
Winning in the shadows: Why B Raman's playbook can help India win the proxy war against Pakistan
'The concept of victory as understood in a conventional war against another state does not apply to the unconventional war against terrorists. There is no definite point in time at which one could say that one has won the war against terrorism. Terrorists are not defeated in the sense of a state adversary being defeated in a conventional war. They are just made to wither away. The objective of the state must be to keep denying victory to the terrorists through better intelligence and better coordination, better analysis, better physical security and better follow-up action. Every time one manages to deny victory to terrorists through prevention or preemption, one makes progress in the fight against terrorism.'
'As the number of terrorist strikes prevented or preempted increases and as the number of successful terrorist strikes decreases, one starts seeing the impact on the terrorist organisation. Success is the oxygen of the terrorists. You keep denying them success, they start withering away. Often, the state becomes aware that a terrorist organisation has withered away long after it has. In India, we fought against externally sponsored terrorism in the Punjab for fourteen years from 1981. The last major terrorist strike was in 1995. Thereafter, the number of incidents steadily declined, and there were long periods when there were no terrorist incidents. We realised much later that the security forces had acquired the upper hand over the terrorists who had started withering away and that the turning point in the fight had come in 1992, without our having been aware of it at that time.'
The above lines were written by the late B Raman, one of India's most illustrious intelligence officers and a globally-renowned expert on the subject of terrorism, about two decades ago. Referring to the category of 'state-directed terrorism' in which terrorist groups operate as agents of a government, receiving substantial intelligence, logistical and operational support from it, Raman, in his book, Intelligence: Past, Present and Future (2002), stressed that nations which let their will and readiness to retaliate when attacked be weakened by misplaced forbearance invite greater aggression. He, therefore, called for the formulation and implementation of a 'credible counter proxy-war strategy' to 'demonstrate to Pakistan that its proxy war against India would not be cost-free'.
A reliable counter-proxy-war strategy against Pakistan, Raman wrote, would have an overt and a covert component. The overt component would consist of extending 'political, moral and diplomatic support' to the alienated sections of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the Northern Areas (now called Gilgit-Baltistan). The covert component cannot be discussed in public, but certain points could be flagged, based on the 'recognition of certain ground realities'.
Ideas such as the right of hot pursuit, raids on terrorist camps across the LOC would not work. Covert actions against Pakistani interests in PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan would be difficult because of the strong Punjabi-Pathan component, comprising mostly ex-servicemen, in the local population. The covert component of any counter-proxy-war policy would, therefore, have to be largely in areas where we will have the advantage of ground conditions and local support. 'We have to carefully choose the terrain that will hurt Pakistan and hurt it badly,' Raman wrote.
Before drafting and implementing an effective counter proxy-war policy, we have to pose to ourselves certain questions which have been rarely raised, keeping in view the imperatives of national security, Raman further observed. The more important of these questions would include the following: Is it in India's interest to ensure that the law and order situation in Pakistan continues to be as bad as ever, thereby deterring foreign investment? Is it in India's interest to do anything, such as the resumption of bilateral trade, which might help Pakistan come out of its economic difficulties? Is it in India's interest that the unbridgeable sectarian divide in Pakistan gathers momentum? Is it in India's interest that the struggle of the non-Punjabi nationalities of Pakistan for a genuine confederation succeeds? Is it in India's interest that the movement for the restoration of democracy, with the army returning to the barracks with no political role, gathers momentum and succeeds? Is it in India's interest that Pakistan remains inextricably trapped in the black hole of Afghanistan? Is it in India's interest that the clerics and their organisations continue to drag Pakistan back into the past, thereby making it an unwelcome proposition for the rest of the world, either as an ally, a friend or an investment destination?
'You find the right answers to these questions and you will have the right mix of the covert component of our counter proxy-war strategy,' responsibility for the implementation of which is best left to a 'counter proxy-war centre in India's external intelligence establishment,' Raman concluded. From Mumbai in 2008 to Pahalgam in 2025, the trajectories of Pakistan's proxy-war and India's counter-proxy war responses have covered a long distance, but Raman's observations still retain their relevance. Indeed, they might be said to have acquired an added salience at the present moment.
All policies and strategies, overt and covert, require a well-defined end goal as a yardstick to measure the extent of their success. A counter-proxy-war strategy can be no exception. Making Pakistan, and its military-intelligence establishment in particular, renounce proxy war as an instrument of policy is a realistic and achievable goal. The overt component, by definition, requires publicity in ample measure, whereas the covert component has to be conducted in the shadows. This is a fundamental distinction that the Indian media must understand and respect if it is to play a helpful role in its implementation. Both components require the presence of 'objective allies' in Pakistan and the strengthening of their influence. To that extent, approaches that may have the unintended consequence of alienating potential allies or weakening the strength of their constituency may prove counterproductive. The Indian state must now rededicate itself to the steadfast pursuit of such a credible and effective counter-proxy-war strategy against Pakistan and take it to its logical conclusion.
