What's new

END OF HISTORY, BEGINNING OF HISTORY

Soumitra

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2011
8,415
-17
11,799
Country
India
Location
India
END OF HISTORY, BEGINNING OF HISTORY

Smarting under the impact of 9/11, the Bush administration had its battering ram, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, to summon the chief of Pakistan’s ISI, asking him to dump Taliban and become a US ally, or else. The Pakistani general started arguing that there was a history of his country’s and the agency’s role in Afghanistan and how they had vital interests there. “History,” Mr Armitage is said to have declared, “begins here and now”.

It doesn’t happen often but events, leaders, ideologues can sometimes arrive at the same conclusion and when they believe they have the power to do so, make the same assertion. That’s what Narendra Modi has done with his declared strikes along the Line of Control in Kashmir. What exactly happened in the night intervening September 28 and 29, how deep did Indian commandos go, how much success they achieved in terms of death and destruction, or, even, if you allow the Pakistanis a question, did they even go “in” or just “fired small arms” from the Indian side killing two soldiers, are all minor, tactical issues. The substantive, strategic issue is: India made the public statement it did. This redefines the India-Pakistan relationship hereon. It also firmly signals the end of continuity from the Indian side. This is Modi saying: History begins now.

Since trouble returned to the Kashmir Valley in 1989, and terror made its first appearance in mainland India with the Bombay serial blasts of 1993, certain postulates have evolved over time to define India’s responses. Some, such as India’s absolutely neurotic abhorrence of any Pakistani bid to “internationalise” the “bilateral” Kashmir problem were older, rooted in the Simla Agreement of 1972. Linked to this was the second principle, that the Simla Agreement, by renaming the old Cease Fire Line (CFL) as Line of Control (LoC), conferred on it the status of a de facto border, affirming the division of Kashmir along it, which the two countries were to formalise at a more opportune time. Both sides respected it until 1989.

In fact, even India’s move to Siachen Glacier in the spring of 1984 was justified as just establishing presence over a territory not demarcated by the LoC, but left to the interpretation of the notional line from the so-called Point NJ9842 on the LoC, “running northwards along the glaciers”. Pakistan contested this and launched many courageous assaults to dislodge India, but failed at great cost to itself. That the LoC is the de facto border was also the theme central to India’s response during the Kargil conflict. It resulted in the entire world endorsing the sanctity of the LoC and was seen as a strategic gain for India.

That’s why on the many occasions Indian forces crossed the LoC either for sectoral tactical reasons, for clearing a troublesome Pakistani foothold or even retribution, it was concealed in plausible deniability. A retiring chief, General Bikram Singh, did say in answer to a question that the Army had “avenged” the beheading of two of its own soldiers on the LoC in January 2013 but gave no details. Nothing was said even when, not long after Kargil, a formation of four Mirage-2000s carried out precision (laser-guided) bombing to clear a thorny Pakistani foothold. The Mirages had rehearsed that mission deep inside the Shivalik ranges to keep secrecy. Importantly, the Pakistanis also kept quiet about these, probably to be able to choose their own time and place for retaliation. That history has ended now.

Rather than insist that Pakistan respect the sanctity of the LoC, India itself is now questioning it. Rather than complain that Pakistan is internationalising Kashmir, India is now game for doing so, packaging the challenge as terrorism backed by nuclear blackmail. The NDA government may have fielded a junior minister to say this, but Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore saying all of Kashmir is our territory so how can going any place within Kashmir be a violation of any borders is significant. Particularly so when read with the prime minister invoking Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan. Until now there was reasonable consensus that a final solution of Kashmir will be built around the acceptance of the LoC as the border. That was the spirit of Simla Agreement and later of talks between Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Nawaz Sharif, Pervez Musharraf as was the formulation discussed between Mr Musharraf and Manmohan Singh that Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri has written about. The 2001-02 Operation Parakram, called coercive diplomacy, was an extension of this policy.

This is over. If Pakistan used the uprising of 1989 to start dumping the Simla Agreement, India has now done so. In the Narendra Modi world view, Pakistan was taking what was theirs under the Simla Agreement and keeping the option of fighting for more. In his political, strategic and tactical moves, he has knocked that comfortable Pakistani presumption. Rather than demand that Pakistan respect the spirit of the Simla Agreement, Narendra Modi is turning the old argument on its head. If Pakistan, four decades after Simla, can call Kashmir the unfinished business of Partition, why can’t India call it the unfinished business of Simla? Sounds brutal? That is the mind of the first genuine government of the Right in India. It doesn’t want to protect the status quo, however favourable. It sees national benefit in disrupting it.

