Logo

Logo

Call this bluff

There must be no confusing this call for proof with the inane allegation from some Opposition leaders in India questioning the efficacy of the IAF raid on the JeM camp at Balakot

Call this bluff

(Representational Image: iStock)

Strictly speaking it is for Pakistan, not India, to answer the queries from the US State Department. However, since it was the IAF that raised the issue of its opposite number using an American F-16 against India, New Delhi has a moral obligation to prove its charge. Pakistan must not be permitted to get away with its customary denials. Yet to hit that target the IAF will have to provide more than a part of the AMRAAM missile which it exhibited in New Delhi last week. Not that India is whining: a Mig-21 Bison gored an F-16. Still, “radar signatures” and other electronic evidence should be made available to prove to the US what Mr VK Krishna Menon had stated nearly 70 years ago ~ for all their sophisticated technology, even American weaponry did not fire in one direction only. There must be no confusing this call for proof with the inane allegation from some Opposition leaders in India questioning the efficacy of the IAF raid on the JeM camp at Balakot, but with “isolating Pakistan” now part of the overall diplomatic endeavour. Calling Islamabad’s bluff that its F-16s were not deployed would further expose that country. It is another matter if the US does not accept that Pakistan violated its end-user agreement on F-16s, the international community must be reminded that the IAF does not “fly kites”.

There is a worrisome side to the query from the State Department: will similar limitations be imposed on the weaponry India is buying from the US? An entire range from howitzers, through attack and heavy-lift helicopters ~ and now fighters like F16, F-21 and FA-18 are being assessed, The taxpayer, who ultimately foots the bill, cannot be denied information about how his money is being spent on the grounds of “confidentiality clauses” in the contract. That flimsy argument of Mrs Nirmala Sitharaman ignited the Rafale firestorm.

It is a huge disgrace that domestic politics is now roiled over the effect of the Balakot action. Does it really matter how many terrorists were killed? As the Chief of the Air Staff put it, would Pakistan have attempted its own strike if it was not hurting over Balakot? The level of ignorance, or worse, on military matters displayed across the aisle in recent days is alarming ~ as shameful as the brazen bid to garner political mileage from miliary action. That shame is confounded by the irresponsible war-mongering of ex-”generals” on TV ~ yet there is a silver lining to some of that, the ranting explains why at least some of them never “picked up” a higher rank, so they now perform on the small screen only. Exercising the military option is too serious a matter for many of those now wielding clout, with little more than the rabble-raising sloganeering at their command. This was not the way 1971 and 1999 were fought.

Advertisement

Advertisement