Following the
US
attack on
Afghanistan
,
Israel
’s action in Gaza Strip, the attacks on the Srinagar Legislative Assembly and the Indian Parliament, there seems to be a growing belief that military retaliation can be extended to other problem spots. The debate in
India
has inclined towards crossing the LoC and undertaking ‘hot pursuit’ with several voices in the Indian government, Omar Abdullah, LK Advani and George Fernandes not ruling it out.
In international law the ‘right of hot pursuit’ on land is recognised as the chasing of armed infiltrators across international borders.
Congo
and
Uganda
approached the International Court of Justice in June 2000 when the Ugandan army undertook hot pursuit and entered
Congo
. International law rejects the right of hot pursuit on the high seas, outside the 200 mile exclusive economic zone, a norm stated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, in Article 111 There is a growing consensus in the international community that any person or group perpetuating violence against innocent civilians is a terrorist and not a freedom fighter. There also is a growing understanding that terrorism cannot be eradicated by a single country-indeed the US will find it difficult to muster the mandate required to take action against suspected other ‘harbourers’ of terrorism like Iraq or Iran.
Should
India
cross the LoC? The answer to this question becomes more difficult when one takes into account the number of factors that impact on any such decision. Below are four such factors:
Politically, if
India
crosses the LoC, launches a ground or air offensive (to minimise ground casualties),
Pakistan
might retaliate by launching a ground or air offensive against
India
in other sectors. The Pakistani response may not be limited to one sector or region. General Musharraf is already facing a strong anti-establishment sentiment domestically; a war against
India
(started by
India
-or so would be his reasoning) maybe in his best interests to serve as a rallying point.
India
will also have to think of its military objectives. The Indian Army does have the military capability to undertake a hot pursuit operation, but would its aim be limited to destroying the training camps, most of them like Oghi village, Ojheri camp, Para Chinar, Saidgali and
Sargodha
have already shut down operations. Or would hot pursuit envisage ‘salami slicing’ of PoK territory. Would
India
therefore occupy and retain any territory or would closing down training camps be its only objective, these camps can, obviously be quickly established elsewhere.
If
India
crosses the LoC and
Pakistan
decides that it is threatened and issues a warning that it would contemplate its nuclear option, what would be the Indian response? Would
India
stop the air strikes/ recall its troops and call off the operation? Or would it go ahead and continue in the hope that
Pakistan
will not escalate the war to a higher or nuclear level An element of strategic uncertainty obtains here..
Further,
India
will lose the moral high ground that it gained after Kargil by exercising restraint and not crossing the LoC. Also the
US
and other countries will immediately put diplomatic pressure on
India
to halt its operations. It could lead otherwise to
India
’s diplomatic isolation and prejudice its chances of getting a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.
India
should consequently finesse its diplomatic moves by highlighting
Pakistan
’s role as a perpetuator of violence in
Kashmir
to the world and build up political pressure on
Pakistan
to stop aiding crossborder terrorism. This may be a wiser strategy than contemplating hot pursuit, which could lead to military escalation and diplomatic isolation.
Facebook
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
