowhere’, while we live amidst countless invisible bridges to nowhere. ‘Bridges to Nowhere’ amongst us? 

We would have come across people, who despite our best efforts and intentions neither connect nor reciprocate. Intentionally or unintentionally, even we might have refused to connect. Denial would be our first response. Just try and recall instances when someone waved at you or greeted you and you knowingly did not respond! You did not allow their bridge to land on your shores! It could have been driven by some compulsions or ego. That cannot be called afflictions. Such acts seldom go unrewarded. 

The afflicted are those who closet themselves and do not allow any bridge to reach them however hard others may try. Incidentally, it could be an early sign of depression. On the other hand, there are many bridging experts around us. They thrive on retractable bridges.  They put out a bridge when they need something from others or allow other bridges to land only when they see some use of the other bank in the near future. They are crafty, manipulative, selfish, and mean. They will somehow find ways to land their bridge whenever they want. We would be familiar with at least a few in our neighbourhood. 

Bridges connect two distant banks of a gap that otherwise would have remained separated and isolated. Multi-span bridges stand testimony to the difficulty and complexity of connecting distant banks; the further the banks, the more challenging the efforts. Even in life, it is the same; the more emotionally distant someone is, the more difficult to connect with them. One may need a few steps forward, to connect, the first few could elicit no response. 

The importance of the banks on both sides of the gap that will take the landings cannot be left unsaid. If the banks are not strong enough to take the landing, the entry and exit load, especially that of heavy vehicles, will soon render the bridge unusable. In life also, it is like that.  Individuals, the banks, need to be strong enough to take on the demands of the other end of interpersonal relationships. Expectations can ruin the bridge. Keeping account of give and take is akin to injecting toxins. Many a marriage flounder because the landings on either side are not strong enough to take the expectation loads. 

The day before I had an incidental discussion on the subject with a quick-witted former colleague of mine, now commanding a unit. “Sir, technically isn't, nowhere also somewhere?” she asked. It made me think. Yes. Nowhere is also somewhere. When ‘nowhere’ becomes the ‘somewhere to be’ for someone everywhere and always, that person might already be a recluse or one fast in the making. It is a deliberate choice of cutting oneself off from others. Do not mistake it for ‘personal space’. Yes, ‘nowhere’ can be a chosen destination for solitude. Most people mistake loneliness for solitude. When nowhere becomes the destination, people deliberately retract all the bridges and destroy the home-bank landing. On the other hand, there are people, who long for bridges to land on their shores but do not know how to initiate the works. Their hand wave may not look enthusiastic, their smile may be incomplete, or their body language may not be welcoming enough. It is there we must put our spans forward manifold and reach out. Who knows, there may be a gold mine, a heart of gold, waiting to be won. 

Modern means of communication have shrunk the world, into, what people call, a global village. But sadly, while geographical distances are being bridged either physically or remotely, more and more people are retracting their bridges and withdrawing deep into their own shores in the guise of finding personal spaces. Our efforts to span relational gaps can prevent bridgeable gaps from turning into chasms. 

Beyond the memories of chilled beer, good food and great company the “Thevally Bridge to Nowhere” gave me a few lessons for life.  I shall wave and smile as always but my eyes will be quicker to spot the bridge looking to land.

Even you can…

 

PS. 

1.       Over the last two days, I have been going to the local swimming pool with my grandchildren for their swimming classes. I know smiles are the first step to launching the bridge of friendship. I have already made  new friends. Among them, a doctor, an IT engineer and a business man, all there to teach their children swimming.

2. If you like the article, do subscribe to it. It costs you nothing but means a lot to me. You could reciprocate my attempts to bridge with you through my written works. 

3. Consider expressing your views in the comments section. I assure you of a response. if you have personal queries please address it to my mailbox jacobtharakanchacko@gmail.com

---

[1] Appacha’ - That is how my grandchildren address me.

[2] ‘Pork barreling’. It refers to the act of a legislator taking away a lot of money to service just his constituency. It also denotes spending too much for too little in return.

[3] I will be flagging this to the local authorities and also asking people whom I know in the locality about my idea of finding alternative uses if it can’t proceed further.

Kahi Pe Nigahen Kahi Pe Nishana

 Opportunity or Crisis?

"In the midst of every crisis lies great opportunity" is a quote often attributed  to Albert Einstein. In the age of social media where  fake news descends on us by the minute like hurricanes, truth is the casualty. Anybody can fearlessly write anything and attribute it to anyone famous or remotely famous. It is immaterial whether Einstein actually said so or not, but I have been given this alluring piece of advice in countless motivational sermons I have listened to. It is only fair that I in turn give this powerful and motivating piece of advice to my children. I have used it in the many training sessions I took up. I have done it without attribution. Well; it's a great piece of advice to receive in a situation of crisis. I am having a rethink.

