An act of self-defence

India makes a successful case for surgical strikes to the world. Now government must address doubts within.

Written by Chinmaya R Gharekhan | Updated: October 10, 2016 1:12 pm
surgical strikes, india pakistan, strikes, pakistan terrorism, india attack pakistan, loc strikes, india strikes, questions on surgical strikes, international law, Un security council, defence, 2001 american afgan intervention, uri attack, baramulla firing, indian express opinion India’s surgical strike was carried out in the early hours of September 29.

According to current international law, there are only two scenarios in which armed intervention by one state in the territory of another is permitted: With the authorisation of the UN Security Council or in self-defence. All other use of force is illegal. The Security Council’s authorisation comes in the form of a resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter. Thus, the American intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 was legitimate since it had been approved by the Security Council whereas its invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was illegal since it did not have the UN’s endorsement.

WATCH VIDEO

As for the right of self-defence, it has been strictly defined in Article 51 of the Charter. This right is available only in the event of an attack by another state. It cannot be invoked in anticipation of an attack.

India’s surgical strike carried out in the early hours of September 29 is justified on two counts. It was clearly an act of self-defence after the Uri attack; the Charter does not say the right of self-defence must be exercised within a prescribed time limit. Secondly, it was not legally speaking, an armed action in the territory of another state. After the partition of the Subcontinent, Pakistan signed a Standstill Agreement with the ruler of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. India did not sign this instrument. Pakistan launched an invasion of Kashmir despite having signed the Agreement. The ruler asked for India’s help, but India refused in the absence of the ruler concluding the Instrument of Accession with India. Only after he did so did India rush troops to repulse the invaders. Thus, India’s military action in 1947 and all subsequent such actions, including the one on September 29, were within our own territory and hence not a violation of international law.

WATCH VIDEO

In an address on “India’s Foreign Policy” to the Indian Council of World Affairs on March 22, 1949, Prime Minister Nehru said about relations with Pakistan: “There is no doubt at all in my mind that it is inevitable for India and Pakistan to have close relations — very close relations sometime or the other in future, situated as we are, with all our past. We cannot really be just indifferent neighbours. We can either be rather hostile to one another or very friendly with one another. Ultimately, we can only be really friendly, whatever period of hostility may intervene in between”. Nehru’s conviction was understandable since he did not have to deal with another aggression by Pakistan after 1947-48.

What Nehru said in 1949 about hostility has been proved right. Unfortunately, his confidence that ultimately there have to be really good relations at some time in future has yet to be borne out after a 70-year history, mostly of hostility.

Many analysts have criticised the government’s “flip flop” policy towards Pakistan. Consistency is not necessarily a virtue in diplomacy; it might even indicate lack of adaptability to changing circumstances. Pakistan is consistent in its India policy; it is consistently hostile. But we, most of us anyway, genuinely wish for “non-hostile” relations with Pakistan. Hence, we need to be pragmatic, flexible and subtle in diplomacy. We also need to be realistic.

PM Modi was right to have tried the friendly approach by inviting Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration ceremony and also to drop in in Lahore to wish Sharif on his birthday. It is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all.

Many Pakistan watchers believe that Nawaz Sharif genuinely wants better relations with India. Well, so far, he has given no evidence that he is unhappy with the military’s anti-India stance.

There was also a question about the wisdom of raking up the Balochistan issue. The government must have thought through the possible consequences and the end result that it might have in mind. However, unlike J&K, Balochistan is not on the agenda of the UN Security Council.

It was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who had agreed to bring Balochistan into the bilateral agenda at Sharm el-Sheikh. The government has been careful in not calling for secession or independence for the Baloch people which will not get support from any other country. “Bangladesh” cannot be repeated in Balochistan. Perhaps the government has another objective in mind. Focusing on the hazardous security situation in Balochistan as well as in Gilgit Baltistan might give China second thoughts on the China Pakistan Economic Corridor. At a minimum, it will slow down the pace of work on the Corridor. Already, China has asked Pakistan to ensure security for the projects which form part of the scheme.

The government’s campaign to diplomatically isolate Pakistan has succeeded at least beyond this writer’s expectations. In South Asia, Pakistan has been forced to postpone the SAARC summit. All other members of SAARC have condemned the Uri attack. Each of these countries has its own reasons for the decision. Nevertheless, the fact that they announced their non-participation so soon after India did suggests a solidarity with India. Internationally, all major powers have supported India. Pakistan’s effort to raise the issue in the Security Council has been rebuffed. Uri has had an impact the Pakistan establishment simply did not anticipate.

But this does not mean total isolation. Pakistan is a significant military power and has at least one reliable friend in China. The concern that some countries have expressed at the tensions and their advice to both countries to resume dialogue is legitimate and should not be taken as unfriendly to India. In this context, it is imperative for us to keep in close touch with those powers, not least with Russia.

