It would be futile to avoid the fact that governments — across the world — practice questionable means to achieve what they consider to be strategic goals. Defence minister Manohar Parrikar exposed his flank when he remarked at a media event last week that one of the ways to tackle terrorism was to use terrorists. It is not surprising that his thoughtless remark raised eyebrows, even among those who project themselves as hawks.
Parrikar’s remark is an expression of what passes for common wisdom: To remove a thorn, you have to use a thorn. This is open to interpretation. It could mean that to tackle terrorists you need to take the help of former terrorists who know the terror networks better than anyone else. It could also mean that you use terrorism as a way of telling the enemy that terrorism is a game that can be played by both sides. There is, no doubt, that this will be looked upon as sacrilege by the liberals, but in the cynical world of security and strategy, this is indeed par for the course. Parrikar’s statement, which could have been seen as innocuous platitude in a private conversation, is counterproductive as a public pronouncement even by the standards of hard-core strategists.
This is, indeed, what has happened. Pakistan was quick to respond. Sartaj Aziz, who advises Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on foreign affairs, has taken advantage of Parrikar’s unforced error. He said that this was the first time that the minister of an elected government was speaking about using terrorists to counter the terrorism of “non-state actors” from another country. Pakistan has taken full advantage of the opening provided by Parrikar. It is another story that Aziz can be faulted for protesting too much.
Parrikar’s lapsus linguae, if it can be called that, is the dominant, if tacit, credo in the Indian security establishment. As a matter of fact, hawks feel that creating unrest in Pakistan is one of the effective ways of countering Pakistan-supported terrorist acts against India. A cynical view would be that what Parrikar said was quite right but it is not something that should be stated in public. It will be argued that Pakistan offers the best example. It supports “non-state actors”, a pedantic term for semi-private sector terrorism, without ever admitting to it. It follows that India should follow Pakistan in this: be discreet while indulging in subversive acts.
There is a need to counter this entrenched view while taking note of Parrikar’s indiscretion. India will have to take a clear moral stand that it would never choose terrorism or subversive acts as an instrument of policy. It may sound naïve but it is the only way that India can stand up to the challenge of terrorism emanating from Pakistan. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was flayed for agreeing to the concerns of Pakistan over Indian “activities” in Balochistan in the India-Pakistan joint statement issued at Sharm-el-Sheikh in July 2009. Members of the Congress party too were angry with the then PM for exposing the Indian flank. Singh argued, and correctly too, that India had nothing to do with the trouble in Balochistan and it had no hesitation in saying so. But there was the assumption of the so-called realists that this would amount to India admitting to its covert action and it should never be done. It would be better if India did not succumb to the temptations of short-sighted pragmatism.
The easier option would be to make fun of the ineptitude of the Modi government in matters of the State. But that would be missing the point. The premise of tit-for-tat of the security experts will have to be laid to rest.