Latest news with #Inam
Express Tribune
6 days ago
- General
- Express Tribune
Military notes; Indo-Pak conflict: deterrence, pre-battle manoeuvres
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article We continue to discuss various aspects of the recent Indo-Pakistan military standoff. Third, deterrence per se. More than a billion lives escaped Modi's madness in a closer than ever nuclear Armageddon. Besides the conventional side of warfare, the more dangerous 'nuclear parity' still overhangs South Asia perilously. With deterrence in 'conventional terms re-established', one hopes India under Modi would avoid another wasteful adventure of humiliation, and resume talks over the table, rather than in the skies and through brinkmanship. The future India-Pakistan conflict scene will no longer be unilateral. It will be dictated and decided by Sino-Pak military alliance especially in collaboration with China's Western Theater Command. And this would augment deterrence for rational players on the Indian side, if any. Pakistan's Military, in South Asia's modern history, showcased the most integrated defensive strategy and real-time coordination. And just to reiterate, in military literature, a weaker side is supposed to have won an asymmetrical contest, if it denies outright victory or the attainment of war's aims and objectives to the stronger side, which Pakistan did to a larger India. So perceptually speaking, deterrence in the Indo-Pakistan context would, henceforth, be defined by the conventional military capabilities plus nuclear arms, and the fragility of psychological threshold on both sides, as discussed in my piece, 'India, Pakistan — redefining deterrence', printed in this space on May 22, 2025. And in Pakistan's context, deterrence would remain to be fortified by the Sino-Pakistani alliance, and the resolve of Pakistan's civil and military leadership, through Islamabad's 'quid-pro-quo Plus' strategy, to never let India prevail. So, peace, the perusal of which now squarely lies with a mellowed but bellicose India that still pursues its intended water wars, would remain elusive if we do not recognise each other's capabilities, and do not engage each other with dignity, mutual respect and patience, and not with ignorance or arrogance. Fourth. The Exterior Manoeuvre. Without going into the nuts and bolts of the diplomatic war, the Indian efforts to paint Pakistan into endemically bad light and as a state sponsor of terrorism, had very few takers, regionally and internationally. Indian diplomatic overtures focused on painting itself taller by telling the world its military response was calculated and non-escalatory and that this 'new India' would respond muscularly to the so-called terrorist attacks, without wanting a wider war with Pakistan and its people. Essentially contradictory iterations. No country condemned Pakistan for the 'alleged' terrorism; none appreciated India's 'carefully calibrated' military response. The world, contrarily, was preoccupied with the IAF's French Rafael jets being shot down by PAF's Chinese J-10C fighters using PL-15 E air-to-air missiles. Even the US after some initial ambivalence from VP Vance had to forcefully intervene to affect a ceasefire, without giving India the blank cheque of unilateralism and brinkmanship. Russia, India's traditional friend, withheld the 'expected' diplomatic support for India. And Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and the entire OIC, the UN all called for restraint and then ceasefire. Major capitals responded with studied neutrality despite India sending seven diplomatic delegations to 32 countries. Beijing's signalling and posturing in support of Pakistan were overtly clear. Washington's ceasefire appeal re-hyphenated the two nuclear neighbours, to India's great chagrin. New Delhi even refused to acknowledge any US role, for which Trump had publicly taken credit. The paradox of Indian 'Exterior Manoeuvre' was laid bare, as to why was it accepting a ceasefire, irrespective of whether it was reached bilaterally (as India claimed) or under US interlocution (as Trump tweeted), if it had an upper hand militarily. During the conduct of operations, fiasco after fiasco derided New Delhi's aspirations and outsized ego. From denial to acknowledging downing of planes including Rafaeles, to persistent lies on the state and social media, greatly diminished India's shine, sheen and diplomatic weight. New Delhi's comical effort to influence the World Bank under its Indian-origin president, Mr Ajay Banga, from sanctioning loan to Islamabad failed spectacularly. The extent of India's hostility towards Pakistan permeated not only its body politics, but also its cultural elite (read Bollywood), its state behaviour; and resulted in a