Guns Have Fallen Silent but India's Pakistan Dilemma Remains Unsorted
Harish Khare
The heavy guns had to eventually fall silent on the western front precisely because the fighting between India and Pakistan had, by Saturday (May 10) morning, more or less satisfactorily addressed the concerns of the ruling establishments in New Delhi and Islamabad. All said and done, it was a politicians’ war, carried out by generals and it was the politicians who agreed to cease hostilities.
There was no precise military objective, defined or unstated, when India initiated its “restrained and measured” action against ‘terror-camps” – except that the Indian leadership was obliged to respond to the Pahalgam massacre in a manner that at least at home would be seen as “going beyond the Balakot” strike template.
To that extent, the Indian leadership has demonstrated its willingness to back its words of warning and threat with coercive and punitive action. From the very beginning of ‘Operation Sindoor’ the Indian side was keen to make the point that it was not picking a fight with Pakistan’s military establishment.
The Indian political leadership has every reason to feel that it has reaffirmed itself in the eyes of its own domestic constituency. The Opposition felt obliged to applaud the armed forces and offered unequivocal support to the government. Prime Minister Modi has, once again, refurbished his fading image; and in the days to come, his massive propaganda machine will work overtime to elevate him as the greatest ‘general’ and ‘war leader’ India has known since Shivaji.
On the other hand, the ruling establishment across the border has enhanced its reputation for not taking any ‘nonsense’ from the “Indians.” Many seasoned and otherwise sober Indian ‘strategic experts’ had told us about Pakistan’s General Asim Munir and his calculus and compulsions in quarterbacking the Pahalgam massacre.
No debilitating damage to Asim Munir's control over Pakistan's policy
Even if their reading of our principal adversary is correct, these last few days have not done any debilitating damage to his control and command over Pakistan’s policy towards India. On the contrary, he can preen as the “saviour” of Pakistan.
Notwithstanding the imaginary victories scripted by our television anchors, the bottom line of the fighting remains that militarily speaking Pakistan is no push-over. Since no authentic details of the combats in the air are available, Pakistan and its supporters can claim credibly that their armed forces were able to blunt the much superior Indian Air Force.
While we can legitimately take satisfaction from having sent out a “message” that there will be a “cost” and “retribution” if the enemy seeks to “hurt” us or our values, Pakistan, for various reasons, remains immune to “pain.”
The fighting had reached a stage where both ruling establishments were in a position to proclaim ‘victory’ over the ‘enemy.’ The information industries in both countries had cranked up jingoism and patriotism among their citizens and the “soldier’ would be placed on a higher and higher pedestal in villages and kasbas across the two countries. Institutional and individual interests have been protected.
Yet, notwithstanding all the loud beating of the war drums in the two countries, the citizens could feel the frisson of fear as to the kind of havoc new and untested weapons would unleash. Mobile screens were bringing the danger very close to the bone.
The Indian leadership in particular could not be unmindful of the nervousness that had settled down over most of north India. The same set of apprehensions and anxieties got unleashed in Pakistan.
In our case, there was another elephant in the room – the intelligence agencies were becoming alarmed over the possibility of exploding communal tensions in the wake of the Pahalgam carnage. And, that perhaps explains the showcasing of Colonel Sofiya Qureshi at the official briefing; it was an inspired move.
Her proficiency in ‘shudh’ Hindi and professional competence were not without a sobering impact. In any case, no one could be sure how the hotheads in the Hindutva corner would behave in the event of a prolonged military conflict, even if a low-intensity one, with Pakistan. That danger, of course, remains very much embedded in the political discourse favoured by the ruling party.
The guns also fell silent because the purveyors and manufacturers of lethal toys of war had had sufficient ‘material’ to do their analysis. Further fighting would have produced more of the same evidentiary material. The respective performance of the Chinese or French or Soviet aircraft has been noted and would be keenly factored in future conflicts. We have reason to feel reassured that our S400 air defence system has “worked.”
Involvement of the world community
And, it was a given from the very beginning of the Indian action – indeed from the time of the Pahalgam massacre – that, sooner or later, the world community would get involved. The diplomats in the two countries were ‘briefing’ – and were briefed in return – foreign offices all over the world.
Polite words like “ caution” and “restraint” were bandied about. But behind the scene the big three –USA, Russia and China – were in agreement on not allowing the fighting to get out of hand and to see to it that mad men do not end up playing with their nuclear toys.
In the days to come we shall have to debate whether this “war” was necessary or not but it seems obvious that the India-Pakistan relationship of distrust and animosity remains unchanged. The political grammar in both the countries leaves very little room for accommodation and reconciliation.
A greater imagination will be needed to see the limits of coercion because for now Pakistan is not likely to feel any more intimidated than it was before Operation Sindoor. Our dilemma over what to do with –or what can be done to – Pakistan stands unresolved. Perhaps our dilemma has become pronouncedly aggravated.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
