The hostage situation in Libya coupled with the recent call by the Islamic State for a combined Afghanistan-Pakistan jihadi coalition against India, once again brings to focus the debate on whether or not India should play a more active military role in the global war against IS.
India is under increasing pressure from the United States to join the coalition. This had come up for discussion on several occasions at the highest levels and is likely to be raised again in September when Prime Minster Narendra Modi meets U.S. President Barack Obama in New York on the sidelines of the U.S.-led World Peacekeeping Summit.
Officials said any Indian action at this point may prove detrimental to the safety of 39 Indian construction workers currently in IS captivity in Iraq.
Expert opinion on this is, however, divided between the imperative need to tackle the threat versus exercising caution in external interference. Any role logistical or full offensive has to factor in the geopolitical, economic and domestic sensitivities.
Prof. M.D. Nalapat, a Professor of Geopolitics at Manipal University who has strongly advocated an active Indian role, said: “IS has declared war on India unilaterally. We have no choice. We are already in the war. India has to play a more active militaristic role.” Stating that India cannot postpone the attack by waiting, Prof. Nalapat observed that “India has been a historical loser by its strategic cowardice. We talk big but act small.”
However, serving and retired Army officers who took part in the United Nations Peacekeeping Missions exercised caution. Lt. Gen. (retd) Chander Prakash, former Force Commander for U.N. Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, said: “Peacekeeping and active war against the IS are two different things and cannot be equated.”
A senior officer who served in U.N. Peacekeeping missions cautioned against rushing into what is “largely a regional war” though the threat of IS is global.
