‘All options’ are really non-options

NEW DELHI: External affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee has talked of India “exploring all options” to get Pakistan to rein in its terrorist groups, but a closer examination of some of these “options” suggests that they are either not options at all, or they serve limited political objectives at best.

Many experts that DNA spoke to said the government had to take some kind of coercive action to show that it meant business, but beyond appeasing domestic political opinion, it may not have any major impact on Pakistan’s terror shops.

The experts essentially talked of four major options: One, limited air strikes on about a dozen prominent terrorist camps located mostly in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK); two, covert action within Pakistan; three, a limited naval blockade of Karachi to pressure the Pakistan economy; and four, a limited border war at a location of India’s choice.

Ajay Sahni, director, Institute for Conflict Management, said India doesn’t have any immediate military option: “Any overt action will be counter-productive, and it will also not succeed in causing any damage to the terror infrastructure. The only realistic option is covert operations, for which we will have to develop capabilities.”  

The first option - limited air strikes on terror camps in PoK - is considered the most feasible. Several intelligence and military officers said India should immediately look at limited air strikes on prominent terror camps inside PoK to let Pakistan know India can retaliate. A former senior intelligence officer said limited air strikes are the best option: “Though they may retaliate with missiles or air violations, it wouldn’t escalate into a nuclear scenario.”

Retired air marshal Vinod Patney, who headed the western air command during the Kargil conflict and oversaw the air operations then, said: “Terrorism cannot be finished overnight, but it can be controlled to an extent by exhibiting to them [Pakistan] that they will be punished.”

Patney said a “punitive air strike is very feasible and I recommend it”. Besides such an attack on terrorist infrastructure, India should develop “covert action capabilities”, he said.

But a military strike can’t just be one-off action. It has to be combined with diplomatic and political action and reforms in internal security and intelligence gathering, Patney said. “We do have military capabilities without a doubt,” he said, but such action would lead to collateral damage - like killing civilians in Pakistan, too. “It won’t be intentional, but what can we do if Pakistan is not willing to put an end to this menace?” he said.

“Pakistan’s estimate that India’s tolerance threshold has been raised infinitely because of its nuclear capability is wrong,” said Ajit Doval, a former head of the Intelligence Bureau. “India is capable of disproving this doctrine.” Doval, a prominent advocate of aggressive covert action against Pakistan who mooted several such plans while in service, did not discuss any specific action.

But there are some who differ. A senior serving intelligence officer said that by now most of the terror camps may have been vacated. “Any limited strike may not achieve much,” he said.

Sahni of the Institute of Conflict Management said covert operations need not be violent. “There are a whole range of covert instruments that can be deployed to cause long-term damage to the terror infrastructure and the support enjoyed by terror groups from within the Pakistani establishment. These instruments can be economic, social, or political.”