As India and Pakistan take a step back from the brink of war, the pause in the intense shelling and firing should be a moment of reflection as well as action.
Some crucial questions to ponder over: What has been achieved with this clash of arms and air strikes? Why and how did we reach this point of confrontation? Could it have been done differently? And, where do we go from here?
Though, it lasted for a few days, the cross-border firings, shelling, firing of missiles and drone attacks were unprecedented in scale and range – pounding and turning into rubble not just the villages along the Line of Control and the International Border between India and Pakistan but also towns and cities that normally don’t turn into arenas of battle during non-war times, acquainting us with the perils of modern warfare that could have involved nuclear option.
The consequences are colossal destruction, civilian casualties and irreparable trauma to people – forced to flee and live with the harrowing ordeal of sirens, blackouts and deafening sounds of bombings. The human cost of military aggression is never considered. The lives and homes lost are just a collateral damage.
What Purpose was Achieved?
But this can no longer be ignored. The recent triggers were the chilling 28 civilian killings in Pahalgam followed by its revenge attack by India - ‘Operation Sindoor’, highlighting the irony of sacrificing an equal number of people, if not more, and pushing millions of people virtually into the jaws of death and rendering thousands along the borders homeless in the service of what is being framed as justice.
Has justice been served with ghost like villages where homes have been turned into ruins? Has it ended insurgency? Will it put an end to terror strikes and blood spill of innocent people? The answer, sadly, is an emphatic no.
The Indian government and its loyalist lapdog media claim that the launch of the operation successfully targeted with precision the terror hideouts in Pakistan and conveyed a message to Pakistan to stop abetting terrorism. There is more fluff and less realism in such claims. Even if one were to ignore Pakistan’s contestation of the claims of striking at terror hideouts, it is difficult to shut one’s eyes to Pakistan’s retaliation with equal, if not more, air power and military strikes.
So, what exactly is the message that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi conveyed? No amount of lies, blocking of websites can hide away the reality of Rafale debris, the capability of the Chinese made air-to-air missiles and training levels of the Pakistani Air Force.
Was India justified in launching strikes in Pakistan without evidence of the latter’s role in Pahalgam killings? Given Pakistan’s previous track record of fomenting trouble through terror-outfits on Indian soil, it is tempting enough to hazard a guess but it still lacks crucial evidence.
Lessons to Learn
Going back to the core of the problem – the Pahalgam attacks – the first imperative before India was not only to investigate the case and hunt the killers and deepen the probe to nail the masterminds but also to set its own house in order. The cries for ‘revenge’ and the noise of the battlefield have allowed the government to conveniently escape any blame for the all too obvious glaring security lapses, the gaps between intelligence inputs and security cover as well as information gathering processes.
Terror attacks cannot be prevented without addressing these issuing. The developments in the last two weeks are instructive that military strikes on alleged terror camps, howsoever surgical and precise these operations are, will not create even a minor dent to the monster that India needs to fight.
Far from the narrative that the Modi government is trying to churn about the major success of the ‘Operation Sindoor’, the strikes at best have displayed the efficiency of Indian military training or greased the ego of the war mongers. On the contrary, the operation has ended up jeopardizing India’s security even more, pushed the world into a fragile spot, and led to colossal misery of the people in the border states. This prompts important questions about India’s strategic decisions.
Were military assessments of preparedness level heeded? Did the government get carried away by its own narrative or a flawed assumption based on calculations of its military manpower size, its committed forces and its mammoth sized defence budget without factoring in the assessment of the enemy power?
A lesser noticed fact should not forgotten. Within hours of the announcement of the ceasefire, when the borders reverberated with cross-border shelling, one could have dismissed it as an initial hiccup or the typical military machismo of having the last word. But when explosions, flares and drones rained over Srinagar, Udhampur and other places that are rarely impacted by border conflagrations.
These intermittent explosions lasted barely 45 minutes but their intensity was far more rattling. What inference should be drawn from Pakistan squandering its expensive and sophisticated ammunition for a mere show of machismo and India’s muted complaint of the ceasefire violation, after the initial denial of any violation?
Was ‘Operation Sindoor’ a pragmatic answer to the heinous and chilling 28 killings in Pahalgam? Certainly not.
India could have scored a better diplomatic victory by first looking for evidence, as it did after the Mumbai bombings of 2008, leading to Pakistan’s near isolation internationally. Irrespective of Pakistan’s role in the past and its denial to act on India’s findings of the thriving terror networks in Pakistan, there are no substitutes to diplomatic offensives. It only needs to be pursued more persistently and more constructively.
Curious Case of the Ceasefire
By giving a spin to the US brokered ceasefire as a moment of misplaced celebration displayed with the chauvinism of ‘tiranga rallies’ and a jarring din of more war cries, Narendra Modi government cannot wish away the facts. The more he tries, the more India becomes a global laughingstock.
US President Donald Trump’s digression from the American conventional position of remaining in the shadows while trumpeting the ‘ceasefire’ and ‘future talks’ as his major diplomatic feat is not important to discuss. That’s the way he functions, and he was desperate to take credit for a diplomatic feat. What, however, should be of concern is what was India’s role in its agreement.
The desperation for a ceasefire after three days of high-decibel warring was universally felt. Neither India, nor Pakistan can afford a full-scale war. China, whose military equipment was successfully tested in the battle, prefers to be a cautious mover and the United States is now wary of the Chinese military might.
The three-day skirmishes brought the world to the edge, not only because of the nuclear threat, but also because of the concerns the efficiency of Chinese made weapons generated in the West. While questions are being asked globally to assess the new wave of global seismic jolts the India-Pakistan skirmishes have triggered, important questions in India have been glossed over. Howsoever uncomfortable, they must be discussed in public.
Whatever led to the ceasefire – trade baits and IMF loan packets or something else - the important thing is that it brings the much-needed respite. This moment is too precious to be frittered away over petty politicking by both India and Pakistan.
On the Indian side, Narendra Modi is left grappling with embarrassment of a tweet that called off his thump-chesting and deflated the international image he had built. Yet, it is both a moment of reckoning for him and one of opportunity, if has the patience of some thoughtful reflection rather than injecting the nation with more lies and toxic chauvinism.
In 1999, Atal Behari Vajpayee had this moment, and he seized it to transform his image from a Hindutva proponent to a statesman by contributing to building the edifices of a structured and composite peace process with Pakistan and simultaneously reaching out to Kashmiris. Even as Vajpayee was more seasoned and less vitriolic, he had the same ideological moorings as Modi.
Today, South Asian region is standing at a juncture that is far more perilous than 1999, with potential of engulfing the entire world. The past few days bring a nagging revelation – that we are sitting on a hot tinderbox. Those who can contribute to finding a way out would be the real heroes.
This indeed is a moment for Modi to be the Vishwaguru, he claims and aspires to be, by metamorphosing from being a champion of hate-politics to a global leader of peace. Only truly magnanimous and visionary humans can achieve such a transformation. Modi, however, is not that material. Though, I hope I am wrong.
Have you liked the news article?