Politicising Kargil

As was only to be expected, Kargil has become a major issue in the ongoing elections. Both the ruling coalition and the opposition have been using the short, undeclared war India and Pakistan fought to gain control of the Kargil heights to score a few debating points. This kind of interaction is fine and is to be expected in a democracy. But the same cannot be said about Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee8217;s statement in Rajasthan on Tuesday that the Indian Navy had been put on alert and Pakistan would have been engaged at sea if it had continued the war. It is not known what purpose Vajpayee had in mind when he blurted out the Navy8217;s contingency plans in case of a prolonged war. Surely the Army and the Air Force too would have drawn up similar plans to take on Pakistan if it tried to be nastier with India. That is what the armed forces all over the world do, thinking of ways to protect their nation from enemy attack. But to bring such secret plans within the domain of public debate is unusual and quiteunbecoming to the Prime Minister. The high-water mark of the Kargil war, fought entirely within Indian territory, was the restraint showed all along by India.

It was this restraint, which earned universal acclaim, that kept the war confined to the Kargil heights. It was certainly a difficult task restraining the defence forces in the face of blatant violations of the Line of Control and provocative acts like the downing of an Indian aircraft and the torture and killing of Indian soldiers. The restraint India showed had a salutary effect on international public opinion. For the first time, Pakistan found that its adventurism had no backers, even among fellow Islamic nations, not to speak of Western liberal democracies. As a result, there was greater appreciation of India8217;s stand on Kashmir, that it is a bilateral issue that needs to be settled through bilateral negotiations. In all this, India8217;s efforts at de-escalation played a key role. But now, to tell the whole world that India had such and such plans toinflict a crushing defeat on Pakistan is to show the country in a poor light. It will only negate the advantages India has reaped over the restraint shown during the conflict. In any case, military strategy is seldom discussed in public.

Ideally, the Kargil victory should be seen as India8217;s victory, achieved through the sacrifices of hundreds of soldiers. There is no need to see it as the achievement of any particular party or political formation as the war transcended all kinds of divisions, whether political, regional or religious. To take credit for the martyrdom of the brave jawans is to plummet to a base and vile degree. The opposition, too, has not been conducting itself in a dignified manner with its needless aggression on Kargil. Such attacks and counter-attacks will do little justice to the soldiers who sacrificed their lives for the peace that prevails on the border. While the larger issue of national security is debatable, getting into the nitty-gritty of what the armed forces should have done ornot when they confronted the intruders is to tread dangerous ground. There is as much need for restraint now as there was during the Kargil conflict.