A befitting response — by other means
By Ajay Sabharwal
Mere words will never be enough to substitute for the action that is required in such times, which can only be decided and carried out by the State. However meager and inadequate, our words may be, they can at least help us in understanding the situation better. Civilians may not have a role to play in what is to come but a responsibility to be aware of the basics of the problem cannot be evaded. For this reason, before getting to the specific question regarding the terrorist attack at Pulwama on 14th February 2019, it is required that we understand the nature of terrorist organizations and possible methods of exterminating them.
Explaining terrorism as merely a fanatical act driven purely by human or ethical impulses does not suffice. Terrorism must be considered for what it is — a strategic act, which uses violent means to achieve political ends. Those who prop up these terrorist organizations take to these kinds of tactical activities to achieve political goals in a cheaper way. Not only do they require less political and financial capital, as compared to conventional warfare, terrorist outfits make ware asymmetric due to the clandestine nature of their operation. It is because of this asymmetric nature of terrorism that the fight against it is more challenging than conventional warfare.
Economic Resources & Criminal Activities
Terrorist outfits actors require a strong economic base to strengthen their fighting capacity. From recruitment to procuring weaponry, all activities essential for terrorist groups to achieve their political objectives require sufficient economic backing.
ISIS, for example, is estimated to have made a profit of around $1.5 million per day, at its peak, from oil production and smuggling, from Iraq alone. The combined oil profits from all its territories were estimated to be three times that number.[1] Including other sources of revenue would obviously increase the total gains, which in turn empowered the ISIS to strengthen its military position.
Therefore, it is important for states to restrict terrorist organizations from accessing economic resources or carrying out economic activities that would help fund their operations. Some of these measures include placing economic sanctions on states that supply and/or support terrorist groups, freezing financial assets of terrorist groups and/or associates and affiliate organizations.
Placing restrictions on economic activities alone, however, is not enough to completely shut down the access that terrorist organizations have to economic resources. For instance, a hefty chunk of ISIS’s revenues also came from illicit activities such as thefts, kidnappings, extortion and illegal drug trade. [2] Strong restrictions must be placed on networks that enable terrorist organizations to carry out such activities. Thus, strong policing measures are required to combat the threat of terrorism arising from criminal activities.
Policing & Intelligence
Police and law enforcement agencies are the chief tools at the behest of the State to tackle domestic security concerns, including terrorism. Police and other security force groups must be further equipped to infiltrate and unsettle local cells of terrorist outfits. Abolishing the logistical, financial and political support for the terrorist outfits must remain a top priority.
Establishing a strong policing network would not be optimum till it is backed by adequate and relevant intelligence. Thus, it is imperative to set-up strong intelligence networks to strengthen policing operations. Both local and international intelligence networks are essential to combat terrorist outfits effectively. On the global level, this is being achieved by cooperation among states, whereas on the local level, security forces and intelligence agencies must build networks, especially with the local communities.
Increasing surveillance is another way to strengthen intelligence networks. Needless to say, all states heavily invest in surveillance technology. While arguments against invasive surveillance can be made from a libertarian and humanitarian point of view, collection and analysis of large amount of data intelligence cannot be ruled out as being necessary to combat terrorism. Apart from establishing stronger intelligence networks and carrying out armed counterinsurgency missions, eliminating terrorist organizations also requires combating their ideological and/or religious propaganda.
Ideological Warfare
Religiously motivated terrorist groups have required more time and resources to be eliminated because of two reasons — Firstly, religious terrorist groups tend to have larger support bases as they claim to represent a larger group of people. Secondly, since religiously motivated groups are seen as ideological actors or apparent ‘defenders of the faith’ driven, they tend to receive more material support from backers who believe in and wish to support the propagation of such ideologies. Even though, direct access to financial and other resources may be blocked by the state, it is also important to counter the ideological support that is at the root of the material support received by such outfits. If terrorist organizations lose their ideological support, they will inevitably lose most of their financial backers.
Ideological warfare can be carried through to three methods — The first, requiring a countering of the radical narrative of the terrorist outfits and the second, being a counter to the free-pass given to those sympathizing with or apologizing for such terrorist outfits. While, the first two methods can be termed the negative approach, i.e. only in responses to rival propaganda, the third, can be termed the positive approach. This third way would require the recommencement of active propagation in favour of the nation, the armed forces and integration and unity of the country.
