 Welcome to NewsClick. Today we have with us, Lieutenant General Harcharanjeet Singh Panak as a guest to speak to us about a number of issues that are of contemporary relevance, where Indian armed forces have been in news. And Indian politics in fact has seen armed forces being referred to and being made to play a role far beyond their brief, and the whole issue of nationalism has also been brought into picture. Welcome to NewsClick. Kroll quotes you as saying that the logic that you can't criticize the armed forces at all is something fallacious and you would describe, you use a very strong term that it's a fascistic trait. Would you like to elaborate on that? See, armed forces like any other institution are accountable to the elected members as well as to the people. And it's a necessary organization which is paid out of the taxpayer's money and it's non-productive. So all the more reason that you want a bank for your buck. And armed forces work under the government, they work under the government's directions and then they in execution, they do it with the military method, they have freedom of action. Now both these aspects, what directions the government gives to them, what is their state of preparedness and their execution. For this they are accountable, part of it the accountability of the government and part of it is the accountability of the armed forces. I'll just take you back to the era prior to 1962. If the right questions had been raised about the national security to the government of the day and also about the state of the armed forces, then we wouldn't have faced the catastrophic defeat of 1962. This is the biggest danger when you stop questioning your army. Something similar happened to the United States in Vietnam. When in the beginning the people went along and everybody supported the armed forces but when they saw the futility of the war in Vietnam, everyone became against the army. And the army itself became involved in continuation of the war because pulling out would have been taken as a defeat for the army. Finally the people forced the president to intervene eventually and a peace accord was signed and the army was pulled back. The army became the most, from a revered army after the Second World War, after the Korean War, it became a most hated army after the Vietnam War. Till such time the army re-established itself through reforms and proved itself that the people again gave it the same respect in the United States. Now this criticism of people who have raised questions about armed forces, for instance in the current scenario, I mean the latest instance was the Balakot raid where the Indian Air Force came under some questions about providing evidence for the targets that that hit. Prior to that in 2016 the so called surgical strike was carried out by the Indian Army across the line of control and there again we have only government and armies word for it what happened. So no questions could be raised about it. Anybody who raised the question was declared to be anti-national. Now these two incidents have created a scenario where now there is a polarization in this country where anybody who raises a question is deemed to be an anti-national and those who refuse to critique or even scrutinize anything to do with armed forces are considered to be nationalists. This polarization in today's context how seriously do you consider this divide? There is a background to it. Since the armed forces provide security to the people and to the country which is a basic human need. So armed forces world over are looked up to they are given a lot of respect and they are revered. What happened in India is that the political class has started exploiting this sentiment of the people. That means that they have started exploiting this love of the people for the armed forces and blurring the line between the armed forces and the government as far as matters of national security are concerned. Why they do it? One is because of ideological reasons because parties which are right of center they profess a more muscular approach towards national security and they consider that the army should be strong and they consider the army to be virtually a part of its idea. They consider. It has happened before also but in last five years in particular the army has been linked to every aspect of our national life. Whether be it for the visible this thing on you know the Republic Day and the Independence Day pages and all or be it for yoga being run or be it for bridges being made. Or cleaning garbage after Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. The garbage thing that you heard about the railways have the finest engineers but we brought in the army to make a bridge quickly. So there was this thing that army has been linked to every facet of national life. Then along with it because the government is projecting itself that the previous governments have not looked after national security they didn't look after the army they didn't equip it properly. So they want to sell this idea too. So the army has become deified. That our army has been put on is on a pedestal and it should not be criticized it must be looked after and it must be made stronger etc by the day. So this is what has happened over a period of time. Once the deification is done then it's a political exploitation also starts. Can I interject do you notice a change I mean you have served in the Indian army for nearly four decades. Do you notice any change as an now as an observer and as a retired general. Do you notice any change in recent times because this reverence for the army was there even earlier. Yeah the reverence for the army was always there and respect was there but it was not being exploited for political gains. And this blurring of the line between the army and the government on national security matters was not there. Now you have mentioned and you have written also in your earlier pieces that in 2016 when the government announced and took credit for the so-called surgical strike. You had come out with your own observations and you had critiqued and pointed out that it was not the first time such actions had taken place and that whatever took place earlier they kept it they didn't make too much of fuss about it they didn't announce it to the world. As an army commander a do you consider that the use of term surgical strike for what happened in 2016 to be appropriate. Or would you say that what happened in 2016 was less than what you people had carried out earlier. Where it was never publicized the reason I am asking is saying is because I have heard from many army officers that well we used to go and attack Pakistan army military post. The so-called surgical strike which was given the tag of surgical strike attacked what is supposed to be the launch pads of the so-called terrorists. Keeping this in mind I mean how do you respond to this. First of talking about the term surgical strike. The term surgical