Latest news with #NitinPai
Mint
01-06-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Nitin Pai: How to dissuade Pakistan from deploying terrorism
One of the biggest misconceptions about the recently suspended military conflict between India and Pakistan has been around the concept of deterrence. A number of commentators have used it as a frame to assess the objectives and outcomes of the brief but intense bout of warfare between the two countries. Some have argued that the terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir marked a failure of deterrence. Others claim that Operation Sindoor restored that deterrence. Yet others claim that Sindoor itself is a failure because it will not prevent Pakistan from instigating terrorist attacks in the future. Much of the confusion comes from the lazy—and inappropriate—use of the term 'deterrence' in the context of terrorism and its punishment. Also Read: Nitin Pai: Operation Sindoor leaves India better placed for the next round Deterrence is a situation in which an adversary is persuaded not to take a particular action by holding out a threat of punishment. In the context of India and Pakistan, we can say that there is mutual nuclear deterrence because each side knows that it would suffer unacceptably severe damage. So, neither side will use nuclear weapons unless its red lines are crossed. These deliberately set the bar very high: India will not use nuclear weapons unless it is first attacked with them; Pakistan will use them only if its existence is threatened. Now here's the point: the existence of nuclear deterrence does not mean other types of conflicts are also deterred. Since the mid-1980s, Pakistan believed —and convinced many foreign strategists—that it could use its nuclear weapons to deter a conventional military attack. This emboldened its leaders to pursue a proxy war first in Punjab and later in Jammu and Kashmir with impunity. The calculation was that nuclear weapons not only neutralized India's stronger conventional forces, but also afforded Pakistan space to promote terrorism and insurgency. Also Read: World should take note of Pak's nuclear bombs The post-Uri surgical strikes, the Balakot operation and now Operation Sindoor have shown that Pakistan can no longer assume that it can deter India at the conventional level. Operation Sindoor, particularly, demonstrated New Delhi's willingness and capacity to hit Pakistani targets along the entire length of the border. Contrary to subsequent media hype, the targets were chosen to keep the nuclear angle out of the picture. The message was clear: nuclear weapons will not deter India from engaging in conventional warfare with a punitive intensity. India, for its part, had never been able to deter Pakistan from using terrorism. The bad news is that despite the military response, it will remain nearly impossible to do so in the future. As I have argued in recent columns, India has over the past three decades raised Pakistan's costs, leading to a reduction in the frequency and intensity of terror attacks. Also Read: Nitin Pai: Operation Sindoor sets a new normal for India's strategy Operation Sindoor has managed to ratchet up those costs significantly. It is possible to raise them further, but, unfortunately, never to a level that is prohibitive to the other side. So, it is a matter of time before another Pakistani general is tempted to take another—albeit more expensive—shot at the country's old game. Operation Sindoor is, thus, about dissuasion, discouragement and disincentivization. Contrary to intuition, the fact that India is prepared to suffer damage in order to punish Pakistan makes this strategy all the more credible. The Pahalgam attacks are a reminder that the task of dissuasion is continuous and multipronged. It starts with policies that reduce the impact of terrorism. It is obvious that the Pakistani establishment uses terror attacks not only to trigger a disproportionate security response that alienates the local population in Kashmir, but also to spark communal tensions across the country. To the extent that Indian society is united, harmonious and at peace with itself, even a big terror attack will only have a small political impact. Second, India should continue to systematically engage Pakistan's key foreign partners and persuade them that terrorism being fuelled by Pakistan is not in their interests. Over the past three decades, Indian diplomacy has been successful in getting the United States, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates to stop rewarding Rawapindi's capers. There should be no let up on this front and it is a job for India's professional diplomats. Third, intelligence capabilities and the security architecture need constant attention. This is all the more challenging because the restoration of democratic politics and normal life in Jammu and Kashmir requires a relaxation of security arrangements. It is not surprising that the Pahalgam attack took place in a period of transition. Finally, the military balance must overwhelmingly be in India's favour across the Line of Control as well as the border. This is a corollary of the post-Sindoor normal. It is not just a comparison of troop numbers and arsenals, but a matter of the size of the qualitative edge. There are indications that China's support for Pakistani military operations went beyond supplying equipment. This ought to change our calculations of the military balance required to dissuade Rawalpindi's generals. The author is co-founder and director of The Takshashila Institution, an independent centre for research and education in public policy.
