Responding to Pune

India needs a holistic, well-crafted response that balances its short-term, mid-term and long-term goals vis-à-vis Pakistan.

The jehadis have struck again on the Indian mainland; this time in Pune, albeit more than a year after the horrendous terror attacks on Mumbai in November 2008. The initial response, while going with the most plausible and popular assumption that the blast was the handiwork of Pakistan based jehadi groups, is one of indignation. Perhaps understandably so as tempers are bound to run high. And this emotion is likely to be further amplified as the Indian mainstream media hyperventilates and virtually runs amok with its over the top coverage of the incident.

On the other end of the spectrum is the rather logical sounding response that India should unequivocally reaffirm its commitment to continue peace talks with Pakistan, as the sole aim of the perpetrators of this blast is to disrupt these peace talks. This response would appeal to both realists and peaceniks alike.

So what is the correct response — surgical strikes against Pakistan or talks with Pakistan come what may? The response, in the end, has to come from the government of India and it will not be easy for them to articulate one. One way of framing the desired response is by breaking it down into Indian goals in a short-term, mid-term and long-term framework.

The short-term goal of the Indian government is to assuage the hurt feelings of Indians and protect them from any terror attacks in the future. It has to also somehow convey to Pakistan that India is not willing to be pummelled by non-state actors sponsored by sections of the Pakistani establishment. But how does it do that? Indian government has not been able to figure it out for the last 25 years when the country has been prone to such terror attacks.  One of the simplest ways of conveying a message across the border is to emulate the deeds of Mossad in the UAE. Surely, it is not too much to ask of the Indian state.

In the mid-term, there is no option for India but to talk to Pakistan. This will deny Pakistan the excuse that Indian intransigence is preventing it from meeting the US goals in the region. Pakistan assumes great importance in the current US war plans which can be aptly described to be based on the hammer and anvil theory. As the US military offensive in Afghanistan moves southwards from Marja, Pakistan military will have to hold the jehadis from its side of the Durand Line. It is in India’s interest that the US strategy succeeds. India has to also continue to talk to Pakistan so that the idea that the complete region, India-Af-Pak is one single theatre, doesn’t gain ground and become accepted wisdom the world over.

When it comes to Indian long-term goals vis-à-vis Pakistan, it is a long story. To put it in a nutshell, Pakistan needs a Macarthur. Period.

If you look at the debate on the subject in this country, most of it is unbalanced and focused on only one of the above goals. This focus on only one of the goals, while completely ignoring the others, is detrimental to the national interest. However, it must be conceded that there are inherent conflicts between the three goals and balancing them simultaneously is a very tricky proposition. It presents a real challenge which the policy makers in the government of India must confront and overcome.

Connect

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

, , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to Responding to Pune

  1. rishi February 14, 2010 at 1:12 am #

    “If you look at the debate on the subject in this country, most of it is unbalanced and focused on only one of the above goals. This focus on only one of the goals, while completely ignoring the others, is detrimental to the national interest.”

    Well said.

  2. Gagrin February 14, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    well written …but a challenge which is not overcome since last 25 yrs does not remain a challenge by itself – becomes a state of weak nation !

  3. SR Murthy February 14, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    In the short term, overt responses are ruled out since they work against India. But let us look at Pakistan’s strategy on India — commit terrorism under the plausibly deniale excuse that these Pakistani terrorists are of Indian origin.

    India can play the exact game on Pakistan in reverse and India has even better plausible deniability because Pakistan has plenty of terrorist groups in Pakistani territory that hate the Pakistani Army. My question is “what is stopping the Indian govt. from following such strategies with low political risk that can seriously harm the Pakistani Army?”. Clearly, the USA cannot be trusted not to leak information to the jihadis if necessary to stop India’s response — the USA must be kept out of this and all future investigations into terrorist attacks.

    This does not absolve the people in charge of India in the response — they need to conduct acts to decapitate the enemy in his own territory. There is enough mayhem in Pakistan that it is not going to be blamed on India….so again, what exactly is this UPA govt. waiting for? An invitation from Kayani?

    This does not mean that anything needs to be said to the public, but plenty can be done without talking, or so one would expect of supposedly working govt. that has a job to protect Indians from terrorism.

  4. math error February 14, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    “Indian government has not been able to figure it out for the last 25 years when the country has been prone to such terror attacks.”

    Request read 2500 years ?

  5. SR Murthy February 15, 2010 at 4:10 am #

    http://tinyurl.com/yakoep7

    If RDX was used in Pune, then removing RDX-producing ability from the MJC would of very high benefit — is a country of 1 billion incapable of targeted ops of this sort? There would not even be a need to announce such steps to the public as long as they happen, because without RDX or other explosive materials, these terrorists would have to work much harder to cause as many casualties as the single bomb did in Pune.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pune terror attacks | The Filter Coffee - February 14, 2010

    [...] of challenging the infrastructure that supports such attacks.  Pragmatic Euphony’s excellent post details how India should lay out short- medium- and long-term goals vis-a-vis Pakistan.  In the [...]

  2. Pune and after (2) | The Acorn - February 14, 2010

    [...] Links: On INI, Pragmatic Euphony and The Filter Coffee on how India should respond. 14 Feb 2010 | Concerning Foreign Affairs, [...]

  3. Global Voices Online » India: What Should Be The Response Against Terror? - February 15, 2010

    [...] the aftermath of the terror attack in Pune The Filter Coffee and Pragmatic Euphony discuss how India should respond. Cancel this [...]

  4. India: What Should Be The Response Against Terror? - February 15, 2010

    [...] the aftermath of the terror attack in Pune The Filter Coffee and Pragmatic Euphony discuss how India should [...]

  5. Pragmatic Euphony » To tackle Maoists, begin with police reforms - February 18, 2010

    [...] a short detour here. When it comes to fighting jehadi terror, it is very easy in this country to start a debate about the role of Pakistan and how India should either talk or bomb Pakistan out. Little attention though is paid in the [...]

Leave a Reply