Squabbling Siblings: India, Pakistan And Operation Sindoor
On April 22, militants from The Resistance Front (TRF), a group accused by Indian authorities of being linked to the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist group, slaughtered 26 tourists in the resort town of Pahalgam in the Indian administered portion of Kashmir. This came as a rude shock to the Indian military establishment, who decided that rebellious sentiments in the region had declined. (In March 2025, an assessment concluded that a mere 77 active militants were busying themselves on India's side of the border.)
The feeling of cooling tensions induced an air of complacency. Groups such as the TRF, along with a fruit salad of insurgent outfits – the Kashmir Tigers, the People's Anti-Fascist Front, and the United Liberation Front of Kashmir – were all spawned by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's August 2019 revocation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted Kashmir singular autonomy. TRF has been particularly, and violently opposed, to the resettlement of the Kashmiri pandits, which they see as an effort to alter the region's demography.
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
The murderous incident raised the obvious question: Would Modi pay lip service to the 1972 Shimla Agreement, one that divided Kashmir into two zones of administration separated by a Line of Control? (A vital feature to that agreement is an understanding that both powers resolve their disputes without the need for third parties.)
The answers came promptly enough. First came India's suspension of the vital Indus Water Treaty, an essential agreement dealing with the distribution of water from India to Pakistan. Pakistan reciprocated firmly by suspending the Shimla Agreement, expelling Indian military diplomats, halting visa exemptions for Indian citizens and closing the Wagah border for trade.
Hindu nationalism proved particularly stirred, and Modi duly fed its cravings. On May 7, India commenced Operation Sindoor, involving what were purportedly precision missile attacks on nine militant camps in Pakistan and the Jammu and Kashmir area controlled by Islamabad. The operation itself had a scent of gendered manipulation, named after the vermillion used by married Hindu women to symbolise the durable existence of their husbands. Two female military officers – Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh – were tasked with managing the media pack.
The Indian briefings celebrated the accuracy of the strikes on what were said to be the sites of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahideen. 31 suspected terrorists were said to have perished, though Pakistan insisted that civilians had been killed in this apparent feast of forensic precision. India's Defence Minister Rajnath Singh would have none of it: Indian forces had only 'struck only those who harmed our innocents'.
The next day, it was operations against Pakistan's air defence systems in Lahore that stole the show. The inevitable Pakistani retaliation followed on May 10, with the Indian return serve against 11 Pakistan air bases. What followed is one version: Pakistan's military broke into a sweat. A cessation of hostilities was sought and achieved. Armchair pundits on the Indian side celebrated: India had successfully targeted the terrorist cells supported by Pakistan. If one is to read Anubhav Shankar Goswami seriously, Operation Sindoor was a stroke of genius, threatening 'the Pakistan Army's strategic shield against terrorists'.
More accurately, this was a lovely little spilling of blood with weaponry between callow sibling throats, a pattern familiar since 1947. The two countries have fought four full blown conflicts, two over Kashmir. Along the way, they have made the world a lot safer by acquiring nuclear weapons.
There was something for everyone in this retaliatory and counter retaliatory feast. India claimed strategic proficiency, keeping censorship on the matter tight. Pakistan could claim some prowess in shooting down five Indian jets, using Chinese weaponry including the J-10. With pride and pomp, they could even appoint Pakistani Army chief Asim Munir to the post of Field Marshal, an absurdly ceremonial gesture that gave the impression that the army had restored its tattered pride. It was to be expected that this was ample reward for his, in the words of the government, 'strategic leadership and decisive role' in defeating India.
The only ones to be notably ignored in this display of subcontinental machismo were the Kashmiris themselves, who face, in both the Pakistan and Indian administered zones, oppressive anti-terrorism laws, discriminatory practices and suppression of dissent and free speech.
Ultimately, the bickering children were convinced to end their playground antics. The fact that the overbearing headmaster, the unlikely US President Donald Trump, eventually brought himself to bear on proceedings must have irritated them. After four days of conflict, the US role in defusing matters between the powers became evident. Kashmir, which India has long hoped to keep in museum-like storage, away from the international stage, had been enlivened. Trump even offered his services to enable New Delhi and Islamabad a chance to reach a more enduring peace. Praise for the president followed, notably from those wishing to see the Kashmir conflict resolved.
In one sense, there seems little reason to worry. These are countries seemingly linked to sandpit grievances, scrapping, gouging and complaining about their lot. Even amidst juvenile spats, they can bicker yet still sign enduring ceasefires. In February 2021, for instance, the militaries of both countries cobbled together a ceasefire which ended four months of cross-border skirmishes. A mere two violations of the agreement (how proud they must have been) was recorded for the rest of the year. In 2022, a solitary incident of violation was noted.
