Responsibility for Kargil

Columnist Lt Col (Retd) A. RASHID targets responsibility in last year’s adventure.

In the pyramid of power structure the power status is determined according to the quantum of responsibility shared by each individual. The person at the top of the pyramid enjoys the status of being all-powerful because of the overall responsibility that he carries. The rationale of this philosophy is that the person on top has a free hand and choice to select and train his team to carry out his orders and policies. One's life at the top slot is, therefore, not a bed of roses. It is his duty to maintain a constant vigil of the performance of his relevant aids and swiftly act to correct any wrongs that come to his notice. It is not given in the dynamics of leadership for any eventuality that a leader may turn round and say " I did not do it, so and so did it".

Napoleon did not blame his generals for defeat at Waterloo, like all credit, during the Second World War, for establishment of a successful bridgehead by the allies at the Normandy coast in Europe went to General Eisenhower, the supreme commander of allied forces. Field Marshal Montgomery was asleep after launching the offensive against the German forces at Al-alamin, when the later were routed but history has given the entire credit of allied victory in North Africa to Montgomery. This is because in the reverse case, entire discredit would too have gone to the general. There are countless such examples like battles of Galipoli, Dunkirk, Stalingrad and the rest, where the main players never tried to shift the credit or discredit for victory or defeat from the main actors shouldering the responsibilities for the outcome of the events. In the leadership paradigms, shifting blame is termed as an act of moral turpitude, leave alone leadership.

I do understand that my analogies are not apt with reference to Mr Nawaz Sharif, because he could hardly be termed as a leader of a nation, yet due to his claim of being an undisputed leader of Pakistani nation, the comparison had to come from history.

In view of the startling statement of deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, of June 13 to the reporters in Attock Fort, that the military high command did not keep him informed about the Kargil affair, there is a need to trace the genesis of Kargil operation. Operational planning in the Armed Forces is a continuous process. All the operational plans are always kept under scrutiny and are updated to keep in step with the changing geo-political environments. Accordingly presentation of these plans to the government by the Armed Forces is a Standing Operating Procedure (SOP). During the post Kargil confusion it has transpired that the Kargil plan was years old and was kept in abeyance for want of government approval. It is believed that after detailed briefings Mr Nawaz Sharif approved it during November 1998. Immediately after that the army started occupying the vacated Indian positions in the Drass-Kargil sector. The army continued improving the defences till May 1999, when the Indian side detected the incursion and the remaining part of the story is known to the whole world.

It is always safer not to indulge into any controversy over matters involving vital national security concerns. But one can evaluate and analyze such matters on the touchstone of commonsense and logic. If one follows the chronology of events before, during and after the Kargil showdown, one is convinced beyond doubt that Pakistan fought the battle of Kargil united as a nation. The then Prime Minister demonstrated a firm commitment to the operation and solidly stood behind the military high command of the country. Not a single dissenting voice was raised from any quarters including all the political parties of the country.

The bid at Kargil by Pakistan was not an ordinary routine matter, which could be ignored for the sake of mere goodwill. It was fraught with serious ramifications. The then Prime Minister of the country, who did not even drop a hint of his dissatisfaction at the commencement of the operation, turns round, many months after his removal as the Prime Minister, and shamefacedly asserts that the Kargil affair took place without his knowledge. He is so thoughtless not to understand that according to the tenets of leadership, he should have immediately resigned the moment he came to know that an operation of the magnitude of a mini war had been launched without his knowledge and express permission. He has also demonstrated the poverty of his imagination by denouncing the affairs in such a naive manner, for which the nation holds the armed forces in tremendous high esteem. He does not understand that the Kargil operation was not launched to conquer Kashmir.

The dual purpose of the undertaking has been achieved with commendable precision. The explosive nature of Kashmir problem has been highlighted internationally in an unprecedented manner. In fact during the entire Kargil operation the whole world remained on the tenterhooks due to fear of a nuclear exchange between two upstart atomic powers. A story has leaked out, which tells that during the stalemate at Kargil the Indian leaderships frustration had reached a point where they had decided to launch a major offensive in Azad Kashmir. The backdrop of threats of hot pursuit of freedom fighters deep into Azad Kashmir territory, by LK Advani, the interior minister of India, during post-Indian nuclear tests in May 1997, bears a testimony to this mould of BJP psyche. It was the forceful western intervention, notably of USA, that held back the horses of communal BJP.

Indian financial commitment after the event has been raised to unbearable proportions. The sector, which was only partially occupied by only a token force of about a battalion, during summer months only has necessitated induction and maintenance of an additional Corps, throughout the year, in the area. In fact, the development has, virtually, thrust another Siachin on India. In terms of money, the cast of Kargil operation and future maintenance of many times inflated defence will have devastating fall out on Indian economy. It is the Kargil aftermath, which forced the hawkish Indian leadership to suffer the ignominy of substantially enhancing their defence budget. The recent toning down of Indian leaderships ascendant stance of no negotiations with Pakistani leadership, saying that unconditional negotiations could be held, betrays the worsening of their financial wounds, suffered as a consequence of Kargil operation.

As for as shedding tears over Lahore Declaration is concerned, one must not lose sight of the fact that the Indian Prime Ministers patronization of bus diplomacy by taking a trip to Lahore and concluding the famous declaration had nothing to do with the Kashmir problem. The initiative was meant only to normalize trade relations with Pakistan, which was also on the high agenda of industrialist Premier of Pakistan. Normalization of relations with India, by keeping Kashmir at the backburner, was neither acceptable to the people of Pakistan, nor it was in the intrinsic interest of the country.

The misconceived afterthought of Mr Nawaz Sharif, exposing himself to be only a puppet and power hungry Prime Minister of that time, and also taking it for granted that the Kargil operation was not in the interest of Pakistan, has devastatingly eroded, whatever political clout the gentleman had.

The commonsense conclusion, therefore, is that Mr Nawaz Sharif, though had nothing to do with the conception of the plan, and was only a silent spectator, hoping to get some extra political mileage, in case it succeeded according to his vision and comprehension, is squarely responsible for that. But now since he denies his responsibility, virtually implying that he was only a puppet in the hands of the Armed Forces commanders, the entire credit for conception and execution of this masterly operation should go to the military commanders concerned. If at all we were to get closer to the solution of Kashmir problem, it would be the physical and financial thrashing to India as a consequence of Kargil operation and not the Indian ploy of Lahore Declaration.