New Delhi, Jan 7: On Friday, top officials in the Indian government went into a huddle to discuss a fresh strategy to seek a ban on Jaish-e-Mohammad chief, Maulana Masood Azhar, in the United Nations.
It is unlikely that the Chinese will change their mind and support India and lift the technical hold at the UN to ban the man responsible for various terror attacks on Indian soil including the one on the Indian Parliament. The question is should a great nation like India continue complaining before the UN?
The Americans did not go before the UN before placing Osama Bin Laden's son Hamza Bin Laden in America's terror blacklist. Would an Israel have waited for the UN's nod before surgically striking at a terrorist? India has shown that it is capable of carrying out a surgical strike across the Line of Control. In this context one would need to ask, why not a strike on Masood Azhar?
Strike out the Maulana:
After General Bipin Rawat took over as the Army Chief he had said that India has several options including carrying out surgical strikes. He said that there would be more surgical strikes to take out terrorists across the border.
Top security experts are of the view that India needs to stop going before the UN all the time and instead act against the likes of Azhar who brazenly order strikes and continue to stay protected.
The government at the centre has a full-majority and hence taking decisions is easier. There are a good number of officers in both India's internal and external spy agencies to plot a strike on the Maualana and take him down.
Azhar is housed in Pakistan's Muzzafarabad and he had in fact addressed a large gathering after coming out of hibernation in October 2016.
After the Pathankot attack in 2015, he went into hiding. India made several requests to hand the man over or at least investigate him. Pakistan did not oblige to any of the requests. India then decided to take the matter to the Security Council, but was blocked by China.
In the midst of all the complaining, Azhar ordered hits at Uri and Nagrota in which several brave Indian soldiers were killed. India did carry out a surgical strike after Uri, but a few weeks later, Azhar ordered an attack at Nagrota. India was back at the UN seeking a ban on the man.
Ban or no ban, Azhar will continue to get the protection in Pakistan. There is a ban on the Lashkar-e-Tayiba's Hafiz Saeed and Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi. Has that prevented them from striking at India. The answer is no and the reason is Pakistan considers them strategic assets and continues to protect them.
A ban at the UN is nothing but a mere formality. If India thinks it would hamper Azhar's operations, then it should study the Saeed case deeply. India had once complained before the UN that Saeed continues to get access to funds despite a ban. The discussion was however blocked by China.
Experts are of the view that this constant complaining to UN and blaming China is not going to help. It may show that we follow the Gandhian policy, but the fact of the matter is that Azhar will continue to strike at India.
In this context, the better option would be to take the Maulana out or at least weaken his network to such an extent that he become irrelevant.