Revisiting Brahmos Missile Incident
The delicate equilibrium between India and Pakistan frequently hangs by the tiniest threads due to the complex relationship between the two countries. Even in times of relative peace, there is a continuous threat of conflict eruption in the South Asian region. The year 2021 began with optimism as the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan was reinstated on the Line of Control. However, this hope for improved relations was short-lived as, on March 9, 2022, the peaceful atmosphere in the region was disrupted by the unexpected intrusion of an Indian supersonic cruise missile into Pakistani territory. While official statements from the Indian side initially painted the incident as an unfortunate accident, closer scrutiny reveals the incompetence of the Indian Air Force (IAF) and perhaps something more sinister.
Since March 9, 2022, the IAF has struggled to clarify the BrahMos missile launch. The controversy again came to light when Wing Commander Abhinav Sharma, a terminated officer, filed a legal action against the IAF in the Delhi High Court. Sharma claimed he was unfairly blamed and that the IAF's termination of his service was wrongful.
In a recent hearing of the case, the IAF addressed the Delhi High Court regarding the firing of a BrahMos missile into Pakistan two years ago. The IAF informed the High Court that the missile's combat connectors were linked to the junction box, causing the launch. This response comes after Wing Commander Abhinav Sharma filed a petition in the Delhi HC, holding the Air Commodore and Squadron Leader responsible for disregarding safety measures.
Considering this new development, assessing India's firing of missiles is essential.
Transporting such advanced weaponry typically involves comprehensive safeguards to prevent inadvertent launch. Moreover, the revelation by Wing Commander Abhinav Sharma that the Brahmos missile was in a 'live' state during transportation for inspection raises serious questions about the IAF's explanation. Despite the safety measures, Missile launches either showcased the incompetence of IAF and Brahmos's lack of rigorous safety and security protocols or were deliberate launches. There is no other explanation for such a launch.
The incident gave rise to another critical aspect: How can the lower-level commissioned officers have the codes enabling the launch of a live weapon when it is being transported? To comprehend the scenario, one should first know that Brahmos is a dual-capable missile capable of carrying nuclear and conventional warheads to the designated target. So, the unauthorized launch of such a system depicted the unprofessionalism of IAF personnel and raised pertinent[part-unreadable]
questions on the role of the Indian strategic force command, the official custodian of Indian strategic systems. The incident sparked new controversy regarding the command and control of India's nuclear delivery systems because India, for so long, maintained the stance that it had centralized control over its nuclear delivery systems. However, the Brahmos incident suggests otherwise and prompts a more rigorous inquiry into who retains operational control over the launch of delivery systems in India.
Apart from this, it is important to note that in the case of accidental launch, missiles typically do not follow an intended trajectory to land in a foreign territory with whom India does not have cordial relations. The trajectory of the missile confirmed that the Indian missiles were directed toward Pakistan. Moreover, several Indian defence sources reiterated this notion by hinting that the missile was actually "following" the direction the Brahmos would follow in case of a crisis rather than traveling towards the Mahajan Field Firing Range.
The unauthorized launch further confirms the presence of counter-force doctrinal posture in Indian strategic forces. The posture hints towards the Indian adaptation towards counter-force doctrine. The event should be a classic example that Indian nuclear delivery systems are in war readiness condition all the time and can be fired at a moment's notice. This demonstrates that the event was good enough to destroy the myth of no-first-use posture being propagated by New Delhi for a long time.
Additionally, the delayed communication from the Indian side regarding the incident suggests a deliberate intention to assess Pakistan's response rather than a mere accident. Had it been accidental, India would have promptly communicated. However, the fact that India issued its first official statement two days after the incident is seen as a move to assess Pakistan's response.
Finally, the incident exposed the Indian first-strike contemplations, instigating genuine concern for the region's stability. This incident not only increases mistrust between India and Pakistan but also highlights the vulnerability of peace in India's hands. If it wasn't for Pakistan's responsible behaviour, the dynamics following the incident would have been different.