strike has got a military sort of explanation that it is when you launch based on intelligence driven operation it is launched by special forces or by air strikes and missile strikes and you without causing any collateral damage. So that is the surgical strike so it is that. So while this these operations that we carried out were actually tactical raids across the line of control by special forces. So in strict military sense they do not qualify to be called surgical strikes but as a as a as a generic use as a as a colloquial use it is quite acceptable to call them surgical strikes. So to that that is one part. Now coming to this issue that have they been done before how what was the importance of this there is a significant difference. There has been an ongoing conflict with Pakistan since 1990 Pakistan is the you know controlled the proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir and we have been trying to solve it internally as well as prevent the infiltration and whatever assistance comes from Pakistan and thirdly to make make Pakistan make its life difficult and make it pay the price for what it is doing in the internal phase of India. So the previous governments adopted the strategy of restraint that while because of the reasons of troops morale because of the reasons of what is happening in Kashmir and what is happened on the line of control infiltration there is a requirement to retaliate against Pakistan at a certain level. So this retaliation was done many times it has been done in the past and raids have also been launched in the past. Those mostly were remained in the covert domain and they were never declared. Just a case in point and I have written about it that post Cargill in 2000 January I was given a task to capture a post across the line of control in month of April before the winter set in before the some the thought set in I mean after the winter we went across the glacier and occupied that area which was not held at the moment and we have we are still holding it. It's an area of 12 square kilometers which is under our this thing which was earlier part of under the control of Pakistan as part of POK. So these operations have been going on over the years. The significant difference this time was that the government owned the responsibility. So that means that was a strategic aspect. The raid its raids itself were tactical in nature. They were shallow. They were done by special forces and they were they would have been successful. There's no reason to say that they are not successful and and the issue of how many people killed etc. are not it's the mission that matters. The mission has been accomplished and launch pads have been destroyed and casualties are a fallout of what would happen. So the strategic intent was that now we are facing a game changer that earlier we did it quietly. We never owned it up. Now we are going to sort of we have declared them. We have owned them and in future if you do anything we escalate. In military terms what would say is the idea was that this government has adopted a policy to force compelence on Pakistan. And this is the first step a first signal being sent to Pakistan that we will repeat it in case you do not comply. If there was a policy overall policy and you wanted to follow it up then I would go along with this. It was a very good action at the strategic intent and the tactical execution. But what happened is that immediately after that Pakistan first rubbish the whole thing and they said nothing of this sort has happened. And it's a good good tactic so I would say for it to follow because disown it. How does it matter after all it is engaged in proxy war a few terrorists dead here and there how does it matter. So he just ignored them so that he doesn't have to take any retaliatory action but he stepped up the proxy war. He did a lot of things in Jammu and Kashmir after that the attack took place at Nagrota then it number of other places I mean he didn't stop. So they could prevent or deter. Consequently no compelence was forced on Pakistan. Now if your strategic intent was clear if you really had a proper strategy to force compelence then you should have gone up the escalatory ladder. We did not do anything for the last you know two and a half years for this period it was all forgotten. And now we reacted after Pulwama took place. It also indicates that the government doesn't have a consistent long term strategy it only reacts to events. It cannot happen in a jiffy it has to be happen over as a continuum you know actions here carefully calibrated. So in the end the Pakistan feels the feels the pain. So this I feel that this is how the surgical strike in my view were an effort wasted because we did not follow up. Had we followed up say with the kind of action we have taken up at Balakot in six months later when he had done something in six months later he was so many actions were taking place in Jammu and Kashmir we could have picked up any one of them as a reason for hot pursuit and done it. Suppose we come to Balakot now because Pulwama following that Balakot how would you describe Balakot raid? Balakot action of the terrorists was it's open to debate whether it was a planned action by Pakistan or whether it was a stand alone action by Jesheh Muhammad you know by itself without the concurrence of the mentors. It happens because terrorist organizations have a mind of their own they do not necessarily all the time listen to the people who think they control them because you can take your mind back to 99 when Masood Azhar went back to Pakistan via Afghanistan. He was the blue-eyed boy of ISI he launched the parliament attack and also the attack on the Kashmir assembly and almost triggered a war through our program and yet Jesheh did not hesitate to attempt to assassinations attempts on Purvesh Musharraf so they have a mind of their own so we can leave it there so there is a big incident took place and 45 I mean 40 CRPF soldiers were killed in action in a single action big action I mean by all standards in JNK. So government had to respond I think after having after the surgical strikes and also being which they say complacent about not following them up the government at the same time had evolved overall plan of how they are going to deal with Pakistan and so this time after this action they felt that is the right time and that we must go up the escalated ladder. So we not only went up the escalated ladder in small ways we made a quantum jump because from a shallow raid across the line of control something that has been happening for the last 20 years 30 years to go up to Air Force because after this the next quantum jump is more air strikes missile strikes and limited war it is strategic in nature that means we are going to strike then the choice of the target it was a terrorist target it also sends another signal that we are we are not targeting the people of Pakistan or even the Pakistan military our