Behind Enemy Lines: How Abhinandan Varthaman Survived After the Crash

By not divulging any information beyond what a POW is supposed to reveal, the wing commander conducted himself professionally and lawfully. But the same cannot be said for his captors, who made him an object of public curiosity, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

New Delhi: On Wednesday, February 27, India officially acknowledged that an IAF pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, had gone “missing in action” after an aerial skirmish between Indian and Pakistani fighter jets.

On Thursday, just after 4:30 pm, Pakistan’s prime minister announced that Abhinandan would be released on Friday, as a “peace gesture.”

As conflicting reports on his capture circulated in both nations’ media, Karachi’s Dawn newspaper published a detailed eye-witness’ account of how the Indian pilot was captured after his crash across the Line of Control.

This report, combined with videos of the pilot interacting with Pakistani officials off-camera, show how the wing commander maintained a level head and admirable composure throughout this ordeal.

Local civilians first on the scene

At around 8:45 am on Wednesday morning, Indian and Pakistani fighter jets were reportedly engaged in a dogfight in the skies above Horra’n village, located about 7 km from the LoC in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir’s Bhimber district.

Both Indian planes then reportedly caught fire, but while one sped back into Indian territory, the other burst into flames and plummeted to the ground. Local resident Mohammad Razzaq told Dawn that he then saw a pilot emerge “safe and sound” from his parachute.

Razzaq then reportedly told the village’s children to stay away from the plane’s wreckage until military personnel arrived on the scene.

Also read: Could Sharing Live IAF Flight Locations Online Compromise Pilots’ Security?

Once safely on the ground, the pilot asked the youths whether he was in India or Pakistan, to which one of them responded, “India”.

If this showed quick thinking by the locals – who obviously wanted to mislead the Indian pilot into believing he was home and safe – Abhinandan appears to have been sceptical. Dawn reports that the pilot “shouted some slogans” – presumably ‘Hindustan Zindabad’ – and told the youths that his “back was broken” and that he needed water.

Supposedly provoked by his slogan, a local from the group shouted “Pakistan zindabad”, immediately alerting Abhinandan to the fact that he was on the wrong side of the border. As he sought to move away from the group which had surrounded him, some of them picked up stones and began moving aggressively towards him. Abhinandantook out his service revolver to fire a warning shot in the air. He ran backwards for nearly half a kilometre, firing more shots in the air, while the group of locals pursued him.

Pilot sought to destroy maps, papers

Backed into a corner, the wing commander jumped into a small pond and hurriedly tried to destroy some documents and maps he was carrying, by soaking them in water and trying to swallow them.

As the group caught up with the pilot and told him to drop his weapon, one of the boys shot at his leg as he stood in the pond. Finally, Abhinandan came out of the pond and told them not to kill him.

This was clearly a dangerous situation for the pilot and firing his gun in the air, given the circumstances, was a calibrated an act of self-defence. His later conduct – he thanked Pakistani military personnel for rescuing him from the “mob” – supports the idea that he was trying to save himself in as measured a manner as possible. Commenting on the group that found the pilot, eye witness Razzaq even thanked god that “none of the boys shot him dead,” Dawn reports.

The pilot’s decision to destroy sensitive documents was also standard protocol to prevent strategic information from falling into the adversary’s hands.

According to Additional Protocol I, 1977, of the Geneva Conventions, attacking a parachutist from a distressed aircraft constitutes a war crime. Article 42 of Protocol I expressly deals with this specific situation, noting:

  1. That no person parachuting from a distressed aircraft shall be made the object of attack during his descent;
  2. That upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

According to Geneva Convention III, 1949, “all effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents, shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war.”

While Article 42 does not explicitly mention non-combatants, the basic rules of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols in the role of civilian and neutral parties, provides that the civilian population must respect the wounded, even if they belong to the adverse party, and shall not commit any act of violence against them.

Moreover, in cases not covered by the Conventions or additional Protocols, civilians and combatants “remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom and from the principles of humanity.”

