Back to square one?
Fingers are pointed at Modi regime as it has tried to gain mileage from the Pulwama incident to seek world sympathy
The writer is Meritorious Professor of International Relations and former Dean Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Karachi and can be reached at: amoonis@hotmail.com
Following the February 14 suicide attack on an Indian paramilitary convoy at Pulwama on Jammu-Srinagar highway killing 40 Indian Central Reserve Police Force personnel and the so-called Indian surgical strikes at Balakot on February 26, one can observe a sharp escalation in India’s aggressive posture vis-à-vis its western neighbour Pakistan. Termed the biggest attack in the last several years on Indian forces in the Indian controlled Jammu & Kashmir, the Pulwama incident opened a new phase of war hysteria in India against Pakistan. While the attack was claimed by Jaish-e-Mohammad, a banned outfit in Pakistan, the Indian leadership squarely blamed Islamabad for sponsoring acts of terrorism in their country.
Why Pakistan would venture into an activity in the Indian controlled J&K when it will not be a beneficiary of such type of terrorist act? Can the Modi regime, or its rogue elements, go to the extent of planning and executing such an attack prior to the holding of general elections? Why there is lack of sanity and wisdom on the part of the Indian leadership to deal with popular revolt by the Kashmiri Muslims in the Valley and committing an act of aggression against Pakistan?
Generating ‘war hysteria’ in India and also in Pakistan is nothing new. At least, on three occasions, the two countries were bogged down in hostilities emanating from events taking the toll on lives of hundreds of people. First, the attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001 led to two years of rupture in Pak-India relations. Blaming Pakistan for masterminding that attack, the then regime of prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee took a series of steps ranging from downgrading diplomatic ties with Pakistan, deploying around half a million of its forces along its western borders, suspending air, road and rail links with Pakistan and banning Pakistani aircraft from using Indian airspace. The two nuclear neighbours had been eyeball to eyeball for around two years till the time sanity prevailed in New Delhi and Vajpayee agreed to de-escalate tension with Pakistan and normalise relations with Islamabad on the occasion of Saarc summit held in Islamabad in January 2004.
Second, a deadly terrorist attack struck the Indian financial hub Mumbai on November 26, 2008 in which hundreds of people were killed. India again blamed Pakistan that the attack was planned by jihadi outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba. Following that attack, the then regime of prime minister Manmohan Singh didn’t resort to unilateral measures of suspending ties with Pakistan as was done during the BJP government of prime minister Vajpayee in December 2001, but it halted composite dialogue with Islamabad. Third, India’s relations with Pakistan since the Mumbai attacks remained strained till the time there was a terrorist attack on September 18, 2016 in Uri in the Indian-controlled state of Jammu & Kashmir. India tried to retaliate by its so-called surgical strikes which were termed by Pakistan a hoax.
It seems since long mainly it is India which is in the habit of generating a crisis and vitiating efforts for normalisation and peace. The latest is the terrorist incident in Pulwama which pushed the two neighbours back to square one. Contrary to threats and retrogressive approach of the India following the Pulwama episode, Pakistan’s prime minister rendered a measured response in which he gave his Indian counterpart a piece of advice: not to resort to any adventurism which will compel his country to give a matching response. Imran Khan’s assertion that Pakistan will not think about retaliating in case of any Indian act but it will retaliate reflects a rational approach. The situation unfolding after February 26 Indian air aggression against Pakistan is very fluid. The road to war may be quite easy, but the road from war to peace will be an uphill task.
World history is replete with examples of the facts that once there was an outbreak of hostilities, it was very difficult to proceed towards peace. It is not only the example of World War I and World War II, but since 1945 most of the armed conflicts began with acts of provocation, yet continued for years and years causing millions of deaths. The Vietnam War continued from 1965-1975, the civil war in Lebanon from 1975-1985, Iran-Iraq war from 1980-1988, war and armed conflicts in Afghanistan from 1979 till the present and the civil wars in Syria and Yemen have been going on for the last several years. Furthermore, as compared to 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars, if war breaks out between the two countries now, it will be a zero-sum game because of predictable use of nuclear weapons and subsequent deaths of millions of people not only in the two countries but also in their neighbourhood and beyond.
