Latest news with #HappymonJacob
Express Tribune
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Reassessing nuclear deterrence in South Asia
Listen to article In the wake of the Pahalgam incident on 22 April that killed 26 Indian tourists, the tension between Pakistan and India intensified. On 7 May, India attacked some 6 sites of Pakistan, primarily villages in Punjab and Azad Kashmir, which reportedly killed 31 and injured more than 50 noncombatants. It is reported by many credible national and international sources that Pakistan in retaliation shot down at least 5 Indian jets that included 3 state-of-the-art Rafale aircraft. Neither side crossed each other's airspace while attacking each other despite the border contingency. However, India continued to hit Pakistan, sending more than 70 Israeli-made Harop drones. Pakistan claimed to have shot all of them down. The question is: why has India under the pretext of terrorism been looking for preventive strikes below the nuclear threshold and what does it mean for broader South Asian strategic stability? Although the two South Asian nuclear rivals are not aiming for a large-scale war after going nuclear, many argue that India, which is many times stronger than Pakistan in terms of conventional force, has aggressively been looking for space to wage a limited war under the nuclear overhang. India is undertaking a dangerous shift in the South Asian deterrence dynamics, thereby practising coercive strategy against Pakistan. Out of frustration, it has crossed such a dangerous threshold many times with expected retaliation. Primarily, there are multiple reasons: One, India has been modernising both its conventional and nuclear force capabilities by having a growing strategic partnership with several international players such as the US, Israel, France and Russia. Two, India with its growing strategic partnership with the US especially being in the QUAD for containment of China has developed a hubris which can be blind, dangerous and short-lived particularly against a nuclear rival. Therefore, India in dangerous confidence is cashing out on this opportunity against Pakistan for preventive strike without producing credible evidence and/or without even caring much about international norms and values. It is also dangerously replicating Israeli policies in South Asia. Three, India while following the Chanakian principles poses to be the hegemon of the broader South Asian region. It aspires to have escalation dominance, and would continue to undermine the nuclear threshold. In a dangerous precedent, it could opt for more preventive strikes against Pakistan for any inevitable crisis largely orchestrated by India. Four, it is always tempted to undermine Pakistan's policy of credible minimum deterrence and its doctrinal posture of full spectrum deterrence falling within the ambit of minimum deterrence. Pakistan's nuclear policy is largely misperceived by many Indian analysts, including Happymon Jacob in his recent piece in The Hindustan Times. Either Jacob badly lacks a conceptual understanding on nuclear strategy or misreads the evolving events between India and Pakistan, as follow: a) Amidst the escalatory conflict between the South Asian nuclear rivals, India targeted a few Pakistani airbases and hit and damaged the Neelum Jhelum hydropower project, prompting Pakistan to retaliate in somewhat similar pattern to restore deterrence. Nevertheless, India became cautious not to further escalate given the fear of escalation to a nuclear level. b) Exercising greater restraint being a responsible nuclear state, Pakistan continues to keep its conventional and nuclear deterrence intact against its potential adversary. Pakistan's nuclear forces bolstered with sophisticated delivery systems along with production of effective strategic countermeasures have become a reality that the adversary cannot escape away. Given such reality, the Indian security leadership may think many times before escalating the crisis up the ladder. On the one hand, Pakistan should have the following imperatives: 1) It should continue to demonstrate being a confident and responsible state, practising a full spectrum deterrence falling within the ambit of credible minimum deterrence specific to India. 2) It should continue to modernise its retaliatory capabilities as part of effective countermeasures largely supported by emerging technologies. This is for restoring deterrence and broader strategic stability in South Asia. 3) It should continue to develop strategies by plugging the gaps that India has been exploiting to the best of its tactical and strategic advantages. 4) It needs to engage with leading international and regional players for crisis management and ultimately conflict resolution of all outstanding issues including the core issue of Kashmir. The unresolved Kashmir issue has been a nuclear flashpoint. Unless it is resolved, crises in South Asia are inevitable. 5) Despite India's hubris and rejection of the proposed strategic restraint regime in South Asia, Pakistan needs to urge India on such an imperative through both diplomatic and political channels. On the other hand, the international community, especially the US, needs to: i) practice a balancing strategy in South Asia, as siding with one against the other is not a viable strategy which may not only harm their own geopolitical and geo-economic interests, but also threatens more serious crises in South Asia; ii) exercise its influence over India to potentially avoid its hubris and temptation for preventive strikes that accidently could escalate to dangerous level, as it is not in the best interest of India itself; c) convince India that in the absence of direct talks with Pakistan and without producing credible evidence to any undesirable episode, it cannot simply make terrorism a pretext to preempt Pakistan; and, d) be itself unequivocally clear that two nuclear powers should never fight given the danger and wider implications of the use of nuclear forces. Unfortunately, Indian security leadership appears to be crossing such thresholds, undermining the broader South Asian strategic stability.
