Govt. accepts Indian soldiers’ contribution in Operation Pawan with open heart and is in process of recognising it, says Rajnath Singh

The recent statement by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, acknowledging the contributions of Indian soldiers in Operation Pawan and announcing the government's process of formally recognising them, brings a long-overdue focus on a critical, yet often debated, chapter in India's post-independence military and foreign policy history. This declaration, made on the 10th Armed Forces Veterans' Day, underscores the nation's evolving perspective on its past military engagements and the welfare of its personnel.

To truly grasp the significance of Operation Pawan, we must delve into its intricate background. The genesis lies in the protracted ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, primarily between the Sinhalese majority and the Tamil minority, which escalated into a full-blown civil war by the early 1980s. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a militant organization advocating for an independent Tamil state (Eelam) in northern and eastern Sri Lanka, emerged as a dominant force. India, particularly due to its close cultural and ethnic ties with the Sri Lankan Tamils and concerns over refugee influx into Tamil Nadu, became deeply involved. Initially, India played a mediating role, also covertly supporting Tamil militant groups, including the LTTE, in the early stages.

By 1987, the conflict reached a critical juncture with the Sri Lankan military's 'Operation Vadamarachchi' against the LTTE in the Jaffna Peninsula. India perceived this as a humanitarian crisis and a threat to regional stability. This led to the controversial 'Parippu Drop' in June 1987, where India airdropped food and medicine over Jaffna, openly defying Sri Lankan sovereignty. This act paved the way for the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, signed on July 29, 1987, by Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayewardene. The accord aimed to devolve power to the Tamil regions, merge the Northern and Eastern provinces, and disarm Tamil militant groups, including the LTTE.

Operation Pawan was the military component of this accord. The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), comprising contingents from the Indian Army, Air Force, and Navy, was deployed to Sri Lanka, primarily to ensure the disarmament of Tamil militant groups and to protect the Tamil population. However, the mission quickly veered off course. The LTTE, initially supportive of the accord, soon refused to disarm and turned hostile towards the IPKF. What began as a peacekeeping mission transformed into a full-scale military conflict between the IPKF and the LTTE. The IPKF found itself in a challenging environment, fighting a guerrilla war on foreign soil, often against a local population that felt betrayed by both sides. The operation, which lasted from July 1987 to March 1990, resulted in significant casualties for the Indian forces, with over 1,200 soldiers losing their lives and thousands more wounded.

Key stakeholders in this complex saga included the then Indian government under Rajiv Gandhi, which initiated the intervention, and the Indian Armed Forces, who bore the brunt of the fighting. On the Sri Lankan side, President Jayewardene and later President Ranasinghe Premadasa played crucial roles. The LTTE, led by Velupillai Prabhakaran, was a primary antagonist. The Tamil population in Sri Lanka and the political parties in Tamil Nadu, India, also had significant stakes, influencing the narrative and public opinion.

For India, Operation Pawan carries immense significance. It was India's first major overseas military intervention and a defining moment in its foreign policy. It demonstrated India's willingness to act as a regional security provider but also highlighted the complexities and pitfalls of such interventions. The operation led to a re-evaluation of India's foreign policy doctrines, fostering a more cautious approach to military involvement in neighbouring countries. The heavy human cost and the eventual withdrawal without fully achieving its objectives left a lasting scar on India's military and political psyche. The assassination of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, attributed to the LTTE, further underscored the tragic consequences of the intervention. Domestically, the operation strained relations between the central government and Tamil Nadu, impacting federal dynamics.

Historically, Operation Pawan stands as a stark contrast to India's traditional non-alignment policy, which generally eschewed military interventions. While India has been a significant contributor to UN peacekeeping missions, IPKF was a unilateral deployment. This experience heavily influenced subsequent Indian foreign policy, reinforcing a preference for diplomatic solutions and non-interference in internal affairs, unless directly threatened. The recent statement by the Defence Minister acknowledging the soldiers' contributions is a crucial step towards formally recognizing the sacrifices made by these veterans, many of whom felt their service was unappreciated or even controversial due to the political nature of the mission. This recognition aligns with broader government efforts towards veterans' welfare, such as the 'One Rank One Pension' (OROP) scheme, though OROP is a general policy and not specific to IPKF.

Looking ahead, this recognition has several implications. It provides a much-needed morale boost to the IPKF veterans and their families, acknowledging their courage and sacrifice. It also signals a more transparent and inclusive approach to India's military history, moving beyond past political debates to honor those who served. Furthermore, it could subtly influence India-Sri Lanka relations, potentially fostering a sense of closure or shared understanding regarding a difficult period. While the Defence Minister's remark that the decision to send forces was 'open to debate' acknowledges historical criticism, the subsequent commitment to honour the soldiers separates the policy decision from the bravery of the personnel. This distinction is vital for military morale and national unity. The Executive power of the Union (Article 53, Article 73) grants the government the authority to undertake such foreign policy decisions and deploy armed forces, but the ethical and strategic implications of such deployments remain a subject of continuous public and parliamentary scrutiny. This move sets a precedent for how future governments might address historically contentious military operations, focusing on the welfare and recognition of personnel irrespective of the political outcomes of the missions.