There seems to be no end to the
controversy surrounding Operation Blue Star. The British government’s twelve
page report tabled in the British Parliament clarifying that its role was
purely advisory and limited has unfortunately only stoked the fires in India.
The British Foreign Secretary William Hague tabled a twelve
page report before the Parliament stating that the British Government’s role in
the 1984 Operation Blue Star (or for an operation which was never carried out)
was purely advisory and limited.
Ever since the disclosure of the two letters dated 6th
February 1984 and 23rd February 1984 (see http://kumar-theloneranger.blogspot.in/2014/01/operation-blue-star-new-controversy.html)
there has been considerable speculation in India about the extent of the role
of the British Special Air Service (SAS) in the Golden Temple Operation. Debates
featuring opposition politicians, former intelligence and army officers on Indian
television news channels have gone on unabated as if the Indian government had
committed a heinous crime in seeking advice from a specialized counter-terror
unit of a foreign country on the feasibility of carrying out a flushing out
operation. Are politicians in India so naïve that they consider it preposterous
for the government of the day, in its wisdom, to have sought “advisory
assistance” from a friendly foreign government in planning a military
operation? At least, one leading opposition politician thought so.
Questions relating to this controversy may not have
convincing answers, and in any case it may be difficult to find completely
satisfactory answers. Also the contemporaneous documents may not reveal the
full story, for most of the personae behind Operation Blue Star are no longer
alive with the exception of Lt. General K S Brar, who was the General Officer
Commanding of 9 Infantry Division. The officer in question has in unequivocal
terms stated that there was no foreign involvement in the planning and
execution of Operation Blue Star.
The single most important question has been ‘why
did the Indian Government seek assistance/advice of the British Military or its
intelligence agencies?’ Two
Indians who could have definitely given an appropriate and satisfactory response
to this question are the late Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi and her
security advisor late Rameshwar Nath Kao. Two factors that may have led the
late Mrs. Gandhi to approach the British for assistance, would have been, one, that
the bulk of the support for the secessionist Khalistan movement came from the
Sikh community in Britain and prominent leaders espousing the cause of
Khalistan were based in Britain. Intelligence sharing between foreign countries
being normal, Indian and British agencies, one assumes would have kept tabs on
the activities of the leaders of the Khalistan movement and two, the SAS has
been one of the best counter-terror units in the world. The legendry spy master
would also have considered the role played by the SAS in the 1979 operation to flush
out radical Muslims who had occupied the Grand Mosque in Mecca inspired by the
revolution in Iran. Comparisons have been drawn between the siege in the Grand
Mosque in Mecca and the occupation of Golden Temple by militants. In the 1979
Mecca siege, personnel belonging to 22nd SAS Regiment who were working
for a British Company at the relevant time in Saudi Arabia were called upon to
advice in planning the operation to flush out the armed radicals. Though SAS
members did not take part in the actual operation, it is believed that French commandos
belonging to the Groupe d’Intervention de la Gendarmeie Nationale (GIGN) took
part in the actual raid along with Saudi anti-terror units.
The second question for which no document may provide an
easy answer is what happened to the advice given by the British official/s? According
to Manoj Joshi, a leading commentator on strategic affairs, the SAS was
probably involved in an operation planned much prior to Operation Blue Star
which was never carried out.
This operation was planned using the commandos of the
Special Frontier Force (SFF), who are army personnel, seconded to the Research
& Analysis Wing. Manoj Joshi says that the stories doing the round in the
late eighties was that the SFF was ordered to develop a plan for taking out
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale from the Golden Temple in late 1983. The force came
up with a plan where its personnel would disguise themselves as Sikhs,
penetrate Bhindranwale's durbar at the Guru Nanak Niwas in the Golden Temple
complex and whisk him away.
At the last stage, the commander of the force was summoned
by Mrs. Gandhi and asked to brief her on the plan. Her main question was: What
are the chances that people will be killed in the operation? The commander said
that there was no guarantee that there would be no casualties and as many as a
dozen or more people could be killed. At that Mrs. Gandhi balked.
However, Colonel Mahendra Pratap Choudhary, then Commanding
Officer of the SFF Group which was a part of Operation Blue Star, said they had
no contact with any foreign Special Forces outfit, including SAS. “The only foreign connection to our conduct
were the specially designed Kevlar-plated bullet-proof helmets from Israel
which were got on the eve of the Operation.”
Was
Operation Blue Star based on the advice given by the SAS official/s? "The UK officer’s report back to
the UK authorities stated that the main difference between the original Indian
plan and his advice was that the original plan was based on obtaining a
foothold within the south complex and fighting through in orthodox paramilitary
style."
"With a view to reducing casualties, the UK military
adviser recommended assaulting all objectives simultaneously, thereby assuring
surprise and momentum. The advice given to the Indian authorities identified
sufficient helicopters, and the capability to insert troops by helicopter, as
critical requirements for this approach."
"The UK advice also focused on command and control
arrangements, and night-time co-ordination of paramilitary with Indian Special
Group forces."
"It is, of course, possible that Indian planning went
through several iterations after the UK military adviser’s visit and report. A
quick analysis by current UK military staff confirms that there were
significant differences between the actual June operation, and the advice from
the UK military officer in February. In particular, the element of surprise was
not at the heart of the operation. Nor was simultaneous helicopter insertion of
assault forces to dominate critical areas."
The paper on the operation made public by the Indian
authorities on June 13, 1984 makes clear that it was a ground assault, preceded
by a warning, without a helicopter-borne element, which became a step-by-step
clearance supported by armour and light artillery.
According to the British report, “A key UK officer recalls
being told in July 1984, by one of the Indian Intelligence Co-ordinator’s
senior officials, that after the February visit it had emerged that the Indian
Special Group and Army did not have the helicopter capabilities for a simultaneous
assault.”
Lastly there has been a hue and cry about the visit of
either intelligence and/or military officials (who also probably did a recce of
the Golden Temple Complex) and whether India’s national security was
compromised. Much prior to the disclosure made by the British, the late B.
Raman on page 96 of his autobiographical account “The Kaoboys of R&AW Down
Memory Lane” published in 2007 states: “I
was given to understand that at the request of Kao, two officers of the British
Security Service (MI-5) visited the Golden Temple as tourists and gave a
similar advice to Indira Gandhi – be patient and avoid action or use the
police.” Whether these officials were
part of MI-5 or were in reality members of the SAS will never be known. But the
fact remains that the British played an advisory role pre-Blue Star.
2 comments:
Hi Kumar
This Blue Star episode certainly shows how close military and security relations are between friendly countries.
The 1984 Thatcher papers also revealed a run-in between the US and UK governments - see http://intelnews.org/2014/02/06/01-1417/
Pete
Hi Pete
Thanks for the comment.
While the two countries Britain and India and their heads of government shared a good rapport in 1984, the question that is asked today is why did India seek assistance of the British when most of the Khalistani secessionist leaders used British soil for activities aimed against India. This question ignores the fact that Britain did not officially support the activities of the separatist movement.
Regards
Kumar
Post a Comment