Latest news with #Indian-held
Straits Times
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
India, Pakistan compete to sell their feuding narratives abroad. Will this work?
Pakistan's Rangers stand guard at the Kartarpur Sahib Corridor complex, which runs along the India-Pakistan border in Kartarpur, on May 22. PHOTO: AFP - Military action between India and Pakistan might have stopped for now, but the feuding South Asian neighbours are ramping up a war of words. Both governments are sending teams to key partners including Singapore to press their cases and shape global perceptions on the latest flashpoint that sparked fears of an open conflict between the two nuclear-armed countries. India's campaign, in particular, is notable for both its scale and its non-partisan nature. Seven delegations are fanning across the world to places from Belgium, Germany and the United States; to Bahrain, Guyana and Panama. In total, around 59 retired diplomats, ruling and opposition politicians are travelling to 33 countries. New Delhi and Islamabad agreed to a ceasefire on May 10 , after four days of a tit-for-tat military confrontation. India had accused Pakistan of being involved in the April 22 'terror attack' that killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam in Indian-held Kashmir - something Pakistan denied. India's latest effort, say analysts, is aimed at getting international buy-in from friendly countries for how it approaches what it says is state-sponsored terrorism emanating from Pakistan, to diplomatically isolate its neighbour, and to amplify New Delhi's message that it had little choice but to strike due to the attack; that it was well within its rights to do so. 'The parliamentary delegations will make the world aware that India will consider future terrorist attacks as an act of war and will take retaliatory action,' said Mr Anil Wadhwa, a retired Indian diplomat. The delegations are also striving to plug gaps in India's messaging amid domestic criticism that it has not articulated its position effectively. 'There is a sense that India's narrative has not fully got across globally. So there is a need to explain to India's friends and key partners,' Professor C Raja Mohan, a visiting research professor at Singapore's Institute of South Asian Studies, told The Straits Times. He added: 'After nearly a decade of toxic and intense polarisation, this seems to be an effort to bring opposition parties together. Even those who are critical of the government have joined these delegations.' The delegation to Singapore, which arrived on May 27, met a host of leaders in politics, business and academia including Law Minister Edwin Tong and Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs Sim Ann. 'We discussed India's perspective on the situation in Pahalgam following the terror attacks on 22 April 2025. I reaffirmed Singapore's firm stance against terrorism and our strong condemnation of the terror attacks in Pahalgam,' Mr Tong said on social media after the meeting. The nine-member delegation, led by Mr Sanjay Kumar Jha, a leader of the Janata Dal (United), a regional party, started their messaging campaign in Japan and South Korea, and was in Indonesia on May 28. Their tour ends in Malaysia. Not to be left behind, Pakistan too has indicated it plans to dispatch a multi-party delegation led by Pakistan People's Party chief Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari. Starting next week, this delegation will visit Washington, London, Paris and Brussels to 'highlight India's disinformation campaign and its attempts to destabilise regional peace,' according to Pakistani media. Separately, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif is on a visit to Turkiye, Iran, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan from May 25-30 to hold 'wide-ranging discussions' including on the recent hostilities with India. These visits are also aimed at building global support on issues like water security, after India in retaliation for the Kashmir attack put the Indus water treaty, which governs water sharing of six cross border rivers, in abeyance, said Mr Bhutto-Zardari to The Dawn newspaper. For India, one key aim is to reverse some earlier missteps in its war of narratives and to rally the home ground. New Delhi reportedly expected stronger global support in its fight against Pakistan, and was also blindsided by US President Donald Trump repeatedly claiming credit for brokering the ceasefire between the two South Asian neighbours. India abhors third-party intervention in what it views as a bilateral matter, and has insisted the truce was the result of simply an agreement with Pakistan. It shudders too, at Mr Trump's description of both India Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Mr Sharif as 'strong leaders', given India's self-belief in its stature as an emerging global power. Many Indian commentators thus feel that New Delhi has failed to present its position clearly, partly due to disinformation from mainstream Indian television channels. Many in India also felt that the Pakistani leadership was more visible on international media in the initial days of the hostilities. ''Pakistan managed to reposition itself diplomatically... and recast the conflict as one of two equals requiring mediation,' wrote former Indian foreign secretary Nirupama Rao in an opinion piece in The Indian Express newspaper. Mr Salman Khurshid, a former India External Affairs Minister and a member of the country's delegation to Singapore, said that he felt that the trip had been 'successful' given the response in the different countries. 