 |
|
The sixth Indo-Pakistan war, a fleeting yet perilous event, concluded as abruptly as it commenced. It teetered on the brink of escalating into a full-blown confrontation before a fragile truce, termed an “understanding” by India, materialized. Both nations, consistent with historical precedents, laid claim to victory. The rapid escalation of the conflict within a mere 88 hours held the world in apprehensive anticipation. The specter of an uncontrolled retaliatory spiral loomed large, given the nuclear capabilities of the two neighboring states. The United States, playing a pivotal role through discreet diplomatic channels, intervened with urgent appeals for de-escalation. While the US successfully applied the brakes, the manner in which this was achieved complicated the delicate peace. President Donald Trump's assertive and self-promoting approach triggered a mixed response from New Delhi, a blend of gratitude and disapproval. Trump's characteristic cavalier declaration that he had averted a nuclear war, coupled with the re-hyphenation of India and Pakistan, placing the perpetrator and victim of terror on equal moral ground, deeply offended India. Furthermore, Trump's premature announcement of the ceasefire and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's subsequent announcement of Indo-Pak talks at a neutral venue further exacerbated the situation. India was particularly incensed by Trump's intrusion into the Kashmir issue, fueled by a lack of historical understanding, as he offered to resolve the “1,000-year dispute”. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's assertive speech on May 12 served to clarify India's position. Modi minced no words, emphasizing that Pakistan had pleaded for the ceasefire. He declared that Operation Sindoor was merely paused, and any future acts of terror would provoke an even stronger response, irrespective of geographical boundaries. India would pursue terrorists wherever they may be, targeting the highest echelons of the terrorist hierarchy. Modi also reiterated that trade and dialogue were incompatible with terrorism, and that the Indus Waters Treaty suspension would remain in effect until Pakistan addressed its issues. Kashmir, he asserted, was not open for discussion, except concerning Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Modi also proclaimed that India had successfully called Pakistan's nuclear bluff, demonstrating its resilience against blackmail. His address established firm red lines that Pakistan would violate at its own peril.
Modi's actions in 2025 have significantly raised the threshold for deterrence against Pakistan's military-jihadi nexus. His punitive doctrine has been firmly established. Should the Pakistani establishment contemplate future transgressions, they will now need to reconsider their actions much more thoroughly. However, the peace remains precarious. Pakistan continues to assert its claims over Kashmir and wage a proxy war against India through the terrorists it harbors on its soil. For India, Kashmir is not a topic for discussion, except for the reunification of the two Kashmirs, as stated by the prime minister. This presents an intractable impasse, which the self-serving Pakistani army exploits to maintain its grip on power. It is almost farcical that Pakistan persists in denying the existence of terror training camps despite overwhelming evidence. The fact that a bankrupt country is provoking war is astounding. India now faces a dilemma: will it commit to such high-intensity action for every instance of terrorism? There is also a risk that autonomous non-state actors with vested interests could instigate a war. India must ensure that any action against Pakistan is only taken when a robust, evidence-based chain of causation is presented to the world.
The post-war landscape presents complex challenges, requiring careful consideration of what lies ahead. A visual presentation captures the intricacies of the first hot war in the digital age between two nuclear nations. However, the most pressing concerns are geostrategic. All choices are difficult. Any cost-benefit analysis must include economic considerations. India has numerous other priorities and cannot afford to remain perpetually engaged with Pakistan or be bound by a commitment to engage in war at any moment. While the United States may have offered some support, it is not a carte blanche for all-out action or permanent war, as that would not serve its interests. Global investors will also be wary of an environment overshadowed by missiles and the threat of nuclear conflict. India's opportunity to gain and maintain global support hinges on its ability to act as a mature, restrained state and a stabilizing force in South Asia.
Pakistan must undergo fundamental change. International institutions like the IMF should pressure Pakistan to predicate bailouts on a verifiable and conclusive end to terrorism. China has a crucial role to play in restraining Pakistan, given its dependency. However, China may have ulterior motives given its involvement with India. India must navigate these factors carefully and thoughtfully. Conflict without a clear purpose is counterproductive. The need for a stable and peaceful South Asia is paramount. India needs to focus on its economic growth and global standing, which cannot be achieved in a state of constant conflict. The path forward requires a combination of strength, diplomacy, and international pressure to compel Pakistan to abandon its support for terrorism and engage in constructive dialogue. The long-term stability of the region depends on it.
Source: From the Editor-in-Chief