"A group of their (Pakistan’s) regular soldiersintruded across the Line of Control in Mendhar Sector on January 8. Pakistanarmy troops, having taken advantage of thick fog and mist in the forested area,were moving towards our posts when an alert area domination patrol spotted andengaged the intruders... The fire fight between Pakistan and our troopscontinued for approximately half an hour after which the intruders retreatedtowards their side of LoC. Two soldiers ” Lance Naik Hemraj and Lance NaikSudhakar Singh ” laid down their lives while fighting the Pakistani troops.”
That’s no hawkish TV anchor, baying for blood and a rise intelevision ratings at nine o’clock primetime news. It’s a statement issued bythe Indian army's northern command, based in Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir,following the beheading and killing of two Indian soldiers and injuring of twoothers in Poonch on Tuesday morning.
Nearly 24 hours on, India came out with a series of stockresponses, with ministers using that cliché: highly provocative. "PakistanArmy's action is highly provocative. The way they treated the dead bodies ofIndian soldiers is inhuman,” Defence Minister, AK Antony said, according toPTI.
Like a brave general marshalling his troops for a forwardmarch, he went on, for more special effect: “We will convey our protest toPakistan government and our DGMO (director general of military operations) willtalk to his counterpart. We are closely following the situation.”
Provocative is an extremely interesting adjective. It couldeither mean “causing anger or another strong reaction, especiallydeliberately”, according to Oxford dictionary, or “issuing strong statementunder duress”, to believe the UPA government parlance.
Antony’s statement itself proves the inelegance with whichIndian ministers treat the word. So what did “Pakistan army’s action” provoke(or incite, to use a better verb) our defence minister to do? Come up with somepretty interesting observations: that the act is “inhuman”. Really, Mr Antony?That’s the only adjective you could come up with. I thought the police actionon the anti-rape protesters at India Gate was inhuman/heartless/ruthless. I amsure you could hunt up better phrases to describe a ghastly and barbaricslaughter and unprovoked aggression (and this isn’t even half as vitriolic assome TV anchors).
Next, the good defence minister says India will “coveyprotests” to Pakistan. Oh, come on, sir. As if they care!
Lastly, that pat solution for everything: “closely followingthe situation”. Aye, aye; as if that observations had helped the situationearlier.
Antony’s cabinet colleague, Foreign Minister, SalmanKhurshid, was sounding equally shocked: “This is inhuman. Extremely myopic,shortsighted. Has caused us tremendous hurt... It is not something of lightnature, public opinion does not accept it... We want proportionate response…(will take) a collective view in the government.”
Inhuman? Aren’t all murders supposed to be inhuman anyway?What’s extra special about this attack, then, that the external affairsminister is forced to say that it has caused the country “tremendous hurt”?
And what, pray, is that “proportionate response”? Nevermind, the moment the Manmohan Singh-led government goes into a huddle, asKhurshid’s subsequent phrase “collective view in the government” indicates,Indians do not expect much more than some inane peacenik statement andquasi-anxious, pseudo-concerned and fully eager-not-too-sound-hawkish plea forpublic apology.
One is not asking for drone attacks across the LoC, like theUS response to Pakistan’s muted response to Taliban elements on its soil is, orIsrael’s attack on Gaza late last year. One is only looking at our tallestleaders to make appropriate response and gestures in retaliation to what evenan editorial in Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper called “the most serious incident ofrecent times” since the bilateral “ceasefire along the disputed border sinceNovember 2003”.
