logo
Pahalgam to Rawalpindi via DC: Tale of a conflict

Pahalgam to Rawalpindi via DC: Tale of a conflict

Hindustan Times11-05-2025

India has shown that it will not accept terror attacks emanating from Pakistani soil and displayed serious political intent and military capacity to counter it. Pakistan has shown that it is not a pushover although the asymmetry in power was evident, and that it possesses military and diplomatic capabilities to stand its ground. China has shown that it will leave no stone unturned to use Pakistan to weaken India. And, America has shown that despite being a distracted power with the intent to do less in the rest of the world, it remains the decisive player in the international system to shape the course of war and peace.
That is the big picture that emerges out of the post-Pahalgam churn. But first here is a quick summary of how India and Pakistan got here based on the limited information in the public domain.
Pakistani-backed terrorists killed civilians based on their religion in Pahalgam. India decided that wasn't acceptable and prepared for a fortnight before mounting unprecedented strikes in both Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Punjab against nine terror camps and bases. With Chinese equipment and support, Pakistan was possibly able to inflict some damage on Indian air capabilities, a fact that India hasn't yet publicly acknowledged. Pakistan then began an offensive against key Indian military bases across the western border, which India countered effectively and then responded by neutralising Lahore's air defence system.
Pakistan then mounted a drone-based offensive against urban centres and military bases in India which were intercepted; India responded with drone attacks of its own on military sites in Pakistan. Pakistan continued its offensive the next day, adding missile strikes on Indian air bases. India lost patience and hit three key Pakistani Air Force bases, including the one in Rawalpindi. This led to a renewed Pakistani offensive against Indian military installations and civilian centres and the likely mobilisation of ground troops. All this while, cross-border shelling at the Line of Control (LoC) kept intensifying with an increasing loss of lives. At this point, on Saturday evening, as the world moved from being exasperated to alarmed, Donald Trump announced that US 'mediation' had led to a ceasefire deal.
To be sure, this is a rough and incomplete story. The attacks and counter-attacks weren't neat and sequential but often simultaneous and multi-domain. In the next few days, all sides will attempt to cast themselves as the victor. And, over the next few weeks and months, we will know a lot more about what happened between the night of May 7 and May 10 in New Delhi, Rawalpindi and Washington DC, at the LoC and International Border, in the skies, and who gained what and lost what. But based on an admittedly incomplete sketch, here is a set of preliminary conclusions.
One, India has institutionalised a new template. Uri gave an indication, Balakot provided further proof, but Operation Sindoor has established for sure that New Delhi has no political tolerance for major terror attacks on Indian soil anymore. From quick cross-border surgical strikes in 2016 and an air strike in PoK in 2019, India moved to conduct strikes in a wider geography against a larger set of targets in Pakistan. This was an impressive logistical and military feat. On Saturday, India also decided that any future terror attack would be considered an act of war.
The principle of zero tolerance for terror, when translated into real policy, means that Pakistan will have to really think hard about whether it wants to incite a wider conflict with India when it sends its boys across the border to shatter the calm in Kashmir or beyond. While one can hope that better sense prevails in Rawalpindi, India will also have to prepare for the worst, boost its military capabilities, plug diplomatic weaknesses, enhance its internal security preparedness given the possibility of terror ground seeking revenge, and prepare its citizens for more frequent bouts of violence, losses and disorder.
Two, Pakistan has shown that while it may be weaker, it is no pushover. Yes, the Indian GDP is eleven times more than that of Pakistan. And yes, India's government wants to build the country unlike Pakistan's army which is happy to burn their own country for the sake of propping up terror proxies and to cement domestic legitimacy or make their chief look like a superhero. But it is important to recognise that the army's dominance, its control over the budget, its historical utility to major powers and therefore ability to extract weapon systems, its dense and intimate relationship with China and Turkey, and decades of anti-India nationalist propaganda and Islamist radicalisation have given the Pakistanis a set of tools.
This operates both at the level of mustering social support for prolonged conflict or escalation and at the level of having more military options. Drones have opened a new chapter of warfare. Pakistan showed an ability to strain India's air defences. The nuclear blackmail option persists even as India has now thrice successfully pushed the envelope on what's possible below the nuke threshold, effectively calling Pakistan's bluff. Pakistan's mobilisation of ground troops had created a possibility of a prolonged land-based war. And exporting terrorism remains a cheap option for a perennially irresponsible state. Make no mistake: India has overwhelming dominance in all domains, it would have won any war, and it has showed the ability to withstand Pakistan's asymmetric warfare for decades. But Pakistan's ability to cause destruction must not be discounted and was visible in this episode.
Three, China was absolutely central to Pakistan's ability to defend itself. All accounts suggest that Beijing provided diplomatic support at the UN, material support for operations and possibly intelligence support to Rawalpindi. For anyone in Delhi who still harbours dreams of detente or rapprochement with Beijing, if Galwan wasn't enough, the past five days should be a reminder that India's tensions with China are deep and have a strong Pakistan dimension. China controls parts of Kashmir. China wants parts of Ladakh. China has an active military presence and upgraded infrastructure at the border. Stability at the Line of Actual Control is fragile. And on top of that, China is behind Pakistan's nuclear and conventional military capabilities. China's relationship with Russia has meant that Moscow may no longer be as solid an Indian ally even on Pakistan as in the past. China is, clearly, happy to see India, on the cusp of ripe geopolitical opportunities, dragged back into a hyphenated morass with Pakistan. All of this means that Delhi will have to live with two active and fragile fronts and be prepared for challenges on either or both any time.
And, finally, the entire post-Pahalgam churn has shown the continued salience of America despite the rhetoric of disengagement and the reality of incompetence and limited personnel. Donald Trump doesn't want wars under his watch; go back to his inaugural speech where he said the one thing he would like to be is a 'peacemaker'. He is particularly obsessed with nuclear threats. And America's ability to wield both carrots and sticks with both India and Pakistan remains enormous. India may not have liked his tendency to claim credit and his use of the word 'mediation'. India may well have rejected Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claims that the ceasefire would be followed by dialogue between India and Pakistan at a neutral place. But it is clear that the US played a central role in facilitating conversations between the two sides and getting the firing to stop. The global cop is still the global cop. At the same time, there were also other players, particularly the UK, Saudi Arabia and UAE, that played a key role in weighing on Pakistan.
India can take satisfaction that it displayed serious political intent to battle terror, showed it had the capability to degrade terror infrastructure, remained unified and mature in its response, and kept the big picture of its developmental objectives in mind even at a highly emotive time as it decided to end this bout of confrontation. But it must also acknowledge that the task of imposing deterrence hasn't been met fully, and it must prepare for a more volatile security situation and a neighbourhood that may just have got more fragile.
Prashant Jha is a political commentator. The views expressed are personal