A needlessly florid emphasis was made on the conflict by Indian political scientist Pratap Bhanu Meta. This was an encounter lacking 'decisive victory and no clear political end'. It merely reinstated 'the India-Pakistan hyphenation'. In one sense, this element of hyphenation – the international perception of two subcontinental powers in an eternal, immature squabble – was something India seemed to be marching away from. But Prime Minister Modi, despite his grander visions for India, is a sectarian fanatic. History shows that fanaticism tends to shrink, rather than enlarge the mind. In that sense, he is in good company with those other uniformed fanatics in uniform.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
4 days ago
- Scoop
Defend The Adivasis Of Central India. Ceasefire And Peace Talks Now
It is not just Palestine that is under siege. Central India is also embroiled in an all-out-war that is killing the Indigenous Adivasi people. Like Israel, the Indian state has also committed countless harrowing violations to the international humanitarian law – but toward its own people, in order to seize the mineral-rich land of the region for its neoliberal agenda. To open Central India to foreign investments and corporate plunder, the government launched its military campaign against Naxals (Maoist rebels). However, this campaign has mainly targeted the civilian Adivasi communities and their advocates. Recently, the government intensified its attacks through routine harassment, extrajudicial killings, mass sexual violence, illegal arrests and detention in security camps, and aerial bombings, especially in the region of Bastar, Chhattisgarh and the Karegatta Hills, Telangana. Many of the state-perpetrated killings are covered up as deaths from fake encounters. In Bastar alone, over 400 of these killings were reported since January 2024, which included elderly and children casualties. This year, hundreds of cases of rape, unlawful arrests of activists, and the burning of over 300 villages in Bastar have been documented. All this brutal violence is justified under the pretense of counter-insurgency, which has reinforced the land grabbing and forcible displacement of communities already legitimized by deceptive policies such as the Scheduled Tribes and Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (FRA). The constitutional rights granted to Adivasis for self-governance are blatantly ignored and violated to favor exploitation of natural resources through the rapid expansion of infrastructure for intensive extractive industries, which in turn threaten the lives and livelihoods of the Adivasis, attack their food systems, and destroy the environment. The People's Coalition on Food Sovereignty expresses its grave concern over the situation, particularly the employment of state militarization that is pushing the Adivasi population into starvation and destitution. Moreover, we strongly condemn the violations to human rights and the international humanitarian law committed by the Indian state and its forces in the name of counter-insurgency to acquire Adivasi lands and plunder their communities' resources. We call out the India government for its war crimes, including the extrajudicial killings of Naxal combatants – even the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) – that have been seeking deescalation through their unilateral ceasefire declaration. We urge to heed the appeals for ceasefire and peace talks and immediately suspend the national and regional counter-insurgency programs behind Central India's militarization that are killing the Adivasis (such as Operation Kagar in Bastar and Operation Black Forest in Karegatta Hills). The root causes of armed conflict will never be addressed by the further escalation of wars and military offensives that only contribute to people's hunger and impoverishment. There would never be a need for the people to take up arms in the first place if their socio-economic demands and civil liberties – especially concerning the right to food and land – are met and pro-people development is prioritized over profit.
Scoop
5 days ago
- Scoop
NZ And India Cement Progress As Four-Country Tour Ends
Rt Hon Winston Peters Deputy Prime Minister Minister of Foreign Affairs New Zealand and India have discussed their enhanced relationship across a broad range of domains, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Winston Peters says. 'New Zealand and India have agreed that we can and should be doing more together,' Mr Peters says. 'Both countries have worked hard over the last 18 months to bring energy, focus and deeper practical cooperation to the relationship.' While in New Delhi, Mr Peters held official talks and had a working dinner with India's External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. 'This has been an excellent opportunity to take stock of the progress we have made over the past year-and-a-half, while also discussing the pressing regional and global challenges our countries face,' Mr Peters says. 'New Zealand and India have a shared interest in promoting a stable, secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific region. My discussions with Minister Jaishankar and have been invaluable in understanding Indian perspectives on recent events and charting our course for enhanced bilateral cooperation.' Mr Peters noted that, over the past 18 months, New Zealand and India had made concrete steps towards closer engagement across a wide range of domains, including defence and security, trade and economic cooperation, science and technology and sport. While in New Delhi, Mr Peters also had meetings with the President of the Bharatiya Janata Party, JP Nadda, and the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi; and delivered a speech about New Zealand's strengthening ties with South and South East Asia under the Foreign Policy Reset. His visit to India concluded a four-country tour which also included trips to Australia, Sri Lanka and Nepal. 'New Zealand's strategic and economic interests are inextricably tied to the Indo-Pacific, including South Asia. It is crucial that we continue to invest in and strengthen our relationships here,' Mr Peters says. 'This week has also highlighted the quality of our relationships in South Asia, characterised by rich people-to-people connections, a common desire to do more together, and shared perspectives on the challenges facing our region.' During the first half of this Parliamentary term (from December 2023 to May 2025), Mr Peters has visited 45 countries and spent 154 days overseas on official visits. Mr Peters returns to New Zealand later today (31 May).