compulsive obsession with Pakistan, whom India's intellectual wizards proudly claim to have pushed into irrelevant ignominy. This paradox - Pakistan's irrelevance and Islamabad being an uncomfortable reality - remains unresolved and has been damaging India's 'perceived' important power aspiration and status, without pundits realising it. Fifth, The Inner Front. India whipped up its jingoist anti-Pakistan narrative in order to jell its inner front, silencing opposition, muzzling rationality and suppressing truth in the process. And it failed. The Modi Government had to launch Operation "Tiranga Yatra (tricolour journey)" for intense domestic messaging, to manipulate outcomes during Operation Sindoor. From annihilating Pakistan to dominating South Asia as the new hegemon, its efforts, however, could not convince most of its 200 million Muslims, who constitute 10.9 per cent of its population, is the world's 3rd largest Muslim population, and the largest Muslim-minority globally. Its illegally occupied Kashmir, the expected battle zone, simmers with hate, discontent and a resurgent anti-India sentiment, making operations and rear-area security a nightmare for the Indian Military. Assam, Christian Mizoram, Nagaland, the Naxalite insurgency in the 'Red Corridor', Khalistan Movement in Punjab and abroad, and other insurgencies drive wedges in the India Union. Even the Brahman-dominated decision-making elite had and have reservations on the direction secular India has taken under Hindutva-laced Modi Sarkar. Indian security sector and armed forces saw removals, arrests and demotions during the stand-off; and its population is still experiencing arrests for supporting Pakistan, as per press reports. By comparison, Pakistan's inner front jelled like it always does in a crisis with India. RAW-financed terrorism in KP and Balochistan, and the expected political uprising by some political forces against the armed forces, in hilarious formulation of Indian intelligence, failed and failed miserably. Pakistan's national will, determination, resolve and motivation across the political spectrum and across the nation was tougher and firm. Pakistan's 'relative' demographic homogeneity compared to India's heterogeneity is always an asset and a force-multiplier. Such demographic truism also permeates Pakistan's armed forces, making it a formidable fighting machine. Continues...
Express Tribune
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Military notes — perceptual battle between India and Pakistan
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article In a series from this week, we shall explore the various dimensions of the May 2025 India-Pakistan stand-off after the Pahalgam carnage on April 22, 2025. First, what happened in the perceptual world? The aftermath of Pahalgam and Operation Bunyan Marsus (Iron Wall) should demonstrate 'strategic humility'. Miscalculations by Indian leaders – political and military – should never be forgiven in silence. In 'teaching Pakistan a lesson', India not only 'altered the regional equation', it also rehyphenated with Pakistan, something it loathed, after its hard-won Clinton-era de-hyphenation. And New Delhi unwittingly exposed itself to a parity with Islamabad that it vehemently denied under hubris, arrogance and over-confidence. Rabid anchors like Arnab Goswami and military analysts like the froth-fuming Maj Gen Gagandeep Bakhshi and Major Gaurav Arya steered the debate about complex realities into loud nationalism, muting the voices of reason from the few and far between. They turned national strategy into a charade of slogans without substance. India, in doing so, lost its strategic narrative. Intoxicated with its new-found economic relevance, India walked into the trap of 'buying and bullying into influence', only to lose both. It triggered the most dangerous regional escalation since Kargil without any investigation, without any shareable proof, without any satellite imagery, without any international inquiry and without remorse, just guided by 'nationalist theatrics', media jingoism and short-term political gains – all to abrogate Indus Water Treaty and humiliate Pakistan. And it failed. A 'pauper' Pakistani response sent India suing for ceasefire, after being forced out of the skies, after targeted destruction on land, and a good drubbing in Kashmir. New Delhi 'mistook Pakistan's composure for collapse'. Islamabad's response was doctrinal and not theatrical. Pakistan's 'digital kill web' proved far more dangerous than terrorism, which India blames on Islamabad. The 16-hour skirmish diminished India's role as a counterbalance to China, as a rising regional power and as a reliable partner. Instead of teaching a lesson to Pakistan, India was taught one – worth inclusion