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Decode politics: In poll-bound Bihar, calls for domicile reservation grow. Why they are difficult to ignore
Decode politics: In poll-bound Bihar, calls for domicile reservation grow. Why they are difficult to ignore

Indian Express

time21 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Decode politics: In poll-bound Bihar, calls for domicile reservation grow. Why they are difficult to ignore

Ahead of the Bihar polls, an old issue has come to haunt the Nitish Kumar-led NDA government. On June 5, the Bihar Student Union, an umbrella body of several student organisations, led a protest in Patna demanding domicile reservation in government jobs. Bihar has an unemployment rate of 3.9% as per the latest NITI Aayog estimates, higher than the national average of 3.2%. Many young people in the state rely on government jobs, which have been marred with irregularities in the recent past. Hence, jobs are a politically sensitive issue, with resonance ahead of the polls. Those demanding domicile reservation argue that candidates from outside the state are taking away jobs that belong to youths of Bihar. Their slogan 'Vote de Bihari, naukari le bahri (Biharis vote, outsiders take jobs)' is fast gaining momentum as the elections draw closer. Under domicile reservation, the government of a particular state reserves a portion of government jobs or educational seats for its residents, the idea being to prioritise local candidates or protect local interests in competitive job markets. While Bihar does not have a general domicile-based reservation policy for government jobs, the NDA government claims that most of the recruits in recent government exams have been Bihar residents. Additionally, around a fortnight back, the Bihar government announced reservation of 4% of all government jobs for persons with disabilities from the state. In December 2020, following a series of protests, the state government had briefly introduced a domicile rule for school teacher recruitment. But it was withdrawn in June 2023 by the short-lived Mahagathbandhan alliance that subsequently came to power, allowing candidates from any Indian state to apply for the teaching positions. Then Bihar education minister Chandrashekar Yadav had cited 'vacant seats for quality mathematics and science teachers' as the reason, while bureaucrats had mentioned 'constitutional provisions and Supreme Court rulings' for the decision. The demand for domicile reservation flows from Bihar's economic and social challenges. As per a NITI Aayog report titled 'Macro and Fiscal Landscape of the State of Bihar', published in March 2025, Bihar's economy is predominantly agrarian, with 49.6% its workforce engaged in agriculture between 2022-23. Only 5.7% of the state has manufacturing jobs — one of the lowest shares in India. Service and construction jobs make up the rest of the jobs pie and constitute 26% and 18.4% of the workforce respectively. The lack of private-sector jobs makes government positions highly coveted, as they offer stability and benefits. Though the government has tried to expand hiring in recent years, demand far outstrips supply. They are demanding an official domicile quota with 100% reservation for Bihar natives in primary teacher recruitment and at least 90% reservation in other state jobs for candidates with valid long-term Bihar domicile certificates. The protesters argue that neighbouring states already protect the opportunities of their locals and that the youth of Bihar is competing unfairly with outsiders for limited opportunities. This, they argue, results in a vicious cycle of unemployment and migration from Bihar. State policies on domicile reservation vary. Uttarakhand reserves all Class III and IV jobs for candidates who have lived in the state for at least 15 years. Maharashtra also requires a similar 15-year domicile and fluency in Marathi for many government posts, effectively prioritising locals. Nagaland, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh have special constitutional provisions that reserve large fractions of local government jobs for indigenous tribes. Jammu and Kashmir had similar reservations before the abrogation of its special status in 2019. On June 2, the Central government notified 85% reservation for the residents of Ladakh. In 2023, the Jharkhand Assembly passed a Bill to reserve all government jobs in the Class III and IV category for domiciles based on the 1932 land record. But the governor returned it, citing constitutional issues, and it has not yet been implemented. Article 16(2) of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment and prohibits discrimination based on place of birth or residence. Article 16(3) allows only Parliament, not state governments, to prescribe residency requirements for specific posts. Besides, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against state-level domicile reservations, emphasising national unity. In the Pradeep Jain vs Union of India case (1984), the Court held that 'sons-of-the-soil' policies are unconstitutional as they undermine equal opportunity. Exceptions exist under Article 371 for states like Nagaland to protect interests of the tribal population of the state. The Nitish Kumar-led NDA government has not yet given a direct public statement on the domicile protests. However, it has spoken out against this earlier. Last month, JD(U) leader Manish Kumar Verma said a domicile reservation policy would 'go against the Constitution', and could prompt retaliatory measures from other states and affect the millions of Bihari migrants working elsewhere. Instead, Verma said, the government was focusing on large-scale recruitment drives to address unemployment. Both RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav and Jan Suraaj head Prashant Kishor have, however, backed the demand. Yadav has even promised 100% reservation across all jobs if the RJD comes to power in the coming polls.

