EDITORIALS

november 30, 2013 vol xlviII no 48 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
8
O
n 1 November, Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of
Pakistans Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP) suffered the same
fate as his predecessor Baitullah Mehsud, when he
was killed by a combat version of the unmanned aerial
vehicles drones that has been frequently used by the
United States (US) military forces to assassinate individuals
it nds hostile.
Mehsud was the leader of a group that has carried out a
number of terrorist (including suicide) attacks that have killed
many in Pakistan. It has also targeted members of the minority
communities in the country. The TTP is reviled in Pakistan for
its extremism, yet this revulsion does not mean that the people
of Pakistan have welcomed the deaths in the drone attacks.
Over the past few years, the drones have targeted insurgents
belonging to the TTP, the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani
network. But they have also taken the lives of civilians in the
target area; even mourners and funeral attendees have been
targeted. Other than periodic statements condemning these
attacks, the Pakistani security state establishment has generally
winked and nodded at the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles
for assassination by the US.
The Barack Obama presidency in the US in line with its
predecessor that began these attacks has been unapologetic
about its use of drones for targeted killings. In fact, under
Obamas presidency the use of drones has grown exponentially
and become the chief tool for offensive military operations
in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas. There have been
many independent studies that have sought to establish the in-
discriminate nature of the drone attacks. While these studies
have not managed to arrive at an accurate gure of the number
of innocents who have been killed, the broad conclusion is that
a very large number of civilian deaths have taken place. The
American Civil Liberties Union estimates that the deaths range
from hundreds in Pakistan to thousands across Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Far from deterring insurgency, the attacks have only
radic alised a number of people who have either lost their kin
or have been angered by the killing of innocents as has been
the case with aerial bombardment carried out by the US and
its allied forces in Afghanistan. Recruits to the Al Qaida and
other radical extremist organisations have also spoken of
the drone and aerial attacks as motivating them to sign up
with the extremists.
Drone attacks cannot be justied even if the targeted victim
is unambiguously identied as hostile to the US and the missile
is exactly on target, killing none else. Such use of drones
constitutes a clear violation of international law. They are
being used in countries which are not involved in armed con-
ict or engaged in a war with the US. They are the 21st century
version of the Central Intelligence Agency hitmen who have so
often assassinated individuals they disliked. The lack of legal
oversight on US drones means that there is no check whether
war crimes are being committed, particularly when there is
enough circumstantial evidence that the US may well be
stretching both the denition of terrorists as well as of poten-
tial targets. Forget international law, the Obama presidency
has even stalled any attempt by US civil society organisations
to raise questions about the drone programme, leave alone re-
spond to concerns expressed by United Nations (UN) agencies.
The attacks have been called into question by, among others,
the UN Human Rights Council and UN special rapporteurs. But
nothing has deterred the US from continuing to use drones for
targeted assassinations.
India has also used these unmanned aerial vehicles in the
recent past. They were commissioned by the military following
the Kargil attacks of 1999. So far, the unarmed variants have
been deployed for reconnaissance and monitoring along the
India-Pakistan border and also in zones of conict with
Maoists. The Indian state is also said to have procured killer
drones from Israel even as attempts to create indigenous and
sophisticated versions of unmanned combat aerial devices are
underway. Increasingly there is talk of using such drones for
attacks in Maoist-controlled areas. Such a decision would be
disastrous, escalating an already unsustainable conict that has
resulted in hundreds of deaths since an expansive campaign
against the Maoists began earlier this decade.
The adoption of drones by powerful states is an acknow-
ledgement by them that their extensive armouries of nuclear
weapons and massive hardware are incapable of winning wars.
Further, they are adopting a military technology which subverts
half a century and more of international efforts to put legal
fetters on weapons which take the conict to civilians like
landmines and chemical weapons. It is a technology which en-
courages lawlessness, not just by non-state actors but more so
by powerful states, particularly so as technology reduces the
size of these machines while increasing their repower.
Drone attacks against domestic targets are sought to be
justied as being just another form of a military attack,
the only difference being, it is said, that drones are more
sophisticated instruments of war and allow the operator
to be physically withdrawn from the zone of attack. This
withdrawal of the combatant from the eld, the sanitisation
of the attacker from the violence he perpetuates is crucial
to the inhumanity of drones. This is why the use of drones
closes the door on any other form of resolution including
engagement in talks to end insurgency. Unfortunately, it is not
possible in these days of rabid realism to expect the Indian
state to take the lead in building an international consensus
to put an embargo on the military use of unmanned aerial
vehicles. At least, the Indian state and its military strategists
must avoid the temptation of deploying drones against its
own citizens.
Drone Fever
India should avoid emulating the illegal use of unmanned aerial vehicles by the US.