Recently, I was driving from Kottayam, my home town, to Cochin. At every prominent junction, over the 60 kilometre route, I saw hoardings and advertisements of agencies inviting prospective candidates to go abroad for studies. Each board screamed "opportunity to study abroad". Ironically few boards were even nailed upside down. Was this shower of opportunities an ominous sign of a crisis? 

Figures

Kerala, ‘God’s own Country’, boasts of almost 100% literacy. A survey on the state of higher education in Kerala was conducted in 2020 under the aegis of the Kerala State Higher Education Council. its findings were made public in June 2021. Table No 2 of the survey report reveals that Kerala has 18 Universities and 1504 colleges. It included 701 Arts and Science Colleges, 167 Engineering Colleges, 102 Medical Colleges that include Allopathy, Ayurveda, Dental, Homeo and Allied Health Science colleges, 5 Agricultural colleges, 4 Fine Arts Colleges and 177 Paramedical Colleges, which include Nursing, Paramedical sciences, Pharmacy, Optometry, Medical Laboratory Technology and Pharmaceutical Science institutes. Nearly 13 lakh students were reported to study in these institutions. 

. 

Many who do not take admission to colleges within Kerala go their way to other Indian states to study. A significant number also goes abroad to study. According to people involved in the ‘study abroad’ business, approximately 30,000 children from Kerala have gone abroad to study recently. In the absence of authentic data in the public domain, the numbers might not be ‘the truth, nothing but the truth.’ The cumulative numbers might anyway be much larger. Reports suggest that students from Kerala can be found in 54 countries, their migration facilitated by student recruitment agencies or educational consultants, most of them without any government accreditation or approval. Even Curacao, a small Dutch Caribbean country, that is a landmass of just 444 square kilometers with a population of 1.5 Lakh people, hosts Malayali students.  War in Ukraine and COVID breakout in Wuhan troubled Kerala because there was a sizable Malayalee population studying there. Why is the Malayalee youth running out? Are Malayalees looking for better things to study?

Pursuit

Is the exodus because of inadequate seats for studies? A prominent online news portal reported in Dec 2022 that more than 23,000 seats for B Tech were lying vacant in various engineering colleges under the Kerala Technological University. It also reported large vacancies, unfilled seats, in the arts and science colleges also. It was also reported that many self-financing colleges were willing to reduce the fees just to fill vacant seats. Certainly, the rush out of Kerala is not because of unavailability of avenues for studies.

Is the outbound flight driven by pursuit of knowledge and skills? If Malayalee youth felt that the courses available in Kerala were not good enough they could easily enrol themselves for better courses outside the state, within India, maybe at slightly higher costs but far lesser than what they spend abroad. Many do that. The best colleges under Delhi University are getting more Malayalees every year. The truth is that most of the students going abroad to study are taking up nondescript courses and subjects. Such subjects and courses are available in Kerala at a fraction of the cost incurred by parents of the child going abroad for studies. Then there is something else. 

Erosion

Some people say that students take admission outside Kerala because the examination system is more lenient and offers convenience for those not academically brilliant. The rising number of students from Kerala securing seats in Delhi University undergraduate programs and that too in prestigious colleges that demand very high and stiff cutoffs weaken this argument. Moreover this argument holds water if everyone is rushing to a particular university, considered to have porous systems of examination and evaluation. It is not the case. The rush is mostly to many different self-financing institutions in Tamil nadu and Karnataka, which accept low scorers from Kerala at higher financial contributions. Though some of these colleges are reputed, most are not. Many children taking up technical courses in these colleges never end up completing or passing the course. They at best waste their parents money and get something worthless in the competitive job market.  

Those in power in Kerala certainly are aware of the poor quality of research and institutional inability and hesitation to upgrade  academic infrastructure. To them it doesn't matter that the majority of educational institutions in Kerala are not accredited by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). Militant student unions have played their part in eroding academics and the education system beyond immediate redemption. What happens to the others doesn't seem to bother them  because their future seems assured and taken care of. String of exposes where student union leaders and party members have been caught  manipulating the system to get certificates have come to light. Erosion of the system from within is complete. 