Certainly, it was not in Pakistan’s interest to sponsor terrorist attack at Pulwama because the priorities of the government and state institutions today are to improve economy and governance in the country. Fingers are pointed at the Modi regime as it has tried to gain mileage from the Pulwama incident to seek world sympathy. Critics, including the main opposition Congress party, have questioned the intelligence failure of Indian security agencies that how a huge quantity of explosives was gathered and used by the suicide attacker, Adil Ahmed Dar, who happened to be a local Kashmiri. Like capitalising on the Kargil war of May-June 1999 for winning the 13th Indian general elections held in October 1999, the BJP thinks that it can use the Pulwama terrorist attack to seek electoral victory in April-May 2019 general elections. But it seems such a plan has backfired and not only opposition parties in India but also other saner voices are questioning the merit and rationality of the Modi regime blaming Pakistan and trying to escape from its own responsibility.
Pulwama cannot be Kargil for the BJP as the level of patriotism which was used by that right-wing party to win general elections of October 1999 is not to be seen in India today. The Indian government and its officials may be trying to generate enormous anger and hype in their country by involving Pakistan, yet any person with some wisdom will question what gain Islamabad will achieve by masterminding something which can hurt its own interests.
Periodic standoff between India and Pakistan on various issues including attack on the Indian parliament, Mumbai attacks, Uri incident and Pulwama terrorist attack has negatively impacted the lives of 1.7 billion people of South Asia because the outcome of such events led to the suspension of the normalisation process between the two neighbours and the stalling of Saarc process. Already, the 19th Saarc summit, which was scheduled to be held in Islamabad in November 2016, has been postponed because of Indian refusal along with Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Bhutan to participate in that event citing illogical reason about non conducive environment. If Saarc is a hostage to Indo-Pak conflicts, it means the region of South Asia will not be able to pull itself from the clutches of poverty, underdevelopment, illiteracy and social backwardness. When the energies of India and Pakistan are used to sustain the level of hostility instead of human and social development, the outcome of such an unwise policy is disastrous. Bitter past, painful present and uncertain future is a stark reality for the 1.4 billion people of India and Pakistan.
In the 2016 Olympic Games, no South Asian country was able to secure a gold medal and the contribution of this region in world trade and technology is meagre. Trade among the South Asian countries is merely five per cent of their trade, whereas intra-regional trade within the European Union is 65 and Asean’s is 50%. If things do not change for better in Pak-India relations, can one expect more degeneration in South Asia in terms of economic progress and development and by crossing the red line on February 26 the Modi regime may not be able to deal with the response from Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 1st, 2019.
Why Pakistan would venture into an activity in the Indian controlled J&K when it will not be a beneficiary of such type of terrorist act? Can the Modi regime, or its rogue elements, go to the extent of planning and executing such an attack prior to the holding of general elections? Why there is lack of sanity and wisdom on the part of the Indian leadership to deal with popular revolt by the Kashmiri Muslims in the Valley and committing an act of aggression against Pakistan?
Generating ‘war hysteria’ in India and also in Pakistan is nothing new. At least, on three occasions, the two countries were bogged down in hostilities emanating from events taking the toll on lives of hundreds of people. First, the attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001 led to two years of rupture in Pak-India relations. Blaming Pakistan for masterminding that attack, the then regime of prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee took a series of steps ranging from downgrading diplomatic ties with Pakistan, deploying around half a million of its forces along its western borders, suspending air, road and rail links with Pakistan and banning Pakistani aircraft from using Indian airspace. The two nuclear neighbours had been eyeball to eyeball for around two years till the time sanity prevailed in New Delhi and Vajpayee agreed to de-escalate tension with Pakistan and normalise relations with Islamabad on the occasion of Saarc summit held in Islamabad in January 2004.
Second, a deadly terrorist attack struck the Indian financial hub Mumbai on November 26, 2008 in which hundreds of people were killed. India again blamed Pakistan that the attack was planned by jihadi outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba. Following that attack, the then regime of prime minister Manmohan Singh didn’t resort to unilateral measures of suspending ties with Pakistan as was done during the BJP government of prime minister Vajpayee in December 2001, but it halted composite dialogue with Islamabad. Third, India’s relations with Pakistan since the Mumbai attacks remained strained till the time there was a terrorist attack on September 18, 2016 in Uri in the Indian-controlled state of Jammu & Kashmir. India tried to retaliate by its so-called surgical strikes which were termed by Pakistan a hoax.