While the first method has not been rejected by a mainstream political, academic or media outfit, the window of discourse on the second seems to be shifting in most democratic republics of the world, including India. More often than not, political leaders and commentators with a ‘left-liberal’ stance tend to give a free-pass to apologists for terrorist outfits to either maintain a certain voting demographic or due to sheer adherence to ideology. Needless to say, in times of crisis such as the attack on the CRPF convoy at Pulwama on 14th February 2019, the staunchest supporters of such schools of thought either retract or refrain from commenting. Those holding a mainstream stance, (most for political expediency) take to rejecting such an ideology. This phenomenon only highlights the fragility of such an ideology, which cannot be held onto in times of real crisis.
The third method would require the creation and propagation of high-quality patriotic creative materials on a regular basis, independent of any external events. This positive approach, is in its application extremely simple but would incur the wrath of those committed to a liberal ideology standpoint against what is now termed as “Toxic Hyper-Nationalism” wherein the ‘alleged’ terror attacks that take place in India are ‘contested’ and the reaction to them is ‘acrimonious’ and ‘highly politicised’.[3]
To rebut such criticisms one would have to move to the second approach, that is, countering such a view point effectively. For example, the review of the trailer of the film, Uri in The Wire, reads, “From a blaring background score to beast-like soldiers who want nothing but the enemy’s blood, this war film is another addition to several other military dramas that are cashing in on our contemporary hyper-nationalism.” The author also seems to have a problem with online retailers offering discounts with codes named after the film and apparel being sold which read, “#SurgicalStrike INDIA’S PRIDE”. This is a prime example of how the three-tier ideological warfare comes into play. The third level, positive approach can be sensed with much ease, such as the t-shirts being sold or the films being shown, but it is such irresponsible commentary from media outfits that must be met with an adequate response. If supporters of liberty and freedom of expression are tolerant of separatist views then correspondingly, they also accept that a patriotic position is no threat to the democracy we live in.
Films such as Uri, or news channels such as Republic TV, become ‘hits’ only because they have the support of the people. It is not as if people are being forced to watch these but are doing so out of their own volition. An important question that needs to be asked and addressed at this stage is why films and programs opposing a nationalist point of view not successful in the long run? The answer is simple. The people of India do not wish to be patrons of such ‘artists’. We understand that traditions help in achieving a certain level of social stability and this thought process extends to our sentiments about the armed forces. Some, even have a liking for these traditions. It is not that the patriotic hero has arisen out of the blue, on the screens, to make the incumbent government get re-elected. This millennial generation seems to be unaware of the era of patriotic films spearheaded by the likes of Manoj Kumar from the 1960s to the 1980s. So, this is not a new phenomenon and it most certainly is not because film makers want to only appease the current government. They want to make such films because people want to watch them. The same can be said about news channels. Since, not many mainstream news networks are without an agenda, the people shift to the patriotic alternative in the long term.
However, in the recent past, it is wavering, at least amongst the urban youth, especially those at liberal arts colleges. These ‘institutes of excellence’ whether they be private or funded by the taxpayer, shift the window of discourse by allowing a platform only to those advocating a certain view point while rejecting a rational discussion by terming the other side ‘jingoists’, ‘fascists’ and ‘toxic hyper-nationalists’. Cries of “…hum sharminda hain, tere kaatil zinda hain” regarding ‘judicial killings’ of terrorists at Jawaharlal Nehru University or “F**k the Indian army! Who cares about them?” at Ashoka University have not been uncommon. The opposite point of view is discouraged to the extent that students report getting downgraded for taking a certain stance in the classroom. Such a narrative must be countered effectively with facts, statistics, reason and by remaining within the scope of the law. Rather than merely terming individuals as “anti-nationals”, use of proper mechanisms is advised to have a tangible impact. For those wanting to act, it is a must that they understand the law or take help from someone who does and file a complaint, when you see something going wrong.. You will be surprised to see how quickly and effectively the local policemen respond if the matter is regarding national strategic interests.
Success on the ideological front for the counter terrorism efforts would also restrict terrorist groups’ ability to recruit in abundance. To successfully implement these ideological measures states need to better understand the mind-set of these outfits and more importantly, their young operatives and potential supporters. Terrorist outfits, however, do not always propagate an ideology that can be successfully countered. Some terrorist ideologues even have a lot of popular support which can be dealt with only through reconciliation and integration in the political process.