in the syllabi of all staff colleges and war courses. From the skirmish, neither Pakistan emerged as a dwarf two-foot David, nor India as a loud-talking 10-foot Goliath. India was humbled by the unkindness of the event. Karachi did not fall, Islamabad remained steadfast, and Lahore kept pulsating, with daredevil Pakistanis eulogising their soldiers who were busy firing their deadly arsenal towards India from their fields, from their neighborhoods, and praying elders overseeing salvo after salvo. It was a national Bunyan Marsus. Pakistan did not escalate; it equalised India's perceptual superiority. It emerged not as a weakened state, but an awakened country. Pakistan didn't blink, and stood its ground with dignity, restraint, precision and strategy. Modi 'perceptually' had a bigger stick that now lies broken, and his power stands exposed not only to Pakistan, but to the admirers of 'shining India' worldwide. India, in public perception, lost its 'dominance' not through outright defeat, but through overreach, despite the 'theatrical illusion of victory' that Indian media continues to showcase for psychological conquest of its citizenry. India's myth of conventional superiority, built and carefully managed for such an eventuality, lies in chaotic collapse before the public eye. Pakistan's poverty, touted repeatedly over a berserk India media, is recognised by the world as its 'cool hardiness'. Islamabad emerged as a calm, articulate player and as a disciplined nuclear power, which can demonstrate restraint, resolve and resilience. And that its dwarfed defence spending, compared to New Delhi's $85 billion defence budget, still enables and equips its armed forces with doctrine, deterrence and determination to hold its nerve under fire. Pakistan absorbed Operation Sindoor with a resolute defensive response and then responded with its own 'Bunyan Marsus', rewriting the rules of deterrence. Consequentially, Pakistan gains more confidence and relevance, which is already buttressed by its geostrategic location at the crossroads of Karakoram, the Silk Road, South and Central Asia; and it being key to regional stability for 2.8 billion South Asians. The strategic map has shifted and with it the world's perspective. Pakistan once branded as a 'failing state', today emerges as a reliable strategic balancer. This isn't just a strategic shift in the regional power dynamics, it is a psychological jolt and a rude awakening for Modi's Hindutva-laced, RSS dominated, bigoted brand. Just when detractors thought Pakistan was sliding into a second fiddle status, Modi burnished its image by becoming Pakistan's unlikely brand ambassador, through his absurd persistence and stubborn obsession to turn Pakistan into a pliant state. From being overlooked to being overanalyzed and over-examined, Islamabad is back in global conversations especially among the dithering Arab world. Second, India suffered doctrinal collapse. This brief war demonstrated India's 'doctrinal collapse', militarily as well as in the perceptual domains. Ajit Doval's sinister scheming to flush TTP, BLA and BRA with cash, incite synchronised uprising in KP and Balochistan, exploit Pakistan's many cleavages and turn Afghan borderlands and Pakistan into an inferno for Pakistan's military backfired squarely, roundly and embarrassingly. The operation, contrarily, jelled Pakistan's inner front like hell. India mistook Pakistan's doctrinal maturity as fragility. Literature, at break-neck speed, is coming out with analysts reading, re-reading and analysing the 16 hours of combat that shaped South Asia and the world's military balance. Dassault Aviation's share prices plunged, whereas Chinese defense stocks AVIC, ALD Chengdu surged. Modi's India miscalculated militarily, decided to ignore geopolitics, misread the doctrine, misjudged Pakistan's internal dynamics and resolve and overplayed its hand in trying to redefine South Asia's balance of power. A leaf from Israel's playbook did not match Chanakya Kotalia's script. India's doctrine of punitive retaliation through swift operations is broken operationally not just symbolically. By denying truth to its own people and by constantly lying to unfathomable extents during this war, India lost any remaining credibility for its media, official and unofficial. Modi's strongman image took an irreparable hit, and his tattered ego is littered with strategic miscalculation, economic overreach, doctrinal unpreparedness and moral bankruptcy, exposing India's own multiple fault lines. The dictum of the history is clear, New Delhi is not the victor in this round, Islamabad is. Bunyan Marsus was 'Pakistan's rendezvous with history' an existential moment of great peril, handled with dignity and precision. Allah be praised! Continues...
