What surrender looks like? (Jun 2020)

In the recent political jibe by the former President of the Indian National Congress Party, Mr. Rahul Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi was termed as ‘Surrender’ Modi, based on the assumption that Prime Minister has compromised the territorial integrity of the country. Many of the media reporters found it interesting that someone like Narendra Modi, for whom the territorial integrity is such an important aspect of his style of politics, can compromise on the territorial integrity. Therefore, for some media houses it was an opportunity to brand Narendra Modi as a weak Prime Minister and for some it was change in recipe they often served to their viewers. But for those who like to understand and consume facts more than the non sensical sensationalism provided by the news channels, it is important to know that what is surrender after all in the strategic times like these. 

To understand this, we need to understand what are the precedents in the history to compare the present circumstances.

Kashmir in 1948 

Just after the declaration of independence for Pakistan and partition of India, the Jammu and Kashmir princely state then ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh was in news. Pakistan wanted it to be the part of its territory and therefore sent Kabayalis to attack Jammu and Kashmir and incorporate it by force. Despite the repeated request of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Indian army was not given permission to protect Kashmir from the plundering, murdering, loot, and rape crimes of Kabayalis. The point was that the Kashmir has not given its assent to join India. Was that the case? No! The Maharaja of the Jammu and Kashmir had given its assent to join India but Jawaharlal Nehru rejected that because he wanted Maharaja to remove his Prime Minister (then Jammu and Kashmir used to have a Prime Minister) Mehar Chand Mahajan and replace him with his friend Sheikh Abdullah. Do you call this as an example of surrender? Prime Minister of India let Kashmiri women raped, murdered, looted and plundered, just because his friend had not appointed his friend as the Prime Minister of the Jammu and Kashmir? If not surrender, then what is it?

All is not over yet. Even when somehow Sardar Patel managed to get the army enter in the Kashmir valley, more than half of the Jammu and Kashmir was captured by Pakistan. Just when Indian army was getting Kashmir free from Pakistan and pushing the Kabayali backwards, Pt. Nehru announced status quo. Which meant that whatever area Pakistan had annexed shall remain with Pakistan until United Nation sponsored solution is not accepted, which never came into being, and 1/3rd of Kashmir is still with the Pakistan. This is what we call surrender. 

Not a blade of grass grows there: 1962 

When China was pushing its army in the Indian Territory, then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru told the Parliament to not worry much about Laddakh, not a single blade of grass grows there. And the descendants of that legacy are pointing out the surrender is an irony. In defence of Jawaharlal Nehru, maybe he knew about the war preparedness of the Indian army because his defence minister, V. K. Krishna Menon was busy in manufacturing utensils in the Ordinance factory. The defence capabilities were consistently lowered down by the defence minister Menon, who remained on that position for the longest time. This was the reason why Indian soldiers, who did not have any arms and ammunition to fight the Chinese incursion had to lose their lives. Much to the credit of the army, when Chinese government had released the official numbers of casualties on their side in 1962 war with India, in 1994, it was found that on some posts, more Chinese soldiers were killed by Indian, despite Indians had inferior or no arms with them. Major Shaitan Singh is said to have killed almost 100 soldiers with his bare hands. Nehru was getting regular signals that war is on the way, even then Nehru compromised on the national security. We lost 1/3rd territory of Laddakh. This is what surrender looks like. 

How to lose a war on table that is won on the battlefield: 1971-72 

The 1971 war for Pakistan is a war which no one wants to remember in Pakistan. Their country – East and West Pakistan were divided into two parts and a new country, Bangladesh, was forged out of it. Indian forces entered into the war on December 1st 1971, and concluded the war on December 16th 1971. The result of the 16-day war was partition of Pakistan and surrender of 90,000 Pakistani soldiers. The Prime Minister of the Pakistan, who was such a good actor, Bhutto, came to India with his daughter Benazir Bhutto to get their soldiers free. This was the golden opportunity with India to resolve the Kashmir issue for once and forever. Mrs. Indira Gandhi did almost contrary to that. Not only Mrs. Indira Gandhi gave 90,000 Pakistani soldiers to Pakistan in 1972, but also did not resolved the border dispute. She was in such a powerful position that she could have got all the Kashmir freed but what she did? She literally surrendered to the acting skills of Bhutto. That was a surrender. Moreover, we lost the 1971 war on the table. 

What is certainly not a surrender? 

The Chinese way or the Communist way to fight is to fight in the Salami tactics. They do not deliver the one and ultimate blow, instead they prefer to chop you piece by piece. Afterall that’s how they got control of China after the Civil War in China. To fight such battles, it is important to know that status quo is changed slowly and almost as important to intervene almost immediately, and not behave like V. K. Krishna Menon and Jawaharlal Nehru. India, in this context has been proactive. Not only the Indian soldiers were quick to intervene, but the kind of scar the Indian soldier left on their Chinese counterparts, it is unlikely that any such activity shall be pursued by the Chinese forces in the near future, except when there is no war. Also, the departure of the Army General to participate in the talks for the establishment of the status quo is a sign of swiftness of the Indian side. 

The Chinese did similar kind of activity in Doklam trijunction in 2016, when they were intercepted by the Indian side. China had to move backwards. It is evident from the way things are taking place that similar kind of outcome shall come after this whole standoff. And you don’t call this a surrender. You are forcing the Chinese to move backwards can certainly be not called as surrender. Question is, whether Mr. Rahul Gandhi will apologize if the Chinese army moved backwards and leave Finger-4? Or will he dare the Prime Minister to recover that area of Ladakh as well which was lost by his Great Grandfather in 1962? Or will he ask the Prime Minister to have control of those posts as well which his government from 2004-14 had given away to the Chinese side? 

Appendix 

Before the Kabayalis had attacked the J&K, Man Sing wanted to keep his princely status, he was on negotiation table with both India and Pakistan.

When the Kabayali attacked J&K, Hari Singh was ready to sign the instrument of accession. But Jawaharlal wanted that accession should be signed by the elected government under Sheikh Abdullah. Then replacement of Mehar Chand Mahajan with Sheikh Abdullah as Prime Minister, even if it was not democratic.

References 
% Wikipedia - Hari Singh

Credits:
Shubham Rajput