BJP walkout in the Bengal assembly over Anubrata
BJP walkout in the Bengal assembly over Anubrata

United News of India

time21 minutes ago

  • United News of India

BJP walkout in the Bengal assembly over Anubrata

Kolkata, June 11 (UNI) Opposition BJP on Wednesday staged a walkout in the West Bengal Assembly after Speaker Biman Banerjee refused to allow the saffron legislators to raise a resolution against the Birbhum's TMC leader Anubrata Mondal's alleged foul language against the Bolpur police station officer-in-charge and against his family members. All BJP MLAs walked out of the Assembly after the chair on Tuesday evening accepted a privilege motion against Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari brought by four senior TMC ministers. BJP legislator Shankar Ghosh told media outside the Assembly on Wednesday that the acceptance of the privilege motion was illegitimate since Adhikari had not said anything against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on the floor of the House on Tuesday. Speaker Biman Banerjee took exception to Adhikari's version as the Chief Minister "batted for Pakistan in the assembly" while speaking on a resolution brought by the Speaker appreciating the Indian armed forces for retaliation against terrorists in PoK and in Pakistan after the gunmen shot dead 25 tourists and a local at Pahalgam on April 26 in Jammu and Kashmir. Meanwhile, the National Commission for Women (NCW) on Tuesday sought a " review action taken report" from the Superintendent of Police, Bolpur, as to what action the law enforcing agency took against Mondal after he allegedly abused the Bolpur IC. A purported audio clip, which went viral revealed that Mondal, also known as the strongman of Birbhum district, used abusive language against the police officer and his family members. The NCW, before seeking the review action taken by the SP, had written to Director General of Police (DGP) Rajeev Kumar about the purported verbal abuse of a cop in Birbhum by TMC leader Mondal. However, the NWC was unhappy about the reply and expressed dissatisfaction with police not attaching the copy of the FIR and not even seizing the mobile phone from which Mondal had called the police officer. The NCW in its second letter to the Bolpur SP on Tuesday demanded the review action taken report to be returned within five days. NCW member Archana Majumdar said 'The National Commission for Women expresses deep concern over the apparent inaction by the state police in this matter, despite clear and widespread public outrage. This inaction not only emboldens such repeat offenders but also deeply undermines the morale of the police force and shakes public confidence in the neutrality and responsiveness of law enforcement agencies.' A week after the audio conversation between Mondal and the police officer went viral, Mondal appeared before the sub-divisional police officer and recorded his statement. The TMC condemned Mondal's remarks and sought an apology from him, which he promptly complied with.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store