The Indian response to the Pahalgam attack was two-fold. Firstly, it launched a massive crackdown across IaK jailing thousands of people and blasting homes of insurgents alleged to be part of the attack in Pahalgam. Within India, Kashmiri students, professionals and businessmen were harassed and made to flee by the local population. Across the region, homes were searched and inhabitants harassed. Secondly, India embarked on a series of diplomatic onslaughts on Pakistan but none more unprecedented than unilaterally putting the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. Finally, India topped off its diplomatic response with a kinetic response.
On May 7, India launched strikes on nearly 9 targets in Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab in Pakistan. According to India, the targets were ‘terrorists’ facilities. Over the next three days, the Militaries of India and Pakistan, engaged in a fierce air war using fighter planes, drones, missiles, etc. Finally, on the fourth day of the skirmishes, a United States brokered ceasefire was announced. Both India and Pakistan claimed victory. While US and Pakistan called the stoppage of fighting a ‘ceasefire’, India has called it a ‘pause’. Nearly, a week after the fighting stopped, it is pertinent to also pause here and look deeper into what this May conflict between India and Pakistan entails for Kashmir and indeed the wider region.
Read More:mPahalgam and the New Security Paradigm in South Asia- Part 1
Why was There a ‘Ceasefire’?
On 10th May, United States President Donald Trump, surprised everyone when he put out a statement on X, that both India and Pakistan had agreed to a ceasefire. Like clockwork, Indian and Pakistani officials followed it up with their own announcements. While Pakistan also called it a ceasefire and thanked United States for its role, India called it a ‘stoppage of firing’ and stressed that the Pakistani Army DGMO had initiated a call to his Indian counterpart after which the understanding was arrived at.
India and its massive media machinery portrayed it as Pakistan’s capitulation to its domestic audience, whereas Pakistan propounded that the ceasefire was a result of the bloody nose that India had been given.
On 10th May. The New York Times reported that US intervened after it feared that the fighting between India and Pakistan could spiral into a nuclear escalation. A deeper look at the sequence of events suggests that the ‘ceasefire’ may have more to it than meets the eye. Of course, the discourse over the ‘ceasefire’ around the world is now mostly shaped by the New York Times story mentioned above. But let us step back and look at India’s goals with regards to the Military action against Pakistan. Immediately after launching the strikes into AJK and Pakistani mainland, India insisted that the strikes were ‘non-escalatory’ in nature. From this statement, it would seem that India intended to carry out stand alone strikes. However, India’s preparation prior to the strikes within Indian-administered Kashmir clearly hinted at something more expansive. India had started amassing forces along the Line of Control(LOC) in IaK.
In the hinterland, emergency civil defence mechanisms had been put in place, the non-locals working in IaK were asked to leave the region by the security authorities. Indian Army chief was also given powers to call on the reserve forces. Many of the Kashmir watches also reported similar other measure being taken by local authorities in IaK. India has upped its ante about retaking AJK since it annexed IaK in 2019. The calls have only become louder and sharper. Therefore, it would not be far-fetched to conclude that India sensed an opportunity to launch an invasion, howsoever, shallow to re-take at least strategic areas like the Haji Pir Pass and Leepa Valley in AJK.
What then upset Indian plans? The answer lies in the opening hour of the conflict Indian Air force operated French made Rafale jets bore the brunt of the Pakistan Air Force(PAF) counter attack. On ground reports collated by various international media outlets suggest that India lost nearly five Fighter planes within the first hour of the air war. Such a huge blow would naturally have sent shockwaves across the entire Indian leadership. Indian PM, Narendra Modi, in 2019 had lamented that if only India had Rafales, it could have ‘performed’ even better in the February skirmish with PAF. Now, here was IAF, six years later, again losing to the PAF. The war plan had clearly not gone according to the script even at its outset. Now, India and Modi needed a face saving.
Clausewitz, the father of modern Western warfare, emphasized that decisive leadership—characterized by the ability to take bold, calculated risks based on a deep understanding of the battlefield and political context—is a critical factor in achieving success in war.It is this very quality that the India under the leadership of Modi and its ultranationalist right wing govt. lacked during the May conflict with Pakistan. Modi and his team panicked as it had done five years back in 2020, when at the end of August, the Chinese Military made aggressive moves in Eastern Ladakh. The then Indian Army Chief Manoj Naravane, in his memoirs ‘Four stars of destiny’ disclosed how he was given a ‘hot potato’ by the Modi govt when the crisis was discussed in the dead of the night.