Mint
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
India's next victory should be in its battle for narrative dominance
India's answer to the Pahalgam massacre came not as a mere retaliatory sortie, but as Operation Sindoor—a meticulously orchestrated act of calibrated coercion. It was military precision in the service of political messaging. Not since Balakot had India demonstrated such willingness to redraw the rules of engagement. In doing so, it shattered two myths: that strategic restraint remained India's default posture and that Pakistan's threshold for escalation was immutable. For decades, India absorbed Pakistan-sponsored terrorism with caution, hemmed in by the spectre of nuclear escalation. That has now been replaced by a posture of escalation dominance. Operation Sindoor marks a basic shift in India's doctrine: from restraint to reciprocal risk, from deterrence-by-denial to deterrence-by-punishment. India now treats major terror attacks as acts of war, responding across air, land and sea while keeping escalation in control and providing off-ramps to avoid full-scale war. Also Read: Nitin Pai: Operation Sindoor leaves India better placed for the next round Rawalpindi replied in a predictable cadence of reciprocal strikes. Yet, the choreography felt rehearsed, its symbolism worn. The global response, urging 'maximum restraint,' was almost ceremonial in its fatigue. Washington, quick to claim credit for brokering a ceasefire, seemed less concerned with Pakistan's recurrent use of Islamist terror (shielded by the implicit threat of its nuclear deterrent) and more desperate not to be eclipsed by Beijing's quiet encroachment of the region's diplomatic space. What this sequence unmasked was not simply the resumption of a conflict, but the emergence of a strategic pivot. Historically, Pakistan manipulated the threat of nuclear escalation to draw international intervention and avoid consequences for its sponsorship of terrorism. But India has flipped that playbook by leveraging calibrated strategic risk to pressure the international community to contain Pakistan's reckless behaviour. India's new doctrine has popular backing, with domestic expectations and bipartisan support having entrenched a consensus that terror will be met with force, but New Delhi's calculus extends well beyond the battlefield. Also Read: Operation Sindoor: A doctrinal shift and an inflection point Recognizing that perception governs legitimacy, it has launched an ambitious diplomatic counteroffensive: seven high-level delegations are being despatched to other countries. Their mission is precise: to thwart Pakistan's attempt to internationalize Kashmir. They will not argue on a premise of grievance, but of law, sovereignty and the global imperative to treat terrorism as indivisible. These delegations are not just emissaries of the state; they are narrative architects and strategic communicators. Tasked with restoring clarity and countering Pakistan's narrative rooted in the communalism of the 'two-nation theory,' they serve a dual purpose. First, to reframe the Kashmir issue as a constitutional and internal matter rather than a bilateral dispute. Second, to emphasize that Pakistan's use of terror as statecraft is not a bilateral problem, but a global challenge to the integrity of international counterterrorism norms. They will articulate that India no longer accepts terror exceptionalism, that Pakistan cannot perpetually shield its proxies behind a veil of nuclear blackmail, and present a doctrine of clarity: India will defend itself unilaterally, proportionally and within the bounds of international law. Moreover, they will leverage India's democratic legitimacy and civilizational identity to project the country as a responsible global power. They will position India as a bulwark against radicalism, an upholder of pluralism and a force for stability. India's actions, they will assert, are not escalatory by choice, but corrective by necessity. And Operation Sindoor is not an aberration, but the new normal. Also Read: Nitin Pai: Operation Sindoor sets a new normal for India's strategy Under the pressure of Indian strikes, Pakistan sought US mediation—a move that revealed its strategic vulnerability and India's operational superiority. Islamabad's reliance on international intervention as a safety valve has been exposed as outdated, given how India has demonstrated both escalation control and narrative discipline. Yet, therein lies the deeper risk for India—not that Pakistan may succeed, but that the world may listen. The recent face-off has become a pretext for a creeping re-hyphenation of India and Pakistan in global discourse, threatening to resurrect the dynamic that Indian diplomacy has laboured to bury since Nehru's United Nations gambit. This peril is underscored by US President Donald Trump's assertion of having brokered the ceasefire. In a world tempted by transactional diplomacy, India faces the challenge of navigating a global environment where principles are often subordinated to deals. For a West wary of China's growing influence, Kashmir may become a theatre of symbolic contestation rather than legal and political clarity. Further complications arise from the intractability of global crises, be it Russia's war in Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas conflict or nuclear tensions with Iran. These ongoing flashpoints dilute diplomatic bandwidth and allow malign actors like Pakistan to exploit moments of global distraction to resurface their narratives. Thus emerges a dual mandate for India. First, to maintain its strategic initiative without risking adventurism. Second, more critically, to preserve its narrative dominance on Kashmir. India's campaign has two fronts: deterrence and discourse. Its actions must be demonstrative