Latest news with #CentreforLandWarfareStudies
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Indo-US ties under 'test', can't be described as 'transactional': Experts
Strategic experts on Friday discussed the contours of the current India-US relationship, with some saying that it was a moment where the ties are being "tested", while others said one should not get swayed by words like "transactional" being used by many to describe it. The online panel discussion saw participation from members of some of the think-tanks based in Delhi and Washington. The topic was 'Negotiating a Transactional Relationship: India and the US', and the discussion was hosted by Delhi-based Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS). Elizabeth Threlkeld, a Senior Fellow and Director of the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center in Washington, emphasised the broader "momentum and continuity in the relationship" between India and the US. The online event was held nearly a month after the cessation of firing and military action between India and Pakistan after a four-day military conflict. While the US has claimed that it played a role in this cessation, India has asserted that Islamabad pleaded for a ceasefire on May 10 after India inflicted heavy damage to several air bases. "This is a moment where the relationship is being tested in some ways. And the previous flashpoints that we could look back to, at least in my read of the situation, really galvanised an acceleration of what had been building in the US-India partnership, back in the Galwan crisis, in 2020," she said. India-US relations were "fully aligned" in that context, in terms of their defence partnership, among other things, and the "relationship came out stronger." If both sides are going to be able to move forward, to look towards, e.g., the Quad leaders summit that is happening later this year, that is a moment to "build towards a relationship," the strategic expert said. Daniel Markey, a Senior Fellow with the South Asia and China programmes at the Stimson Center, conjectured how Beijing looked at the conflict, and its regional ramifications if the situation had escalated. "I don't think anyone wants to see a major war, India, Pakistan, the US or China, which is a huge positive thing we have going for ourselves," he said. The event sought to put in focus where the Indo-US relationship stands, and where it is headed, "in a time of shifting global power equations, transactional diplomacy, and recalibrated alliances," according to a note by CLAWS. Aparna Pande, research fellow at Washington-based Hudson Institute, cited foreign policy elements of several previous US administrations in the last seven decades, and said, if India-US relationship has "survived all of that it will survive what is here today." So, let us not get swayed by this reference of "transactionalism or mercurialism," she said. "India has benefited for the last 35 years from, you can call it, strategic altruism from the American side. The American grand strategy or American policy makers believe India's rise per se is good for US national security interests and national economic interests," Pande said.
The Print
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Print
Indo-US relationship under ‘test', the term ‘transactional' doesn't describe it: Experts
The topic was 'Negotiating a Transactional Relationship: India and the US', and the discussion was hosted by Delhi-based Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS). The online panel discussion saw participation from members of some of the think-tanks based in Delhi and Washington. New Delhi, Jun 6 (PTI) Strategic experts on Friday discussed the contours of the current India-US relationship, with some saying that it was a moment where the ties are being 'tested', while others said one should not get swayed by words like 'transactional' being used by many to describe it. Elizabeth Threlkeld, a Senior Fellow and Director of the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center in Washington, emphasised the broader 'momentum and continuity in the relationship' between India and the US. The online event was held nearly a month after the cessation of firing and military action between India and Pakistan after a four-day military conflict. While the US has claimed that it played a role in this cessation, India has asserted that Islamabad pleaded for a ceasefire on May 10 after India inflicted heavy damage to several air bases. 'This is a moment where the relationship is being tested in some ways. And the previous flashpoints that we could look back to, at least in my read of the situation, really galvanised an acceleration of what had been building in the US-India partnership, back in the Galwan crisis, in 2020,' she said. India-US relations were 'fully aligned' in that context, in terms of their defence partnership, among other things, and the 'relationship came out stronger.' If both sides are going to be able to move forward, to look towards, e.g., the Quad leaders summit that is happening later this year, that is a moment to 'build towards a relationship,' the strategic expert said. Daniel Markey, a Senior Fellow with the South Asia and China programmes at the Stimson Center, conjectured how Beijing looked at the conflict, and its regional ramifications if the situation had escalated. 