Naravane, further writes that while being put on the hot seat, he weighed in a myriad of factors before deciding on his response to Chinese moves. ‘The country was in bad shape, reeling under the Covid pandemic. The economy was faltering, global supply chains had broken down. Would we be able to ensure a steady supply of spares, etc., under these conditions, in case of a long-drawn-out action?’, wrote Naravane. It is flabbergasting to know that the Army Chief was being forced to make an operational decision with strategic implications and that He actually made a strategic decision, which was actually the task of the political leadership.
Eventually, Naravane says, He decided to not open fire at the Chinese military and instead rely on aggressive patrolling to keep it at bay. This account by India’s former Army Chief is quite revealing of the indecisiveness of India’s political leadership which has projected itself as bold and decisive. Understandbly, Naravane’s book is still pending clearance from India’s Ministry of Defence and is yet to be launched publicly.
The August 2020 scenario again played itself, although in a different way, when Indian suffered huge losses to its Air Force. It would also have concluded that it could not provide the sufficient air cover to any ground assault planned across the line of control. As a result, not only did India call off its ground invasion plan, it took the first opportunity that presented itself-when United States offered to broker a ceasefire-to stop the fighting and reassess and regroup. It is for this reason that India has continuously referred to the ‘ceasefire’ as a pause. It would not be too far-fetched to extrapolate that the Air Force and Indian Army would also have been handed over their own ‘hot potatoes’ by Narendra Modi.
Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump continues to trumpet the ‘ceasefire’ between India and Pakistan as his achievement, while continuously invoking the nuclear bogey. The bitter reality for US is that even if any other country – there are clear indications that the Saudis played a part- had tried to mediate a ceasefire, it would have ‘succeeded’.
This is simply because both sides wanted the fighting to stop for their own reasons. Donald Trump has had a rough few months since the beginning of his second term in office. He has disrupted the global economy while trying to ‘make America great again’ without any benefit for US itself. He has tried to mediate two ceasefires and ‘solutions’ in Gaza and Ukraine and has until now failed at both. Therefore, he is trying really hard to sell the ‘ceasefire’ between India and Pakistan as having saved the world from nuclear disaster. However, it is nothing more than an over-sell as been the case with most of Trump’s claims and policies.
What Lies Ahead for Kashmir and the India-Pakistan Rivalry?
Indian-administered Kashmir, which is at the heart of the latest conflict between India and Pakistan is back on the world stage, even as India dismissed Trump’s reference to the K-word. However, the region and its people themselves have always been looked through the lens of either India or Pakistan. While, a ‘ceasefire’ is being hailed by everyone around the world, including the two countries, Kashmiris remain at the receiving end of India’s unabating Hindutva belligerence. No ‘ceasefire’ or ‘understanding’ or ‘pause’ is even contemplated by any quarter. In the last six years, the Indian state has jailed over 10,000 Kashmiris across its jails in Northern India.
Dissent, as small as a social media post, has been crushed with unhinged brutality. Now, Kashmir awaits the result of the new dynamics that will come to define the India Pakistan rivalry. Based on past trends and the unchartered territory that both countries have entered into, it appears that one of the two scenarios is going to play out in the near future:
Pakistan Finally Makes a ‘Deal’ on Kashmir?
Indian’s strikes deep into the heartland of Pakistan- Punjab- was the first time since the 1965 war that it had been threatened in any way. This came as a shock even for Pakistan, as the battlefield had most been restricted to the Kashmir region over the last 75 years. Alongside this new precedent, or Modi called it a ‘new normal’, India has also held in abeyance the Indus waters treaty.
When the ceasefire was announced on the 10th of May, India explicitly stated that the Indus Waters treaty would continue to be held in abeyance. The unprecedented nature of India’s aggression against Pakistan, would certainly have made the Generals worry. Faced with two insurgencies on its western border and a belligerent India on its eastern border, Pakistan may try to grab at the opportunity that the recent crisis has presented to come to an understanding with India on the Kashmir issue.
Previous approaches to resolution like the 4-point formula could be a looked at as a possible reference. However, Modi’s ultranationalist Hindu govt. is unlikely to make any compromise on the territory its holds and neither is Pakistan in any position to dictate such a thing. It could then be that Pakistan simply accepts the LOC as a permanent border with both sides facilitating trade and movement of people. India may just be able to sell it as Pakistani capitulation and a symbolic ‘takeover’ of what it calls ‘POK’. The Modi government in India has been able to manage the narrative at home courtesy of a ultra-loyal media ecosystem and could it to justify its new policy towards Pakistan.
