
India-Pakistan, 2002: When it was close to war
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated Dec 23, 2002)Last Christmas, fighter pilots of the Indian Air Force's No. 1 Tiger Squadron of Mirage-2000 H aircraft were not in celebratory mode. Moved a week earlier from home base Gwalior to the forward base Adampur near Jalandhar, the Tigers packed pistols, high-protein Swiss chocolates and a quarter-inch map of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). These would come in handy in case any of them was shot down behind enemy lines.advertisementTheir comrades in arms, the Indian Army's para-commandos, looked like the US marines with war paint, MP-5 sub-machine guns, infrared night-vision devices, Kevlar bulletproof jackets and hi-tech frequency-hopping radio sets. For the past week, the two elite forces had been secretly conducting mock raids in the hills of Jammu and Kashmir. This was not a routine exercise. It was preparation for war. Just how close India actually came to war, not once but twice, is emerging only now, and INDIA TODAY was able to piece together key details.It all began on December 13, 2001, when Pakistan-based terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) attacked the Indian Parliament, killing nine people. As the real intent of the strike sunk in and evidence of Pakistan's involvement mounted, Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee made it clear that India's patience had worn thin.advertisement
At a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) and the three service chiefs on December 15, Vajpayee asked the service chiefs, "Can we do something quickly?" All three responded in the affirmative. The CCS—comprising Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, the then external affairs minister Jaswant Singh, finance minister Yashwant Sinha, Defence Minister George Fernandes, Planning Commission Chairman K.C. Pant and National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra—agreed on a strike against PoK-based terrorists.JANUARY 14, 2002: FIRST CHANCEOrders were immediately issued to mobilise troops—more than those in the run-up to the 1971 war. Considering that it would take three to four weeks for deployment on the western borders, the armed forces planned action for the second week of January 2002. After much debate, the service chiefs opted for a limited offensive against the terrorists' training camps in PoK.It would essentially entail air force strikes to pulverise zones with a high concentration of camps—that's where the Tiger Squadron came in. A limited ground offensive by special forces of the army would further neutralise the camps and help occupy dominant positions on the LoC. D-day was tentatively fixed for January 14.In Delhi's war calculus, limited action in PoK made sense as it would not only convey the Indian resolve to Pakistan but also keep international retribution to manageable levels. India, after all, was only taking a leaf out of the ongoing US action against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan. The daunting prospect of Pakistan launching an all-out offensive in response to the Indian action weighed heavily on the CCS.advertisementBut the intelligence assessment that the Pakistani Army was not well prepared loaded the dice in India's favour. This meant that the chances of Pakistan launching a full-scale war were minimal. The Indian plans were also backed by a sound economy that was bolstered by low inflation, high forex and petroleum reserves. Sinha went on record saying the economy was prepared for war even though it was the last option.A limited strike was a clever tactical option. The build-up indicated to the world, especially the US, that India was serious. If Pakistan wasn't reined in, India would have no option. Delhi also stepped up the diplomatic offensive, recalling its high commissioner and banning civilian flights from Pakistan. Picking up the war signals, Pakistan went into hypermode: it began mobilising forces and exchanged frantic calls with the US, getting President George W. Bush into the act.advertisementSecretary of State Colin Powell called India and Pakistan to cool down temperatures. British Prime Minister Tony Blair even flew to India in the first week of January to say that they were leaning on Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf. As proof, the US declared LeT and JeM as terrorist groups. Advani, meanwhile, flew to the US on January 8, where he was briefed on the contents of Musharraf 's impending landmark speech. The speech finally came on January 12, when Musharraf declared that terrorism in the name of Kashmir was unjustified. Practically giving in to Indian demands, he also announced plans to regulate madarsas and ban known terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan.Besides Musharraf's speech, there was another factor that shot down the CCS plans of an immediate war when it met on moved out most terrorist training camps from PoK in January, implying that the Indian forces would have to cross the international borders to achieve militarily significant results. This was risky as it would show India as an aggressor and could invite global intervention on Kashmir. So the CCS decided to give Musharraf another chance but keep the armed forces fully mobilised for war. And in a symbolic gesture on January 14, the Tiger Squadron destroyed an "enemy" bunker at Pokhran in Rajasthan with a laser-guided bomb.advertisementJUNE 10, 2002: SECOND SHOTThe readiness strategy paid off when Pakistan's terrorist groups struck again on May 14. Storming into the army residential quarters at Kaluchak cantonment in Jammu, they killed 22 women and children. Even before the killings, India had accused Pakistan of failing to keep its promise on ending cross-border terrorism. A day after the massacre, a visibly tense Vajpayee told Parliament, "Hamein pratikar karna hoga (We