If there is one lesson that could be learnt from the debate on the "surgical strikes" conducted by India on Pakistani terror camps as retaliation of the Uri army installation attack it is this: Know how to strategise public announcements on sensitive military matters.
The armed forces have unwittingly become the centre of a row. Given a chance, the Indian Army might want to haul all the doubters during its next operation and bring them back, dead or alive. No more demands for proof would arise after that.
Those in the government have not learnt how to tactically separate the government from the party and the organs of the state such as the armed forces. In the case in question, the government should have made a statement only about how it had sanctioned a retaliatory operation, leaving the details to the armed forces.
Ranbir Singh, director general military operations (DGMO), said exactly what was needed; he added that the details could not be revealed for security reasons. All spokepersons of the ruling party should have been told to repeat the DGMO's statement, not add, speculate or make hypotheses.
The more silent one is, the less the ability of the Opposition to create a controversy. An "I don't know because I was not involved" remark can irritate the other side effectively.
The problem stems from the need for political capital. That will come automatically, including from the targeted side. Such operations have their own inherent ability to seep into the public limelight. They gain more credibility when they come from third-party sources.
This is a classic case of the ignorance and failure of the political class on military matters and media management.
T R Ramaswami, Mumbai
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201 · E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number