A whole new policy is being built around this new central pillar. The Modi government wants to redefine the idea of “no escalation beyond” the nuclear threshold. It believes the nukes have become a one-sided deterrent or a kind of umbrella under which Pakistan can carry out low-level activity to bleed India. Pakistanis have to appreciate the risks of this brinkmanship and loose talk and so should the rest of the world. Since India has to live next to Pakistan, it can’t remain under permanent blackmail. A predictable consequence of these fundamental shifts is the fraying of the principle of strategic restraint. It hasn’t been junked. But the threshold has been shifted to provide India much greater room for retaliatory action.

In times when the “point of view”, or simply PoV, is confused with considered “opinion”, and any 10-second sound byte or even 140 characters of a tweet are seen as analysis and opinion packaged into one, it is challenging to write anything complicated or layered. Or seek patience for nuance. Within minutes of the news of the Uri strike breaking early on September 18 morning, I had said the Pakistanis are making a mistake if they think India will let this also pass, as we had now moved on from old strategic restraint. I continued, however, to plead for strategic restraint as it had benefited India, and many saw a contradiction here. It is nearly impossible in these short-attention-span times to explain the difference between analysis of objective ground reality and prescriptive opinion and how these can be contrary. I was right in reading the former.

All analysis must be based on the new objective reality. There will be another occasion to argue whether it is prudent or reckless, right or wrong. First, we must acknowledge that this is a new Indian government of the genuine Right which, having given the old conciliatory approach a reasonable run, has moved away from the sanctity of LoC, strategic restraint, coercive diplomacy, and has shifted the old nuclear threshold. There is no point mourning and missing what is now lost, however sadly. This is important for Indian analysts and critical for Pakistani policymakers. They are dealing with a new history as it takes shape now.

http://www.shekhargupta.in/2016/10/end-of-history-beginning-of-history/
 
This is NOT a thread about whether or not India conducted Surgical Strikes and Pakistani Reponse to those strikes. There are 100 other threads running on the same. this thread is about a change in the Indian perception of the LoC and junking of the old status quo.

Request members to stick to the topic

@waz @Oscar @Irfan Baloch @Joe Shearer @hellfire @Nilgiri
 
In clear words it is true KASHMIR is a flash point and Indeed now it is becoming clear it would lead to a nuclear war slowly
Kashmir was always a flashpoint and slowly boiling. but till now India had kept a lid on it and refused to let it escalate beyond a point.

now as they say the gloves are off.

However you must remember that the start of the Nuclear fire will NOT be from our side. We have always maintained No First Use and massive second strike. If Pakistan behaves responsibly and declares NFU then nuclear flashpoint will never be reached

Remember the Cold War with 2 Nuclear Superpowers with thousands of Nukes between them. Whatever the tensions it never crossed the Nuclear Threshold. Both of them behaved in a responsible manner
 
Kashmir was always a flashpoint and slowly boiling. but till now India had kept a lid on it and refused to let it escalate beyond a point.

now as they say the gloves are off.

However you must remember that the start of the Nuclear fire will NOT be from our side. We have always maintained No First Use and massive second strike. If Pakistan behaves responsibly and declares NFU then nuclear flashpoint will never be reached

Remember the Cold War with 2 Nuclear Superpowers with thousands of Nukes between them. Whatever the tensions it never crossed the Nuclear Threshold. Both of them behaved in a responsible manner


India always refused to accept Kashmir as flashpoint when the world was saying the otherwise. Now India after failing to curb Kashmir freedom struggle has come up with this new strategy which by the way is only going to internationalise kashmir issue.

Secondly India has little regard for even international accords what to say about no first use policy which nothing but a verbal thing which can be overrun by India any time.

Thirdly Pakistan officially have always behaved in a responsible manner but Indian government had always been acting like a warmonger.

The Modi frustration laden actions are only going to bring in super powers for their own interests :) in this game of Kashmir and India is also not going to gain anything
 
junking of the old status quo.
What was old status quo? I am all lost with this article. Lot of words, lot of hype? Somebody explain please? And making referance to the US example is bogus, in your face bogus. The United States talked, then set the history at zero by invading Afghanistan, removing taliban and starting fresh. They erased Taliban and set up new government in Kabul.
 
Last edited:
What was old status quo? I all lost with this article. Lot of words, lot of hype? Somebody explain please? And making refewrance to the US example is bogus, in your face bogus. The United States talked, then set the history at zero by invading Afghanistan, removing taliban and starting fresh. They erased Taliban and set up new government in Kabul.
Old Status Quo -
1 India will respect Shimla Agreement and LoC, If and when we cross the LoC it will be under plausible deniability
2 India will show "Strategic Restraint" in dealing with cross border terrorism. It was "Kadi ninda", Dossiers, talking to world powers to diplomatically attempt to isolate Pakistan

New Status Quo
We have the ability and are willing to cross LoC in hot pursuit and/or targetting of terrorist training camps. We are willing to openly declare the same. the "Strategic Restraint" has gone. We are willing to call Pakistan's Nuclear Bluff

Sometimes I wonder what would have been the course of history if NaMo had been the PM at time of 26/11
 
We have the ability
Did you ever claim you did not - before?

are willing to cross LoC in hot pursuit and/or targetting of terrorist training camp
(i) Did you ever claim that you were not prepared to do so - before?