The writer is a former special secretary in the Research & Analysis Wing. Views are personal

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

India.com
26 minutes ago
- India.com
How Does Pakistan Keep Getting Loans? Unpacking The Dirty Secrets Behind The Global Funding That Shields A Failing State
New Delhi: Pakistan is broke. Its economy is shattered. Foreign reserves are vanishing. Yet it keeps getting blank cheques. Weeks after the International Monetry Fund (IMF) handed it over $1 billion in emergency funds plus an additional $1.3 billion in loans, the nuclear-armed state got another $800 million from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). India protested. The world ignored. And it is not the first time. Why does a nation with internal chaos and globally infamous for harboring terrorists keeps getting rewarded? Despite global acknowledgment of Pakistan's double-faced policies – begging for aid while exporting 'jihad' – the money keeps flowing. So what makes Pakistan the global community's 'spoiled child with a nuclear button'? The answer is not economic. It is political, strategic and dangerously hypocritical. Let's get this straight: Pakistan is not getting loans because it deserves them. It is getting them because the world is afraid of what will happen if it collapses. Its economy is in tatters. Pakistan's forex reserves dipped in 2023 below $3 billion – barely enough for three weeks of imports. The 2022 floods cost the country more than $30 billion in damages. 1. Too Nuclear to Fail: Pakistan's debt has ballooned to over $130 billion. If it defaults, global banks lose billions. It is financial blackmail that is working. 2. Location: Sitting between China, Afghanistan and Iran, the country holds strategic real estate. The West, especially the United States, does not want it slipping entirely into China's orbit. 3. A Loan with Strings: These are not freebies. IMF and ADB loans come with demands – raise taxes, cut subsidies and sell public assets. Western companies often swoop in to buy the leftovers. Global lending institutions like the IMF and the ADB may present themselves as neutral bodies, but their actions suggest otherwise. They claim to operate on technical grounds, but do not blink twice when handing over billions to a country that fuels terrorism in Kashmir and harbors global fugitives. And where is India in this equation? Despite protests after attacks like Pahalgam, New Delhi's influence is minimal. India's voting share in the IMF is small compared to the United States and Europe. Meanwhile, Pakistan's removal from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list in 2022 made getting loans even easier. The United States sees Pakistan as a pawn in its Afghanistan endgame. China, through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), is turning it into a client state. Loans are just the leash – a way to pull Pakistan closer when needed and push it when not. Who Really Benefits? Not the people of Pakistan. Experts like Sushant Sareen argue these loans fatten the Pakistani military, not fuel reforms. Former diplomat Kanwal Sibal warns that the IMF funding indirectly supports terror. Even former Pakistani envoy Husain Haqqani admits that the IMF is an ICU for Pakistan, not a cure. These loans do not save Pakistan. They sustain it just enough to remain a useful mess. A mess that is allowed to fester because it serves the interests of those who pretend to fix it. Pakistan is not only playing the victim, it is gaming the system and the system is letting it.
&w=3840&q=100)

India.com
41 minutes ago
- India.com
Shashi Tharoor In US Gives Evidence Of Pakistans Involvement In Pahalgam Terror Attack
Congress MP and the lead of India's All-Party Delegation to the United States, Shashi Tharoor, on Thursday listed three evidence about Pakistan's involvement in the Pahalgam terror attack of April 22 in which 26 individuals were killed. As he addressed the media's queries in the US, he was questioned if any country had asked the delegation for evidence of Islamabad's involvement in the Pahalgam attack. "I'm very glad you raised this. I didn't plant it, I promise you. Very simply, no one had any doubt, and we were not asked for evidence. But the media have asked in two or three places. Let me say very clearly that India would not have done this without convincing evidence. But there were three particular reasons I want to draw your attention to all of you,' the Congress MP replied. He continued to list three pieces of evidence about Pakistan's involvement in the Pahalgam terrorist attack: 1- Over Three Decades Of Pattern The first point that Tharoor raised was that there has been a 37-year pattern of repeated terror attacks from Pakistan, accompanied by repeated denials. 'I mean, Americans haven't forgotten that Pakistan did not know, allegedly, where Osama bin Laden was until he was found in a Pakistani safe house right next to an army camp in a cantonment city. That's Pakistan. Mumbai attacks- they denied having anything to do with it… So we know what Pakistan's all about. They will dispatch terrorists, they will deny they did so until they're actually caught with red hands," he added. 2- TRF's Claim The next point the Congress leader highlighted was that The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy front of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) had claimed the responsibility for the Pahalgam terror attack and later withdrew it. 'Second point, the moment this happened, within 45 minutes or so of this happening, the terrorist attack, a group called The Resistance Front, claimed credit. Who is The Resistance Front? They're a well-known proxy front of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a banned organization listed by the United Nations (UN) listed by the US State Department…' he elaborated. 'These people then claimed credit within a time span. There were no media present when these killings took place. Most of the world hadn't even learned about this when they claimed credit. So that was itself a smoking gun. They repeated that claim 24 hours later. And having repeated that claim 24 hours later, then their handlers must have woken up to the gravity of this and told them to take it off their site. So they did. But the fact is, the credit claim was on record, and the world has seen it,' he presented his second point. 3- Funerals After India's Strikes Tharoor presented the next point and said, 'Third, when the first strikes happened on the terrorist camps, funerals were conducted, including for members of some of the key organizations, the Jaish-e-Mohammed in particular, and the Lashkar-e-Taiba.' 'The funerals were conducted, and photographs have emerged on social media showing Pakistani generals and police officers in uniform attending these funerals being conducted by relatives of these terrorists,' he continued. #WATCH | Washington DC: On a question asked by his son about whether any country had asked the delegation for evidence of Pakistan's involvement in the Pahalgam attack and about Pakistan's repeated denials of any role in the attack, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "I'm very glad… — ANI (@ANI) June 5, 2025 Congress leader Tharoor is leading an All-Party delegation which includes Shambhavi Chaudhary (Lok Janshakti Party), Sarfaraz Ahmed (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha), G M Harish Balayogi (Telugu Desam Party), Shashank Mani Tripathi, Tejaswi Surya, and Bhubaneswar Kalita (all from the BJP), Mallikarjun Devda (Shiv Sena), former Indian Ambassador to the US Taranjit Singh Sandhu, and Shiv Sena MP Milind Deora. The Delegation met the US Vice President JD Vance on Thursday. The seven All-Party Delegations were entrusted to carry forth the strong message of zero tolerance against terrorism. After the terror attack Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor during the wee hours of May 7, hitting terrorist infrastructure sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK).