'There is a reiteration of empathy for India, condolences for the people who lost their lives, and condemnation of terrorism. That has been reiterated, and I think that is good ,' Mr Khurshid told ST. 'There is also the entire narrative from the Indian point of view, and it's a good thing that we've come, and we are able to revive that narrative . It's important that the narrative is given a push .' India's Ministry of External Affairs said in a press release that the delegation 'requested Singapore's support in the fight against terrorism', particularly in multilateral forums like the United Nations and the Financial Action Task Force, a global financial crime watchdog. It did not elaborate on how Singapore responded. Mr Modi has vowed strong action against cross-border terrorism, adding that any further 'terrorist attack' would be regarded as an 'act of war'. Defence minister Rajnath Singh has framed this as a redefinition of India's policy against terrorism. India's message through these delegations has also been that it will not make any distinction between the state sponsoring terrorism and the groups carrying out the terror attacks. India has long blamed Pakistan for cross-border terrorism, accusing its military of abetting and aiding Pakistan-based terror groups that target India, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba. India has blamed The Resistance Front, which Indian authorities believe is a proxy of the Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy, for the Pahalgam attack. This time round, while India accused Pakistan of triggering the hostilities, Pakistan has in turn accused India of being the aggressor, denying Indian allegations that it is abetting terrorism or using it as state policy. Crucially, India has not yet managed to arrest the perpetrators of the Kashmir attacks , though officials have said that they have been identified. 'It's not that Pakistan has defeated India when it comes to narrative wars,' said Mr Faran Jeffery of Islamic Theology of Counter Terrorism, a UK-based counterterrorism think-tank. 'Better is expected from India. So when India didn't present any evidence for its claims and didn't even bother to complete its own internal investigation before it escalated with Pakistan, that was seen as irresponsible in some capitals.' He added: 'Will (delegations) produce any results? I'm not entirely sure.' With additional reporting by Arvind Jayaram in Singapore. Nirmala Ganapathy is India bureau chief at The Straits Times. She is based in New Delhi and writes about India's foreign policy and politics. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
All-out war avoided, but river water-sharing spat keeps India-Pakistan tensions on the boil
NEW DELHI – India and Pakistan may have just avoided all-out conflict, but water politics continues to brew as Islamabad prepares to challenge New Delhi's suspension of a water treaty, which the former considers an 'act of war'. India's decision to put in abeyance the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) – which Islamabad framed as a move to halt the flow of the Indus river and two of its tributaries into Pakistan – came about 24 hours after a terrorist attack on April 22 killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam, in Indian-held Kashmir. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
The Star
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Star
India, Pakistan maintain war of words after ceasefire
BENGALURU: Even after India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on May 10, following four days of high-stakes military confrontation, both sides are still rattling sabres. Newspapers in both countries have depicted their respective prime ministers with fists raised and eyes blazing. Television anchors added even more combative language as they analysed the speeches. Both sides are actively trying to shape perceptions of what the fighting across the Line of Control (LoC) – or the de facto border between the nuclear-armed neighbours – has achieved and, most importantly, who has 'won'. How they frame their wins and losses will have a bearing on not only the strength of the ceasefire and future bilateral relations, but also the political performance of each leader's party at home, analysts say. Accusing Pakistan of having a hand in an April 22 terror attack that killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam, in Indian-held Kashmir, India's military on May 7 struck nine 'terror infrastructure' targets in Pakistan. Pakistan, which denies involvement in the April attack, responded with artillery fire across the border into Indian-held Kashmir. Tit-for-tat hostilities ensued, marked by claims, counterclaims and disinformation on both sides, till the conflict was paused by the ceasefire that US President Donald Trump said was brokered by Washington. Immediately after the ceasefire, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif praised his military's 'professional and