'I don't think anyone wants to see a major war, India, Pakistan, the US or China, which is a huge positive thing we have going for ourselves,' he said. The event sought to put in focus where the Indo-US relationship stands, and where it is headed, 'in a time of shifting global power equations, transactional diplomacy, and recalibrated alliances,' according to a note by CLAWS. Aparna Pande, research fellow at Washington-based Hudson Institute, cited foreign policy elements of several previous US administrations in the last seven decades, and said, if India-US relationship has 'survived all of that it will survive what is here today.' So, let us not get swayed by this reference of 'transactionalism or mercurialism,' she said. 'India has benefited for the last 35 years from, you can call it, strategic altruism from the American side. The American grand strategy or American policy makers believe India's rise per se is good for US national security interests and national economic interests,' Pande said. PTI KND KND VN VN This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
New Indian Express
11-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Nuclear threat and more: Pakistan's old ruse meets India's new resolve in path to ceasefire
May 11 proved exceptionally intense and emotionally turbulent. It began with reports of Pakistan moving its troops to forward areas and rumours of them having had deliberations on the tactical usage of nuclear weapons. But defence experts in India were already aware of what was at play. According to them, Islamabad was once again reaching for the oldest trick in its geopolitical playbook. That is, to escalate the conflict just enough to invite international concern, then use that pressure to secure a ceasefire and declare victory at home, as it had done numerous times before. And that is precisely what transpired. By sundown, at around 5:25 pm to be precise, US President Donald Trump took to his very own Truth Social to announce that "after a long night of talks mediated by the US, India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire." The grand ruse So what were all of Pakistan's military assertions for? "It was all a ruse," said Col S Dinny (retd), a veteran of several counter-terrorism deployments in Jammu and Kashmir. "It is Pakistan's old textbook philosophy. They do something nasty, initiate a war, and then don't know how to continue. They rely on international pressure to force a ceasefire." In previous instances, India might have been more accommodating. But that tolerance, experts say, has eroded. "If you recall, after 26/11 and even Pathankot, we entered into a dialogue with Pakistan," said Cmde Srikant Kesnur (retd), former director of the Maritime Warfare Centre. "Later, after Uri and Pulwama, we wisened up and stepped up our offensive, unwilling to yield to threats of escalation," he added. This time, too, India didn't blink. "Pakistan is famous for blackmailing the rest of the world, saying, 'If you don't help me, I'll kill myself'. But India has caught on," Cmde Srikant said. "There is now a clear realisation within Indian military and political leadership that these guys will not commit this kind of hara-kiri. And we must not allow ourselves to be blackmailed — and this time, we haven't." The why The reported Pakistani troop movements were no surprise either. "These are very expected moves," said Lt Gen Dushyant Singh (retd), Director General of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. "When escalation is rising, it's logical for a country to reposition forces. And it did escalate, didn't it? There were air attacks on our bases, and we responded similarly. It's all part of the chessboard being redrawn in real time," the veteran added. Cmde G Prakash (retd), a Navy veteran who has extensive experience in operations, training, and policymaking, said that this restlessness of the Pakistan Army can be attributed to its larger-than-life image. "Their army survives on the idea that it is the sole protector of the country from India. The centre of gravity in Pakistan is its army, and it cannot allow itself to appear weak," the veteran added. The nuclear question Pakistan's nuclear sabre-rattling, however, raised deeper concerns. "Even the North Koreans haven't talked about nuclear weapons with such a chalta hai, casual attitude as Pakistan has," Cmde Srikant said. "It is perhaps the most irresponsible nuclear power if the N-word has to be brought out at the very first step." Even before India launched Operation Sindoor, Pakistan had begun hinting at its nuclear capabilities. "There were already noises — 'We have nuclear