Political Integration
Many terrorist groups have ceased violent activities because they have been incorporated in the political process of their respective countries. In fact, according to RAND Corporation, moving into the political process is the most common means (at 43 percent of all groups that ceased violent activities) through which terrorist groups end. [4] However, integration into the political system depends entirely on the kind of goals being pursued by the outfit. This method is thus, applicable only to those groups which seek narrower policy goals. For example, in El Salvador, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front was a terrorist outfit practicing guerrilla warfare throughout the 1980s but after the peace accords were signed, FMNL joined the political system and is among the major political parties in the country today. This transition to a non-violent mainstream political outfit was possible because FMLN’s goals were narrow and covered primarily economic, political and land reforms. The wider a terrorist outfit’s goals are, the less likely they are to reach a political settlement and accomplish them. For example, establishing a Global Caliphate (for ISIS) or separating Kashmir from India and merging it into Pakistan (for JeM) would be less feasible than recognition of basic political rights. Thus, incorporating violent outfits in the political process is theoretically possible but the onus lies on them to give up arms in totality and to have realizable goals such as political rights. Since the terrorist groups India is dealing with, especially in the Kashmir valley, have broad and non-realizable goals, it is highly unlikely that they can be incorporated into the political system. For those separatist elements that have been integrated into the system, adherence to the system in perpetuity must be paramount. Those who desire to destroy the system must have no place in it, even through democratic means. The law of the land is clear on this issue. It is then, when terrorists do not seek to negotiate a political solution, that States must resort to the use of military force.
Military Force
Use of military force is necessary to counter and eradicate terrorist organizations, especially when a large portion of their membership is directly involved in insurgencies. The situation in which the military is to be used differs from the one in which police efforts are required. This is to be judged from the severity of the threat. Land forces are to be deployed to combat terrorists while launching offensive operations and holding and consolidating ground. Countering guerrilla warfare and insurgencies also necessitates military action. Thus, the use of military force is best suited as an option when terrorist outfits are primarily and heavily invested in tactical and asymmetrical warfare.
The use of military as an option is not just restricted to combating insurgents but also to bring stability in the region. Maintaining military bases in volatile areas makes them less vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Leaving unstable areas without a military presence can give rise to terrorist activities. For example, it was only after United States withdrew from Iraq in 2011 that ISIS emerged as a strong force in the region. Many military experts have argued that if the United States Army maintained a military base in Iraq, the threat of ISIS would be reduced if not expunged completely. However, countries such India have maintained a non-interventionist policy for a long period and its situation is different from that of the United States. Use of the military option, comes at its cost and those without skin in the game must refrain from commenting on it.
Skin in the Game & Stability
The asymmetric nature of warfare carried out by Jaish-e-Mohammed, leads to its political masters self-acquitting themselves from any blame for its actions. The Pakistani State claims that as of Jaish-e-Mohammed, is a non-state actors and banned in Pakistan, they cannot be blamed for the attacks. However, to assess their actual position, we must examine motives and actions rather than mere words. As mentioned earlier, words have little value. So, what is the primary motive of Jaish-e-Mohammed? It aims to, end Indian rule in Jammu and Kashmir, and expel Indian security forces from the region, and unite J&K with Pakistan.[5] Where is it primarily based? In Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir. [6] It would not be too illogical a leap to infer that it is next to impossible for JEM to survive without the support of the Pakistani military establishment. The reasons for the Pakistani establishment to do so are abundantly clear. Supporting such outfits give them the option to engage in asymmetric warfare with no skin in the game. In this, they are not very different from many Indians, both on the hawkish and dovish side. Those who advocate war and do not wish to line up on the border themselves are charlatans of the worst kind with no skin in the game and must therefore be refused to be entertained in the discourse. Those who wish for war must first understand what it entails, especially for those who would be in the line of fire, and only after such consideration and willingness to enter into combat themselves, should such individuals be given a say, if at all. On the other hand, those who wish for dialogue without having suffered the loss that those families did who lost their sons in the attack, must also refrain from commenting. It is human nature that those who have suffered would ask for some response and it is they who must be leant our ears. As a country, we have criticized ‘the system’ for not working enough for its people, but no matter what one says, this ‘system’ has had reputation of protecting those who take refuge in it. Those who were martyred on 14th February 2019 at Pulwama were no different. They did not merely have skin, but their soul in the game, and paid the highest price for it. Thus, it is their representatives, in this case, the forces and their families who must be heard before all else.