Also read: #Abhinandan, a Human Face to the Costs of War, Empowers Voices for Peace Online

Conduct under detention

The group of boys only stopped beating up the pilot when Pakistani personnel showed up and took him into custody. A video of that scene, presumably shot by locals, soon made its way to social media.

After being “captured”, the Pakistani government’s media wing released a video of Wing Commander Abhinandan stating “on record, even if he goes back to [India],” that the officers of the Pakistani army looked after him “very well.” He went on to thank the captain who rescued him, and said he was “very impressed” with the Pakistani army.

Referring to the interviewer (off camera) as “major,” Abhinandan responded to a question about where he is from with a polite, “[Sorry], am I supposed to tell you this, Major?”

The “major” persisted, asking what aircraft he was flying and what his mission was, to which Abhinandan responded, “Sorry, major, I am not supposed to tell you this, but I’m sure you found the wreckage.”

Under Article 17 of the GCIII, “every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.”

By circulating the videos it made on social media, Pakistan’s military may have been in violation of Article 13 of Geneva Convention III, which affords prisoners protection from “public curiosity.”

The videos show that the pilot maintained professional conduct, followed protocol and prioritised India’s national security interests.

His treatment and release

On Thursday, Pakistan army’s director general, Inter-Services Public Relations, General major Asif Ghafoor tweeted: “There is only one pilot under Pakistan Army’s custody. Wing Comd Abhi Nandan is being treated as per norms of military ethics,” along with a video that purportedly showed the pilot in safe surroundings, drinking tea and politely refusing to divulge information.

Pakistan’s custody of Varthaman is governed by the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which lay out rules for how to treat prisoners of war. POWs are protected from prosecution for directly taking part in hostilities. Their detention does not amount to a form of punishment, but strictly aims to prevent further participation in hostilities.

It was presumably in accordance with these provisions that Pakistan announced its decision to release the Indian pilot.

Watch | Imran’s Appeal: Can India, Pakistan Stop the Drift to War?

Arfa Khanum Sherwani, senior editor at The Wire, discusses what happened in the 24 hours after India’s airstrikes on Pakistan.

New Delhi: After India officially confirmed that one Indian pilot is “missing in action” after an aerial skirmish with Pakistani fighter jets on Wednesday, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan called for “better sense [to] prevail” and renewed his offer for dialogue with India.

Amid Tensions, Pakistan Suspended Samjhauta Express

Pakistan’s Foreign Office confirmed the operation of Samjhauta Express has been suspended today in view of the prevailing tensions between Pakistan and India.

Lahore: Pakistani authorities have suspended the Samjhauta Express train service between Pakistan and India until further notice, an official said Thursday, amidst tense bilateral ties in the aftermath of the Pulwama terror attack

The train departs on Monday and Thursday from Lahore.

“The operation of Samjhauta Express has been suspended today (Thursday) in view of the prevailing tensions between Pakistan and India,” Pakistan’s Foreign Office (FO) spokesman said in a statement

The biweekly train was scheduled to depart from Lahore with 16 passengers

“Samjhauta Express will resume its operations as soon as the security situation improves between India and Pakistan,” the FO said without giving any specific date for resuming the train service

The FO statement came after a spokesman of the Railways said early in the morning that the train service scheduled to depart for India at 8:00 AM (local time) was cancelled

Dawn news reported that the train embarked on its journey from Karachi but stopped at Lahore railway station after officials suspended its service

The Samjhauta Express, named after the Hindi word for “agreement”, comprises six sleeper coaches and an AC 3-tier coach. The train service was started on July 22, 1976 under the Shimla Agreement that settled the 1971 war between the two nations

Sources said that the footfall of the train, which generally records an occupancy of around 70%, has fallen drastically post the Pulwama terror attack

Tensions have escalated between India and Pakistan in the wake of the Pulwama attack by Pakistan-based terror group Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM)

India carried out air strikes against the biggest training camp of JeM in Balakot. In the operation, a very large number of JeM terrorists, trainers, senior commanders and groups of jihadis who were being trained for suicide attacks were eliminated. The facility at Balakot was headed by Yousuf Azhar, the brother-in-law of the JeM chief

At least 40 CRPF personnel were killed and many injured on February 14 in one of the deadliest terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir when a JeM suicide bomber rammed a vehicle carrying over 100 kg of explosives into their bus in Pulwama district.

