'We need to raise the costs and consequences for Pakistan. It is long overdue. Our initial surgical strike was effective for about six months. Then, the Balakot strike provided a deterrent for perhaps two to three years. But we cannot operate under the assumption that such limited responses will suffice for decades to come.'
In the wake of a brazen terror strike in Pahalgam, Kashmir — one that coincided with high-level diplomatic outreach to Saudi Arabia and an ongoing visit of US Vice President J D Vance to the region — Maj Gen (Retd) G D Bakshi minces no words in the second and concluding part of this interview with Prasanna D Zore/Rediff.com.
"This is India's now-or-never moment," he avers, calling for a punishing response to Pakistan.
How should the Indian State reassure its citizens about their safety in Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370, especially given the government's repeated assertions that normalcy has returned to Jammu and Kashmir?
Look, the abrogation of Article 370 was undoubtedly a positive step. However, when it was implemented, we should have simultaneously strengthened the presence of security forces in Jammu and Kashmir by inducting a significant number of paramilitary personnel.
While there was an initial increase, this was followed by a decision that the army was no longer as essential and represented a financial burden.
Any nation that views its army as a mere expense will eventually pay a heavy price. So, there was a clear contradiction in our approach.
On one hand, we rightly removed Article 370, but with such a significant change, we should have been prepared for the potential consequences.
For a period, under the guise of the Amarnath Yatra, we did flood the area with troops. My ground experience is that whenever you super-saturate an area with security forces, it effectively ends terrorism and insurgency. This was evident in Punjab when we heavily deployed troops, and the same occurred in Jammu and Kashmir when we had a strong military presence. The results were plain to see.
I commanded the Kishtwar sector when the back of terrorism was broken, and the area experienced peace and quiet from 2000 to 2003. I commanded Romeo Force, which had 18 battalions under its command at that time, and we effectively dismantled their operations.
Now, when I inquired about the current battalion strength, I was told there are only seven. So, who is filling this security vacuum? Pakistan?
I fail to understand why this simple logic is not being grasped.
Why have some overly theoretical individuals taken charge and concluded that manpower is irrelevant and that we should emulate the United States?
Do we have two vast oceans protecting our borders?
Do we have neighbours like Canada and Mexico?
We have arguably the most challenging neighbourhood imaginable. Therefore, we must be prepared for immediate contingencies. Wars don't provide advance notice of five years. We need to be ready at a moment's notice, and for that, our greatest asset is our youthful manpower.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Saudi Arabia for a bilateral meeting with the Saudi king. Does it appear that certain elements in Pakistan or even within the Saudi establishment might have wanted to disrupt this meeting, given India's efforts to forge a stronger relationship with Saudi Arabia, and consequently orchestrated this terrorist attack?
Notably, US Vice President J D Vance is currently visiting the region.
Historically, whenever prominent American leaders such as Bill Clinton or others have visited the subcontinent, there has often been a significant terror strike coinciding with their visit.
This is a tactic employed by Pakistan to underscore that the Kashmir issue is not resolved and remains a significant point of contention. This recent attack appears to be precisely that.
Saudi Arabia is a crucial Muslim nation, arguably the most important in terms of geostrategic influence. We are actively pursuing the establishment of trade corridors with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Israel, connecting us to Europe, among other initiatives. This meeting was clearly critical and has been disrupted.
If such a disruption occurs and we are seen internationally as unable to prevent such attacks, it damages our standing. Therefore, a forceful and deterring retaliatory response is all the more necessary.
Do you see a direct link to Pakistan in this attack? Did Pakistan want to undermine the improving relationship between India and Saudi Arabia?
For goodness sake, are you suggesting there might not be a Pakistani connection?
Pakistan's involvement is evident throughout this entire episode. It directly leads India to the inevitable conclusion that Pakistan is responsible. Therefore, action is imperative.
If there is a desire to find excuses for inaction, then one might engage in the kind of questioning you are posing.
I apologise for being blunt, but if we are seeking reasons not to act, it is plain to even the most naive observer that Pakistan's hand is all over this.
What are we trying to imply? That Pakistan is not involved because we are hesitant to take action? We seem to be searching for an escape clause to avoid making difficult decisions.
We must make those hard choices and clearly communicate to the world that a country of India's stature cannot be provoked without facing significant consequences.
We need to raise the costs and consequences for Pakistan. It is long overdue.
Our initial surgical strike was effective for about six months. Then, the Balakot strike provided a deterrent for perhaps two to three years.
But we cannot operate under the assumption that such limited responses will suffice for decades to come. These retaliations were hardly substantial in their impact. The costs imposed on Pakistan were minimal.
Yes, there were some casualties -- perhaps 30 to 40 in the Uri attack and around 200 in the Balakot strike -- but these were insufficient to serve as a long-term deterrent.
With a nation like Pakistan, these lessons need to be reinforced repeatedly, and each time, the intensity of the lesson must be made more excruciating and painful.
How should the Indian Army and central security forces recalibrate their counterinsurgency doctrine in the valley following this attack, particularly concerning non-traditional targets like tourist hubs?
Firstly, let's discard these overly sophisticated, novel approaches.
There seems to be a segment of individuals who believe that everything preceding their involvement was flawed and that they have arrived to revolutionise the landscape and instruct the army on warfare, the air force on aviation, and the navy on maritime operations.
We possess highly combat-experienced armed forces.
We have successfully conducted such operations before. Let us proceed in our proven manner.
We must cease the depletion of troops from vital and vulnerable areas -- those mountainous, densely forested regions that are ideal for terrorist activity. We need to re-establish our robust counterinsurgency grids.
What would be your message to the political leadership in New Delhi as well as to the people of India at this moment of profound grief and anger?
My heart goes out to the victims and their families. For heaven's sake, how much longer must we endure the sight of Indian widows and daughters weeping inconsolably? We must now deliver a decisive response.
The nation expects its leadership to act, and I believe we must now do so in a manner that is truly substantial and impactful.
India must hit Pakistan hard where it hurts the most. This is India’s 'now-or-never' moment indeed. It unequivocally is.
If we are unwilling to act and seek justifications for inaction, we can delude ourselves with various arguments -- 'Oh, it's not Pakistan; it's just a terrorist organisation, and Pakistan has no involvement.’ We must stop offering such alibis and take decisive action. The time to act is now.