At the recently concluded Chandigarh Military Literature Festival, the former army commander who oversaw the surgical strikes, Lt Gen Hooda stated, “I do think there was too much hype over it. The military operation was important, and we had to do it. Now how much should it have been politicised, whether it is right or wrong, is something that should be asked to politicians.”
These surgical strikes were launched after an attack on the Uri Garrison on 18 Sep 2016, in which 19 soldiers were killed. The strike was successful and resulted in the army’s special forces destroying multiple terrorist camps across the border in POK.
Commenting on remarks by General Hooda, the present army commander of the Northern Command, General Ranbir Singh stated, “Surgical strike is one of the options available to the army. It had a positive effect on the country. We’ve been able to curb terrorism to a great extent.” He avoided getting into any controversy.
The army chief, General Bipin Rawat, when asked to comment on General Hooda’s statement said: “These are individual perceptions. So, let’s not comment on them.” He added that General Hooda was “one of the main persons involved in the conduct of the operations. So, I respect his words very much”. The remarks by General Hooda were aimed at the government’s recent action of celebrating the second anniversary of the strike across the country and of the ruling party raising these at multiple political rallies.
There is no doubt that these strikes were an unqualified success. It was a high-risk operation which was cleared from the very top. In the event of a failure, while the army may have been left red-faced, it would have been the government which would have borne the brunt of criticism from the opposition and possibly even political oblivion.
Therefore logically, the government does have the right to boast of the strike or at least of its accepting responsibility, which others had shunned. By clearing the strike, it displayed trust in the army. The impact of the BJP’s comments has been such that the opposition is forced to state that it too had reacted to Pakistan’s misadventures in a similar manner earlier, but never announced it, a rather belated response.
The celebration this year had political overtones, since elections in five states were yet to be conducted. However, it was also a means of conveying to Pakistan that India would retaliate in case of any misadventures from their side. Such celebrations alongside release of videos embarrasses the Pakistan army, which has continued to insist it never happened.
This was further expounded by General Rawat, when he gave a series of television interviews – the common theme being that India could act aggressively if any incident happened in the interior of the country. The army chief also stated that surgical strikes were only one of many options. This followed reports that Pakistani terrorists had been spotted near the capital and the increased presence of ISI-supported modules in Punjab.
On the other hand, the Indian Army has always operated in a professional manner and away from the limelight. The interviews on multiple news channels by those who participated in the strike was done for the first time. The same would only have been possible with sanction of command and service HQs.
General Hooda had stated in one of his earlier interviews that the Pakistan army rejecting Indian claims of the strike was an indicator that it would not attempt any retaliation. However, increased ceasefire violations and attempted infiltration was resorted to by Pakistan, possibly to rebuild the confidence of their troops, which had been shaken by the surgical strike. The political battle for the exploitation of the strike led to the anti-government lobby claiming the strikes failed to achieve their aim as neither ceasefire violations nor infiltration attempts reduced.
Exploiting of the strikes has been done by every authority in the chain of command. The army exploiting the strikes includes permitting its special forces personnel to come on television news channels for interviews, wearing their uniforms with faces hidden and sharing details of the conduct of the strike as also their experience during the same.
It has also officially given inputs to select journalists, who have published a book on it. These inputs have been used in the making of a film. This was neither done on the strike in Myanmar or any cross-border operation earlier. These strikes have also been used to firmly convey a warning to Pakistan that any misadventure would be responded to.
The government, which took the risk of political backlash in case of its failure has been expounding it in every forum, seeking to project its positive approach, while conveying its intentions across the border on a strong response to misadventures. It sought to celebrate the anniversary of the strike to gain political advantage, as after all it took the decision. The Congress claiming that it had also launched similar strikes during its tenure indicates national support to the conduct of the strikes.
Is there any difference between exploiting the strikes on media, sharing its conduct with journalists, using it to project a warning or politicising it? In every case, the incident has been touted as being amongst the Indian military’s finest hours and hence should not be suppressed on any pretext.
All involved in the strike, from the planning phase to execution would cherish their association with it. Irrespective of the government which runs the country, such fine examples of successful military operations should neither be ignored nor brushed under the carpet and forgotten once governments change, as those who participated risked everything and gave the country a perfect example of striking behind enemy lines. The regular announcements also convey a message to Pakistan. Hence, if boasting about a successful operation implies politicising, then so be it.
The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.