effective' response to what he described as Indian aggression. He credited the military for reducing Indian military depots, ammunition storage places and airbases to ruins. India panned this claim as 'a tissue of lies'. In a national address on May 12, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: 'The world saw how Pakistan's drones and missiles crumbled like straw before India's powerful air defence systems... Pakistan had planned attacks at the border, but India struck deep into Pakistan's heart.' He added: 'Following India's aggressive action, Pakistan began seeking escape routes. It started appealing globally to de-escalate tensions.' He warned that India would keep a close eye on any state-sponsored terrorism, and the 'new normal' would be to treat every terror attack as an act of war that will get 'a fitting response'. Modi also said trade talks and terror cannot go together, and 'water and blood can't go together' – which analysts interpret as a signal that both the trade freeze and recent suspension of the 65-year-old Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan on water distribution will remain in place. Islamabad had said in April that 'any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan... will be considered as an act of war'. Ajai Sahni, executive director of the Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi, said that compared with Sharif's 'relatively modest' speech, Modi's had 'more belligerence, conditionalities and policy assertions', which have definite implications for India-Pakistan relations. The 'new normal' is that if there are any further transgressions by Pakistan, India will use targeted force against terror infrastructure, as it did in the recent conflict, he added. 'The tough nationalist stances are meant for the domestic audiences,' Sahni said. The rhetoric seeks to mollify domestic hardliners who are attacking the Modi government for stopping the conflict too quickly. Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party faces elections in the eastern state of Bihar around November. Analysts say the party could ride the wave of nationalist sentiment to victory – if military tensions stay in focus. 'Though it is early days to talk about this, by doing what he talked about and striking deep into Pakistan territories – among them, Bahawalpur, Muridke and Rawalpindi – and by avenging the women who lost their husbands and sons in Pahalgam, (Modi) may well have ensured the support of a large constituency of women for his future political battles,' political analyst Neerja Chowdhury wrote in The Indian Express. In Pakistan, the conflict has been a great unifying force. 'Before the conflict, Pakistan was very politically polarised and the masses suffering under the bad economy were critical of the military and the ruling administration it supported,' said Professor Murad Ali, chairman of the department of political science at Pakistan's University of Malakand. 'But standing up to a powerful, economically superior India has boosted the popularity and image of the Pakistan government and the military,' he said. Citizens in cities from Islamabad to Karachi took to the streets, waving national flags, playing patriotic songs, and dancing. 'Our army has emerged as one of the finest and most professional forces,' Mohsin Gilani, a 56-year-old resident of Islamabad, told The Straits Times. In Karachi, a city often marred by political polarisation, even supporters of former prime minister Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf – once anti-military for its alleged role in Khan's imprisonment – joined in the celebrations. A large gathering formed on Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi's main thoroughfare, where people raised portraits of army chief Asim Munir and burned an effigy of Modi in defiance. Amin Ansar, 30, who joined the victory rally, said: 'We had lost trust in the army because of its political interference. But this war reminded us of its real strength, its battlefield prowess.' The competing political narratives have overtaken the ground realities of the conflict on both sides of the border. In New Delhi, at a press briefing on May 11, Indian military officials said Pakistani firing across the LoC killed five Indian soldiers, and Pakistan lost 40 soldiers. They also said 100 terrorists were killed as they hit nine targets in Pakistan on May 7. They also claimed to have 'downed a few Pakistani planes' but did not offer details. The Pakistani military said on May 13 that at least 40 civilians, including 15 children and seven women, were killed and 121 others injured in Indian missile strikes across Pakistan last week. According to a statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of the Pakistani military, 11 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were killed and 78 others sustained injuries. Pakistani officials earlier claimed Indian fighter jets crashed or were shot down by Pakistan in an aerial clash on May 7. International media reports on telling debris seemed to add credence to these claims, but India has not confirmed anything. When asked about the claims during the May 11 press conference, India's director-general of air operations, Air Marshal Awadhesh Kumar Bharti, said that 'losses are part of combat', but that the forces had 'achieved the objectives' and 'all the pilots are back home'. Foreign military and strategic analysts said that if India's French-made Rafale fighter jets were indeed shot down by Pakistan's China-made J-10C Vigorous Dragon jets, it would be the first combat loss for the Western aircraft that is considered one of the world's most capable. Regardless of who won this round of fighting, analysts say that the use of modern weapons like armed drones for the first time across the LoC presented a new challenge for both nations. 