but deliberate; its diplomacy, assertive yet unsentimental. Also Read: The IMF's Pakistan loan spotlights the case for voting power reform India must seize not only the high ground, but the defining voice. It must portray Operation Sindoor as an overdue recognition that past limited responses in 2016 and 2019 failed to alter Pakistan's terror calculus. It must articulate that the essence of deterrence lies not only in firepower, but in clarity of intent. And it must reject the premise that Kashmir is open to third-party adjudication. This is not, at its core, a contest over boundaries. It is a struggle over narrative dominance and temporal trajectory. Pakistan clings to grievance as both a shield and weapon, and its backward gaze affirms its inability to pivot forward, even as India charts its future with the balance of force and foresight. New Delhi's assertion of its sovereign prerogative and refusal to outsource its security calculus is a mark of strategic maturity. The global order respects clarity more than compromise, particularly when the stakes are cloaked in moral ambivalence and strategic ambiguity. In the coming days, the contest will unfold in minds, not maps. And narrative clarity will determine not only who commands the present, but who inherits the future. India's challenge is not just to win battles, but to own the story. In geopolitics, as in battle strategy, the side that frames the question often controls the answer. The authors are, respectively, professor of international relations, King's College London, and assistant professor, international affairs and security studies, Sardar Patel University of Police, Security & Criminal Justice.
Mint
19-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
De-escalation and new normals: Does today's churn have a limit?
The month of April brought with it unilateral actions, escalations and (depending on your point of view) provocations. This has been true across the world in areas as varied as trade, terrorism and security. Fortunately, this has been followed by de-escalation and 'climb-downs' in many instances. But the process has left the door open for the setting of 'new normals' that just some time ago may have been unthinkable. The term 'new normal' grew fashionable as a consequence of the covid pandemic. Looking ahead at that time, a Pew Survey showed that a plurality of experts believed that the pandemic would: 1) worsen inequality; 2) increase the influence and power of big tech firms; 3) multiply the spread of misinformation; and 4) fan the flames of authoritarianism. Perhaps an overall environment favouring new normals was born then. Also Read: Nitin Pai: Operation Sindoor sets a new normal for India's strategy Take the case of international trade. President Donald Trump, representing that beacon of free trade that hitherto was America, imposed wide and deep tariffs of such a magnitude that the world was taken by shock. He imposed tariffs on allies and adversaries alike, upending convention. He then singled out China for punitive tariffs of 125%. The New York Times carried a copy of a customs bill for a batch of T-shirts shipped from China to the US in April that amounted to a total tariff of 185%. This figure is made up of a 125% 'reciprocal tariff,' a 20% fentanyl-related punitive tariff, a 7.5% carry-over Section 301 tariff from Trump's first term, and a 32% base tariff rate on garments. That was in April. In May, after secret talks in Geneva, the 125% tariff rate was dropped to 10%, resulting in a headline 30% tariff rate for China (with the 20% fentanyl tariff still in place). The same package of T-shirts would now attract a total tariff of 69.5%. The 115-percentage-point 'climb-down' is significant, but the rates that remain would still have been unimaginable even a few weeks ago. This new normal for everyday items is sure to stoke US inflation if tariffs aren't cut further. But given the way it happened, the market reaction to the 30% China rate is less severe than if this rate had been proposed in the first place. The S&P 500 equity index is flat on the year and almost back to its level on the day of Trump's inauguration. Also Read: Tariff whiplash: The US truce with China offers hollow relief Tariff wars started by the US will make way for bilateral trade agreements (BTAs). Inevitably, BTAs will provoke confrontation between peers, as the US-UK trade framework has already done with China. This was precisely the logic of creating a multilateral trade order under the World Trade Organization (WTO). The global trade order under the WTO that has served the world remarkably well for decades now seems at risk of dying by a thousand BTA cuts. Closer home, the conflict between India and Pakistan first escalated and then de-escalated quickly. India responded to the April terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Kashmir that killed unarmed tourists by using missiles to precisely strike terrorist bases in Pakistan. Pakistan escalated this into a military conflict with drones or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and missiles targeted at Indian military installations. In response, India struck Pakistan's air defence system and airfields deep within Pakistan. And then it ended. Abruptly. No one seems to be sure of exactly why. While de-escalation has happened and the ceasefire has held, it is unclear whether one side or both had to climb down. Also Read: Nitin Pai: Operation Sindoor leaves India better placed for the next round Regardless, the short conflict has left us with a new set of benchmarks that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has laid out: 1) That India will strike terrorists and their sponsors even if they are deep inside Pakistan; 2) India would carry these actions out on its terms; and 3) India would not be