In return, both countries may decide to stamp out all support to their insurgencies in Kashmir and Balochistan. The pivot from ‘Geopolitics’ to ‘Geo-economics’ framework that the Ex-Army chief of Pakistan Qamar Javed Bajwa had proposed may finally come to fruition. In his ‘victory speech’ on operation sindoor, Narendra Modi said that India had agreed to a ‘pause’ after Pakistan assured that there would neither be further escalation nor would there be any terrorism.
If Pakistan has indeed communicated this to the Indian side, and remains true to its word, then there could soon be visible signs on ground in Indian-administered Kashmir as well as Balochistan. As a result, the insurgent activity could sharply come down and both countries may even share intelligence to help in their respective counter-insurgency campaigns. However, whether the strategic national interests of Kashmir are taken into consideration in the new paradigm of piece, will be a million dollar question. For Kashmiris, the question of ‘tyranny’ takes precedence over the question of ‘terrorism’.
Pakistan Pushes Back Against the Hindutva India?
‘’I firmly believed that the division of India into two sovereign states was not only undesirable but also harmful to the interests of the country as a whole. In my opinion, the policy of appeasement adopted by Gandhiji towards the Muslims was wrong and harmful, and it led to the creation of Pakistan… I felt that the only way to save the nation from further ruin was to remove Gandhiji from the scene.”, said Nathuram Godse, a Hindutva activist in his trial statement days after assassinating India ‘father of the nation’. This honest and deep ideological admission underscores the lens through which the Hindutva and its adherents view not only Pakistan and Muslims in general but also those who propose any ‘appeasement’ with them.
Read More: After Pehalgam Tragedy: Road Ahead for India & Pakistan?
For Hindutva and its adherents led by the all powerful BJP government, Muslims in general are heretics of the Hindu tradition, who converted to an alien religion(Islam). This mindset has invariably fueled hate against Muslims within India over the last 75 years in general and the last decade in particular. Muslims have been lynched by Hindu mobs across India, sometimes on ‘charges’ of carrying beef and at other times ‘love jihad’. Similarly, the Hindutva looks upon Pakistan as a country which divided the beloved its beloved maata(motherland). And on top on that, from the Indian perspective, Pakistan sponsors ‘terrorism’ in Kashmir. It is this context which must be kept in mind while analyzing the new security that has taken shape in South Asia.
As discussed earlier in the article, the Modi led Indian Government has long eyed re-taking Azad Jammu & Kashmir as part of its ideological stand point and it was this goal that it was perhaps seeking in its recent conflict with Pakistan. Now, let us discuss how Pakistan would be looking at the recent conflict with India. For starters, as discussed earlier, from the Pakistani perspective, India did the unthinkable by putting the Indus waters treaty in abeyance and raining missiles on mainland Pakistan.
Pakistan’s concerns about being a lower riparian state of the Indus basin was one of the factors which led it to send Pashtun Tribals to capture Kashmir in 1947, as unambiguously put forth by General Akbar Khan in his book ‘Raiders in Kashmir’. And now, India has only exacerbated Pakistan’s fears by putting the Indus waters treaty in abeyance. Ever since its creation, Pakistan has always been wary of its eastern neighbour due to the acrimonious nature of the birth of both countries and has perceived India as an existential threat. India’s actions and the subsequent polemics in the recent conflict could well cement these long standing Pakistani fears.
After years of trying to cozy up with India, Pakistan finds itself in a fix. It knows the deeply held conviction of the Indian Hidutva dispensation and could perhaps seek a renewal of its ‘death by a thousand cuts’ strategy to keep an emboldened India in check within its own borders in Indian-administered Kashmir and even other places in India. This could see a renewed insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir, as Pakistan may again try to make the Kashmir resistance movement a vehicle to further its security goals. However, India has openly declared that it has merely ‘paused’ its operation sindoor against Pakistan and that it could be re-launched even if a single act of ‘terror’ takes place.
Pakistan, if it decides, to go back to its proxy war tactics, would have to do a fine balancing act, including being ready for another conflict with India. If the Pakistan indeed envisages India’s actions-strikes in mainland Pakistan and suspension of IWT- over the last three weeks as an existential threat to its very survival, then it is anybody’s guess what it could entail for the region. It appears that the May conflict has created a powder keg in South Asia, which could be ignited by a tiny little spark. The consequences for the region could be devastating.
The author is a political analyst specializing in South Asia.