Operation Sindoor: Opposition playing into the hands of foreign lobbies

First Post

a day ago

In a democracy the government will always be criticised by opposition voices even when its policies and actions are not wrong. How else will the opposition find political space for itself? When one talks of the opposition it includes social activists, journalists, political commentators and others who are also critical of the government for ideological, intellectual and other reasons. But such criticism should not be at the cost of larger national interest.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
These broad opposition circles in India are creating controversies over the post-Pahalgam-Operation Sindoor against Pakistan which abets its propaganda and plays into the hands of anti-Indian lobbies abroad. The Congress is particularly vociferous in its attacks on the government. It has made an issue of the ceasefire that India has accepted. President Donald Trump has created the ground for this by announcing the ceasefire even before India and Pakistan could do so, giving the impression that India had succumbed to US pressure.
The Congress and others are aware of Trump's penchant for loose and exaggerated talk and his obsession to be seen as a peacemaker. His inconsistent and contradictory commentary on the Ukraine conflict, sometimes showing an understanding of Russia's military action and at other times condemning it and threatening more sanctions, should give thought to those who would take him at his word. Why engage in distasteful rhetoric of the 'Narendra Surrender' kind?
That the US intervened diplomatically with India and Pakistan to avoid an escalation of the conflict was to be expected given decades of US involvement in the subcontinent largely in favour of Pakistan, as well as concerns about the implications of nuclear-armed and increasingly radicalised Pakistan's military defeat. That could raise the possibility of an eventual breakup of Pakistan, as the army is seen as the glue that binds the country together.
With the independence movement in Balochistan and the violent activities of the TTP from Afghan soil these concerns must have become sharper. The US has always backed a strategic balance in the subcontinent which requires a Pakistan capable of standing up to India, even if this is not the only reason for America's soft handling of that country.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Irrespective of the US role, would the Congress have wanted the military action to continue? To what end and at what cost? One can legitimately argue that a prolonged conflict was neither in India's plans nor seen as desirable. India had wanted to teach Pakistan a hard lesson, convey that it would no longer tolerate terrorism directed at India, and that it would not be deterred from taking condign action despite Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons. This is in addition to diplomatic steps, the most important being holding the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, which gives India a handle on Pakistan like none other. In fact, this step gives us a grip on the jugular vein of Pakistan.
India had no reason to keep escalating the conflict unless compelled by Pakistan to do so. India cannot, however, ignore that Pakistan is an irrational country, irrational in its emergence based on religion and then losing half of its territory because religion was not a sufficient glue. The fact that a huge number of Pakistan's co-religionists remained part of India added to the irrationality of its creation.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Pakistan's military adventures against India, as well as its recourse to terrorism as an instrument of state policy for decades against a much stronger neighbour have been part of its irrational behaviour. So is its desire to maintain military parity with India despite the precariousness of its economy. Pakistan talks loosely about its readiness to use the nuclear option and claims to have developed tactical nuclear weapons for that purpose, which too is irrational. Pakistan is not learning from Russia's case, which notwithstanding its formidable nuclear arsenal is unable to use its existence to prevent NATO from waging a proxy war against it.
To top all this, Pakistan now has a military chief who is a rabid India-hating Islamist. After a military drubbing received from India he has convinced the country that Pakistan scored a victory over India, which supposedly justifies his self-elevation to the rank of a Field Marshal. In view of all this, India cannot dismiss off hand entirely the dangers of an uncontrolled spiral in military escalation. Our Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) in his public comments at the recent Shangri La Dialogue at Singapore has given credit to Pakistan that in the recent conflict there was no irresponsible nuclear signaling on its part.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
One can say that Pakistan had no need to do so as we had made it clear at the very start that our target was not the Pakistani military but the country's terrorist infrastructure. In other words, a readiness to de-escalate after the initial blows seemed a part of our overall strategy. One assumes that the CDS's intention was to de-dramatise the danger of the India-Pakistan conflict going nuclear, as well as to rebut Trump's exaggerated claim that he had helped to avert a nuclear showdown in the subcontinent by his intervention and thus prevented loss of millions of lives.
India does not need a prolonged military conflict with Pakistan. India has already very substantially raised the level of dissuasion when it comes to Pakistan using the terror weapon against it. This is enough from our point of view for the time being. India's priority will remain its economic growth, developing its industrial manufacturing base, including in the defence sector, becoming part of global supply chains, investing in critical technologies, increasing its weight in the international system so that it can have more say in shaping the rules of global governance. India's ambitious agenda of Viksit Bharat by 2047 can be derailed by an all-out conflict with Pakistan.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
To say India has been hyphenated with Pakistan because of Trump equating them in his remarks and offering to mediate in resolving the Kashmir issue has no real basis. The major partners of India, including the EU, are not following his ill-considered comments. Trump is needlessly causing wrinkles in India-US ties. US relations with India are incomparably wider and deeper than those with Pakistan.
India, a $4.2 trillion economy, has become the world's fourth largest economy this year, whereas Pakistan's $411 billion economy is surviving on IMF bailouts. The US trade with India stands at $200 billion whereas it is a mere $7.4 billion with Pakistan. India is part of the Quad and is a proponent in the Indo-Pacific concept aimed at deterring China whereas China is Pakistan's closest defence and economic partner. India is part of the G20, is an invitee to the G7 meetings because of its stature, has vast pools of human talent in technology areas which the US and the West seek to benefit from, and so on.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Undoubtedly, the international media and think tank narrative on the outcome of the India-Pakistan conflict has been tilted in Pakistan's favour. This is not new because on India-Pakistan issues the narrative has always been biased against India. This narrative was shaped during the Cold War when non-aligned India was perceived to be pro-Soviet Union and Pakistan was an ally. India broke up Pakistan in 1971 against US wishes.
Ties at the military level between the US and Pakistan have been nurtured over the years and remain close under the aegis of US Central Command. The US media and that of Europe by and large reflects ingrained prejudices and what the Deep State in these countries wants to be propagated.
This media/think tank narrative has been more interested in how many Indian aircraft Pakistan shot down to highlight Pakistan's success, the inferior performance of French Rafales and the superior one of Chinese platforms. To argue that India should have been transparent about its losses in the interest of credibility is playing the game of pro-Pakistan lobbies. Look at the way the western governments and lobbies are projecting the political and military aspects of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, without any concerns about transparency and credibility. It has never announced the losses of its equipment to Russia in the Ukraine conflict. The manner in which the blowing up of Nord Stream 2 has been treated is another glaring example.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Our own opposition parties are wrong in asking the government to reveal our losses in the recent conflict and are, wittingly or unwittingly, playing into the hands of these foreign lobbies.
Kanwal Sibal is a former Indian Foreign Secretary. He was India's Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.