Express Tribune
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
India, Pakistan — redefining deterrence
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article 'Deterrence' in military parlance is, simply put, to 'deter' a potential adversary of the outsized consequences and disproportionate response to any (military) adventurism. Deterrence is established when two sides possess the means to inflict losses on each other in case of hostilities and hence decide not to initiate hostilities. Deterrence can be 'conventional'— through capabilities of conventional air, land, sea, cyber and space forces or 'non-conventional' through possession of nuclear weapons and capabilities. Before Pulwama/Balakot in 2019, conventional and non-conventional deterrence averted military escalation between India and Pakistan, especially military incursion in mainland Pakistan by India. Kargil war (May-June 1999) before that was fought across an undefined border termed as Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, where there is a tacit understanding and practice of occasional flare-up on and from both sides. Pahalgam/Operation Sindoor in 2025 ratcheted up hostilities and India, 'undeterred' by Pakistan's conventional and non-conventional military capabilities, launched brazen attacks on some 6 cities in Pakistan proper and AJK. So, the deterrence broke down. A broken deterrence needs to be re-established, hence Pakistan following its strategy of 'quid-pro-quo plus' equalised its losses and re-stablished deterrence through Operation Bunyan Marsoos. Deterrence is said to be established when both sides are standing on the equal rungs of the imaginary two-sided 'Escalation Ladder (EL)', militarily and perceptually. This equal status 'may' control further escalation. This cycle of deterrence breakdown and re-establishment can go on, if the escalation continues which may result into a 'limited' (uni/bi-service war or conflict limited in aim, scope and space) or a full-scale/all-out war. In India Pakistan's military construct, traditionally deterrence breakdown 'would' escalate into a conventional military conflict, that may inch towards a 'possible' nuclear exchange, when continued fighting degrades a weaker Pakistan's forces and infrastructure, results into spatial losses, causes population casualty or threatens Pakistan's existential economic well-being – all understood to be Pakistan's traditional redlines or 'thresholds'. In a nutshell, a conventional war is generally thought to precede a nuclear war. However, Pulwama and Pahalgam have overturned this traditional construct. In today's super-charged bilateral environs, a jingoistic Indian media, in particular, creates frenzy and ratchets up war hysteria, where not only politicians but all walks of an otherwise saner population are driven towards violence, sanctioned and eulogised by nationalistic fervour. Therefore, escalation is fast and higher than usual. Social and even mainstream media whips up sentiments and emotions to unacceptable levels, and perceptual and psychological escalation occurs faster than military escalation. And when such socio-psycho-perceptual escalation is combined with military acts, the situation becomes irretrievably difficult and dangerous. As this faster psycho-perceptual escalation puts pressure on leaders from both sides to respond with more force and alacrity. So, the traditional construct of a conventional war leading to nuclear-specific escalation is never the case anymore. New implements of war like drones and missile strikes, although less deadly than actual combat by comparison, raise the ante unacceptably high. There is then an inadvertent slide towards miscalculation because of a communication breakdown. The US cited this communication breakdown as a reason for their involvement in the current crisis. There seems to be less realisation of this new 'escalation normal' between the belligerents. One has repeatedly alluded to a dangerous belief among serving and retired Indian military leaders, who (erroneously) think there is space for war between India and Pakistan under the nuclear overhang. And who consider Pakistan's resolve to go nuclear, if push comes to shove, as a bluff and mere nuclear brinkmanship and blackmail. In reality, escalation would quickly and uncontrollably slide towards a nuclear conflict for the reasons cited. And, as Pulwama and Pahalgam prove, Indian political leaders in cahoots with the cited military lobby, would continue to corner Pakistan in embarrassing situations for short-term gains, while driven by hate, blighted by irrationality and encouraged by a super-charged war mongering media. Hence situation akin to Pulwama and Pahalgam, which may recur every now and then due to indigenous grievances within the India Union, and its security failure, would scapegoat and direct Indian wrath against Pakistan, without any proof, rationale or reason. This necessitates Pakistan to take steps 'now' to forestall such false-flag, injurious operations and India's 'retaliatory strikes like the Indian-sponsored school bus attack in Lorelai on Wednesday. And the only way this is possible is through re-establishing deterrence more robustly and more effectively. Declaration of Pakistan's nuclear policy from its ambiguous status of 'No First Use' is the need of the hour. Pakistan