Pakistan, Balochistan and the India angle – Firstpost

A week after the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA)’s attack on the Jaffar Express, Pakistan’s Parliamentary Committee on National Security met under the chairmanship of the country’s National Assembly’s Speaker, Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, on March 18. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, leading cabinet members, Chief Ministers, leaders of political parties and the Army brass led by its chief, Gen Asim Munir, took part in the Committee’s deliberations.

Significantly, former Prime Minister and currently in prison Imran Khan’s party—Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI)—leaders refused to attend the Committee meeting because their leader was in jail and they claimed that they were not allowed to fully consult him. This indicates that even as the country is in the midst of a grave security challenge posed by terrorist forces (ironically some it raised itself) Pakistan’s political class remains divided. In view of the constants of Pakistan’s political reality, its army is both the creator and sustainer of these divisions as well as its beneficiary.

According to media reports, Munir, assisted by other senior generals, briefed the Committee on the recent terrorist incidents in Balochistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) beginning with the Jaffar express attack. On March 16, a suicide bomber targeted a military convoy in Balochistan’s Nokshi district killing three security personnel. Terrorist incidents also occurred over the last week in KP. Media reports indicated that Munir blamed Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities for sheltering and assisting the BLA as well as the Tehreek-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan (TTP). He also said that India was involved in instigating and supporting them to undertake terrorism against Pakistan. These are the charges that the Director General of Inter Services Public Relations (DG, ISPR), Lt General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, had made against India during his joint press conference on March 14; Balochistan CM Sarfraz Bugti sat along with Chaudhry during the Press Conference.

While the army’s accusations against India for the BLA attack on the Jaffar express on March 11 were predictable, it is noteworthy that in the unanimous resolution adopted by the Committee—and which was read out by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif—no specific foreign country was mentioned. The report on the Resolution carried by Radio Pakistan, which can be considered authoritative, makes this clear.

The resolution’s focus was basically domestic and contained stale and oft-repeated formulations: that the nation was resolved to eradicate terrorism with the full might of the state, that the nation stood shoulder to shoulder with the security forces in their struggle against terrorism, that the National Action Plan against terrorism would be implemented and that social media was being [misused by the terrorists]. The only finger pointing and that too indirectly to India and the Afghan Taliban can be seen in the following part of the resolution: “that no entity, individual or group will be allowed to undermine Pakistan’s peace and stability in collusion with the enemies of the country”.

Clearly, Pakistan’s civilian leaders do not want to raise the temperature against India and the Afghan Taliban beyond the statements being made by the Pakistan Foreign Ministry against Kabul and Delhi. Recently, the Ministry criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remarks on Pakistan’s involvement in fostering terrorism and the global acceptance that the country was an epicentre of the menace. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry also called in the Afghan Taliban authorities Charge d’ Affairs (CDA) after the Jaffar Express attack to protest against the presence and latitude being shown by Kabul against groups that Pakistan claims are in Afghanistan and attack Pakistan.

In his weekly media briefing, the Foreign Ministry Spokesman said apropos the Jaffar express attack and Kabul: “The latest terrorist attack against Jaffar Express near Sibi Balochistan was also orchestrated and directed by terrorist ring leaders operating from abroad. Our security forces successfully eliminated all 33 terrorists, including suicide bombers, while rescuing the hostages. Terrorists were in direct communications with Afghanistan based planners throughout the incident. Pakistan has repeatedly asked the interim Afghan government to deny the use of its soil for terrorist groups like BLA for their attacks against Pakistan. We urge Afghanistan to hold perpetrators, organizers, financiers, of this reprehensible act of terrorism accountable and cooperate with the government of Pakistan to bring all those who are concerned with this attack, including the real sponsors of terrorism to justice”.

What the Foreign Office spokesman failed to mention, Chaudhry accepted: that 23 security personnel died in the Jaffar express attack. The spokesman’s comment was on the same lines as those of Chaudhry’s but it is noteworthy that there was no mention of India by the Spokesman in his words.

Why is there this discrepancy between what the Pakistani military is publicly saying about Indian involvement and the country’s civilian authorities? How should Indian analysts and policy makers interpret this? In this writer’s experience Pakistan’s India policy falls in the domain of the generals. Those elected Prime Ministers who thought that the army should follow their lead on security and critical foreign policy issues, such as ties with India, paid a heavy price and were compelled to give up their seats. Hence, instead of the Parliamentary Committee’s statement, the real Pakistani approach towards India after the Jaffar express attack will be determined by the Pakistani army. And, to assess its approach it is essential to turn to what the DG ISPR said during his March 14 press conference on India.

Chaudhry alleged that while the BLA’s physical attack was on, a simultaneous ‘informational warfare’ operation was undertaken by the Indian media to spread disinformation. His implication was clear: that Indian agencies had acted in support of the BLA operation. Chaudhry should know that a train hijack by the BLA which is now a principal participant in the province’s 5th insurgency against the Pakistani state would naturally draw the attention of the Indian media. His allegation of ‘informational warfare’ is ludicrous. To bolster his charge of ‘informational warfare’ Chaudhry showed old discredited footage of India sponsoring terrorism in Balochistan, These old clips did not add to the credibility of his charges.

Soon after the BLA attack, the Pakistani army said that, with it, the ‘rules of the game had changed’. Chaudhry was asked to clarify these words in the press conference. It is now that he said words that Indian analysts and policy-makers should pay close attention to. He said that BLA and [terrorist groups] would be dealt with the way they ‘deserve’ and the same would apply to their facilitators and abettors whether inside or outside Pakistan.

The Pakistani army follows the tradition of ‘badal’ (badal in Pashto means revenge) for perceived grievances. It has done so against India even though in the process it has beggared the country. It knows no way other than that of confrontation. This is part of its ethos and each army chief has to show that he is up to giving a ‘fitting’ response especially to an attack the institution he leads perceives or rather misperceives has come from India. As such, it is possible that the Pakistan army will attempt to sponsor a terrorist event in India within the foreseeable future.

There is no doubt that Indian policymakers would be aware of this large possibility. Open messaging should be undertaken by the Indian authorities that any Pakistani adventurism will be met with a response and that the dangers of escalation would be entirely their responsibility. This is also an occasion to find a suitable way of reiterating the doctrine of pre-emption which was enunciated after the Balakot attack.

Leading and friendly states should also be informed that they warn Pakistan against raising the temperature on sponsored terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere. And, certainly they should inform Pakistan that they will not intervene in the resolution of long-standing differences between the two countries as the Pakistani army has always aspired to.

The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India’s Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.