will have to counter it)."On May 18, Vajpayee, along with Fernandes, was briefed on military preparedness by Director-General Military Operations Lt-General S.S. Chahal and Military Intelligence Chief Lt-General O.S. Lochab. Later, after a two-hour meeting, the CCS favoured military action against terrorists in Pakistan.The political leadership apparently wanted limited action similar to the one in January. But after evaluating various military options, it was decided that action in PoK was not viable as Pakistan had beefed up its forces across the LoC. Any action limited to forays across the LoC would translate into minimum military gains and would risk attrition in the Indian forces. The military, however, favoured an all-out offensive that would stretch Pakistani troops across the international borders and give India an opening in PoK.advertisementSo the armed forces came up with a daring plan: destroy Pakistan's war-waging potential and pulverise the terror factories in PoK. The June canvas was bigger than the January one, since Pakistan had packed areas north of Chenab with forces and military logic dictated the battle should not be confined to the LoC. But there were serious limitations to the plans that worried the political bosses. With the monsoons imminent, the armed forces warned that the window for attack was extremely narrow. Any miscalculation could see the offensive bogged down with disastrous consequences.Even as the debate raged, the military made its plans. The launch of the offensive was entrusted to Strike Corps I led by Lt-General J.J. Singh, who had directed military operations in Kargil war. The IAF, along with Strike Corps I, would initiate action in the Shakargarh bulge and engage Pakistan's Army Reserve North (ARN) spread from Muzaffarabad in PoK to the Shekhopura-Lahore area. The idea was to lock Pakistan's key strike corp in battle that was essentially a boxer's feint. The real offensive would be in PoK by strike formations moved in from the east and tasked to capture strategic points used by Pakistan to push in terrorists.The period considered for limited strikes was between May 23 and June 10. On May 22, at Kupwara brigade headquarters near the LoC Vajpayee declared that "it was time for a decisive battle". A day later, the CCS met to assess the readiness of the country's key sectors in the event of a war. An economic review was also undertaken: Sinha said India's economy was a hundred times stronger than Pakistan's to bear hostilities, and RBI Governor Bimal Jalan pointed to a low inflation rate of 1.56 per cent and all-time high forex reserves of $55 billion (Rs 2,64,000 crore) to tide over the crisis. The crude oil and petroleum stock reserves, which should sustain the country for more than a month in a war, were also sufficient.With the CCS endorsing a strike, Vajpayee wrote to Bush, Blair, Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Jacques Chirac, saying Musharraf had failed to deliver on his January 12 speech and that India's patience was running out. Hectic diplomacy followed as Bush, Putin, Blair and even Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi called and pleaded with Vajpayee not to take the extreme step. The global community conveyed to Delhi that it would impress on Musharraf to clarify his promise on stopping cross-border infiltration.That June was an option considered seriously by the Vajpayee Government is borne out by the Defence Ministry's SOS for defence supplies to Israel during the month. But the global community urged restraint as it was worried Pakistan would use the nuclear card to address its conventional asymmetry against the Indian armed forces. Musharraf had already played the nuclear brinkmanship—hinting he would use nukes against India—in an interview to German magazine Der Spiegel in April. Pakistan had even tested three missiles—Ghauri (N-capable), Ghaznavi and Abdali—between May 25 and 28 as a deterrent to India's posture.This belligerence forced India to review its N-capability to strike back—Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Anil Kakodkar and Defence Research and Development Organisation Secretary V.K. Aatre reportedly participated in a CCS meeting in late May. In the absence of any formalised strategic force command, the nuclear strategy was handled on a need-to-know basis by Mishra, who reportedly attended an AEC meeting on May 24 in Chennai and later flew to Manali to brief Vajpayee.Pakistan's nuclear theatrics also led to Powell calling Musharraf five times in the last week of May and reading the riot act to him. Bush sent Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to Pakistan on June 5. He apparently asked Musharraf three times whether he would "permanently" end cross-border infiltration and help dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. He conveyed Musharraf's commitment to Powell while flying to Delhi on June 6, and to India, on arriving.On June 10, Powell disclosed Musharraf's promise to the world, by which time India had already called off its strike plans. The political logic was understandable as a full-frontal attack would translate into war. It was better to give Musharraf another chance. Or perhaps, the build-up was a shrewd ploy by India, not only in June but also in January, to force Pakistan as well as the world community into action.Last week, Fernandes denied (to INDIA TODAY) that India had been on the brink of war, claiming that at no point had the CCS given directions to the armed forces to take action against Pakistan. He, however, did not put it beyond the army generals to prepare for contingency plans. Mishra, on the other hand, reiterated that India had indeed been "close to war" in January and May. While refusing to disclose dates, he pointed out that on June 23, Vajpayee had said in an interview to the Washington Post that it was a "touch and go affair".The Tiger Squadron, on its part, did have its share of action. On August 2, four Mirage fighters evicted Pakistani intruders 800 m across the LoC in Machhil sector of Kashmir. In Washington, it was dubbed Kargil II. The Tigers know that given the murky Indo-Pak relations, all it will take is another carnage for them to be back in air, in action.Subscribe to India Today Magazine