Hindustan Times
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Was it a war or conflict? A battle of semantics
Were we in a war with Pakistan? Depends on who you ask. The government's preferred term for the military exchanges with neighbour Pakistan that started May 7 and ended May 10 is 'limited conflict'. This choice of semantics has its advantages. Academic and editor, INDIA'S WORLD, a foreign affairs magazine, Happymon Jacob points out that when you call a conflict a war, it becomes legal phraseology. International bodies get involved, which has all kinds of bilateral and legal implications. 'Calling it 'limited conflict' makes it easier for the government to navigate things as they deem fit,' says Jacob. According to him, another reason the war tag was avoided is that it would in some respects put the two countries on a par, which India wanted to avoid at any cost. Then there are the technicalities. Neither the Indian Army, nor the Navy, nor the Air Force, crossed the international border or the Line of Control (LoC). The modern weaponry used meant that India hit targets deep inside Pakistan, such as Bahawalpur in Pakistan's Punjab province, without ships or planes crossing over or using troops on the ground. Second, unlike a traditional war, there isn't any territory at stake. India's clear objective was to disable terror infrastructure that enables attacks like Pahalgam. There wasn't a defined area of conflict unlike in the 1999 Kargil War which India had to recapture or dismantle. Operational manoeuvres were characterised as proportional responses to previous attacks. Sometimes, the semantics change over the course of a conflict. During the Kargil War, the Pervez Musharraf-led Pakistan Army sent in troops across the LoC to take over strategic high-altitude positions in Kashmir. This led to a conflict that lasted two months and ended only in July 26 of that year, when the Army regained control of key positions such as Tiger Hill. If we go through the news reports at the time, the terms used to describe Kargil in May 1999 were 'conflict' or 'crisis'. As the details emerged, India also referred to it as incursions or simply referred to it as Operation Vijay. But as the conflict extended, as the troops moved in and the casualties started climbing, the term 'war' became unavoidable. And by the time India claimed back its positions and evicted the enemy from Kashmir in July 1999, the Kargil War was sealed in our collective memory for good. It was a good association: After all, we had won the war. The term was then made official as India announced war-time gallantry awards for the soldiers who died fighting it. 'No two wars are the same, so comparisons are unfair; every war has its own intensity and dynamic,' says retired Lt General Syed Ata Hasnain. The 2025 exchanges between India and Pakistan were indeed a 'limited conflict', he says, since the definition of war and conflict is on a spectrum. But away from the semantics, two things stand out in contrast to Kargil. The attacks and retaliation in 2025 spanned the length of the international border and the LoC — from shelling in Baramulla in Kashmir in the north to downed drones in Sir Creek in Gujarat in the west. That scale is comparable to the last major war of 1971, the last time the international border was breached. The second difference is that Kargil's isolation limited the scope of civilian casualties. This time, given the advanced munitions deployed and extended range of their deployment, there were greater chances of more civilians being caught in the line of fire, had the conflict dragged on. Thankfully, the debate now will be on the semantics of a ceasefire. The views expressed are personal
Boston Globe
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Deadly Kashmir attack threatens new escalation between India and Pakistan
Indian media blamed the attack on the Resistance Front, a militant group banned by New Delhi in 2023 as a terrorist organization, but there was no verifiable claim of responsibility. The suddenness of the violence, and the gruesome nature of the killings, sent shock waves across the country, rekindling painful memories from the 1990s when Kashmir was gripped by a bloody insurgency — and civilians often bore the cost. Advertisement India and Pakistan, nuclear-armed rivals that both claim Kashmir and administer separate parts of it, are now at a dangerous crossroad, analysts said, after years of diplomatic stagnation. 'We were in a bad place, and we weren't actively getting worse,' said Srinath Raghavan, a historian and security analyst at Ashoka University. 'Now, it will actively get worse.' The assault in Pahalgam risks unraveling a fragile cease-fire between India and Pakistan that was sealed through back-channel diplomacy in 2021. Advertisement The agreement halted once-daily exchanges of fire along the Line of Control, the de facto border between Indian- and Pakistani-held Kashmir. The dispute over the territory has led to three wars between the countries. 