Coming to the will of the people, who seem to have had enough, must realize that only a well planned operation with proper logistics will help in avoiding a greater loss of life. For this, the government must be given some time to arrange the State machinery and set up the logistics. Moreover, expecting any of the details of a military operation to be made public before such action is completed would be utterly foolish. Meanwhile, the false narrative that ‘irrational’ ‘jingoist’ ‘hyper-nationalist’ Indians are torturing Kashmiri students, must be countered. As of the publication of this article, the alleged incident in Uttrakhand by one Ms. Shehla Rashid turned out to be false.[7] Many commentators had based their tweets and cries for help on her posts. The local police department has rejected such claims.[8] A vigilant, truthful and active civil society is necessary for calm on the streets (and on social media). Rather than be blind ideologues, civilians must use this time to unite the country on their level as well. When the government is to be given time to act, so must the Wires, the Ashokas and JNUs, for their convergence with the rest of the nation. When they can support the separatists in the name of freedom of speech and expression by carrying out marches, writing in papers and submitting petitions, they must do the same for those in the uniform, who have fallen. They can take their time, and because this is not about petty partisanship and mere ideology, this nation will accept the genuine support that comes in for the forces. If they are willing to kneel, we must accept their right to do so. The answer to all other matters must be left to the State, for it alone decides policy.
The continuation of policy by other means
The ‘system’ may fail its citizens in many areas but on the question of defence of the realm one it has no room for failure. Before, reaching any conclusions we must accept some harsh realities. Jaish-e-Mohammed is a terrorist outfit that desires the separation of a part of this country and merging it with another. For this goal, it takes innocent lives. We must accept that we are in a state of war with Jaish-e-Mohammed and its allied outfits. We have maintained certain policies towards it for a certain duration, which have changed as per the necessities of the State, and by extension, the armed forces. Though this is not an emotional call for war, we must at least ask why does India have armed forces, to begin with. For the defence of the realm, if it is attacked, one may answer. It remains State policy to maintain the armed forces to protect the territorial integrity and the lives of citizens of its country.
War, Carl von Clausewitz, writes, is dictated by reason and pure logic, and is a mere continuation of policy by other means. War, he says, “is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.” [9] He adds, “…however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.” Clausewitz doesn’t declare war to ever be the goal, but to be a means, and one which must be limited. War is a policy instrument that the State may utilize to fulfill certain objectives. If it has better ways of fulfilling these objectives, it will always try them out first. However, when these fail, and the proverbial or else is asked, the use of force seems more likely than not. The question then remains as to how it will be done. On the intensity of war, Clausewitz wrote that it must be in alignment with the goals it aims to achieve. Whatever means are employed; the objectives will be set to begin with, but at the same time, these objectives will also be set in alignment with the logistical capacity of the Indian State and its armed forces. In doing so only cold reason and logic will reign supreme.
Thus, the real questions of logistics, capacity and strategy, can only be answered by the government and it will answer them, in due time. In doing so, it will also answer the other question that was asked by Jaish-e-Mohammed at Pulwama, on 14th February 2019 — “Hum toh tumhare jawaan aise hi maarenege, tum kya kar loge? There can be no disagreement that this must be given a befitting response.
Author’s biases
The author is an Indian citizen. He is not a strategic affairs expert. Much reliance for this article is based on RAND Corporation’s 2008 Report titled, ‘How Terrorist Groups End: Implications for Countering al Qa’ida.’
References
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=24814359
[2] Bahney, Benjamin and Patrick Johnston. “To Defeat ISIS, Focus on its real sources of strength”. The National Interest. N.p., 2015.
[3] https://livewire.thewire.in/out-and-about/movies/uri-trailer-brace-yourselves-more-toxic-hyper-nationalism-is-coming/
[4] Jones, Seth and Libicki, Martin C.. How Terrorist Groups End: Implications for Countering al Qa’ida. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2008.
[5] CRS Report for US Congress on Foreign Terrorist Organizations, https://fas.org/irp/crs/RL32223.pdf
[6] Ibid.
[7] https://www.ssbcrack.com/2019/02/shameless-shehla-rashid-lied-to-start-communal-riot-in-uttarakhand.html
[8] Ibid.
[9] Clausewitz, Carl von, 1982. On War. Penguin Books
