Collateral Tragedy

Two incidents inside Myanmar involving Indian security forces and north east insurgents confirm that the counter-insurgency theatre has transformed into a hi-tech warfare with deadly consequences. This strategy is redrawing counter-insurgency, not by boots on the ground, but by the remote, high-tech silhouette of drones. This indicates a significant, and potentially perilous, evolution in military doctrine- a shift from the domestic jungles to cross-border sanctuaries, executed with a clinical detachment with devastating cost. The first incident on July 13, involved Indian security forces launch drones against the eastern headquarters of the banned ULFA-I. The insurgent group claimed that the attack killed 19 of its cadres. However, the Indian Army officially denied any such operation. The second incident, on October 20, involved drones targeting camps belonging to the NSCN-K (Yung Aung) faction along the India-Myanmar border, adjacent to Arunachal Pradesh. This operation was framed as retaliation for the October 16 pre-dawn attack on an Assam Rifles base near Manmao in Arunachal Pradesh by NSCN-K insurgents, injuring two personnel. Unnamed security sources claimed that the October 20 drone strike was a success, inflicting “grievous injuries” on a senior NSCN-K leader and killing five others, including bodyguards. However reports from across the border, not from security sources, but from local community and media sources in Myanmar told a different story. The reports revealed that the surgical strike was not on a military target, but on Khenmoi-Loiyi village. The drone strike, which reportedly originated from Arunachal Pradesh around 6:30 p.m., killed two civilians – Khampei Wangsa, a 27-year-old Joint Secretary of the local students’ union, and Eli Phiphot Wangsa, an eight-year-old student. Four others, including children and the elderly, were seriously injured. Homes and community property were destroyed. This disconnect is the central, critical issue. While the utility of drones to strike insurgent leadership in inaccessible safe havens is a clear tactical advantage, the reality of these operations is fraught with peril. The use of unnamed sources to claim success, while official channels maintain denial, creates an accountability vacuum. When the state wields lethal force, especially on foreign soil, it must be accountable for the outcome. Here, an innocent child is dead but no one is officially responsible and so, the legal and diplomatic ramifications are profound. The consistent media reporting strong suggests use of drones by Indian forces. Such actions, however, constitute a clear violation of international law. The UN Charter obligates member states to respect the territorial sovereignty of others. Using force within another state’s territory without its explicit consent is illegal, regardless of the provocation. The question is did the Myanmar government give its consent for what would become a tragedy? Some may point to the July 2019 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on defence cooperation between India and Myanmar, which covers military-to-military ties and joint surveillance. This argument is questionable and debatable. A general MoU on cooperation is not a blank check for unilateral, cross-border armed operations. Unless the Myanmar government provided specific, prior consent for these exact strikes-an unlikely scenario given the political sensitivities- is a clear breach of foundational principles of national sovereignty. The silence from security forces in the face of these civilian casualties is deafening. For the people of Mon, the October 20 incident reopens old wound as it reminds them of the horrific December 4,2021 Oting massacre. The AFSPA allowed the killers go scot free and now this silence is deafening.