Those championing the local mother tongue and localised syllabus to be mandated in the education system anyway send their children abroad. They do not want their children to be limited by local education. It is practical wisdom and not double speak. Deliberately turning blind eye to systemic flaws, pretending that nothing is wrong and turning against those pointing out deficiencies, letting loose the weight of the government machinery with all its vicious might is an effective and powerful political weapon. It envelops the society with fear and helps cover up. However, Kerala is not the only state suffering in this regard. But why is the youth running away to study abroad?

Is it a case of “Kahi Pe Nigahen Kahi Pe Nishana?*

Nigahen aur Nishane

A close look at where they go to study may reveal something! Canada, The UK, Australia and New zealand are their most favourite destinations. Some are heading for Europe too. This segment is now understood to be growing fast.  According to people in the know of things,  youth is not headed out in pursuit of academic qualifications but in search of ways to migrate. Incidentally, these countries allow Indian students to stay back as full time workers for two to three years once they qualify from institutions there.  Industrious nature of the people involved normally culminates in them obtaining ‘permanent resident’ status in the host country, a migration of sorts, a shortcut. 

In essence everybody going abroad wants to get out of Kerala and India. Hardly anybody comes back to Kerala for a job with a foreign degree. Those who come back are normally only those who had gone to study medicine, because they have to pass an examination in India to be part of the medical system in India. The others coming back to Kerala after studies are the ones who have failed to secure a ‘permanent resident’ permit.

More out of despair and less out of desire, children going to study abroad find ways and means legal or illegal to hang on somehow. It is because there are inadequate jobs and shrinking avenues for job creation within Kerala. Despite all the claims that the government makes, people habituated to fruits of militant trade unionism continue to bleed industrial establishments. Once known for quality, the state’s education system has suffered a serious blow to its credibility, due to  misdeeds of  political cadres. Those who can afford to therefore find escape routes to get out and never come back if they can manage to. The exodus of qualified nurses from Kerala to all over the world and the ease with which they secure permanent resident status there, strengthens this argument. Many nurses working in the gulf are slowly moving out to Europe, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  It is only a matter of time before the entire family of the nurse migrates to the new country. ‘Study abroad’ is just another way to gain a foothold in a distant land.

Costs

Nothing comes free, not even spirituality. There is a financial and social cost to the phenomenon of children going abroad to study.  Parents work abroad or within India to raise the money required.  According to data available Indian students spent over 30 billion dollars in 2019 for education abroad. This is expected to rise to 80 billion by 2024. Many parents feel that the risk and effort is worth it. Such migration commences with heavy financial cost. Students, actually parents, most of them pledging all their immovable assets, end up taking large sums, reportedly starting from Rs 8 lakh to 45 lakhs per person for meeting the expenses. Statistics released by the State Level Bankers Conference (SLBC) reveal that the total outstanding education loans in banks in Kerala  have gone up from Rs 9841 Crores in Mar 20119 to Rs 11,061 in Mar 2022. Interestingly barring a few stray cases everyone repays. Unpayable debt culminates in human tragedy called suicides.

In Kerala the social cost is visible and exasperatingly aggravating. Many houses built with hard earned money are lying locked because the owners have now become permanent residents abroad. Clusters of such houses in some areas, some housing old, ailing and hopelessly lonely  parents hoping to die sooner than later, have started haunting those with conscience. The current rulers in the state have found an opportunity in this crisis, otherwise a situation that is emerging as a human tragedy. They decided to levy additional tax on locked houses. Someone seems to have infused some sense of sanity and they have retracted their steps.

Kerala Story 

This is not just a phenomenon confined to Kerala. Punjab is already  struggling with the social cost of mass scale migration. Andhra and Telangana are also in hot pursuit. Tamil Nadu will catch up very soon. According to data available, US border patrol authorities are said to have intercepted more than 4,297 Indians crossing the Mexican border in two months in 2022.  There are more than 34,230 Asylum cases pending in the American immigration courts in October- November. According to statements made by the Minister concerned to the parliament, a large number of people are giving up Indian citizenship in favour of other countries, the figures clearly showing an increasing trend. Thus, the student exodus may not be a purely a ‘Kerala Story’. Kerala could be a small part of the great Indian story, a story that many who know may not want to tell,  and the masses who should know, remain  ignorant lost happily in the Euphoria of excavation of the past.

Individuals might succeed in their pursuit of their Nishane with Nigahen elsewhere. But, if rulers have their Nigahen elsewhere the society may miss the Nishane.

* ‘Nigahen’ in Hindi  means vision or sight and ‘Nishane’ in Hindi means aim or  target. The reference is to a famous Hindi song by Shamshad Begum for from the movie CID released in 1956