The battle is against the Pakistani psyche

At the end of all the views and perspectives, what's the final take on the Akshardham assault? Two Paki terrorists exterminated in exchange for the lives of 30-odd innocent Indians, considerable collateral damage and expense, and a feeling of national humiliation, of helplessness. That's the entire take -- period.

Anger and bravura have been the accompaniments. "Just blow up Pak's terrorist camps" is the revived solution. "Go to war " has been the second cry. "We will suffer this no more," roars Bal Thackeray, even as the deputy prime minister would have us believe that Pakistan's proxy war is on its last legs. "We can't rely on America," says the BJP National Executive. "We'll have to win this battle on our own" echoes the PM.

But nobody seems to have a clue as to how exactly the battle is to be won. Re-read all the analyses and angst and anger that's on record after Akshardham, and you'll hardly find a solution to latch on to, excepting the will-o'-the-wisp of engaging Pakistan to negotiate a deal on J&K with the help of the eager beaver facilitator, USA. But that path too is no guarantee against Pak's evil eye on us -- past experience from Jawaharlal Nehru down through Indira Gandhi, I K Gujral and Atal Bihari Vajpayee is proof of that.

What about waging a war on Pakistan? If we do that, we must be prepared to see our country in the doghouse -- economically and internationally. It should by now clear to even the most naïve that India committing aggression on Pakistan will bring the USA, China and Europe to punish us in their numerous ways for a good five years or so.

Let's admit that America, the world's only superpower, has never really been kind to us -- right from the time our case on J&K's rightful accession was in the United Nations in 1948. Documents reveal that the USA accepted that J&K was India's but succumbed to Britain's malevolent pressure which favoured Pakistan under the argument that theocratic Pakistan was a better buffer than India against the spread of the Soviet Union's Communistic hegemony and a better security for Central Asia's gas-cum-oil. Nehru's fetish for socialism and attempt to create a Third World of non-aligned countries also distanced the USA from India. Indira Gandhi's fierce independence added fuel to fire. Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao's foreign policy of non-alignment brought no thaw. Vajpayee's Pokhran II was a further setback to any warmth with Uncle Sam. And just when fresh and friendly bridges across the Potomac seemed very possible, 9/11 happened -- leaving Bush Junior and Pervez Musharraf in a bear hug which only divine force seems likely to loosen.

Then there's China -- always a friend of Pakistan, permanently forged by Pak's gift to it of a part of PoK in 1963.

Yes, Vladimir Putin may make noises in our favour, but Russia of today is hardly the Soviet Union power of old.

If war is thus no option excepting as a suicidal mission on which no country embarks, what about selective strikes on Pakistan's terrorist camps? Many tout this option without working on the three issues involved here.

Firstly, as in the case of a war, America will quickly put the breaks and more else, besides.

Secondly, Pakistan may well retaliate with a war -- a conventional one initially, and succeed in getting the US and the UN to brand India as the aggressor with attendant sanctions and all.

Thirdly, terrorist training camps are not war assets like aircraft, tanks and ships. When such assets are destroyed, the enemy is crippled for long. But terrorist camps are ropeways, moats, jumping pits, shooting targets etc. Destroy one of them today and it can be recreated in no time. Remember, too, that all of Israel's repeated onslaught of Palestinian terrorist groups, hideouts etc have not stopped the terrorists.

What can India do to stop Pak's cross-border terrorism or proxy war or whatever? Shall we suffer Himalayan ignominy and give up the Kashmir valley? Surprising as it may seem to those few pacifists who think in that manner, even that surrender of our soul will not keep Pakistan off our backs -- not for long at least. It is that perverse psyche of Pakistan, the country, which our politicians, our intellectuals and our plebeians must understand before India the nation discusses the options available for snuffing out Pakistan from our radar.

A scathing analysis of that pervert psyche was done 21 months ago by B Raman, a retired senior official of the Research and Analysis Wing and a very active researcher today in terrorist affairs. He was speaking at a seminar in Chennai. Following are excerpts of his deep theoretical and personal study of Pakistan:

• 'The original political character of the war in Jammu and Kashmir has now been changed completely into becoming a religious agenda of Pakistani groups.'
  
• 'Pakistan has two armies... a regular army of around 500,000. But there is an Army of Islam, so-called by Pakistan itself, with a total strength of about 200,000.'
  
• 'The army of Islam is now controlling and masterminding the anti-Indian activities in J&K. They are intrinsically a part of the Islamic religious agenda.'
  
• 'They are saying that wresting Kashmir from India is not an end in itself, and that Kashmir is only a gateway to India.'
  
• 'Yes, we want to capture Kashmir, they say, and then go on to liberate Hyderabad and Junagadh, which, in 1947, should rightly have been given to Pakistan. We are therefore creating a network to create two more Pakistans in India -- one for the Muslims in north India and another for Muslims in south India.'
  
• 'The vast majority of the people of Pakistan are soft Islamists, believing that Islam is a religion of mercy and compassion. But hard Islamic parties enjoy the support of large sections of the army.'
  
• 'Why has the ISI scored more successes in its activities in India with little or no public outcry against it in Pakistan? Because every government servant in Pakistan, serving or retired, every army officer, every intelligence officer feels emotionally involved in the cause. They all feel that their country's defeat in 1971, which created Bangladesh, has to be avenged and India has to be made to pay a much bigger price.'

Questions and solutions arise from the above analysis of Raman. Is a similar kind of national emotional involvement prevalent in our country? Shouldn't there be a continuing emotional mobilisation of the people on this issue? We blame the intelligence units and everybody else, but do we have a national policy to deal with Pakistan? Should not our media harass the politicians on this subject every day instead of forever exposing all their scandals? Have we ever debated how Pakistan can be made to pay covertly for all it is doing to us all these years? What are its strengths, its weaknesses? Where can we hurt it bad without hitting it?

Just angst and anger are not going to rid us of dozens of Akshardham. Nor is belief in tolerant Hinduism going to provide the answer. Nor, for that matter, does the solution lie in the intellectual's undying faith in secularism. What is needed first and foremost is a new religion: India, first and last.

Arvind Lavakare