It seems since long mainly it is India which is in the habit of generating a crisis and vitiating efforts for normalisation and peace. The latest is the terrorist incident in Pulwama which pushed the two neighbours back to square one. Contrary to threats and retrogressive approach of the India following the Pulwama episode, Pakistan’s prime minister rendered a measured response in which he gave his Indian counterpart a piece of advice: not to resort to any adventurism which will compel his country to give a matching response. Imran Khan’s assertion that Pakistan will not think about retaliating in case of any Indian act but it will retaliate reflects a rational approach. The situation unfolding after February 26 Indian air aggression against Pakistan is very fluid. The road to war may be quite easy, but the road from war to peace will be an uphill task.
World history is replete with examples of the facts that once there was an outbreak of hostilities, it was very difficult to proceed towards peace. It is not only the example of World War I and World War II, but since 1945 most of the armed conflicts began with acts of provocation, yet continued for years and years causing millions of deaths. The Vietnam War continued from 1965-1975, the civil war in Lebanon from 1975-1985, Iran-Iraq war from 1980-1988, war and armed conflicts in Afghanistan from 1979 till the present and the civil wars in Syria and Yemen have been going on for the last several years. Furthermore, as compared to 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars, if war breaks out between the two countries now, it will be a zero-sum game because of predictable use of nuclear weapons and subsequent deaths of millions of people not only in the two countries but also in their neighbourhood and beyond.
Certainly, it was not in Pakistan’s interest to sponsor terrorist attack at Pulwama because the priorities of the government and state institutions today are to improve economy and governance in the country. Fingers are pointed at the Modi regime as it has tried to gain mileage from the Pulwama incident to seek world sympathy. Critics, including the main opposition Congress party, have questioned the intelligence failure of Indian security agencies that how a huge quantity of explosives was gathered and used by the suicide attacker, Adil Ahmed Dar, who happened to be a local Kashmiri. Like capitalising on the Kargil war of May-June 1999 for winning the 13th Indian general elections held in October 1999, the BJP thinks that it can use the Pulwama terrorist attack to seek electoral victory in April-May 2019 general elections. But it seems such a plan has backfired and not only opposition parties in India but also other saner voices are questioning the merit and rationality of the Modi regime blaming Pakistan and trying to escape from its own responsibility.
Pulwama cannot be Kargil for the BJP as the level of patriotism which was used by that right-wing party to win general elections of October 1999 is not to be seen in India today. The Indian government and its officials may be trying to generate enormous anger and hype in their country by involving Pakistan, yet any person with some wisdom will question what gain Islamabad will achieve by masterminding something which can hurt its own interests.
Periodic standoff between India and Pakistan on various issues including attack on the Indian parliament, Mumbai attacks, Uri incident and Pulwama terrorist attack has negatively impacted the lives of 1.7 billion people of South Asia because the outcome of such events led to the suspension of the normalisation process between the two neighbours and the stalling of Saarc process. Already, the 19th Saarc summit, which was scheduled to be held in Islamabad in November 2016, has been postponed because of Indian refusal along with Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Bhutan to participate in that event citing illogical reason about non conducive environment. If Saarc is a hostage to Indo-Pak conflicts, it means the region of South Asia will not be able to pull itself from the clutches of poverty, underdevelopment, illiteracy and social backwardness. When the energies of India and Pakistan are used to sustain the level of hostility instead of human and social development, the outcome of such an unwise policy is disastrous. Bitter past, painful present and uncertain future is a stark reality for the 1.4 billion people of India and Pakistan.
In the 2016 Olympic Games, no South Asian country was able to secure a gold medal and the contribution of this region in world trade and technology is meagre. Trade among the South Asian countries is merely five per cent of their trade, whereas intra-regional trade within the European Union is 65 and Asean’s is 50%. If things do not change for better in Pak-India relations, can one expect more degeneration in South Asia in terms of economic progress and development and by crossing the red line on February 26 the Modi regime may not be able to deal with the response from Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 1st, 2019.