Some political parties have expressed doubts about the army’s claim of having carried out the surgical strikes, quoting Pakistan’s denial as well as UN observers. We should dismiss the UN part of it since we do not recognise its jurisdiction. As for Pakistan, what else can one expect? The government is justified in not wanting to release the video of the operation. The Pakistan establishment is still smarting from 1971.

Releasing the video will add to their humiliation and make it impossible for them not to react in some fashion. Nevertheless, the government can and ought to take responsible politicians into confidence and arrange a private, confidential screening of the video to remove all doubts.

The writer is India’s former permanent representative at the UN, is adjunct senior fellow, Delhi Policy Group. Views are personal

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. S
    SubbuI
    Oct 10, 2016 at 5:08 am
    TRUTH IS BETTER YOU BAKHTS OF NALAYAK NMODI. FIRST UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE WRITER TRY TO CONVEY.DON'T ABUSE HIM BECAUSE HIS NAME.(We don't know for sure this gentleman is Hindu or Muslim). LOOK OUT FOR A RAT AND GET LOST BEORE2019
    Reply
    1. A
      Arvind
      Oct 10, 2016 at 5:39 am
      Another bhangi yapping here
      Reply
      1. A
        Arvind
        Oct 10, 2016 at 5:39 am
        Bureaucrats and Diplomats and Lawyers are overstating their positions. Its really quite simple. India has a right to self defense 5 times over, Bombay, Pathankot, Uri, Parliament and many others. We are legally allowed to carry out strikes 20 times over. So lets not be carried away by the views of Babus, Lawyers and Diplomats. We have to defend our country and ensure that our people are not killed by terrorists from stan
        Reply
        1. A
          Arvind
          Oct 10, 2016 at 5:26 pm
          Check again. This in no way alters the casualties of the Let and other groups terrorists killed on the line of control. People in stan are other country centric. They are more interested in Russia, China and the US. The Indian Army message is local and it has been delivered to the terror groups of stan and the ISI and the are the ones we are interested in. No country in the world has supported the internationalizing of the Kashmir issue by stan and no one has denied the right of India to self defense.
          Reply
          1. A
            aggrieved indian
            Oct 10, 2016 at 12:15 am
            Mr Gharekhan.. please move over real quick... while you were paying back the Nehruhi dynasty , I a new India has emerged... much more self confidence and aggressive. As far as UN is concerned it was reduced to status of used toilet paper if the powerful nations... So it's fade into retirement please Mr Gharekan... we neither need you nor your comment... baju hut.... move aside please
            Reply
            1. B
              Bhagwat Goel
              Oct 10, 2016 at 4:10 am
              WHO IS THIS GHADEKHAN TALKING LIKE TRAITOR WITH FLOWERY ARGUEMENTS? SHOULD BE PUT BEHIND THE BARS TRYING TO UNDERMINE ONGOING WAR EFFORT.
              Reply
              1. D
                Devendra Nagar
                Oct 10, 2016 at 4:06 pm
                Even selected political leaders should be shown video under oath of secrecy as the political stuff has tendency to fall to lowest level at an earliest opportunity.
                Reply
                1. S
                  Sriniwasan
                  Oct 10, 2016 at 5:23 am
                  I agree to the former Indian UN Official views partly.However,what I am unable to understand is the views of the Indian Political Cl including the FO Babus.while we have a parliament resolution of 1994 which is unanimously ped stating that the entire JandK belongs to the Union of India and yet time and again Indian has been unable to enforce the resolution and hit itself in the foot,by saying that LOC is inviolable.lt;br/gt;Why this contradiction and this itself smacks of Indian political duplicity while dealing with stan?
                  Reply
                  1. G
                    George Cruz
                    Oct 10, 2016 at 3:15 pm
                    This IE journalist is totally wrong in his essment regarding the BJP's surgical strikes in the POK. The real facts are that India is a democratic/secular country and not a banana republic like the Islamic stan to commit terror. India has suffered the loss of lives of innocent citizens because of the barbaric terror attacks by the Islamic terrorists from stan on Mumbai, India's Parliament, and recently on Uri, and unlike the corrupt congress the BJP/Modi resorted to these surgical strikes in the POK under its new strategy of punishing stan. the BJP is not obliged to reveal to anyone about the details regarding these strikes but the opposition parties like Congress, the Communists, the AAP, etc have gone anti-national by putting their parties interests above the national interests.
                    Reply
                    1. B
                      BharatK
                      Oct 10, 2016 at 8:01 pm
                      Fellow Bharatiya/Indian: IGNORE these Pak elements. Do not entertain them by replies, and waste your time.
                      Reply
                      1. B
                        BharatK
                        Oct 10, 2016 at 7:59 pm
                        There are no dearth of traitors in India, who will work as agents of foreign forces. Govt should not release anything for atleast 10 years.
                        Reply
                        1. L
                          laiqzaman
                          Oct 10, 2016 at 11:15 am
                          I think to release video to the opposition leader that is impossible because the surgical strikes are the only consolation drama for the Indian people .secondly we the people of stan observed two soldiers being martyred due to cross boarder fires . To stop the economic corridor that,s may be the dream of India but due to commited people and proudful army that,s dream will be remain dream . To isolate Baluchistan that may the vehem of Indian peoples but this vehem will be remain vehem inshahallah