cowed down by 'nuclear blackmail." Without the provocation by terrorists in April and the subsequent action, this 'new normal' would have been considered extremely unlikely. President's Trump's adversarial trade position against China, his lack of interest in Europe as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) and his wooing of West Asia move the centre of gravity squarely to Asia. One direct consequence is that several more countries may become nuclear-capable in the coming years. This week, in another first, the American president met the former Al Qaeda-linked President of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and promised to lift sanctions on his country, although a $10 million US bounty on his head was removed only in December. Even more than multi-billion-dollar deals with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, the re-establishment of a Syrian link is significant, particularly if more Arab countries join the Abraham Accords with Israel. Also Read: The time is right for a reset of India's trade ties with China This short cycle of escalation, de-escalation and setting of new benchmarks over the past month or so is greatly aided by a highly polarized global social media where facts and pseudo-facts are indistinguishable. Many have called this a 'flurry of great distraction" amid a great churn. A society needs to marinate in change if it is to accept it. Of course, the occasional revolution can happen. But if a society faces frequent revolutions, then uncertainty and angst could cause real dislocation. America modelling this behaviour could encourage other countries to follow. P.S: 'The Asuras (demons) and Devas (divinities) are churning the ocean of milk. Will they extract Amrit (nectar) or Halahala (poison)?"—Paraphrased from the Shrimad Bhagavatam, Chapters 12-18. The author is chairman, InKlude Labs. Read Narayan's Mint columns at
Mint
14-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
The time is right for a reset of India's trade ties with China
The past few days have seen notable shifts of geopolitical and trade significance. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reset red lines for India's engagement with Pakistan. Elsewhere, the US and China called a momentary truce in their trade war, with talks underway on a bilateral deal. As history is moving at a frenetic pace, even if only in fits and starts, New Delhi should revisit its calculus of global relations. As part of a new doctrine spelt out by the Prime Minister vis-a-vis Islamabad in his address to the nation on Monday, he made it clear that India's anti-terror action was merely on pause and Operation Sindoor had set the 'new normal" of Indian policy. Terror planners and their state sponsors would be treated alike. Also, the country would not tolerate nuclear blackmail, not let trade and terror go together, and will talk with Pakistan only about terrorism and the part of Kashmir it occupies. Also Read: Operation Sindoor: A doctrinal shift and an inflection point The last assertion clears up any doubt over the terms of a ceasefire with Pakistan after last week's armed hostilities. Voices from the US on potential third-party mediation, thus, are best treated as just that—voices, that's all. Meanwhile, the 90-day suspension of mutual tariffs by the US and China as they revive trade talks has surprised observers, given their recent escalation in trade warfare. Recall, the US had ratcheted up barriers for Chinese shipments even as it rolled back country-specific tariffs on others. China had retaliated hike for hike and begun to weaponize its rare-earth heft by using export curbs. Apart from the scare of what a trade snap-off may have meant for the US economy, as relayed by its financial market jitters, the prospect of key-mineral scarcity may have played a role in America's softened stance. The US has agreed to cut import duties on most Chinese goods to 30% from 145%, with China expected to reduce its own tariffs to 10% from 125%. Beijing has reportedly also pledged to lift its mineral embargo. Also Read: Nitin Pai: Operation Sindoor sets a new normal for India's strategy In all, it is now clear that the US does not intend to decouple its economy from China's, but wants a better trade balance with it. Although it's unclear if the two can eventually strike a bargain that sticks, the likelihood of a sharp and swift realignment in world trade has receded for now. While supply chain disruptions could still open opportunities for exporters in other countries, today's state of play is a reminder: Export headway is best made on the back of one's own competitiveness, not the barriers of others that may turn on a dime. Crucially, the economic logic of trade can—and often does—prevail over distortions. New Delhi may need to recalibrate its position. Let Pakistan not distract us from taking a nuanced approach to China, whose power cannot be wished away. No doubt, Beijing has been acting as an adversary in the face of India's rise. The past week revealed Beijing's tilt towards Islamabad, even if its broad statements were cloaked in neutrality, amid speculation over combat back-up given to Pakistan. Also Read: How Trumpian volatility is forcing policy changes in China So long as we do not suspect an active role on China's part, this is a good time for a dialogue with Beijing. Like the US, we could push for a trade reset with it for a better balance of two-way cargo. We also need ways to benefit from its low-cost clean-tech and other advancements. Joint ventures that stay firmly in Indian control could aid the safe absorption of technology, even as we seek greater market access. Conceivably, the value that China places on its commercial ties with India could give us some leverage over it in the geo-strategic sphere at some point.