can study the French example. France maintains a nuclear policy based on "strict sufficiency", by keeping its arsenal at the lowest levels as dictated by its strategic compulsions; emphasises deterrence through credible nuclear forces; and ensures and prioritises protection of France's vital interests. It envisages the use of nuclear weapons in legitimate self-defence through a 'Nuclear Triad' of air, land and seas-based nuclear weapons. It now relies upon submarine-launched ballistic missiles and air-launched cruise missiles, having scrapped land-based systems. Selection of target and choice of munitions can also be escalatory. Indian attack on population centres and its use of long-range Brahmos (1500 km) missiles were escalatory. Pakistan exercised unprecedented restraint and limited its damage to the Indian air and ground assets, once Indian AD system was compromised consequent to the integrated, full spectrum Pakistani riposte involving air-land-cyber and space components. Indian allegation of Pakistan using Shaheen missile (range 2,700 km) compared to the short-range Fatah Series, is at best a cover-up, coming after Delhi having realised its own mistake of using strategic Brahmos. Both countries need to go to the drawing board and use the lessons learnt from the recent standoff to recalibrate their restraint, deterrence and escalation regimes. India in particular needs to get out of the 'perceptual trap' of blaming Pakistan for non-functional toilets in Pune and resorting to blatant escalation in case of any militant activity, trampling all norms and tenets of statehood and neighbourliness. There may be no Trump to facilitate the next ceasefire, or the world reaction might be too late than Pakistan's response to the Indian provocations, that may be even deadlier, given the pressures and imperatives of its own demography, and India's perpetual brinkmanship. Only nukes will restrain a bellicose India! Period. Continues
Express Tribune
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
India and Pakistan — Sindoor, Bunyan Marsoos and peace
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article While the military details of the recent skirmish between India and Pakistan from 7-10 May 2025 are being compiled, this Op-ed deals with the implications of this bruising standoff for India, and peace in South Asia. First, the South Asian balance of power or precisely the Indo-Pakistan power equation stands greatly altered, besides the global military balance. An overconfident power-drunk India under a supposedly iron-like, tough talking Modi with the stature of a god, imbued with a false sense of supremacy, self-righteousness, hubris and arrogance, and buoyed by surging economic success, stands humiliated, compromised and much shorter than the stature it aspired and acquired. A much smaller, weaker, divided and quieter Pakistan has given it a well-deserved drubbing of a lifetime in a resolute, calibrated and timely riposte. The jingoistic Indian media and the manipulative Hindutva cohort, who ratcheted up war hysteria to unknown frenzy and had captured most of Pakistan in their imagination under litany of falsehoods, today stand crestfallen and biting dust. India has lost a lot in the perceptual domain than it is willing to acknowledge. The West Plus led by the US, and China, the wavering Arab world, SAARC nations and even Russia look at this totally unnecessary skirmish as grave error of miscalculation and overreach by New Delhi. The US might be soul-searching if they were betting on the right horse to stand up against a rising China. This episode has badly exposed India's international standing, its ability and capability and its staying power. Second, Indian diplomatic corps is greatly embarrassed internationally for sticking to its Pakistan-originated terrorism mantra, and the military action, despite the world capitals urging restraint. Their case had no traction from day one. The consequent suing for peace after 'Bunyan Marsoos' decimated Bharat's military capability, and Pakistan's political and military leadership demonstrated their unflinching resolve to notch up on the escalation ladder, if India decided to go up, greatly undermined India's diplomatic stature. Third, Modi's political standing in India stands greatly battered if the media clips from the Lok Sabha (the Indian Parliament) are any guide. The very purpose for which Pahalgam carnage was stage-managed, and Operation Sindoor launched under media fanfare, has backfired. The dividends expected have not accrued and the entire gamut has proved politically disastrous for Modi, BJP, RSS and Hindutva Doctrine. Fourth, Indian Military especially the IAF appears weak, in disarray and less professional. While military details would be covered in future, the fact that the PAF Shaheens using their JF-17 Thunder, J-10C fighters planes (Chengdu Vigorous Dragon) with PL-15E missiles, without trans-border employment of F-16s (kept 'probably' for local air defence), not only forced India to ground its fleet of 36 odd state-of-the-art Rafael jets but also compelled IAF to move them around 300 km away from the International Border to avoid ambushes by PL-15Es, which already downed three Rafaels, one SU-30 MKI, one Mig-29, one Mirage-2000 — all fairly modern aircraft — and countless RPVs (Remotely Piloted Vehicles