war is on terrorism it is more of a signal for the rest of the world and thirdly that it is across the international border so the message that the strategic message that goes to Pakistan is that in future if you if you do not you know many of ways we are going to strike on anywhere in Pakistan on terrorism terrorism-related targets so in nutshell our strategy which evolved for Balakut was set a new normal for India's war on terrorism by striking anywhere in Pakistan. So according to you then it's been a remarkable successful operation. Yes at the strategic level. Then why do you call it a draw? Yeah I will I will come to that the intent and the strategy cannot be flawed. Set a new normal how are you going to deal with Pakistan and also convey your intent to the international international world and let them focus that Pakistan is the is the is the place from where all terrorism comes out to isolate it. Military we have the aim was that let's demonstrate this capability and do it across the IB which we did so to that extent I think the strategy strategic intent was very clear the critical aim was very clear and the military has done its job it has demonstrated the capability rest are nuances how many people killed how many building destroyed are nuances it doesn't really frankly doesn't really matter at the strategic level. Now but if you eventually look at want to decide what is the result the whole thing was contingent on Pakistan's response. Pakistan as per its strategy has always been saying that it has the capacity it has the capability it has the will to respond and it will respond in fact I wrote on the 15th itself a day after this thing I said Pakistan will respond and it will respond in a quid pro quo manner. So when his response came logic would have been that if we had thought the thing through that when his response came he wish he would have had to he should have been severely punished. But as it happens in war things that everything doesn't go according to plan and given the you know near equivalence of capabilities it was a it was a it was a kind sort of Pakistan did show that its capacity that it can attack also your your targets in our country it brought down one of our MiG-21 Bison and we also sort of have claimed to have short down F-16 aircraft. But there is no proof of it so far. Let's go by that their force will probably provide proof in future and but but until then we don't know. But concrete proof in terms of pure concrete proof which as I say that these things don't really matter much but having said that the fact is that one MiG-21 Bison was down and our pilot was in their custody a visible visible kind of symbolic proof that they have got this. So day one belong to India. Now we are looking at the at the more tactical level you know strategic. At date date to 27th belong to belong to Pakistan. Now despite the nation being fed on this new nationalism and jingoism for the last you know almost five years it was very surprising that we are an emotional people that with one prisoner of war caught. There was a visible sort of what should I call visible sagging of the morale of the public so much so that I had to tweet I said these are just the opening rounds and there are there are always gains and there are always losses etc. So one must look at eventual eventual result. So this action of course of course there were other things that have that have happened. When you look at this no diplomatically if you were to analyze yes Pakistan was isolated immediately post to Pulwama everybody stood up in support of India so much so that narrow states made statements to the fact that India is justified in you know carrying out action and even the president Prashant Aristrate said that India is trying something big. So the whole world was generally in support and whatever was passed in the United Nations assembly I think is a big diplomatic diplomatic win. And once we launched this operation nobody really came out in criticism of it on the very beginning everybody just said exercise restraint. Now once the next next days events happened then the international community you know did stand up and take notice and it asked Pakistan to you know to return the captured wing commander and asked both sides to restrain and both sides probably agreed to diffuse the diffuse the situation. So what went wrong with the operation was that Pakistan's counter strike and we could not proceed beyond that because of the events that the way they the way they took place. Otherwise let's say let's say if this hadn't happened this way then what should have happened was okay it doesn't matter he's launched a counter strike we could have maybe made another bigger strike Indian Air Force has the capability but as I said the international environment hereafter did not want escalation to take place so escalation. So what's the end result? We achieved the strategic aim of laying down the new normal that will strike anywhere that is the political aim. Militarily we demonstrated the capability. Pakistan achieved its political aim that it will not allow your new normal to be created without being contested. And its military did demonstrate a capacity that we are capable of a quid pro quo action and we are capable of paying India back in the same coin. While diplomatically I would say that it was a big gain for India. Purely militarily it was a stalemate and when you are a big power and when you are stalemated by a much smaller nation a smaller power it's defeat. And our overall aim of forcing compelence on Pakistan still hangs in mid air. And the real question that everybody should be asking is that can we ever do it then? Yes it can be done. If we have an overwhelming technological and military edge over Pakistan. Modi himself said that if Rafale was there today the results would have been different. Definitely. I in fact wrote a tongue in cheek comment, why only Rafale? If we had better combat rifles also results would be different in ground combat. Having said that supposing the deal for 126 Rafales had gone through in 2012. Fair number of Rafale would have been inside the country. 25 was supposed to be coming as it is at that time in fly away conditions and more would have come. Imagine the state then what kind of air capability you would have had. Definitely. But then in the last 5 years while we have signed a deal for 36 Rafale which are yet going to come. But there are so many other reforms which are required in the armed forces. So much of modernization is stagnating. The interview of the vice chief last year was you know virtually said the emperor has no clothes. So unless you have the technological and military edge this kind of strategy is always going to end in a stalemate. You mean you can always raise the stakes but if you cannot carry it through. Because Pakistan has developed an equivalent capability and there is a nuclear backdrop on top. So always the results should be the same.