                          Reply
                          1. M
                            m
                            Oct 10, 2016 at 5:05 am
                            stan signed a Standstill Agreement with the ruler of the state of Jammu and Kashmir..---- this makes pak a third party and an outsider to kashmir
                            Reply
                            1. M
                              Mayur Punekar
                              Oct 10, 2016 at 10:52 am
                              A good article but look at the way IE twisted its headline to look line another libtard asking govt. to release proofs. lt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;One suggestion to author, pls don't write again for this Maoist mouth piece, instead try neutral avenues or simply upload it to facebook. At least no one will twist your headline to look like you are also one of the libtard.
                              Reply
                              1. R
                                Rajesh Mehta
                                Oct 10, 2016 at 6:57 am
                                A very fine piece of writing and reflection. Given the politically driven motives of strike-doubters, it may be best to leave them to their doubts and let the public judge them.
                                Reply
                                1. R
                                  Real Truth
                                  Oct 10, 2016 at 6:35 am
                                  There is absolutely no need to release anything. Let traitors keep bleating that will expose them to the mes.
                                  Reply
                                  1. R
                                    Ramesh Chhabra
                                    Oct 10, 2016 at 1:54 pm
                                    No background music from media, pl.
                                    Reply
                                    1. R
                                      Rohit Chandavarker
                                      Oct 10, 2016 at 6:56 am
                                      The precision strikes were meant as a warning signal to the stani establishment that India reserves the right to retaliate at the time and place of its choosing, should stan continue its nefarious designs of hurting India with a thousand cuts. The days of strategic restraint are over and a policy of pro activism is likely to be followed. The Indian Govt. has talked of PoK being a part of entire Kashmir Hence implicit in the action and utterances is the fact that sancy of LoC is not sacrosanct anymore.lt;br/gt;These strikes sought to raise the costs on stan.lt;br/gt;The options before the Govt. are diplomatic, economic, covert and overt actions and military, to subdue the stani onslaught. A judicious mix of all options can prove useful. One cannot surmise that these actions would bring the stanis on track but the erstwhile policies have failed to bring about a change in stan's actions. lt;br/gt;What might be worrying for stan is the successful lobbying of the Govt. with the Gulf states. These states were staunch supporters of stan financially, morally and politically. In fact Saudi Arabia had mooted a g Sunni coalition to be led by stan against Yemen's tilt towards Shiite Iran. However, stan rebuffed the proposal angering the Sunni states in the Gulf. India will have to engage more closely with Iran if it wants to further its strategic imprint across Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia by sidelining stan. lt;br/gt;The conscious effort at downgrading SAARC while energising BIMSTEC is a move to isolate stan in the region and is likely to benefit most nations in South Asia. lt;br/gt;Finally, there is a move to unravel the internal fissures like Balochistan, Pakhtunistan, Gilgit and PoK. These issues are also likely to stymie Chinese ambitions of executing CPEC. The stan-China nexus will strain if unrest increases and deepens putting further pressure on Rawalpindi.
                                      Reply
                                      1. R
                                        Romm
                                        Oct 9, 2016 at 10:28 pm
                                        Reply
                                        1. X
                                          xyz
                                          Oct 10, 2016 at 12:00 am
                                          Modi is trying to do dalali over the blood split by the Indian army. As per The Hindu there was a surgical strike in 2011 deadlier than in 2016. MMS or UPA did not boast about it nor did they do dalali like Modi.
                                          Reply
                                          1. S
                                            Sham
                                            Oct 10, 2016 at 9:26 am
                                            A very good resume of the situation. I agree with the contents except the last paragraph of taking "responsible politicians" in to confidence. Is Rahul of Congress a responsible politician? He is more a teenager than a responsible politician. Is Chindrabram of Congress a responsible politician? He is corrupt to the core and anti-national with his handling of terrorism during his time as Home Minister. Is AAP Kejriwal a responsible politician?. First thing he will say, after watching the proof, will be that they are fake, as was the case with Mr. Modi's degree. The communists will give Kashmir as a gift to stan. I think it was a right decison by the Government not to release a proof or show it to anybody outside the government.
                                            Reply
                                            1. Load More Comments