Jaitley Appeals to Opposition Parties to Introspect Their Joint Statement

The opposition parties in a joint statement expressed “deep anguish” over the “blatant politicisation” of the sacrifices of armed forces.

New Delhi: Finance minister Arun Jaitley Wednesday appealed to opposition parties to introspect their statement on “blatant politicisation” of the sacrifices of the armed forces, saying it is being used by Pakistan to bolster their case, drawing a sharp retort from the Congress that it is the ruling party “leadership who require real introspection”.

Jaitley hit out at the opposition, saying why it is alleging that the government is politicising the anti-terror operation when the whole nation is speaking in one voice.

“My appeal to India’s opposition – ‘Let the country speak in one voice’. Please introspect – ‘Your ill-advised statement is being used by Pakistan to bolster its case’.”

“The Cross Border terror attack in Pulwama was a reality. The Balakot Operation was India’s Anti-Terror preemptive strike to defend its Sovereignty,” he said in a series of tweets.

Countering Jaitley, Congress chief spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala tweeted, “Mr. Jaitley, It’s BJP & its leadership who require real introspection. Entire opposition stood as one backing the armed forces & the Government Still, Amit Shah & entire BJP resorted to credit seeking for the sacrifice of our martyrs & indulged in blaming the Congress provocatively.”

The 21 opposition parties after their meeting earlier in the day issued a joint statement expressing “deep anguish” over what they alleged was “blatant politicisation” of the sacrifices of armed forces.

They urged the government to take the nation into confidence on all measures to protect India’s sovereignty, unity and integrity.

The statement said, “National security must transcend narrow political considerations… The leaders observed that the prime minister has, regrettably, not convened an all-party meeting as per established practice in our democracy.

The Airstrikes Had Three Targets, But Hit Bullseye in Just One

Previous governments refrained from using the air force against terrorist targets in Pakistan not because they were scared of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or lacked the political will, but because they knew the threat of terrorism would not be neutralised in this fashion.

The Indian foreign secretary may have had his eye on international law when he spoke of “pre-emptive action” against the imminent threat of suicide attacks but any honest analysis of the military, diplomatic and political consequences of India’s airstrike at what it said was a terrorist training camp in Balakot, Pakistan must begin by acknowledging what it really was: an act of revenge intended to send a message to three different audiences.

Its military objective was to tell the Jaish-e-Muhammad and other Pakistan-based terrorist groups in the wake of the terrorist attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama, Kashmir, that the safe havens provided to them by the Pakistani military are not so safe after all.  The diplomatic objective was to get the the world at large to see that they cannot afford a business-as-usual approach to Pakistan’s support for terrorism. And the political objective was to send a message to the domestic audience on the eve of a general election – that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a leader who has the “political will” to set everything right and make India great again.

Of these, it is only the political objective which Prime Minister Narendra Modi can be confident of having achieved.

The Indian Air Force was tasked with executing a difficult and risky mission and the government has declared the operation a success – though without sharing any verifiable information. Perhaps the official readout is muted because the greater the noise that is made, the greater the likelihood that Pakistan’s military leadership will feel compelled to retaliate. However, the unverifiable and seemingly exaggerated accounts of the airstrike making their way to the Indian media will make it very difficult for the Pakistani side to do nothing.

Also read: After Air Strikes, Pakistan Calls for ‘Re-evaluation’ of India’s OIC Invite

Both in September 2016, when the Indian army said it conducted surgical strikes along the Line of Control, and now, the Pakistani army has flatly denied any damage has been inflicted by India. This time, however, both the political and military establishments have said there will be a military response. There is no reason for the threat to be taken lightly.