'That is the last thread that remains in an otherwise very skeletal relationship,' said Happymon Jacob, an international studies professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University. 'If that gets damaged and ruptured, then all bets are off.' Vikram Misri, India's minister of foreign affairs, told reporters Wednesday that Pakistani nationals would be banned from traveling to India, Indian defense advisers would be withdrawn from Pakistan, and a key water treaty between the countries would be put on hold. Pakistan's energy minister condemned the last move as 'an act of water warfare.' For decades, armed insurgents in Kashmir — some seeking independence, others favoring accession to Pakistan — have waged a separatist struggle against Indian control. The violence has ebbed in recent years amid an intense crackdown by Indian security forces, whom rights groups have accused of carrying out arbitrary detentions and extrajudicial killings against the Muslim-majority population. Militants still launched periodic attacks against Indian soldiers, migrant workers, and Hindus, but Tuesday's targeted killings of civilians were an unprecedented escalation. 'Those responsible for the attacks . . . will very soon feel a loud response,' Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh said Wednesday. Though he did not mention Pakistan by name, the implication was clear, and other prominent figures were far more direct. Shama Mohamed, a spokesperson for the opposition Congress party, said on X Wednesday that 'Rawalpindi should be flattened,' referring to the city where Pakistan's military is headquartered. 'Time to teach Pakistan a lesson they don't forget,' she added. Advertisement India has long accused Islamabad of supporting separatist violence in Kashmir, and Indian security analysts said the perpetrators were probably linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba — the Pakistan-based militant organization that carried out the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, when gunmen killed 166 people and injured more than 300. Indian politicians and analysts were quick to point to a speech last week by Pakistan's army chief, General Asim Munir, who called Kashmir the country's 'jugular vein,' adding, 'We will not leave our Kashmiri brothers in their heroic struggle.' Officials in Pakistan condemned Tuesday's killings and rejected accusations of involvement. In a statement Wednesday, the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it was 'concerned at the loss of tourists' lives.' 'We extend our condolences to the near ones of the deceased and wish the injured a speedy recovery,' the statement continued. Pakistani Senator Sherry Rehman posted on X that 'the reflexive finger-pointing already at play against Pakistan has become the boilerplate response for a New Delhi that is unable to contain its own spectacular failures.' Pakistan is mired in a security crisis of its own, struggling to contain attacks by Islamist insurgents and Baloch separatists, some armed with American-made weapons left behind in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of US troops. The Pahalgam attack coincided with a high-level diplomatic trip to India by Vice President JD Vance, which analysts said was probably no accident. In 2000, militants killed 35 Sikhs in Kashmir during Bill Clinton's state visit to India. President Trump, in a post on Truth Social on Tuesday, said the United States 'stands strong with India against Terrorism,' adding that India has 'our full support and deepest sympathies.' Advertisement Experts on both sides said the role of Washington will now be critical in determining what happens next. Pakistan will be 'reaching out to friendly countries, especially the United States, to stop any escalation,' said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a Pakistani political analyst. 'The United States definitely doesn't want war.' The Indian government revoked Kashmir's semiautonomous status in 2019 and imposed sweeping security measures. New Delhi hailed a return to relative stability, encouraged investment, and trumpeted the return of tourists to the region. Tuesday's assault upended that narrative in an instant. 'It's misleading to tell your own citizens to come to this place and not ensure their safety and protection,' said Anuradha Bhasin, the managing editor of the Kashmir Times. Now, analysts said, New Delhi will be weighing how to retaliate. Syed Akbaruddin, a former Indian diplomat at the United Nations, said the number and diversity of the victims, coming from all corners of India, made a military response more likely. 'It has hit a nerve which not many incidents of violence have,' he said. 'There will be pressure to find the perpetrators and go after them.'