'The truth of what really happened will unfortunately not be known to more than a handful of strategists. There lies the danger of nationalist narratives – amplified by pliant media in both countries. Going forward, attitudes, future plans and military strategies could be shaped by the mythology and not reality,' said Sahni. - The Straits Times/ANN
Straits Times
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
India, Pakistan maintain war of words after ceasefire
An Indian police officer standing guard in Srinagar, Kashmir, on May 12. PHOTO: AFP – Even after India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on May 10, following four days of high-stakes military confrontation, both sides are still rattling sabres. Newspapers in both countries have depicted their respective prime ministers with fists raised and eyes blazing. Television anchors added even more combative language as they analysed the speeches. Both sides are actively trying to shape perceptions of what the fighting across the Line of Control (LoC) – or the de facto border between the nuclear-armed neighbours – has achieved and, most importantly, who has 'won'. How they frame their wins and losses will have a bearing on not only the strength of the ceasefire and future bilateral relations, but also the political performance of each leader's party at home, analysts say. Accusing Pakistan of having a hand in an April 22 terror attack that killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam, in Indian-held Kashmir, India's military on May 7 struck nine 'terror infrastructure' targets in Pakistan. Pakistan, which denies involvement in the April attack, responded with artillery fire across the border into Indian-held Kashmir. Tit-for-tat hostilities ensued, marked by claims, counterclaims and disinformation on both sides, till the conflict was paused by the ceasefire that US President Donald Trump said was brokered by Washington. Immediately after the ceasefire, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif praised his military's 'professional and effective' response to what he described as Indian aggression. He credited the military for reducing Indian military depots, ammunition storage places and airbases to ruins. India panned this claim as 'a tissue of lies'. In a national address on May 12, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: 'The world saw how Pakistan's drones and missiles crumbled like straw before India's powerful air defence systems... Pakistan had planned attacks at the border, but India struck deep into Pakistan's heart.' He added: 'Following India's aggressive action, Pakistan began seeking escape routes. It started appealing globally to de-escalate tensions.' He warned that India would keep a close eye on any state-sponsored terrorism, and the 'new normal' would be to treat every terror attack as an act of war that will get 'a fitting response'. Mr Modi also said trade talks and terror cannot go together, and 'water and blood can't go together' – which analysts interpret as a signal that both the trade freeze and recent suspension of the 65-year-old Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan on water distribution will remain in place. Islamabad had said in April that 'any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan... will be considered as an act of war'. Victory signals will win votes Mr Ajai Sahni, executive director of the Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi, said that compared with Mr Sharif's 'relatively modest' speech, Mr Modi's had 'more belligerence, conditionalities and policy assertions', which have definite implications for India-Pakistan relations. The 'new normal' is that if there are any further transgressions by Pakistan, India will use targeted force against terror infrastructure, as it did in the recent conflict, he added. 'The tough nationalist stances are meant for the domestic audiences,' Mr Sahni said. The rhetoric seeks to mollify domestic hardliners who are attacking the Modi government for stopping the conflict too quickly. Mr Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party faces elections in the eastern state of Bihar around November. Analysts say the party could ride the wave of nationalist sentiment to victory – if military tensions stay in focus. 'Though it is early days to talk about this, by doing what he talked about and striking deep into Pakistan territories – among them, Bahawalpur, Muridke and Rawalpindi – and by avenging the women who lost their husbands and sons in Pahalgam, (Modi) may well have ensured the support of a large constituency of women for his future political battles,' political analyst Neerja Chowdhury wrote in The Indian Express. People gathering at a border post in the frontier village of Chakothi, near the Line of Control, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir on May 11. PHOTO: AFP Pakistan rallies against common foe In Pakistan, the conflict has been a great unifying force. 