While the capabilities of the Indian Air Force have never been in doubt, much is being made about Narendra Modi’s willingness to “call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff” and cross the rubicon of air power, something India has not done since 1971.

It is true that previous governments have refrained from using the air force against terrorist targets across the Line of Control or deeper inside Pakistan. But they have done so not because they were scared of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or lacked the political will to act decisively but because they understood that the threat of terrorism from across the border would not be neutralised in this fashion.

To understand the basis for that understanding, one need go back no further than the September 2016 surgical strikes.

As a means of deterring further terrorist attacks from Pakistan-based groups, the surgical strikes were an utter failure. They may even have incentivised the Jaish and Lashkar to escalate their attacks, as their strikes on army installations at Nagrota and Sunjuwan showed. And what does one make of the fact that the deadliest attack on Indian security forces since the Kashmir insurgency began in 1989 – Pulwama – came not before but after the loudly tom-tommed surgical strikes?

Just as the 2016 surgical strikes proved ineffective in preventing a Pulwama, the Balakot airstrike will not protect India from future terrorist attacks. Jubilation over the unofficial claim of India having killed 300 Jaish terrorists – even if true – is based on the misplaced notion that terrorists fight like a regular army and require large formations in order to wreak havoc.

Modi is not the first prime minister to have thought of hitting terrorist targets in Pakistan. Two of his predecessors – Manmohan Singh and Atal Bihari Vajpayee – sat with their commanders to explore kinetic options in the wake of the 2001 parliament attack and the 2008 terror strike on Mumbai  before realising that the solution they sought would not come through that route. ‘Talks and terror cannot go hand in hand’ is the new mantra but both Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh had much greater success tackling terror when they found creative ways of engaging with Pakistan and building confidence within the Valley than when they shut the door on engagement.

Also read: Has Kashmir’s Militancy Entered its Most Lethal Phase Yet?

When the dust from Balakot settles – and there is no telling when that will happen – it will be evident that Prime Minister Modi has no coherent or consistent strategy to deal with Pakistan and the problem of terrorism.

From his 2014 inauguration to the Ufa meeting with Nawaz Sharif, his bizarre Lahore-Raiwind visit, the Pathankot terror attack and the flagging of the Balochistan ‘card’ that year, the 2016 surgical strikes, the first-scheduled-and-then-aborted meeting between Sushma Swaraj and Shah Mahmood Qureshi and now Balakot, each of his diplomatic and military initiatives have lacked the kind of rigorous internal preparation, analysis and audit that are the hallmark of serious policymaking. What these initiatives have in common is domestic politics as the common denominator for determining his next course of action.

The problem post-Balakot is that the Pakistani military and its hand-pickped prime minister, Imran Khan, will also be driven by domestic political considerations. Indian journalists do not have a monopoly on hysteria and jingoism. The first question Major General Asif Ghafoor was asked at his press conference on Tuesday evening was this: “Indians are behaving like drunk monkeys and they are jumping all over the media … isn’t it high time that we shut these monkeys up?”

Of course, one obstacle Pakistan will have to overcome in figuring out how to retaliate is the lack of a plausible story line for any military act across the Line of Control.

While it accuses India of interfering in Balochistan, it has never claimed there are anti-Pakistani terror camps in India. Thus, a Balakot-type target is not available for it to hit. It could target an Indian military installation but that would amount to a serious escalation as India has been careful not to target Pakistani military facilities or personnel. This would also be a risky venture for the Pakistani military. Pakistan could intensify shelling along the LoC or it could seek to hit back using proxies in Jammu and Kashmir or elsewhere, striking either a military target or even a civilian one. Either way, India would find it impossible not to respond in some fashion. Perhaps that is what Pakistan’s military spokesperson meant when he warned India last week that his country would seek to go up the escalatory ladder.

