It’s a common practice amongst corporates to do a deep review after a crisis or at the end of a major event of disruption, so as to gain from the learnings. This is particularly relevant and useful, because the true character, the strengths and weaknesses of an organisation are fully manifest only at crunch time.
The terror strike at Pahalgam and the Operation Sindoor that followed were a hugely disruptive event in the recent history of the country. It is in moments of emergency, such as these, that the true character of a nation reveals itself.
It would therefore be useful, as a nation, to do an objective stock-take of gains and losses, strengths and weaknesses as they manifested.
First, what led to this crisis?
That the event of terror attack happened at all, is troubling. This question should not be brushed away from public memory in the euphoria of a combat victory. There is reason to believe that this was a result of lax security management at the ground level. No doubt that investigations would have already been conducted and accountability fixed, even if the results might not be placed in the public domain. It is probable that despite awareness of the continuing threat at the highest levels of the Security Establishment, premature celebration of normalcy had lulled the security forces at the ground level into a false sense of comfort, leading to negligence.
Going forward, the twin tasks of steering the society towards a feeling of normalcy and peace, while not lowering the guard on security, have to be conducted lock step, one reinforcing the other.
Second, was the crisis managed competently?
The political leadership proved beyond doubt, its competence and confidence in dealing with the crisis. The steely determination to change the rules of the game in dealing with provocations from the enemy, the clear articulation of the strategic objective of retaliation, the smooth coordination between the civil and defence forces and the measured and timely communication were all an object lesson in political leadership. While there are differing views on the decision to call cease-fire, the broad consensus is that political sagacity prevailed over opportunistic aggression. As Gen. Naravane rightly pointed out, going to war is no Bollywood movie, given the unavoidable cost of life and resources. The defence forces acquitted themselves with incredible competence.
As the defence spokesperson so aptly described at the press meet, what mattered was whether the objective of the military mission was achieved or not. Even if it turns out that India lost an aircraft, as yet unproven, this should be counted as part of the inevitable loss in a combat. The objective of the mission, viz., to destroy the terrorists and their masters was seemingly accomplished with the targeted attack on the terrorist headquarters. It might be argued that there is no evidence that the men who actually carried out the massacre at Pahalgam or their identified masters had been killed. The Prime Minister gave enough hints that this would remain a task, pending execution.
Third, can we be sure that such a crisis will not recur?
It would be naïve to assume that bombing of the headquarters of terror outfits, or even eliminating identified terrorists would guarantee wiping out the ideology of terrorism. All across the world, terrorism continues to be dangerously alive, despite several killings of terrorists and bombing of their habitats, over decades. In the context of our neighbour, terrorism will unfortunately continue to remain a low cost tool in their hands, given their dysfunctional polity and will likely grow, given the increasing asymmetry in economic and military powers between the two countries. Operation Sindoor has just proved that terrorism is not low cost anymore.
Terrorism is nested in a global network, mostly based on religion or ethnicity. It would be equally naïve to imagine that we can cleanse our nation, let alone the world, of all traces of terrorism only through military actions now or in the future. Containing terrorism would require sustained global efforts, such as choking the source of funding. India would need to continue its efforts in this direction.
Coming together
Fourth, what were the positive collaterals?
With an external enemy moving to centre-stage, the nation came together as one, across all political, regional and social spectrums, promptly burying the disunity that had been plaguing the nation. Nationalism, unfortunately, needs an enemy, internal or external, present or past, real or imaginary. External enemy has proved the redundancy of an internal ‘other.’ Political parties or religious groups would of course hurry to resurrect the temporarily suspended negativity and the religious fundamentalism, but the current crisis has brought out the underlying spirit of unity and, thereby, an opportunity to unite the nation to build on this foundation.
The markets showed a level of resilience that was incredible. Not only was there no panic selling by domestic or overseas investors, there appeared to be no pause in domestic or foreign investment projects and business operations. This is a clear endorsement of the inherent economic strengths of India.
Fifth, what were the negative collaterals?
While the government, political and military spokespersons as well as the media reporters showed extreme maturity and restraint in their comments or briefings, vast swathes of social and visual media seized the moment to ventilate their hyper nationalism and to validate their familiar politico religious narratives. The vicious trolling of the Foreign Secretary, or the widow of a terror victim, were disturbing revelations of the pervasive mood of war hysteria and the entrenched rage of ‘othering’. Hyper nationalism, once unleashed, acquires its own life and momentum, uncontrollable by authority. It’s a matter of great comfort that this hysteria did not come in the way of rational decision making by leadership. Cease fire, whether brokered by a foreign power or otherwise, was a logical decision, based on an assessment of risks and returns.
In this mood of the nation, peace should not be allowed to become unfashionable. Patriotism should replace nationalism, which unfortunately carries with it the hubris of superiority.
Sixth, who were your friends who stood by, during the crisis?
It is at crunch moments, we discover our friends and enemies. Like the dog that didn’t bark on the night of murder, there was no major power that came out fully on the side of India, condemning Pakistan for its misadventure. The UN was predictably ambivalent. Most countries made courteous and inane statements and many, including the US, hyphenated India and Pakistan. This is no reflection on the efficacy of our diplomacy. This is a revelation of the current geopolitical reality, where the global good and global order have been put on the back burner, with self-interest informing every national position. This is not to mean that partnerships and alliances have become meaningless, it is just that it would be hazardous to overly depend on them.
Lastly, we live in a world that is a soup of truths, half-truths and lies. No one can claim to have the ability to cull out the rest to own only the truth. The soup tends to get thicker in moments of crisis. This is a time to brush up the rusted national tagline of Satyameva jeyate and take concerted action to uphold truth and punish falsehoods. A crisis cannot be managed in any other environment.
The writer is Chairman, Asian Paints and a former MD of Ashok Leyland