Washington Post
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Deadly Kashmir attack threatens new escalation between India and Pakistan
PAHALGAM, Indian-administered Kashmir — This Himalayan town, known locally as 'mini-Switzerland,' would normally be bustling with tourists at this time of year, photographing fields of wildflowers and riding ponies beneath snowcapped peaks. But on Wednesday, Pahalgam was eerily still. Schools and markets across Indian-administered Kashmir were shuttered. Cabs once packed with vacationers were stopped at security checkpoints on their way out of town. The violence of the previous day was still in the air. On Tuesday, gunmen emerged from the forest with assault rifles and opened fire on tourists who had gathered in a popular meadow. At least 26 people — 25 Indians and one Nepalese citizen — were killed, police said. It was the deadliest attack on civilians in India in more than a decade. Indian media blamed the attack on the Resistance Front, a militant group banned by New Delhi in 2023 as a terrorist organization, but there was no verifiable claim of responsibility. The suddenness of the violence, and the gruesome nature of the killings, sent shock waves across the country, rekindling painful memories from the 1990s, when Kashmir was gripped by a bloody insurgency — and civilians often bore the cost. India and Pakistan, nuclear-armed rivals that both claim Kashmir and administer separate parts of it, are now at a dangerous crossroad, analysts said, after years of diplomatic stagnation. 'We were in a bad place, and we weren't actively getting worse,' said Srinath Raghavan, a historian and security analyst at Ashoka University. 'Now, it will actively get worse.' The assault in Pahalgam risks unraveling a fragile ceasefire between India and Pakistan, which was sealed through back-channel diplomacy in 2021. The agreement halted once-daily exchanges of fire along the Line of Control, the de facto border between Indian- and Pakistani-held Kashmir; the dispute over the territory has led to three wars between the countries. 'That is the last thread that remains in an otherwise very skeletal relationship,' said Happymon Jacob, an international studies professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University. 'If that gets damaged and ruptured, then all bets are off.' Vikram Misri, India's minister of foreign affairs, told reporters Wednesday that Pakistani nationals would be banned from traveling to India, Indian defense advisers would be withdrawn from Pakistan and a key water treaty between the countries would be put on hold. Pakistan's energy minister condemned the move as 'an act of water warfare.' For decades, armed insurgents in Kashmir — some seeking independence, others favoring accession to Pakistan — have waged a separatist struggle against Indian control. The violence has ebbed in recent years amid an intense crackdown by Indian security forces, whom rights groups have accused of carrying out arbitrary detentions and extrajudicial killings against the Muslim-majority population. Militants still launched periodic attacks against Indian soldiers, migrant workers and Hindus, but Tuesday's targeted killings of civilians were an unprecedented escalation. 'Those responsible for the attacks and the people responsible will very soon feel a loud response,' Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh said Wednesday. Though he did not mention Pakistan by name, the implication was clear, and other prominent figures were far more direct. Shama Mohamed, a spokesperson for the opposition Congress party, said on X Wednesday that 'Rawalpindi should be flattened,' referring to the city where Pakistan's military is headquartered. 'Time to teach Pakistan a lesson they don't forget,' she added. India has long accused Islamabad of supporting separatist violence in Kashmir, and Indian security analysts said the perpetrators were probably linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba — the Pakistan-based militant organization that carried out the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, when gunmen killed 166 people and injured more than 300. Indian politicians and analysts were quick to point to a speech last week by Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Asim Munir, who called Kashmir the country's 'jugular vein,' adding, 'We will not leave our Kashmiri brothers in their heroic struggle.' Officials in Pakistan condemned Tuesday's killings but rejected accusations of involvement. In a statement Wednesday, the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it was 'concerned at the loss of tourists' lives.' 