Dear Mr.Sushant (Columnist) ,
I am writing this to do quick rebuttals to points in your column on above subject.
Gist of your column – ‘Breakdown of LoC ceasefire (‘due to Surgical strikes by Indian Army’) will make it difficult for the army to control infiltration (as now Pakistani Army can violate ceasefire to give cover to infiltrating terrorists)-
Your column appears to be based on on your assumption that there were no cases of ceasefire violations from Pakistani side from year 2003 , when it had declared ‘unilateral ceasefire’.
In this case I request you to look back to your own news paper’s past headlines of Pakistan’s repeated ceasefire violation since 2003.
This bursts bubble you created in your article where you tried to show as if since 2003 Pakistan was following ceasefire across LoC sacrosanctness. If some neutral foreign observer reading this article , he will get the impression that since 2003 this is first ceasefire violation , and India is culprit for it. I hope this mistake (of presenting distorted facts & false narrative ) is due to your plain ignorance of the subject & not ‘intentional’.
Also, India had retaliated in past to unprovoked ceasefire violations from Pakistan Army and Surgical strike on September 29 is not first instance.
Now this line in your article- ‘While 4,507 people were killed in terrorist violence in 2001, this number came down to 117 in 2012.’
Thanks for your admission that terror activities have happened since 2003 and they are not ‘nil.’ Now do you want to say that giving cover to terrorists is only way Pakistan helping the terrorists and since ‘Pakistan has observed complete ceasefire since 2003’ , in past 12-13 years terrorists have crossed LoC on their own without Pakistan Army’s/Government’s help? Or are you subscribing to Pakistani theory that terrorists are ‘non-state actors’?
In this case I want you to read this article where Pakistan government itself admitting active support to terror groups-
Line in your article – ‘as opposed to across the LoC, the surgical strike on September 29 by the army which destroyed seven terrorist launch pads has disrupted the usual pattern of interaction between the two sides..’
When you are admitting that there were seven terrorists launch pad existed across the border , what had stopped (very responsible) Pakistan government/army (which had ‘obeyed’ ceasefire across LoC since 2003) to destroy those terror camps running in ‘their’ own territory. And If Pakistani government/ Army was unable to do it due to ‘pressure’ from domestic Jehadi /Radicalised Islamist groups , don’t you want to give credit to Indian armed forces to complete the task on their behalf. ( When Indian forces had attacked seven terror launch pads ,a question arises what Pakistani soldiers where doing there , as 2 casualties of Pakistani Soldiers also reported while giving shelter to terror camps. Again you did not bother to present this fact in your article).
That’s why Indian Army DGMO had shown courtesy to inform Pakistani counterpart regarding surgical strikes as Indian army was clear in intentions to destroy terror camps and it wasn’t to do win any ‘perception battle.’ So your claim of -‘By publicly declaring a termination of operation after the surgical strike, India has indicated its preference for restoring the status quo on the LoC which suggests an understanding of the consequences of the lifting of ceasefire’ is hilarious. Also I feel that Army has plans to bring casualties due to terror violence from 117 in 2012 to 0 in coming 2-3 years by targeting root of the terror.
Better closing line for your article would had been – ‘While the ceasefire on the LoC may have been unilaterally offered by Pakistan 13 years ago, it is in Pakistan’s interest to maintain it now ‘on ground’ also .’
I am also surprised that in article you conveniently forgot to do any mention of 19 Indian soldiers martyred in Pakistan sponsored terror attack. Again some 1st time reader who have no idea about current events in India -Pakistan relations will be in impression that surgical strikes were -unprovoked.’
No Sherlock Holmes needed to decipher which jingoistic news channels you were referring to in your article. Apart from jingoistic I would go ahead and use word TRP mongrels for such channels . Here I would be obliged if I get to know what word you are using to Indian Express for putting headline – ‘ And they hanged Yakub…’
I hope you have rebuttals to my points.