‘Political will was game-changer’

General Ved Prakash Malik was the Army Chief from 1997 to 2000. He was commissioned into the 3rd Sikh Light Infantry in 1959. He is known for overseeing the planning and execution of Operation Vijay during the Kargil War.

The officer received the Ati Vishisht Seva Medal and the Param Vishisht Seva Medal for his military service. In an exclusive interaction with Sushil Kumar of The Statesman, he talked about Operation Sindoor, Pakistan celebrating a ‘fake’ win, US President Donald Trump wanting to take credit for the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, and the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty.

Advertisement

Q. How do you look at India’s military action launched in response to the Pahalgam terror attack?

A. We have adopted a more active approach against terrorism from 2016 onwards, after the Uri attack following which a surgical strike was done. It had the sanction of the political authority. Earlier, even if we were to cross the Line of Control, there would be no political sanction, but 2016 was the first time that the Indian armed forces had sanction from the political authority, and then in 2019, when the Balakot strike happened, it was the second time that the armed forces were granted permission to strike back in Pakistan territory.

I would say political sanction is the main thing that made Operation Sindoor entirely different. This time, not only were diplomatic and economic sanctions imposed, but the kinetic action was also undertaken on the intervening night of May 6 and 7. So, it was a different approach. I would say although the target initially was only the camps of terrorists but when they provoked us, we had to carry out the action of hitting their military bases. It was a more assertive action, wanting to give a stronger message than the earlier ones, and it was effective as it showcased our capabilities, weapons systems and the kind of advancement that has taken place in the armed forces. A good action but now it has to be seen how effective the military operation has been, and whether the message of deterrence has been conveyed to Pakistan.

Q. Some people in Pakistan believe they have won the war against India. They are celebrating post Operation Sindoor. Your comments.

A. The Pakistan government and the Pakistani army want to save their image, which they have lost, and they are desperate to do it. That is why they are celebrating both politically as well as militarily. But the truth cannot remain hidden. Even when the Kargil war got over, they celebrated. However, it was a big setback to Pakistan. This time too, Pakistanis will gradually get to know it.

Q. Why did India never respond the way it did this time to attacks by forces backed and supported by Pakistan?

A. It is a political problem. The armed forces will do whatever they are told to do. People like me who have been fighting these kinds of wars have been of the opinion that organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-eMohammed are nothing else but proxies of the Pakistan government. They are all working for the ISI, and it is a part of the Pakistani army. Therefore, the state is fully involved. India realized it, and changed its policy. The political leadership of the country has now given a goal to the armed forces to carry out certain actions in Pakistan. A major change in the policy has taken place since 2016, and this time around there was a much stronger message to carry out these actions. Our whole aim is to stop Pakistan from indulging in a proxy war against India.

Q. Do you think India after declaring that any terror attack in future would be considered an “act of war” would end up attacking Pakistan?

A. As I said, the main aim is to ensure that they do not indulge in proxy war against us. So, it is a very strong message that has been sent to Pakistan, and I do not think it could have been stronger than this, that if you indulge in terrorist acts, it would be like inviting a war from India. But the other aspect of it is the preparation required. We have to be prepared all along, 24X7, that if a terrorist attack is taking place, whether it is being carried out by one or two terrorists or four terrorists, Pakistan would have it from India. Therefore, we need to be fully prepared. I feel that India should be spending more money to have that kind of preparedness.

Q. What are the lessons India may have learnt from the recent conflict with Pakistan?

A. After every action, there are lessons to be learnt. We generally do full enquiry, and I believe they (Indian armed forces) must be doing some inquiry. We should wait for some time, let the inquiry be over. Rest assured the lessons will be drawn, as we always do after every action.

Q. Many have questioned the timing of the ceasefire when India had an edge in the conflict.

A. It did come as a surprise to most of us. When you are at an advantageous position, you want to exploit the success, and I also have the same feeling that we should have continued for some more time, but it also depends on the national policy. Therefore, the proposal of ceasefire was accepted, otherwise we could have carried on some for more time. I, as a soldier, feel we should have hit them harder as they were not in position to respond.

Q. US President Donald Trump was the first to announce the ceasefire. Don’t you think the announcement should have come from the Indian side?

A. He does not have much credibility. He wanted to jump the gun and have the credit. The US tries to arm twist both India and Pakistan. Something like it was tried even during the Kargil war, and whatever the then US President Bill Clinton did with (the then Pakistan prime minister) Nawaz Sharif, we carried on with our actions till we completed our goals. So, I do not think one should take President Trump seriously on the matter. Reality is that a call was made by the Pakistani DGMO, and he requested for a ceasefire which was accepted by the (Indian) government. The fact that the Pakistanis were hit hard, forced them to seek a ceasefire.

Q. How do you look at India’s decision to put the Indus Waters Treaty on hold since Pakistan has called it an act of war?

A. It has to be seen yet. We have to be prepared for all activities from their end. The Indus Waters Treaty has been one sided as we have been giving more than 80 per cent of water to Pakistan. Holding it in abeyance was considered earlier also. They cannot wage a conventional war against India because we are much stronger. They may create issues here and there, and we have to be prepared for all that. Pakistan cannot do much about it. We just have to guard our interests.