Scoop
5 days ago
- Scoop
India: Government Arbitrarily Detained & Forcibly Transferred Rohingya Human Rights Defender In Defiance Of U.N. Ruling
Bangkok, 27 May 2025 The Government of India arbitrarily detained Rohingya human rights defender Mohammad Arfat for more than four years without due process, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled, Fortify Rights said today. The recent ruling, which responds to a complaint filed by Fortify Rights in May 2024, calls on Indian authorities to provide Mohammad Arfat with reparations, prevent future violations, and cooperate with the U.N. Refugee Agency to ensure his protection and potential resettlement. More than 40 days after the Working Group issued its decision, Indian authorities defied the U.N. ruling, forcibly transferring Mohammad Arfat to another country, where he now remains in hiding due to ongoing threats to his security. 'India's prolonged and arbitrary detention of Mohammad Arfat was both unlawful and unconscionable. He should never have been detained, let alone forcibly transferred out of India following the ruling,' said John Quinley, Director of Fortify Rights. 'The U.N. Working Group's opinion reaffirms what we have known all along—India violated international law by detaining a recognized refugee for years, and then put him even further in harm's way.' In the published opinion, adopted during its 101st session, the U.N. Working Group determined that India's detention of Mohammad Arfat since 2018 was arbitrary, lacked any legal basis, and deprived him of due process. The opinion finds that his detention was based solely on his status as a Rohingya refugee and that India violated key provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—to which India is a state party and legally bound to uphold— including Articles 9 and 14, which protect against arbitrary detention and ensure the right to a fair trial. Upon his release from arbitrary detention, Mohammad Arfat told Fortify Rights: I was beaten by Indian police when I was first detained. … My health [after years] in Indian detention was not good, and I could not see a doctor. I became very sick over the years. … Now [after my release and transfer] I feel mentally and physically unwell. The U.N. Working Group is a body of independent human rights experts established by the U.N. Human Rights Council to investigate and provide opinions on cases of deprivation of liberty that are allegedly arbitrary or inconsistent with international standards. Fortify Rights filed the 20-page complaint to the Working Group on May 30, 2024, along with an annex of more than 90 pages supporting Mohammad Arfat's case and his right to liberty. The U.N. Working Group's opinion in response to Fortify Rights' submission expressed grave concern for Mohammad Arfat and recommended that Indian authorities: [E]nd the arbitrary detention of Mr. Arfat by immediately and unconditionally releasing him and to liaise with UNHCR to grant him protection and a remedy, befitting his status as an asylum-seeker, which could include resettlement in a third country. The U.N. Working Group also recommended that the Indian government provide 'compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law,' for the harm caused to Mohammad Arfat, and that those responsible for the violation of his rights be held accountable, urging the Government 'to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Arfat and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.' Instead, India forcibly transferred Mohammad Arfat to another country shortly after the ruling. In addition to Mohammad Arfat's case, beginning on May 6, 2025, Fortify Rights documented how Indian authorities carried out mass arrests of Rohingya refugees in New Delhi. The next day, the authorities forced at least 40 of them back to Myanmar, where the military junta has been carrying out a genocidal campaign and where the Arakan Army — an ethnic resistance army fighting the Myanmar military junta in an ongoing revolution — has also carried out atrocities against the Rohingya people. In this instance, the India Navy dumped the refugees into the sea near the Myanmar border, placing their lives at grave risk in violation of international law. During the same crackdown, India also forcibly deported other Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh, which hosts more than one million Rohingya refugees in crowded and tightly controlled camps. On May 15, 2025, Tom Andrews, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, called India's forcing Rohingya into the sea 'unconscionable' and 'outrageous' and, in response, he launched an inquiry. Andrews said in a statement that forced returns to Myanmar are a 'serious violation of the principle of non-refoulment, a fundamental tenet of international law that prohibits states from returning individuals to a territory where they face threats to their lives or freedom.' Furthermore, on March 3, three U.N. experts, including Special Rapporteur Andrews, raised concerns about India's 'widespread, arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees from Myanmar' in a letter to the Indian government: Conditions in places of detention are reportedly dire. Detainees from Myanmar, the majority of whom are Rohingya, are reportedly held in severely overcrowded cells, and do not receive adequate nutrition, clean water, or medical care. Facilities are reportedly unsanitary. Detainees lack clean clothes, bedding, and access to sunlight. Many detainees are reportedly suffering from illness, infections and other medical problems and are unable to access adequate medical care. India must immediately end its arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees and provide reparations to all harmed by the government's reckless and violent crackdown on their rights, said Fortify Rights. India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol and lacks a domestic asylum law; however, it remains obligated to respect the international customary law principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the forced return of refugees to situations where they are likely to face persecution and other serious human rights abuses. India's forcible return of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar—where they face grave risks of persecution, violence, or death—also violates several international treaties to which India is a state party, including the ICCPR (Articles 6, 7, and 9), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 6 and 22), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Article 5). Forcibly returning Rohingya refugees to Myanmar also violates the Genocide Convention, to which India is a state party, said Fortify Rights. By returning victims of genocide to a country where that genocide is ongoing, India may be failing in its obligation to prevent genocide under international law. Moreover, by knowingly contributing to the continuing genocide through the forced return of survivors, India risks legal complicity in the very crimes the Convention is meant to prevent. 'India has legal obligations to protect Rohingya refugees under treaties it willfully entered into,' said John Quinley. 'India should immediately and unconditionally free all refugees in detention and provide compensation for any harms inflicted.'