Since the Jaish would not have executed such a provocative act on its own initiative, it is worth asking what Pakistan’s military hoped to gain by underwriting an attack of Pulwama’s magnitude so close to the Indian general elections. Did it aim to provoke a military confrontation that would help it draw international attention to Kashmir? Did it aim to postpone the Indian elections? Or drive its outcome in a particular direction, as the terrorism expert C. Christine Fair has argued.

Modi has taken a gamble by playing the military card at this time but the dynamics of ‘non-military’ nationalism are such that even a robust Pakistani response will probably further strengthen his hands. The media is today not interested in debating the utility of the course he has chosen in Pakistan and Kashmir.  But there will come a time, probably sooner than most imagine, when ordinary Indians realise the problem of terrorism has not only not ended but has even become more complex and intractable.

Several Flights Suspended After India, Pakistan Shut Down Airspaces

All incoming and outgoing local and international flights have been suspended until further orders.

Lahore: Flight operations were suspended across major airports in Pakistan’s Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces on Wednesday in the wake of the escalating tensions between Pakistan and India, according to a media report.

The move comes amid escalation of tension between India and Pakistan after IAF carried out strikes on terror bases in Pakistan.

According to Lahore airport manager, flight operations at Lahore, Multan, Faisalabad, Sialkot and Islamabad airports have been suspended, the Geo News reported.

All incoming and outgoing local and international flights have been suspended until further orders, he was quoted as saying.

“A flight from Guanghzou, China has been sent back,” the manager further said.

The channel quoting its sources said a passenger airplane was stopped from taking off from Bacha Khan International Airport in Peshawar on the orders of Civil Aviation Authority.

India has also shut down five airports in Srinagar, Jammu, Leh, Chandigarh and Amritsar, on Wednesday for civilian air traffic shortly after an IAF jet crashed in Kashmir’s Budgam district, officials said.

The flare up in the cross-LoC shelling, which was initiated by Pakistani troops in early hours of Wednesday, has also resulted in security forces and other establishments being put on a heightened alert.

Top US General Calls Pak Counterpart, Discusses Current Security Situation

General Joseph F. Dunford spoke with Pakistan Chief of Defence General Zubair Mahmood Hayat to discussed the current security environment in Pakistan

Washington: General Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Tuesday spoke to his Pakistani counterpart General Zubair Mahmood Hayat to discuss the “current security environment” in Pakistan, the Pentagon said, amid the spike in Indo-Pak tensions following the Pulwama terror attack.

The telephonic talk is the highest level of contact between the two armies a day after India bombed and destroyed Jaish-e-Mohammed’s (JeM) biggest terrorist training camp in Balakot in Pakistan’s restive Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, about 80-km from the Line of Control (LoC) early Tuesday, killing a “very large number” of terrorists, trainers and senior commanders.

The strike was the first by the Indian Air Force (IAF) inside Pakistan after the 1971 war.

Ramping up the rhetoric, Pakistan has threatened retaliation.

“Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr spoke today with Pakistan Chief of Defence Gen Zubair Mahmood Hayat. The senior leaders discussed the current security environment in Pakistan,” Joint Staff Spokesperson Col. Patrick S. Ryder said in a brief statement.

No other details were immediately available.

Forty Central Reserve Police Force personnel were killed in a suicide attack by Pakistan-based JeM in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama district on February 14, sparking outrage in India and global condemnation.

Over the years, despite a deterioration in US-Pakistan bilateral ties, Gen Dunford has maintained a good working relationship with both his Pakistani counterpart Gen Hayat and Pakistan Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa.

UN Chief Asks India, Pakistan to Exercise ‘Maximum Restraint’

UN Secretary General António Guterres reiterated his urgent appeal to both countries to exercise maximum restraint to ensure that the situation does not deteriorate further.

United Nations: UN chief Antonio Guterres is following the situation between India and Pakistan “very closely” and has appealed to the governments of both nations to exercise “maximum restraint” to ensure the situation does not deteriorate further, a top UN official said Tuesday.

