THE ULTIMATE WAR

Former DG ISI and retired Ambassador Lt Gen M ASAD DURRANI searches for the final reaches of conflict and comes to the concept of ultimate war

Outcomes of wars are not easy to judge. Germany and Japan lost the second world war, but won the peace that followed. Briton and France, two of the victors, lost their empires and the status in the aftermath. America certainly won; not only because it led the alliance to victory, but also because after the war it emerged as the dominant world power. In its reign- uncontested since the demise of the Soviet Union- it merely ceased to be loved and be admired.

During the Korean war the North acquitted itself admirably on the battlefield. It is now waiting for its final rites; not exactly the fate of a victorious nation. Even more difficult is to adjudicate on the outcome of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. By crossing Suez and repulsing Israel’s counter attacks, the Arabs finally broke a taboo, of getting the better of the Israelis in battle. And if Israel seriously considered use of nuclear weapons to save the Third Temple, it must have been very close to defeat. Its subsequent counter offensive West of the Canal may have evened out the tactical exchanges, but it is too early to give any verdict on the peace processes that followed.

And indeed no issues are ever so unresolved, as the ones where our friends, the Afghans, are involved. Who won the Afghan Jihad? The Afghans! They most certainly won the resistance against the mighty Red Army, but perhaps for the first time even the Afghans are not sure if they can wrap up the remnants. The Americans have strong claim on victory in Afghanistan. They not only settled the Vietnam score with their arch rivals, but also contributed to the eventual rolling back of the Soviet empire. Too bad, that now the US have to fight the ‘Afghans’ all over the globe, and may even ‘miss’ the period when their former nemesis kept order in at least one part of the world.

The Soviet Union, or the successor Russian Federation, may not be very strong contenders for any laurels in the Afghan war, but having shed extra weight, and by gaining acceptance in the main stream of world politics, the Russians seem to have improved their room for manoeuvre: one only has to watch how Yeltsin exploits all Russia’s past and present deficiencies, including Zirivonski, to keep the West in line.

Was Pakistan one of the winners of the Afghan liberation war? I believe it was, but that has very few takers in the country. In any case, who wants to think about this unending muddle (someone should), when we have more important issues at hand, Pakistan for example?

It has often been said that the wars do not resolve anything. That is not quite true. The second world war ended the Nazi era. The 1971 Indo-Pak war divided Pakistan. The Iran-Iraq war forced both the countries to look afresh at their relationship. The Desert Storm has entrenched the United States in the Gulf, and many countries in the area have lost their political and economic sovereignty. The Vietnam and the Afghan wars have exposed the limits of power. But then it is also true that the side, that did not achieve the strategic objective of the war, cannot claim victory even if it had the upper hand on the battlefield. Merely to refine the argument, peace being the ultimate objective of war, if a war did not result in restoring peace, it was lost by all.

This therefore might have been the reason that no one took the trouble to contest a very controversial judgement, that in the last few months has been doing rounds in the western press (some prestigious publications included), that we lost three wars against India. None of the perpetrators quoted the source or gave any accounts to support the conclusion. Many cannot not even name the three wars. It was perhaps considered unimportant, because in the information age the media has the last word. Even in our own country, where contradictions and opinions abound, it hardly raised an eyebrow.

We lost the 71 war. We lost it on the battlefield, on the diplomatic front, and we lost it politically. India achieved its strategic objectives. Creation of Bangla Desh was just one of them. Settling historical scores and establishing fresh equations to their advantage, were more significant. It was a comprehensive defeat, and we cannot find any consolation in India’s failure to win the hearts of our erstwhile compatriots, who still celebrate our sports victories, rejoice over our nuclear tests, and are happy that someone in the region checks the Indian steamroller.

Did we also lose the 65 war? Well, the Indians never claimed to have won it, at least not according to their official account. One also does not recall, if any other professional dissertation came close to that conclusion. We on the other hand did proclaim victory of sorts, because a smaller force defended well, suffered fewer casualties both in men and material, and captured more area than it lost, and also because the Indians pleaded desperately for a cease fire. We must however accept, that we failed to achieve the strategic objective of the war that we had initiated, namely the liberation of Kashmir. That the war also helped reduce the Indian fear of Pakistan’s martial art, should also be conceded as a psychological gain for India. May be we should settle for a draw.

There is some confusion on what exactly was this third war, that our detractors in the West have put in our ‘lost’ account. The clash at the Runn of Kuch, in which the Indians were soundly and resoundly beaten, being a limited conflict, could hardly fit the definition of an Indo-Pak war. In all probability, they are referring to the 1948 Kashmir war, in which strictly speaking Pakistan was not even a participant, though some of our troops did volunteer to help the resistance. These irregular forces liberated the Northern Areas and parts of Kashmir (today’s Azad Kashmir) from the Indian and the Maharaja’s regular armies, sent the Indians scrambling to the UN, and forced them to agree to a plebiscite. If the self determination has not taken place till date, it cannot turn the victory of the liberation war against the Indian occupation into defeat.

But does it really matter that we did not lose three wars against India, or that we might have even got the better of them in an odd conflict? What really matters is that enough number, both within and outside the country, believe that we lost them all. And since perceptions have always been more important than the reality, this belief, that Pakistan could not win its wars against India, has been our gravest loss. The Indians have been winning the ultimate battle; the battle of believes, for quite sometime now. And, let no one make you believe that the minds, if not the hearts, can be conquered merely through propaganda and disinformation. You have to show some gains before anyone would credit you with these make believe victories.

Keeping track of the Indian military preparations was once my primary concern. Never did I lose any sleep over the build-up of hardware. That was one element that we could well take care of. Development of software, not the cyber variety, was however a different ball game. The process, that I had also alluded to in my article: ‘national security is a national affair’ in the July issue of Defence Journal, must have been based on a concept. Ideas move the world, and it is therefore unthinkable that a thrust that captured the world’s fantasy, and has created doubts even in our minds, did not have a design.

The ultimate war, to influence people, is waged on multiple fronts; on economic and diplomatic planes, in the realms of knowledge and culture, through the media and by the use of intellect. That India has made major gains on these fronts can best be understood by taking stock of how the world has started thinking about the Indians. Some are fascinated by their spiritual gurus, while the others find comfort in the Indian brand of secularism; the line that there were ‘hundreds of millions of consumers in India’ has been swallowed hook line and sinker by a large segment of the world’s business community, and there are enough number who are dazzled by the beauty charades in the country; infatuation with an old civilisation that promises eternal nirvana is as deep, as it is with their modern class system, that has re-christened the untouchables as Dalits and Adivasis, and consoles them as the ‘children of God’.

With the world in trance, it was no big deal to mesmerise it to believe that Pakistan lost three wars against India, and therefore the Indian nuclear blow up must have been because of China. The ultimate test of hypnotism lies not merely in conditioning people’s perceptions, it is to make them see the reality as you wish that to be seen.