Mint
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
South Asian target: Let's aim for a durable India-Pakistan ceasefire
Relationships can be intrinsically fragile, especially with neighbours who suffer from some inferiority complex. The ceasefire announced between India and Pakistan on Saturday was breached immediately, proving the brittle nature of ties between the two nations that have been divided by thick lines of blood in sand and snow. Pakistan's appetite for continuing violence and bloodshed seemed to have diminished over the past few years, only to resurface with the appointment of a new army chief whose words suggest he views strife with India as a religious battle. India's measured response to the Pahalgam carnage, which claimed 26 innocent lives, by targeting terror infrastructure across the Line of Control has rendered irrelevant some of the old red lines. Also Read: Nitin Pai: Operation Sindoor sets a new normal for India's strategy It also shows New Delhi's decision to redefine South Asia's sophomoric geopolitical grammar by replacing passivity with decisive but limited action. As anticipated in war games, Pakistan predictably retaliated while stoking its anti-India rhetoric at home, plausibly to keep the army chief secure in his position. The cessation of active hostilities has been patchy, but will count as mutually assured rationality if it holds out. Given the inherent instability of mutual relations, though, there is no saying when it gets violated again. There may be some lessons for India in last week's intimations of war. The first is on the role of various third parties that have inserted themselves into the bilateral equation. Consider the inconsistent narratives on how the ceasefire came about. On one side, Pakistan seemingly invited intermediation. On the other hand, India has steadfastly held that the cessation arose from ground-level communication and an exchange of information between the director generals of military operations on both sides. This betrays Pakistan's desire to refocus the world's attention on its imagined geopolitical significance, a signal to superpowers that it has put the Abbotabad embarrassment behind it and is open for business again. Also Read: Mint Quick Edit | Post-Sindoor: Another wake-up call for Pakistan Western states have in the past used Pakistan as a willing launch pad for dark ops, ensuring a source of gravy for Pakistan's elite and some trickle-down benefits for its economy. New Delhi needs to reinforce its stand on keeping relations bilateral to stymie Islamabad's attempts to acquire geopolitical muscle in the region. There are economic lessons as well. To a large extent, Pakistan's irrelevance has been the result of India's rapid GDP growth since the early 1990s, with every misadventure by trigger-happy generals in Rawalpindi harming its own economy far more. Last year, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had to make a Faustian deal with China, with security promises extended in exchange for expanded largesse and debt forgiveness. Even so, India's commercial engagement with China is more valuable, with Beijing eyeing a vast market here for its exports. Unfortunately, border clashes have occluded this leverage. Also Read: Pakistan must wake up and smell the geo-economic brew On the other side of the globe, the US is also on the lookout for markets to sell its goods and services. India's stance of strategic autonomy could prove advantageous here, as both China and the US can be engaged as economic partners in exchange for recognition of New Delhi as South Asia's stabilizing force. Part of such a grand bargain could strive to strip Pakistani armed forces of their extra-constitutional powers and restore electoral democracy in Pakistan. This could give a ceasefire the durability it needs.
