Image Source: Joachim Kupke – CC BY-SA 4.0
Notwithstanding the manner in which headlines of Indian papers and channels are shrieking about India edging closer towards war with Pakistan, also known as its permanent enemy, answers to several questions seem to be getting more difficult to unravel. Yes, India has its own reasons to blame Pakistan for terrorists attack on its territory (Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir) and subsequently seriously consider the option of a war with it. Now, the billion dollar question is, will a war in these circumstances actually spell end of terror-strikes for India on its own home-land? Well, the point-blank answer is – No, not from any angle. Rather, prospects of the problem assuming greater proportions than ever before cannot be side-lined. The issue India is bothered about it, as claimed by Indian authorities, is that of Pakistan-engineered/supported terrorism. Will defeat of Pakistan in conflict actually lead to complete elimination of terrorism from the part of sub-continent, India has command over? Not really. It may enhance rise of terrorism and terror-groups posing more serious threats for this country and its citizens.
Equally significant question for the present Indian government is whether the war would enhance their leader, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s appeal at home and abroad? This needs to be considered from several angles. One is the assumption held by Modi and his government, second is opinion formed about what the public mood is in favor of, third is reaction of other countries, “news” being spread by Indian media, role being played by key leaders trying to mediate and of course perhaps great importance is held by its impact on state assembly elections scheduled in the coming months. Of these, the most significant are Bihar Assembly Polls, scheduled for later this year and West Bengal in around a year from now.
It is possible, Modi and his team are not too sure of whether the “war” would add on to Modi-wave or not internally as well as diplomatically. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a brief statement, “A military solution is no solution.” He called for “maximum restraint” by India and Pakistan and their “stepping back from the brink.” Condemning the Pahalgam attack, he said earlier this week, “The United Nations stands ready to support any initiative that promotes de-escalation, diplomacy, and a renewed commitment to peace.”
Of course, India has reason to be pleased about majority of global leaders having condemned Pahalgam-terrorist-strike but the hard reality about their not being in favor of an open conflict between two countries armed with nuclear weapons cannot be missed. Yes, geographically and at other levels, India has greater strength than Pakistan. But this does not imply that this will help it assume quick victory over Pakistan. One needs to take lessons from continuity of Ukraine-crisis despite Russia being of far greater strength than Ukraine. The same may be said about Gaza-crisis even though Israel gives the impression of being in “total” command. Continuity of both conflicts is also due to their participants having considerable support and supply of weapons from their strong allies. Even though India may claim to have strong forces and so forth, which country can it back on for supply of weapons, if the war lasts for a long while?
Practically speaking, there is no denying that losses for Pakistan will be far greater than they will be for India if they do go for an open conflict. But India needs to consider the war is least likely to spell diplomatic or economic gains for it. Russia hasn’t gained economically from its conflict with Ukraine and neither has Ukraine. It may not be wrong to assume that Ukraine is serving as a pawn for its allies keen to reduce Russia’s strength. Diplomatically and economically, India cannot ignore chances of Pakistan being used as a pawn by certain powers keen to reduce its strength. Pakistan is certainly not a match for India, but that it is likely to be supported by China cannot be side-lined, if tension escalates to the stage of Indo-Pak war.
Countries keen to advance their investments in India and Pakistan will naturally be forced to backtrack. War can from no angle spell economic gains for either party. Soviet Union’s decision to invade Afghanistan (1979), leading to a ten-year-war, played a significant role in reducing its stature to that of Russia (1991).
If Indian leaders are guided by the assumption that crisis faced by their own citizens because of an Indo-Pak open conflict is likely to enhance their political or diplomatic stature, they need to think seriously. Even at present, common Indians are burdened by daily problems, including inflation. The question of convincing them that the war will help defeat terrorism hardly carries any diplomatic weight or political appeal. Give a thought, even the most powerful countries have not been able to eliminate terrorism despite their having indulged in war-games and war-like exercises quite often.
Certainly, Russian President Putin talked with Indian Prime Minister Modi soon after Pahalgam attack, expressing support for India’s fight against terrorism. But this should not be read as Russia’s support for India-Pakistan war. Earlier this week (May 5), Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia “highly values” its relations with both New Delhi and Islamabad. Attention should also be paid to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s conversation with his Pakistani counterpart and country’s deputy prime minister, Ishaq Dar (May 4). Lavrov offered Russia’s help to resolve the tension between India and Pakistan, according to a statement from Russian ministry.
Irrespective of there being a difference in Indian interpretation as well as presentation (through its leaders and media) of its anti-Pak approach, stand towards Indo-Pak “war” along with reaction towards Pahalgam-tragedy and that of other countries’ approach towards the same, realistically speaking, India cannot afford to go too far by pursuing solely its own stand. The latter also implies dependence upon its own rhetoric. Given that its key ally Russia and few other countries are considering options to resolve the Indo-Pak tension carries stronger diplomatic message than apparent as well as being conveyed by India before its own people. As Russia and China are close allies, of whom latter is a strong supporter of Pakistan, India can count on Russia to play a key role on this front. In other words, India has the option of giving greater importance to diplomatic strategies which can be exercised in this situation. At present, Indian government has certainly stepped on a tightrope, diplomatically and politically, by counting on external “appeal” of its anti-Pakistan card linked with terrorism. Rhetoric indulged by Pakistani leaders suggests that they are not far behind in pursuing similar moves. But neither can afford to pursue this strategy for too long. Simply speaking, they cannot afford to ignore their close allies’ diplomatic signals and also expect to be fully supported by them at the same time. Tension marking their diplomatic “tightrope-walk” demands exercise of restraint from both as stated/suggested by their key allies!
