Nitin Pai: India must stay the course in its old contest with Pakistan
We’re clearly winning the long battle. Each terror strike pushes Pakistan further into a corner. India’s response to the horrific attack in Pahalgam must take a wide view of the scenario.
At this time, when there is widespread anticipation of a military retaliation by India in response to the atrocious terrorist attack in Pahalgam, it is useful to take a step back and look at the scoreboard. In the decades-old conflict with Pakistan, India is winning. Recognizing this is important, for then we can reinforce success factors and avoid mistakes.
At the outset, let me be clear: The use of military force against targets in Pakistan is called for and well-justified. If India’s political leadership assesses that the risk of war is acceptable, then a sharp operation that hurts without humiliating the Pakistani army will ensure that the cost of cross-border terrorism remains high. The political objective would be to cause enough damage on the other side and absorb the ensuing retaliation by Pakistan. This will reinforce the message that the Pakistani establishment does not enjoy impunity regardless of its geopolitical alliances or nuclear weapons.
Also Read: Pahalgam should be handled with a firm, wise hand
Why do I say India is winning? The Pakistani establishment has clearly not changed its stripes since the 1980s, when it ramped up its investment in terrorism and a proxy war against India. What has changed is the world’s response to it.
I still recall the 1990s, when, after a terror attack in Kashmir, Washington would blithely support the Pakistani position and protect Islamabad from military and political retaliation. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, among other countries in West Asia, would provide the financial reassurance that emboldened the Pakistani army. The international community would equate terrorists and their victims and ask both sides to de-escalate. Prominent political leaders in Kashmir, led by the Hurriyat, would sympathize with terrorists. In Pakistan, cross-border terrorism enjoyed considerable public support and was popular as a policy.
Now consider what happened after the Baisaran killings. The US President’s first reaction was to support the Indian position. Saudi Arabia and the UAE enjoy close ties with New Delhi and are unlikely to provide encouragement or solace to Pakistani generals or terrorist groups. Global public opinion has no patience for terror.
Kashmiri people came out on the streets to protest against the terrorists. Few Kashmiri politicians have openly backed terrorism. And, from my limited sense of elite Pakistani opinion, people there seem to be more fatigued than enthused by this act of terrorism. Even the terrorists who claimed responsibility quickly backtracked once they realized that the attack didn’t play out as they had hoped.
Also Read: Pahalgam attack: Retaliation is easy, but restraint serves India’s long-term interests
It is too early to tell, but I will not be surprised if Indian tourists return to Kashmir in the coming months. When that happens, it will be yet another sign that India is winning. As for Pakistan, even if China and Turkey stand behind it, Islamabad will find it difficult to secure international assistance to shore up its crisis-ridden economy.
India’s success is not an accident. It comes as the result of a consistent approach—a grand strategy—that focuses on building economic strength, engaging Pakistan’s foreign sponsors, investing in security infrastructure (like the border fence), conducting democratic politics and, finally, judiciously using military force. We can date this approach either to 1991-92 or 1999-2000. In any case, without making doctrinal declarations and advertising it as a shrink-wrapped ‘strategy,’ New Delhi has employed a set of policy options that have allowed India to gain an upper hand in its contest with Pakistan. This approach is bipartisan and each government has added a new element to India’s strategy.
What are the pitfalls to avoid?
One, as we have known from the time of Partition, the most important thing is for India to not allow the external conflict with Pakistan spill over into domestic strife. Demolishing the homes of alleged terrorists may be counterproductive at a time when Kashmiri public opinion has turned against terrorists.
Two, the information dimension needs careful management. Not every signal needs to be sent through loudspeakers. Not every verbal taunt needs a response.
Three, we should recognize that the Pakistani military-jihadist complex and the nominal Pakistani state are two distinct entities. New Delhi’s approach must take into account the dynamics of the relationship between the two. What worked in times of the Imran Khan-Qamar Javed Bajwa regime in Pakistan need not quite work during the Shehbaz Sharif-Asim Munir dispensation.
Also Read: Zero-day terror in Kashmir: National security needs an AI upgrade
It is not my purpose to offer a saccharine-coated story that makes everyone feel good. Rather, it is important for us to recognize that if we stay the course, we will be able to diminish the impact of Pakistani mischief on India’s future.
Rawalpindi’s generals would like nothing better than to suck India into the morass of a proxy conflict and exploit religious fault-lines to weaken Indian society. They will not be easily deterred. Neither military force nor economic straits have stopped them. Preventing the military-jihadist complex from carrying out cross-border terrorism is therefore a multi-dimensional, perennial and round-the-clock activity that India must doggedly persist with over the long term.
The author is co-founder and director of The Takshashila Institution, an independent centre for research and education in public policy.
topics