or drones), including Israeli Harop/Harpys. JF-17 using PGMs (Precision Guided Munitions) knocked India's S-400 Air Defence (AD) system, the most sophisticated Russian supplied AD system in the world that India had named as Sudarshan Chakra. Fifth, Islamabad appeared taller militarily, politically and diplomatically. Pakistan's response — defensive and offensive — was in line with its policy of quid pro quo plus. It was mature, responsible, disproportionate where needed, calibrated in most cases, synchronised, and tightly controlling the escalation. A late response to Operation Sindoor would have been escalatory, whereas the tit-for-tat response as it went, was deemed Pakistan climbing the same escalation rung, where India was already perched. Along the LoC, Pakistan's relentless response using artillery and other heavy calibers destroyed Indian posts, headquarters and supply dumps, besides improving defensive postures in the contested zones. In some cases, Indian Army was forced to raise white flags. In the waters, PN forced a retreat on the INS Vikrant, the sole Indian aircraft-carrier hosting MIG-29K jets. The complex 'all domain all spectrum' Air-Land-Cyber and Space assault by Pakistan not only hit the Indian Military hard, it crippled grids, hacked surveillance cameras and websites, confused BrahMos Missile Guidance Systems, and manipulated Rafael's EW capability, using AI and other classified hi-tech tools. Rafael appeared less formidable against the J-10C. Pakistan's Armed Forces executed integrated tri-service full spectrum response very responsibly, professionally, and in a calibrated manner, intentionally avoiding more damage to the Indian Military infrastructure, leadership and other high-value economic targets. Sixth, by displaying grit, resolve and determination, Pakistan's political and military leaders, especially the Service Chiefs, in particular the COAS, Gen Asim Munir and the CAS, ACM Zaheer Ahmed Babar Sidhu displayed quality combat leadership, and greatly debunked the home-grown and foreign supported anti-military propaganda. This importantly bridged the Army-People gap that was created by vested political interests intentionally and gullibly. Pakistan's inner front jelled like hell when the shots rang out. All political divisions disappeared, and the nation represented Bunyan Marsoos — the Solid Wall. Seventh, chronic issues like Kashmir, and more recently the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT), would again be spotlighted as frontline international issues, against India's persistent effort to reduce them to the intractable Indo-Pakistan bilateralism. The US may push for a resolution because in its strategic iteration, it does not want India to be distracted by Pakistan, in Washington's competition with China. However, the US cannot afford to put too much pressure on New Delhi vis-à-vis Islamabad, fearing losing Bharat's support against Beijing. Following from the above, certain conclusions can be drawn: a) Kashmir remains intractable despite being in the spotlight again, hence liberation movement and militant acts are likely to continue; b) IWT resolution would require international arbitration, and the Treaty might be reworked; c) although deterred for now, India in future would continue to look for excuses to impose the 'new normal' of retaliating against Pakistan for any terrorist act on its soil and Kashmir; d) South Asia especially India and Pakistan would continue living under uneasy peace; and, e) to obviate recurrence of Pulwamas and Pahalgams, Pakistan needs to declare its nuclear policy NOW. It was a rude awakening for India from its make-believe world of Bollywood. Continues...
Express Tribune
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Bharat's baneful bluster
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article For those not very well schooled in strategy, especially the nuclear strategy, Escalation Ladder (EL)' is the ratcheting up of hostilities through rhetoric and actions between two potential belligerents. Where each side, assuming the potential response of the other side, climbs up higher on the imaginary two-sided EL, by making the cost of potential aggression unbearable for the other side. This phenomenon is at work in case of India and Pakistan, where India through a wide-ranging diplomatic maneuver externally, and the use of media — all forms — internally and regionally, created a psychosis, a hype for a revenge war against Pakistan, for any assumed terrorist acts, without substantial evidence or evidence at all. It happened in 2019 after the Pulwama terrorist attacks and it happened now after the April 22 Pahalgam attack on tourists. So, after almost a fortnight of saber rattling, Indian Air Force (IAF) using around 80 aircraft struck around nine targets in six cities, 'presumably' using the BVR (beyond visual range) munitions without crossing the LoC in AJK, and international border in Punjab, closer to Lahore, Sialkot and Bahawalnagar in 'Operation Sindoor'. The targets selected included religious schools ostensibly run by the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the mother organisation behind 'The Resistance Group (TRF)', the obscure militant group that took responsibility for the Pahalgam carnage. A total of 26 Pakistani civilians were killed. PAF responded with