The UN Secretary General’s remarks came after Indian Air Force (IAF) carried out a pre-dawn airstrike on a terror training camp inside Pakistan.

The strike was the first by the IAF inside Pakistan after the 1971 war.

India bombed and destroyed Jaish-e-Mohammed’s (JeM) biggest training camp in Balakot in Pakistan’s restive Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, about 80-km from the Line of Control (LoC) early Tuesday, killing a “very large number” of terrorists, trainers and senior commanders.

“He is obviously following the situation very closely and reiterates his urgent appeal to both the governments of India and the government of Pakistan to exercise maximum restraint to ensure that the situation does not further deteriorate,” UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters when asked about the Secretary General’s remarks on the airstrike.

Dujarric said Guterres did not have any information on the possible casualties and has seen the news reports.

Guterres is returning to New York from Geneva and Dujarric said he had spoken to the UN chief about the situation between India and Pakistan before he boarded his plane.

The airstrike came 12 days after the JeM carried out a suicide attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama district that killed 40 CRPF soldiers.

India launched a major diplomatic offensive against Islamabad after the Pulwama attack and highlighted Pakistan’s role in using terrorism as an instrument of state policy.

The international community led by the US pressed Pakistan to deny safe haven to terror groups operating form its soil and bring the perpetrators of the Pulwama attack to justice.

India has asked Pakistan to take immediate and verifiable action against terrorists and terror groups operating from territories under its control.

New Delhi also announced the withdrawal of the Most Favoured Nation status for Pakistan and hiked the customs duty by 200 per cent on goods originating from Pakistan.

India Does Not Wish to See Further Escalation, Says Sushma Swaraj

She said India’s action was not a military operation and the aim was to dismantle the terror infrastructure.

Wuzhen: India does not wish to see a further escalation of the situation and will continue to act with responsibility and restraint, external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj told China and Russia here on Wednesday after the country targeted terrorist training camp in Pakistan as she asked all nations to show “zero tolerance to terrorism”.

Launching a scathing attack on Pakistan for the February 14 Pulwama terror attack at the Russia, India and China (RIC) meeting here, she defended India’s airstrikes on terrorist bases in Pakistan, saying that it was pre-emptive action aimed at stopping further attacks by Jaish-e-Muhammed (JeM).

Forty Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel were killed in a suicide attack by Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Muhammed (JeM) in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama district on February 14, sparking outrage in the country.

Following the incident, India on Tuesday bombed and destroyed JeM’s biggest training camp in Balakot in Pakistan’s restive Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, about 80-km from the Line of Control (LoC) early Tuesday, killing a “very large number” of terrorists, trainers and senior commanders.

“The recent dastardly terrorist attack on our security forces in Pulwama in Jammu and Kashmir is perpetrated by Jaish-e-Muhammad, a Pakistan-based and supported terrorist organisation proscribed by the UN and other countries. We lost more than 40 personnel from CRPF,” Swaraj said.

“Such dastardly terrorist attacks are grim reminder for all the countries to show zero tolerance to terrorism and take decisive action against them,” she said at the meeting attended by Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.

She said after the Pulwama terrorist attack, Pakistan instead of taking seriously the call for the international community to act against the JeM and other terror groups denied any knowledge of the attack and out rightly dismissed claims by the JeM.

“In the light of continued refusal of Pakistan to acknowledge and act against terror groups on its territory and based on credible information that the JeM is planning other attacks in various parts of India, Government of India has decided to take pre-emptive action,” she said.

“The target was selected in order to avoid civilian casualties,” she said.

She said India’s action was not a military operation and the aim was to dismantle the terror infrastructure.

“No military installations were targeted. The limited objective of the pre-emptive strike was to act decisively against the terrorist infrastructure of the JeM in order to pre-empt another terrorist attack in India,” she said.

“India does not wish see further escalation of the situation and India will continued to act with responsibility and restraint,” she said.