Myanmar Operation of the Army has changed the mindset towards India.
Military Operation is won by Jawans on the ground inspite of all the developments in equipments. Apart from it a military operation has other components also. These components range from terminology to foreign policy. Hence, it is important to understand all of them to truly appreciate a military operation.
Army carried out an operation on the Indo-Myanmar border and killed some terrorists involved in the June 4 ambush in Chandel district of Manipur in which at least 18 soldiers of 6 Dogra Regiment were martyred. Following the attack, the Indian Army was on a high alert. In the course of the last few days, credible and specific intelligence revealed about further attacks that were being planned within our territory. These attacks were to be carried out by some of the groups involved in earlier attacks on our security personnel and their allies. In view of the imminent threat, an immediate response based on intelligence, operations were conducted to counter these planned assaults. The Indian Army engaged two separate groups of insurgents along the Indo-Myanmar border at two locations, along the Nagaland and Manipur borders. Significant casualties have been inflicted on them. As a consequence, threat to our civilian population and security forces was averted.
The response by the Army is a clear indication that if there is any threat to our security, safety and national integrity, it will meet a firm response.
The Indian Army today said on June 9 that it had launched pre-emptive strikes on insurgents “along” the India-Myanmar border in Nagaland and Manipur, inflicting an unknown number of casualties in operations that were conducted after informing the neighbouring country. Going by the statement it was a Pre-emptive strike. Pre-emptive is defined as use of force by a state against its adversary so as to prevent an attack or to protect its security; it would otherwise be disastrous, if it waits for its adversary to take the first step. Mobilization of the adversary’s army, navy and air force has generally been defined as an imminent threat, for which, it is argued, pre-emptive force is permissible as an act of self defence. Though Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State,” Article 51 says, “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in exercise of this right of self defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council.” There should be an armed attack prior to the pre-emptive strike for Article 51 to be applied. However there is no unanimous interpretation of this provision. Since there is no unanimous acceptance or rejection of whether an armed attack is a necessary pre-condition for pre-emption, it has generally been accepted that a pre-emptive strike can be launched irrespective of a prior armed attack.
Indian Media used two terms to define the above, ‘Surgical Strike’ and ‘Hot Pursuit’
A surgical strike is a military attack which results in, was intended to result in, or is claimed to have resulted in only damage to the intended legitimate military target, and no or minimal collateral damage to surrounding structures, vehicles, buildings, or the general public infrastructure and utilities.
By definition, the action by Indian Army falls under ‘Surgical Strike’.
‘Hot pursuit’ refers to the urgent and direct pursuit of a criminal suspect by law enforcement officers, or by belligerents under international rules of engagement for military forces. Hot pursuit was the term used by Rajyavardhan Rathore, State Minister of I&B.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi had given the go ahead to the Indian Army for “hot pursuit” of militants into Myanmar in which two militant camps were completely annihilated, Union Minister Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore had said.
Diplomatically, Hot Pursuit is better suited. In reality, there is no actual international law that 'permits' hot pursuit across international borders. There are only precedents. Massive Israeli strikes against the PLO in 1980 were justified by Tel Aviv on the grounds of hot pursuit. Iran destroyed Iraqi Kurdish settlements in 1996 citing hot pursuit; Americans destroyed an oil rig, an Iranian frigate and four gunboats in 1988 in Iranian territorial waters, citing hot pursuit and there are many more examples of the same.
The operation by Indian Army is the first (in the public domain) cross-border operation. Earlier Indian forces have participated along with the army of neighbouring countries in neutralising efforts across border but all these operations were along with the Army of the concerned nation. This time, it was a standalone operation by Indian Army.
It didn’t happened earlier, not because our forces were not capable; but it didn’t happen because our leadership was not capable.
The importance of the decision to strike back can be well understood from the report, “The so-called surgical strikes are not easy' which appeared on rediff.com, 12 January 2012; after 9/11 attack, which is as follows:
As the attack in Mumbai went on for 60 hours and New Delhi had as many hours to decide its response. Asked about the government's initial reaction, the source, who did not want to be named, said, “We had an option of a “selected” target to respond against the attack in Mumbai but Pakistan could select at random in retaliation to our strikes. Their missile strikes could hit a densely populated area. We had to make a judgement of the collateral damage of the surgical strike and decide if it is worth it….. He said, “If, for some reason, the military reaction was not successful, then it would have been a greater humiliation than Mumbai. These so-called surgical strikes are not easy.”
He also said diplomatically speaking, the surgical strikes could have possibly blurred the Mumbai attacks into the background and the issue of military action by India would have come up in sharp international focus. By employing the current strategy, the Mumbai attack has remained in focus…. He said, “Pakistan was rattled to hear Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's remarks. Dr Singh, who usually weighs his words carefully, had for the first time said that, the “official agencies” of Pakistan are behind the Mumbai attacks.
The report clearly demonstrates the spineless leadership of Manmohan Singh led UPA and the decisive nationalist leadership of Narendra Modi led NDA.
One may argue that Pakistan and Myanmar are two different countries. Hence I will sight another example of Myanmar.
In April-May 1995, following the signing of a MoU for “maintenance of peace and tranquillity in border areas”, India and Myanmar (then Burma) conducted a joint military operation, “Operation Golden Bird”. The Indian Army’s 57 Mountain Division blocked a column of around 200 NSCN, ULFA and KLO militants moving through the Myanmar-Mizoram border towards Manipur. At the same time, Congress led central government awarded the Nehru Peace Prize to Aung Sang Suu Kyi (Myanmar's opposition leader), angering Myanmar’s military rulers who pulled out of the joint operation. This allowed the trapped militants to escape. It is just another example of Congress led governments lack of interest in National Security and life of defence forces.
To conclude, a military operation might look like an intelligence based defence operation but in reality such operations are based on effective coordination between intelligence, defence, diplomacy, foreign policy and most importantly leadership at the helm.
Sandeep Singh (The writer is founder www.swastik.net.in)
