Opinion: 'Sound and fury over a covert operation signifies nothing', writes MG Devasahayam

It also added that the operations, aimed at neutralising the terrorists, have since ceased and there were no plans for continuation of further operations.

But some fanatics pounced on it and indulged in unabashed hatred-peddling. As if eye-witnesses, they rattled out the number of ‘launch-pads’ attacked, army units that conducted the strike, number of soldiers in the strike force, distance the soldiers walked, weapons used, ammunition fired and precise number of  terrorists killed. 

Electronic media went ballistic and encouraged use of expletives and jingoist language. Anchors and panellists did not separate fact from fiction. Saner voices were shouted down as heretic. Debates were so scary that there was panic all over as if war was imminent. People living in the border areas of Punjab evacuated their villages abandoning crops ready for harvesting. 

Why all this ‘sound and fury’ on a small and covert operation by world’s third largest Army? Soon enough the cat was out of the bag. Mukesh Aghi, president of U.S. India Business Council, a business advocacy organisation working to boost India-US trade, made a brazen statement that the expected increase in India’s defence spending due to the current stand-off with Pakistan has presented a “tremendous business opportunity” to major U.S. companies including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon to expand their Indian operations by selling technology and big-ticket defence items! 

This business agenda was echoed by some former Generals who said that the successful ‘surgical strikes’ could kick-start a new phase of confrontation between India and Pakistan, possibly characterised by wholly new strategies which will be tested over time and refined. The big question is: confrontation for what purpose-to wage another full-fledged war after 45 long years? 

In war, India has three options–conventional, sub-conventional and nuclear. Allout nuclear war is out of the question. Sub-conventional warfare involves stealth attacks and guerrilla tactics, similar to the Army’s surgical strikes. The third option is conventional warfare. On this India did have huge advantage over Pakistan in institutional, economic and military terms before the Pokharan nuclear bomb test explosions in May 1998 closely followed by Pakistani explosions which brought both countries on par. That is why Pakistan now has the audacity to taunt India through repeated border violations. 

In any conventional warfare with Pakistan it is the Indian army that will be at the forefront. As of now the revenue to capital ratio of army spending is highly skewed in favour of the former as much as 85:15. This indicates that a large amount of budget-spend for the army is towards pay and allowances rather than for capital expenditure. This leaves the Army with acute shortage of arms and ammunition. In the event, India is not prepared to wage a conventional long-term war.  Army  top-brass has been continuously pointing out this severe flaw to the government, but of no avail. Realising these constraints and shortfalls they have been reticent and restrained.  

Besides, there is the ‘development imperative’. “Freedom is the outcome of the tranquility of Peace,” is a famous saying. Without these two attributes in a nation there cannot be ‘development.’ War is the enemy of freedom and peace and therefore that of ‘development’. Baying for war will divert scarce resources towards massive arms purchase? While the arms-merchants flourish soldiers will die and people suffer. Why then this warmongering?