USI Library
News Information Service
Statesman 20-07-2015
Is India obsessed with its western border?
Harsha Kakar
| 20 July, 2015
Representational Image (Getty Images)
The recent decision by the defence minister to slow down the raising of the mountain strike corps
due to lack of funds, and the immense media hype (which continues) around the joint statement and
its aftermath, post the India-Pakistan Prime Ministers’ meet in Ufa, brings to the fore an age old
Indian obsession with the western border. We as a nation have always given greater importance to
the western border than to the northern or coastal ones. While both China and Pakistan have
unresolved border issues pending with us, we continue to give greater importance to our border
resolution with Pakistan than to the one with China.
The majority of the Indian military is also biased towards the west rather than the north, and by
majority I mean the force levels of the three services put together. At the same time, when we
analyse the situation in Pakistan, their internal and economic conditions, as also statements of our
own strategic experts it does appear that Pakistan is no longer a direct major military threat of the
future. Any action with Pakistan would be localized at best.
It is more likely an indirect threat, emanating more from Pakistan’s support for Jihadi and other
extremist networks, including training and sending them across as also providing financial and other
support. Pakistan is also a nuclear power and does at times make irresponsible statements which
appear to be more for domestic consumption than for any serious international value.
All the text books we read as children stated that the Himalayas are a barrier to the north, and thus
in our minds we have always had a picture of a protected northern front. Historically we have never
been invaded from that direction, and our religious ties with Tibet had given us a false sense of
security. It was only in 1962 that this myth was broken. Even today, for the common man with a
limited understanding of the terrain, it would still appear so.
India has begun looking northwards only in the recent past. The army too bears a responsibility for
this neglect. It was the Army which initially dissuaded the government from going in for road
development and other programmes along the northern front mainly because it was presumed this
would benefit the Chinese in the event of any hostility, as we were not strong enough to deal with
them on an equal footing. This has had a lasting impact on development, now that we are equally
capable, as we are woefully behind in terms of infrastructure.
A number of our posts are still air maintained, whereas the Chinese have a series of roads running
along the border. While we struggle to move and reach locations where they transgress, they drive
up almost at will. The Mansarovar Yatra this year has been witness to one such road.
Though most of the recent incidents with the Chinese have been in the northern theatre of Jammu
and Kashmir, they continue to occur at regular intervals in the east too. These do have national and
territorial significance and have always grabbed headlines and provoked national debates. However,
they do not affect the normal lives of locals, are restricted in area and have had a limited economic
effect, thus they do not get the importance they truly deserve.
To deal with them, the army has created sufficient reserves and capabilities. The army today has the
capability to move sufficient forces to effectively deal with any standoff. The issue though with
standoffs is more of logistical sustenance of the force involved to counter transgressions rather than
any military encounter. Placards and banners claiming ownership of the area are displayed, both
sides maintain their positions and after some time, sometimes a month or even more, the troops pull
back. No firing is resorted too.
It has high diplomatic significance, as neither side is easily willing to bend or change its stance on its
perception of the border. The first sign of weakness on one side would be exploited by the other
almost immediately. India has shown its strength of character by being resilient and clear in support
of its interpretation of the border. Because the local populace is not impacted, it has tended to be
given a lower priority at the national security level.
The border with Pakistan is much more densely populated and there is cultivation up to the
international border or the line of control. This leads to people moving up to the border line almost
on a daily basis, beyond the safety of troops and exposed to firing by the other side. The land is
fertile and there is considerable development.
The livelihoods of those living close to the border are affected by every incident. People on both
sides live under constant threat. As we move northwards, there are a number of villages where
marriages have taken place across the line of Control.
Thus Pakistan has the ability to disrupt normal life and tranquillity of the local population and
thereby gain headlines and interest. Shelling, especially during the harvesting season, can affect
livelihoods of entire villages located close to the border and for whom agriculture is the mainstay.
The Jammu region is always the hardest hit, whenever firing escalates.
There have been occasions when one side has harvested crops early and then prevented the other
from doing the same by opening fire. A mass of humanity suffers economically due to such actions.
Whenever the situation escalates, whole villages are evacuated and villagers face hardships.
Pakistan’s support to various extremist groups and their direct involvement in terrorist activities has
also had an effect on the relationship. Pakistan’s obsession with Kashmir or the K word is almost
legendary. There is never an occasion, whether an election or an address by a leader in any forum,
national or international, where this is not raised. It almost seems that the raison d’être of the
country is Kashmir.
India’s leadership realizes that with China as long as border talks continue alongside economic
cooperation, a solution is possible. It would take time, but there would be a way out.
However, with Pakistan, things would move much more slowly. There are vested interests within the
Pakistan military which would not be keen for any resolution of the conflict, and would prefer that it
lingers on, albeit below the threshold level of Indian tolerance. Thus the blow-hot, blow-cold
attitude from Pakistan would continue. Whenever there would be an attempt for talks, the situation
would escalate. It has also been seen that Pakistan is ignored, and no attempt is made to deal or talk,
the status quo remains.
This increased interest with Pakistan is because every government seeks to bring peace to its
population living close to the border, enhance development in the area, and enable life to proceed
normally for its people.
It is evident from recent history that every time India proposes, Pakistan resorts to negative action
and disposes. It almost appears that the lack of cohesion between the Pakistan military and the
government is brought to the fore in its dealings with India.
India prefers to speak to the democratic leadership, but the power in Pakistan is with the military.
However, for a majority of Indians, there is desire for peace and tranquillity on the western front.
Would our overtures bring results, or was ignoring them a better option only time can tell.
The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.