Modi's two-front war

After failing to win the latest, four-day war with Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is acting like a wounded lion whose ego is deeply hurt. Following the ceasefire with Pakistan on May 10, Modi now seems obstinate on winning what he calls a two-front war by holding the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in abeyance and supporting the so-called declaration of independence from Pakistan by BLA, the Baloch Liberation Army.

Indian strategic thinkers and decision-makers miscalculated the response from Pakistan when they fired as many as 24 missiles into AJK and Punjab. While it was a clear defeat for New Delhi evident from the downing of its war planes worth millions of dollars, the bigger debacle for the Modi government came in the form of President Donald Trump announcing ceasefire between India and Pakistan in a tweet on May 10 - something that can only be analysed and interpreted as US mediation between the two adversaries. The US - an important member of the QUAD bloc, also featuring India, Australia and Japan - avoided rendering any political or strategic support to the Modi government during the war with Pakistan, thus spoiling its years of strategic investment into its relationship with the US. New Delhi, however, did not concede that the ceasefire was a result of President Trump's direct intervention, and rather insisted that the activation of hotline for communication between the military commanders of the two countries worked to prevent further escalation of the armed conflict.

An enraged opposition as well as some BJP stalwarts, who termed Trump's claim to mediate the ceasefire a stab in the back, will now attempt to shape an anti-US narrative in India. New Delhi is expected to activate its pro-India lobby in the US to drumbeat a narrative that the Trump administration officials announced the ceasefire with Pakistan without its approval. Indian circles are also blaming Trump that he has a vested interest because of his ambition to seek a Noble Peace Prize at India's expense. Indian media is also alleging that Trump lied when indicating that he threatened to stop trade with Pakistan and India for the two sides to agree to a ceasefire. If the superiority of the Chinese weapons used by Pakistan has been established over the French, Israeli, Russian and American weapons used by India, the four-day war caused the causality of Indo-US rapport. In the days to come, it will be difficult for the President of America to encounter India's adversarial posture and the growing lack of trust between the two countries.

Both India and Pakistan claim victory in the war, but there are ample proofs that New Delhi miserably failed to dent Islamabad and had to accept a ceasefire because of its military failures. The Indian brags that Pakistan - due to its economic predicament and worldwide condemnation of the Pahalgam attack of April 22 - will not be able to survive Indian military pressure failed to stand in the battlefield. Now, instead of accepting that the Indian military, particularly its air force, failed to perform, the Modi government is threatening Islamabad that it would not tolerate 'nuclear blackmail' next time. The Indian Prime Minister's televised speech of May 12 and another one at the air force base in Adampur on May 13 were an attempt to compensate for the bad performance of Indian military. In both the speeches, he adopted a belligerent posture and declared that India would only discuss "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" in any future talks with its neighbor and would not restore the IWT. He also said that Operation Sindoor was continuing and any future terrorist attack from Pakistan would be met with full force. He also accused Pakistan of violating ceasefire, but it was strongly rebuffed by Islamabad calling it fake news.

After failing to implicate Pakistan in its false-flag operation in Pahalgam, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is now trying to focus on two fronts. Given the bad performance of the Indian air force in the four-day war, Modi is now concentrating on patronising the so-called liberation movement in Balochistan and continuing to hold the IWT in abeyance. This two-front policy of the Modi government needs to be analysed from three sides.

First is the Indian attempt to destabilise Pakistan by propagating and assisting BLA's declaration of independence. In its so-called independence declaration, BLA has appealed to India and other countries to recognise an independent state of Balochistan. Henceforth, the nexus between New Delhi and BLA is an open secret. India has long been involved in a proxy war with Pakistan in Balochistan and Afghanistan - something that it now seeks to expand. According to reports, "Mir Yar Baloch, a prominent Baloch activist and writer, shared a series of statements on social media last week proclaiming the formation of a 'Republic of Balochistan' and calling on the Indian government to establish a Baloch embassy in New Delhi. He also appealed to the United Nations to recognise the declaration and provide funding for basic state functions, including currency and passport issuance." Pakistan needs to handle BLA's move with prudence instead of considering it just a law and order issue. What is required is effective political, economic and governance reforms in Balochistan so that the people of the province remain supportive to Pakistan at all the levels.

Second, Pakistan must approach the World Bank and the International Court of Justice in order to expose New Delhi's violation of IWT. According to treaty, neither India nor Pakistan can unilaterally suspend or revoke it, as any change in the status of the treaty must be through consensus. Furthermore, India cannot stop waters of Indus, Chenab and Jhelum - the three rivers exclusively for the use by Pakistan under the IWT - because it has neither the capacity not the skills to achieve the objective. In the meantime, Pakistan needs to take steps to conserve water and improve its water storage capacity.

Third, resumption of a dialogue between India and Pakistan is the only way to prevent further escalation of the conflict. The two sides need to revert to the politics of the 1980s when they acted as responsible neighbours, and revive the Composite Dialogue of the 1990s for a just and honourable settlement of their outstanding issues.