India Gazette
44 minutes ago
- India Gazette
"India today speaks with strength, not submission": Assam CM hits back at Rahul Gandhi's "surrender" remarks on PM
New Delhi [India], June 5 (ANI): Launching a scathing attack on Congress MP Rahul Gandhi over his 'surrender' remarks on PM Modi, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Thursday slammed Congress, accusing it of surrendering India's pride, security, and sovereignty over historical dates from losing PoK and Aksai Chin. In a long post on X, CM Himanta, citing Prime Minister Modi's strong response through Uri, Balakot, and Galwan, said that 'India today speaks with strength, not submission.' 'Rahul Gandhi has the audacity to mock the Hon'ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi as 'Surrender Modi' despite the massive success of #OperationSindoor. Let's jog his memory as to which party and family has surrendered India's interest and territory, and backstabbed the people with their treachery,' he said. 'It was Pandit Nehru who rushed to the United Nations during the Kashmir conflict, halted our advancing Army, and gifted away what we now call Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. A military victory sacrificed at the altar of global appeasement,' CM Sarma said. Attacking the Congress over Aksai Chin, the Assam CM said that 38,000 sq km of Indian territory was handed over without firing a bullet. 'Nehru's only response when China threatened Assam? Was this statesmanship or surrender @RahulGandhi? Assam was nearly cut off. The entire Northeast was abandoned to fate,' Himanta Biswa Sarma said. Further, CM Sarma said that former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had 93,000 Pakistani soldiers in custody during the 1971 war, the moment, he said, could be used to take back PoK. 'Indira Gandhi had 93,000 Pakistani soldiers in custody after the 1971 war. But instead of using that leverage to recover PoK or secure reparations, she released them--empty-handed. A historic military win squandered at the negotiating table,' he said. 'Despite full readiness, the Congress government deferred India's nuclear tests under American pressure. It took Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998 to finally make India a declared nuclear power. After 166 innocent Indians were butchered by Pakistan-backed terrorists in 26/11, what did Congress do? No response. No justice. No accountability. Just silence,' the Assam CM said. Sharpening his attacks further, CM Himanta Sarma claimed that the Congress didn't just surrender land, it surrendered India's pride, security, and sovereignty. 'Even after victory, they couldn't secure 9 Indian POWs from Pakistan. Even after the liberation of Bangladesh, they left Assam vulnerable, its fate hanging by the 'chicken neck' corridor. Even in 1962, Nehru was ready to abandon Assam to the Chinese,' he said. Praising Prime Minister Modi's leadership, the Assam CM said that those 'dark days are over'. 'Under PM Narendra Modi, India doesn't plead. We act in Uri, we strike in Balakot, we stand our ground in Galwan, and we lead globally. From military to diplomacy, from economy to national security, India today speaks with strength, not submission. Congress must stop projecting its own history of cowardice onto the shoulders of a leader who refuses to bend. India remembers. India has risen. And India won't surrender again,' CM Himanta said on X. This comes after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi attacked the BJP-led government on Tuesday over allegations of mediation by the United States in Operation Sindoor. He alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi 'followed' Donald Trump following a call by the US leader and that the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi did not budge to the US in the 1971 war. Addressing a convention of Congress workers in Bhopal, LoP Rahul Gandhi said, 'Now, I understand RSS-BJP well. They run away out of fear if slight pressure is put on them. When Trump called Modiji- Modiji kya kar rahe ho, Narender-Surrender and with 'ji hazooor', Narenderji followed Trump. In the 1971 war, the Seventh Fleet (which came from the US), India Gandhi said I will do whatever I have to do. This is the difference. This is their character; all of them are like this. Since the Independence movement, they have had the habit of writing letters of surrender.' (ANI)