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
‘Can strike America anywhere': China reveals DF-5 nuke missile details after Hegseth's 'provocation'
Amid rising tensions with the United States, China has, for the first time, publicly disclosed key specifications of one of its nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles 'DF-5.' In a rare move, state broadcaster CCTV revealed that the DF-5 can carry a 3 to 4 megaton nuclear warhead, has a range of 12,000 km, and is accurate within 500 meters, that is enough firepower to reach the US and Western Europe. Show more Show less


Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
ECB's Lagarde says she's determined to complete her term
European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde said on Thursday she was determined to complete her term at the ECB, following speculation she might leave early to take up a role leading the World Economic Forum (WEF). "I can very firmly tell you that I have always been, and I am, fully determined to deliver on my mission, and I'm determined to complete my term," Lagarde told her regular news conference following the ECB's interest rate decision . Former WEF head Klaus Schwab was recently quoted by the Financial Times as saying he had met Lagarde to discuss the prospect of her leaving the ECB early to lead the Swiss-based organisation, best-known for its winter conference in Davos. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo An ECB spokesperson said at the time that Lagarde was determined to complete her eight-year presidential term, which runs out at the end of October 2027. Founder Schwab resigned with immediate effect in April and the WEF said it had launched an investigation into his affairs following a whistleblower letter alleging misconduct. Schwab denies the allegations. Live Events


India Today
6 hours ago
- India Today
Battle of the Takhts: What's tearing Sikh institutions apart?
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated June 9, 2025)In a faith where five thrones symbolise unity, two just went to war. On May 21, a religious cannonball was fired from the east: Takht Sri Patna Sahib, one of Sikhism's five revered seats, located in Bihar. The Panj Pyare or 'five beloved' leaders of Patna have declared as tankhaiya, i.e. guilty of religious misconduct, two of their senior clerical peers back in Punjab: the acting jathedar of Akal Takht, the supreme seat of Sikh authority in Amritsar, as well as the Takht Damdama Sahib flashpoint? A decision by the Akal Takht to reinstate a controversial former jathedar, Giani Ranjit Singh Gauhar, without so much as consulting Patna Sahib, which had dismissed him in 2022 amidst a welter of corruption and other response from Amritsar was instant. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), which controls the Akal Takht's management, thundered its disapproval and demanded that Patna Sahib retract its edict. The latter refused to blink. What started as a personnel shuffle is now an all-out turf war. At stake: not just religious authority but the very idea of Sikh unity. The battlelines are blurring faith, power and politics in a way that's left the global Sikh community rattled. advertisement If this feels unprecedented, it's not. In 2008, then jathedar of Patna Sahib, Giani Iqbal Singh, had openly challen-ged the Akal Takht's supremacy. That spat was hushed up via backchannel diplomacy. This one is being livestreamed—on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram. Every edict, every insult, every act of defiance is now a global push notification. The timing couldn't be worse. Sikh institutions are already reeling from the recent sacking of three jathedars—the previous Akal Takht chief and heads of two other Punjab-based Takhts—by the SGPC, in a move seen by many as politically engineered. It was supposed to be a course correction. Instead, it has triggered a FAULT LINESFor the faithful, the crisis is more than administrative. And it's exposing fault lines long buried under the surface. The Akal Takht, established by Guru Hargobind in 1606 as a seat of power and justice, has operated as the first among equals: issuing hukamnamas (edicts), settling disputes, excommunicating those deemed out of line. That moral supremacy was sanctified not just by tradition, but by proximity to power—the SGPC and Punjab's political aura that itself drew from its centrality to Sahib is no upstart. It was formally accepted as one of the five Takhts by the SGPC in the 1950s, but its sanctity predates that by centuries. It is the birthplace of Guru Gobind Singh—the tenth Guru and founder of the warrior Khalsa order—and has long been revered as a spiritual centre for Sikhs in Bihar, Jharkhand, Bengal and eastern Uttar Pradesh. The tensions with Takht Hazur Sahib in Nanded, Maharashtra, are another powder keg. Nanded has often bristled at attempts by Amritsar to assert supremacy: on calendar reforms, clergy appointments, even on rituals. It, too, has been known to issue independent the global Sikh diaspora, this is nothing short of disillusionment. The schism isn't just geographic—it's ideological. Sikh preachers from California to Calgary are offering counter-narratives—filling the vacuum left by dithering Takhts. This doctrinal free market may be democratising discourse, but it's also breeding chaos. With no clear line of command, contradictory edicts are now routine. The current stand-off may still be walked back through closed-door parleys. But some damage seems to have been done to India Today Magazine