(ii) Have you done something new that is substantive that you did not - before?

Everything is words. Rehashing words does not mean anything. It is the same sh*te being repackaged. The only thing here to be considered is did India make launch a attack against a "terrorist camp" and destroy them? If this has happened then yes you could say there has been a change in posture. However thus far a skirmish on the LOC does not suggest a fundamental change in anything. These low level skirmishes are routine. Firing and shelling across the LOC is normal.

All I see is the normal fare - skirmish along the LOC is now being packaged as "surgical strike" by Modi to win plaudits from his voters. It is petty politics and a joke frankly. Proof of the pudding will be nothing will change in six months. Rest assured of that.


We are willing to call Pakistan's Nuclear Bluff
Again I ask what has changed - from before? There was entire Pakistani regiment ingress across the LOC in Kargil and if that was not "Nuclear Bluff" being tested I don't know what is? This event is minnows by comparison. Yet apparently the world has changed. Apparently history has been reset. Give me break !
 
Last edited:
Did you ever claim you did not - before?

(i) Did you ever claim that you were not prepared to do so - before?

(ii) Everything is words. Rehashing words does not mean anything. It is the same sh*te being repackaged. The only thing here to be considered is did India make launch a attack against a "terrorist camp" and destroy them? If this has happened then yes you could say there has been a change in posture. However thus far a skirmish on the LOC does not suggest a fundamental change in anything. These low level skirmishes are routine. Firing and shelling across the LOC is normal.

All I see is the normal fare - skirmish along the LOC is now being packaged as "surgical strike" by Modi to win plaudits from his voters. It is petty politics and a joke frankly. Proof of the pudding will be nothing will change in six months. Rest assured of that.



Again I ask what has changed - from before? There was entire Pakistani regiment ingress across the LOC in Kargil and if that was not "Nuclear Bluff" being tested? This event is minnows by comparison. Yet apparently the world has changed. Apparently history has been reset. Give me break !
If you want to discuss whether or not surgical strikes took place there are 100 other threads. Please discuss the same there

Whether you believe it or not India has openly said it crossed LoC and attacked terrorist camps. This is a clear departure from previous years when we never claimed it

I again request you that this is not the thread to discuss the validity of Surgical Strikes. I will not respond in this direction on this thread
 
If you want to discuss whether or not surgical strikes took place there are 100 other threads.
You say this but then you claim -

Whether you believe it or not India has openly said it crossed LoC and attacked terrorist camps.
This as fact.

If you want to discuss something then you can't set the terms of referance by including something which is contestable - that is there were surgical strikes as fact.
 
If the aim is to protect the status quo by disrupting its sanctity, it remains to be seen how Pakistan readjusts its policy (definitely they are not going to sit idle in Rawalpindi) with this policy shift by India. After their readjustment, if the balance still remains in favor of India this policy shift can be marked as success and not before that. Till then lets reserve our judgement if publicizing the cross-border operation was the right thing to do or not.
 
If the aim is to protect the status quo by disrupting its sanctity, it remains to be seen how Pakistan readjusts its policy (definitely they are not going to sit idle in Rawalpindi) with this policy shift by India. After their readjustment, if the balance still remains in favor of India this policy shift can be marked as success and not before that. Till then lets reserve our judgement if publicizing the cross-border operation was the right thing to do or not.

If Modi govt is trying to make it a precedent then it means there would be a limited war for sure. World countries will be involved then and Kashmir will revive one way or the other
 
If Modi govt is trying to make it a precedent then it means there would be a limited war for sure. World countries will be involved then and Kashmir will revive one way or the other
If the situation escalates to limited war, the policy shift is a fail. Problem with such 'forward policy' is we do not know how to react to a resolute Pakistani response that will be dead set to prove that it is equally capable of a soothing retribution and to regain its prestige that it has traditionally enjoyed since 1947. A war, be it limited or full scale (the N-threshold would be respected in all honesty) is certainly going to hit both countries hard but it is definitely a reversal of all our previous treaties including Shimla agreement which is what Pakistan would be wanting badly.That is why I believe, it would have been better if we had kept the whole operation rapped under complete secrecy just as we did previously.
 
The end arrived with a new beginning and here we have people, still fooling ourselves that this problem can be solved by violence!!
Still hiding behind those lies?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Back
Top Bottom