'We extend our condolences to the near ones of the deceased and wish the injured a speedy recovery,' the statement continued. Pakistani Sen. Sherry Rehman posted on X that 'the reflexive finger-pointing already at play against Pakistan has become the boilerplate response for a New Delhi that is unable to contain its own spectacular failures.' Pakistan is mired in a security crisis of its own, struggling to contain attacks by Islamist insurgents and Baloch separatists, some armed with American-made weapons left behind in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Pahalgam attack coincided with a high-level diplomatic trip to India by U.S. Vice President JD Vance, which analysts said was probably no accident. In 2000, militants killed 35 Sikhs in Kashmir during Bill Clinton's state visit to India. President Donald Trump, in a post on Truth Social on Tuesday, said the United States 'stands strong with India against Terrorism,' adding that India has 'our full support and deepest sympathies.' Experts on both sides said the role of Washington will now be critical in determining what happens next. Pakistan will be 'reaching out to friendly countries, especially the United States, to stop any escalation,' said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a Pakistani political analyst. 'The United States definitely doesn't want war.' The Indian government revoked Kashmir's semiautonomous status in 2019 and imposed sweeping security measures. New Delhi hailed a return to relative stability, encouraged investment and trumpeted the return of tourists to the region. Tuesday's assault upended that narrative in an instant. 'It's misleading to tell your own citizens to come to this place and not ensure their safety and protection,' said Anuradha Bhasin, the managing editor of the Kashmir Times. A hotel manager in Pahalgam, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he feared retaliation by the authorities, said he was hosting a family of 15 from Maharashtra this week. They were out sightseeing when the attack happened and rushed back to the hotel, he said, refusing to come out even for dinner. 'It took us years to build this trust, but now it is dented for years to come,' he said. 'I cannot forget the look on their faces and their nightlong wails.' Indian soldiers were out in force across Kashmir on Wednesday. A famous dry-fruit market on the Jammu-Srinagar highway, usually buzzing with tourists, was closed. In 2019, a suicide bomber killed more than 40 soldiers near the market. India retaliated with strikes in Pakistan — setting off a brief but nerve-racking aerial battle along the Line of Control. In the aftermath, relations between the countries nosedived. Islamabad expelled India's envoy, suspended trade and took its grievances to the United Nations. India refused to engage with Islamabad over Kashmir. Despite the 2021 ceasefire, the relationship has remained largely frozen. Now, analysts said, New Delhi will be weighing how to retaliate. Syed Akbaruddin, a former Indian diplomat at the United Nations, said the number and diversity of the victims, coming from all corners of India, made a military response more likely. 'It has hit a nerve which not many incidents of violence have,' he said. 'There will be pressure to find the perpetrators and go after them.' Modi will want to 'show that India is strong,' Rizvi, the political analyst, predicted. 'Pakistani forces are ready to face any such situation.' There are concerns that the tragedy could also inflame tensions inside India. National media has directed its ire not just at Pakistan but in many cases at Muslims more broadly. 'The repercussions would not be borne by not just Kashmiris but also Muslims elsewhere in India,' said Bhasin, of the Kashmir Times. India, meanwhile, will intensify its clampdown in Kashmir, analysts said, which will risk further fueling local backlash. 'There is a deepening resentment at the ground level, but it's silenced because of the military jackboots,' said Bhasin. 'Although that does not automatically translate into a violent reaction, it does give that a space to grow.' Mehrotra reported from New Delhi. Shaiq Hussain in Islamabad contributed to this report.