grit and resolve targeting Indian Army positions and downed almost five IAF planes including state-of-the-art Rafael jets. Indian Foreign Secretary along with ranking military officials briefed the media, after the nighttime strikes on 7th April. Pakistan's National Security Committee took stock of the situation and vowed to go beyond the cited 'defensive' action. As run-up to the strikes authenticates, New Delhi's hasty linkage of Pahalgam with LeT/Pakistan was — analysts believe — a ruse to hold the bilateral Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960 in abeyance. After this unlawful unilateral action in violation of the Treaty and international law as upper riparian, India is now emptying its water reservoirs to fill them again at a time when lower riparian Pakistan needs water for crop irrigation and electricity generation in the coming summer months. Jingoism under RSS-Modi-Amit Shah trio peaked and everyone was baying for Pakistani blood to 'teach Pakistan a lesson'. Thus, India climbed too quickly and too higher on the EL. Climbing down from EL without military showdown, hence, was embarrassing for PM Modi who publicly spoke of revenge. Military action also helps him in garnering more political capital like in 2019 by winning elections; it also enhances his devta-like stature among Hindutva devotees; and it appeases the Indian military establishment who think (incorrectly) that there is space for a conventional war with Pakistan under the nuclear overhang. Additionally, a cross-border retaliation for a terrorist act whose linkages are doubtful and deemed home-grown is disproportionate. By targeting seminaries, India aimed at inducing response dilemma on Pakistan, expecting dithering, forgetting Pakistan's Operation 'Swift Retort' in 2019. After Pakistan's expected tit-for-tat response in the offing, if India resorts to further airstrikes and/or ground incursions, these would be escalatory leading into a baneful cycle. India's retaliatory rush seems over, as confirmed from the fact that PM Modi authorised the Indian Military for tactical and operational responses only, without resorting to any wider geo-strategic conflagration. Moreover, for wider ground war, Indian assembly of forces along its western borders takes considerable time, and even then, it has no overwhelmingly decisive superiority against Pakistan. Compulsion to keep larger forces along Indo-Bangladesh and Sino-India border curtails Indian numbers against Pakistan. The international environment is also not in favour of continued military showdown, as statements and behind-the-scenes interlocution of international community including Russia, EU, the UK, the US, the UAE, OIC and the UN substantiates. China's resolute support to Pakistan also puts brakes on India's further escalation. Internally, the chasm between the Indian political class and its Armed Forces is acute and detailed. The recent embarrassing detention of the GOC-in-Charge of the Northern Command (where Pahalgam happened), Lt Gen MV Suchindra Kumar; the firing of the Sectoral Air Chief; and the unceremonious posting out of Gen DS Rana, heading the Defence Intelligence Agency are cases in point. Senior commanders are 'reportedly' advised not to employ Sikh soldiers on sensitive duties for their pro-Khalistan leanings. The Indian military is heterogeneous in nature, unlike the more cohesive Pakistani military, which is battle-hardened, better trained, resolutely led and higher on the comparison matrix of 'intangibles' like the will-to-fight, justness of cause, love for martyrdom, etc considered decisive force multipliers in war. There are recurring political coups in the Indian Armed Forces with senior officers seeking judicial intervention on trivial matters like a change in date of birth, extension in service, etc. There are repeated intelligence assessments about acute anti-India sentiment among common Kashmiris, eroding the military environment in the likely theatre of war. Modi's racist policies have antagonised and alienated larger segments of Indian minorities Muslims, Christian and Dalits alike. And there are raging insurgencies within the Indian Union. And a hegemonic New Delhi is not on good terms with any neighbour. In geostrategy, the environment leads to threat; threat leads towards response; and response is based upon 'developmental strategy' in the short, medium to long-term. Pakistani military planners are ever alive to the Indo-Pak environment, the emanating threat and preparedness for it through a constant process, that is deliberate, methodical, ongoing and intense. Therefore, given the lukewarm international response to India's Exterior/Diplomatic Manoeuvre against Pakistan and her much curtailed Interior Maneuver for cited reasons, large-scale hostilities against Pakistan are not envisaged and risky despite Pakistan's expected response, which would match ground realities. India has tried to set a new normal by automatically blaming Pakistan for any terrorist acts on its soil and by resorting to bombing Pakistan proper. It seems more emboldened this time, as it struck the LeT centre near Muridke, Lahore. An overconfident India emulates Israel and other powers and needs to be checked. Pakistan's response needs to be quick, decisive and 'measuredly' painful. And Islamabad must declare its nuclear policy now!