weapons, and we will not hesitate', and 'blood will flow', etc. It's the most absurd thing you can hear in a modern conflict," said Col Dinny. So then, what was Pakistan getting at, especially given how a war of attrition invariably favours India? This was not war, experts unanimously say. It was building a narrative. An honourable exit "They wanted an honourable exit," said Col Dinny. "Then they could claim, 'Oh, we halted the mighty Indians. We're equals'. That's the kind of narrative they could sell to their public — as they have done before.' Lt Gen Dushyant agreed. "This wasn't a confident response from them. It was aiming at getting the optics right. They were showing their public that they were responding to Indian strikes. Their actual strikes on our airbases and military headquarters were largely symbolic." The move also served a domestic purpose. "The Pakistan Army was under pressure," Lt Gen Dushyant noted. "It was being criticised for its failure to counter the Balochistan Liberation Army and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. So, what did they do? Shift the battlefield east — towards India. The plan was to turn internal dissent into external confrontation." Stalemate? Pakistan's true objective, the expert said, was not victory but a stalemate. "That was their endgame — to freeze the conflict through global mediation and save face domestically. The nuclear posturing was part of that puzzle," Lt Gen Dushyant said. Some may find the resulting ceasefire — framed as a US-brokered peace — a bit anti-climactic. But India, as Cmde Srikant pointed out, never sought an indefinite war. "We gave them 'off-ramps' at several stages. Our objective was never prolonged conflict." The others concurred. "India certainly was not rushing toward war. But it is ready for it. We have the capability and the political and the national consensus for it. But since day one of the conflict, our responses were responsible," said Col Dinny. "India's reality is this — we want peace so we can grow," added Lt Gen Dushyant. "Our aim is to meet the developmental goals we've set for 2047. That's the mission. Not a needless war." The ceasefire As for how the ceasefire came about, Cmde Srikant explained that "only a few would dismiss Pakistan's lack of real success with drone strikes, our neutralisation of their air bases, and the categorical stand we have maintained against terrorism as contributing factors." Col Dinny concurred, saying, "Pakistan has sustained heavy damage over the past days, and it was difficult for them to push us any further. That's the ground reality." He further added that India "is no longer bogged down by Pakistan's threats — be it a conventional war or nuclear escalation. We've entered a new phase in our fight against terror." That new phase was captured in the Indian government's press briefing. "Any act of terror will be considered an act of war", they had insisted, Lt Gen Dushyant highlighted. 'In many ways," said Cmde Srikant, "India has declared a new normal. What we've demonstrated is political and institutional stability. And its full strength will become evident as, inevitably, interesting developments unfold in Pakistan in the days ahead." About the ceasefire violations Predictably, just hours after the ceasefire was announced, unprovoked firing was reported in several places in Jammu and Kashmir. This, defence experts point out, was again all part of the ruse. "It's narrative building on the part of the Pakistan Army to let their people know that their country is indeed on par with India, and that they have forced the evolving conflict into a stalemate," explained Col Dinny. The Pakistanis just wanted to be the last to holster their weapons, and that is all, the experts unanimously said. The ceasefire will, no doubt, be sustained, they said, given how both India and Pakistan want this, albeit for different reasons. Of course, the geopolitics at play, too, can't be discounted, they added. So, what now? Whatever transpired in the past week cannot be taken to assume that cross-border terrorism would not cease, experts warn. "Operation Sindoor can only be considered a deterrent. Sure, it is of sound intensity. But you can't fully eliminate terrorism lock, stock, and barrel. After all, it is an ideology. And to root out an ideology is near impossible," Lt Gen Dushyant said. Air Cmde Sandeep Sathpathy (retd) concurred. "Detterences must continue. Assuming any response will eliminate terrorism is a mistake. We have to further strengthen our military capability, internal security, and national power. Also, bolster international support." "We've done similar things in the past. If we had invested in long-term strategies — like building dams or deterrent infrastructure — our leverage today would be far greater," highlighted Cmde Prakash. Indeed, if past decades of India's war on terror have taught us anything, it's that "it is a long fight, and Pakistan can't help but slink back to its old, 'silly' ways," Cmde Srikant concluded.