'Before the conflict, Pakistan was very politically polarised and the masses suffering under the bad economy were critical of the military and the ruling administration it supported,' said Professor Murad Ali, chairman of the department of political science at Pakistan's University of Malakand. 'But standing up to a powerful, economically superior India has boosted the popularity and image of the Pakistan government and the military,' he said. Citizens in cities from Islamabad to Karachi took to the streets, waving national flags, playing patriotic songs, and dancing. 'Our army has emerged as one of the finest and most professional forces,' Mr Mohsin Gilani, a 56-year-old resident of Islamabad, told The Straits Times. In Karachi, a city often marred by political polarisation, even supporters of former prime minister Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf – once anti-military for its alleged role in Khan's imprisonment – joined in the celebrations. A large gathering formed on Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi's main thoroughfare, where people raised portraits of army chief Asim Munir and burned an effigy of Mr Modi in defiance. Mr Amin Ansar, 30, who joined the victory rally, said: 'We had lost trust in the army because of its political interference. But this war reminded us of its real strength, its battlefield prowess.' Field realities don't matter The competing political narratives have overtaken the ground realities of the conflict on both sides of the border. In New Delhi, at a press briefing on May 11, Indian military officials said Pakistani firing across the LoC killed five Indian soldiers, and Pakistan lost 40 soldiers. They also said 100 terrorists were killed as they hit nine targets in Pakistan on May 7. They also claimed to have 'downed a few Pakistani planes' but did not offer details. The Pakistani military said on May 13 that at least 40 civilians, including 15 children and seven women, were killed and 121 others injured in Indian missile strikes across Pakistan last week. According to a statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of the Pakistani military, 11 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were killed and 78 others sustained injuries. Pakistani officials earlier claimed Indian fighter jets crashed or were shot down by Pakistan in an aerial clash on May 7. International media reports on telling debris seemed to add credence to these claims, but India has not confirmed anything. When asked about the claims during the May 11 press conference, India's director-general of air operations, Air Marshal Awadhesh Kumar Bharti, said that 'losses are part of combat', but that the forces had 'achieved the objectives' and 'all the pilots are back home'. Foreign military and strategic analysts said that if India's French-made Rafale fighter jets were indeed shot down by Pakistan's China-made J-10C Vigorous Dragon jets, it would be the first combat loss for the Western aircraft that is considered one of the world's most capable. Regardless of who won this round of fighting, analysts say that the use of modern weapons like armed drones for the first time across the LoC presented a new challenge for both nations. 'The truth of what really happened will unfortunately not be known to more than a handful of strategists. There lies the danger of nationalist narratives – amplified by pliant media in both countries. Going forward, attitudes, future plans and military strategies could be shaped by the mythology and not reality,' said Mr Sahni. Additional reporting by Ashraf Khan Rohini Mohan is The Straits Times' India Correspondent based in Bengaluru. She covers politics, business and human rights in South Asia. Ashraf Khan is a Pakistan-based journalist who has been writing on geopolitics, economics, the environment and human rights for wire agencies for the past 25 years. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Express Tribune
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Strategic restraint
On May 10, strategic restraint pulled India and Pakistan from the brink of an all-out war. First, it was US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and then President Donald Trump who broke the news of ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Prior to that the US had stated that it had nothing to do with Indo-Pak hostilities. Two days earlier, on May 5, the Indian retaliatory attacks over Pakistan and AJK, the Secretary General Antonio Guterres urged New Delhi and Islamabad to exercise "maximum restraint" to prevent a military showdown, warning that tensions over a deadly attack in Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir risk escalation into an open conflict. Reiterating his call for restraint after the Indian attack, a statement by the UN opined that "the Secretary General is very concerned about the Indian military operations across the Line of Control and international border. He calls for maximum restraint from both countries. The world cannot afford a military confrontation between India and Pakistan." Trump, speaking just after the news of Indian attack over Pakistan, lamented, "It's a shame. We just heard about it as we are walking in the doors of the Oval office. I hope it ends soon." The day after the Indian attack, messages and statements from world leaders poured in calling for restraint and dialogue. China's foreign ministry spokesman offered mediation stating, "We are willing to work together with the international community and continue to play a constructive role in easing current tension." Likewise, France, Germany, the UK, Saudi Arabia and other countries called upon India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and open backchannel negotiations in order to prevent further escalation of their conflict. What is strategic restraint, and how did it help prevent an all-out war between India and Pakistan? Could these two nuclear-armed neighbours have afforded the risk of further escalating their conflict by unleashing more rounds of attacks and counter retaliation? What are the elements of strategic restraint and how can the US, Russia, China and other world powers play their role in this regard? Strategic restraint requires political will and wisdom on part of stakeholders to prevent an all-out war. Backchannel negotiations between India and Pakistan to de-escalate the conflict had been going on since May 7. Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed that contact had been established between the National Security Advisers of India and Pakistan to de-escalate tensions and to restore, through dialogue, the situation to its pre-22 April 2025 status. A set of military confidence-building measures (CBMs) had been reached between India and Pakistan during 1980s and 1990s like establishing a hot line between Director General Military Operations, ceasefire along the Line of Control, Indus Water Treaty of 1960, and advance notice on troop movement. But such CBMs, which were launched under Track-1 (official) diplomacy between India and Pakistan, miserably failed in a crisis situation. For India, avenging Pakistan's alleged involvement in terrorist attacks was imperative; but for Islamabad, delivering a befitting response was essential. While Pakistan claimed to have given a proportionate response to India's May 7 attack by destroying 5 aircraft, a drone and the Indian Army's brigade headquarters in occupied Kashmir, there were arguments that Islamabad must further invoke deterrence by responding to the killing of more than 30 civilians by 24 Indian missiles. The fragility of the ceasefire remains evident, with continued reports of violations emerging. Strategic restraint, as a means to prevent further escalation of the Indo-Pak conflict, must be examined from three key perspectives: First, through the role of the international community. This is because both countries had already escalated the conflict by launching conventional strikes and subsequent retaliation. Paradoxically, the absence of strong global leadership has created space for militant voices in India to proceed with their conflict escalation agenda. Unlike 2019, when US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo intervened and succeeded in de-escalation after Pulwama and Balakot, the American role seems paradoxical in nature now. It is intriguing that America initially claimed it had nothing to do with the Indo-Pak conflict and that it would not intervene, but then within 24 hours, Trump tweeted an announcement of the ceasefire as a result of American mediation. Another reality is that formal Indo-Pak Track-1 diplomacy remains largely frozen, despite Pakistan's Foreign Minister revealing that the National Security Advisers of both countries had established contact to de-escalate tensions. To sustain the ceasefire and initiate dialogue, India and Pakistan must reactivate Track-1 diplomacy, as also urged by the US. At the international level, the only credible role in promoting strategic restraint amid an ongoing conflict lies with the UN Security Council. Before it is too late and further escalation occurs, the UN Security Council must invoke Chapters V, VI and VII of the UN charter related to international peace and security by passing a binding resolution urging India and Pakistan to initiate dialogue and ensure permanent ceasefire. Second, a culture of strategic restraint between India and Pakistan has long prevailed, particularly to maintain the threshold of nuclear deterrence. But, after April 22 and May 7, it seems that this culture is fast eroding due to India's arrogance over teaching Pakistan a lesson. The world will not act in case New Delhi further escalates the conflict. It is a very dangerous approach because Pakistan has made it clear that suspending the Indus Water Treaty will be considered as an act of war and attacking Pakistan with missiles means that New Delhi has crossed the line. Saner elements, particularly in India, must wake up and prevail over their state to exercise strategic restraint so that South Asia is not plunged into a deadly phase of conventional war leading to a nuclear war. Finally, strategic restraint can only be exercised when stakeholders understand the relevance of peace. Irrational behaviour by Indian leadership will only lead to further escalation. The role of Indian civil society and political parties in advocating for restraint remains uncertain.
