Critical Lessons

Lt Gen. HJS Sachdev (retd)

Pahalgam terrorist incident and Operation Sindoor, launched by India to avenge the deaths of innocent Indians, has dominated the world stage for the last one month. The fact that both the countries are nuclear states had the world on the edge since it was witnessing the conflict in Gaza and its aftermath, which started in similar fashion as Operation Sindoor. Legitimate questions popped up in everybody’s mind given the rhetoric by political leaders and whipping up of passions in both countries.

Will it stretch beyond mere bombing of terrorist bases? Will it lead up to nuclear flashpoint? However, the diabolical terrorist attack which stunned the world on April 22 and launch of Operation Sindoor on May 7, came to a grinding halt after three days of both sides engaging in high intensity air warfare after the sensitive Pakistan air bases and air assets on ground suffered extensive damage in Indian strikes.

The fog of war, which had engulfed the complete media space, has started to settle down and perhaps it’s the right time to have a clear perspective of what happened, why it happened, what it achieved, and the stakeholders involved in the whole gamut. Perhaps this will enable us to foresee the future and answer the question everybody is asking—has anything changed?

Events leading up to the conflict

While the immediate trigger for the targeted killings at Pahalgam could be attributed to the inflammatory speech given by the Pakistan Chief of Army Staff (COAS), General (now Field Marshal) Asim Munir, the turn of events actually started last year in a different part of South Asia, i.e, Bangladesh!

Some time last year, the deep state of America allegedly tried to extract St Martin island for a US base to counter China in the region and perhaps make inroads into Myanmar given the unstable situation prevailing in the country. The same was denied by the then Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina.

Stung by the refusal, the US set into motion a tool-kit for regime change and succeeded in creating unrest in the country leading to Sheikh Hasina fleeing the country. And in her absence, an interim administrative arrangement under Mohammad Yunus as chief advisor to the government—a de-facto head of the State—was installed.

Evolving situation soon took a turn for the worse with Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI), a hardline Muslim party taking over the battlefield. The resultant chaos led to riots with targeted killings of Hindus and Awami League (AL) party members. China taking advantage of the opportunity entered the fray—swiftly and without fanfare. Exchange of delegations took place including JEI and Yunus.

Hardline approach of Yunus came to the fore in his anti-India stance on every issue and peaked when he openly invited China to interfere in India’s northeastern states, perhaps even taking it militarily.

Yunus even reached out to Pakistan militarily, politically and economically and the visits of Pakistan military delegations including Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to the sensitive border areas opposite Siliguri Corridor gave confidence to both Pakistan and China that they had India cornered.

The situation was ripe to up the ante. General Munir’s statement, driven by his background and personal ambitions, may be seen in this context which led to Pahalgam and subsequently to Operation Sindoor.

Operation Sindoor

Prime Minister Narendra Modi made his intentions clear a day after the Pahalgam attack in which he vowed to bring the terrorists and the perpetrators in Pakistan (read army) to pay for their crimes. The stage was set, anticipation took over the media space, debates started on how and when, international community left aghast with the killings initially urged both sides to exercise restraint keeping in mind the nuclear status. Political bullying hit the sky in both the countries. Nuclear threats started emanating from Pakistan. In India the political discourse led to a point of frenzy where nothing short of total annihilation was expected.

Then on May 7, India targeted nine terrorist bases including Bahawalpur and Muridke in the heart of Punjab province destroying the headquarters of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba respectively. Pakistan, anticipating action opposite the Line of Control (LC), was taken by surprise by the sheer audacity and precision strikes. Unable to accept loss of face, Pakistan responded.

The Conflict: The action on May 7 witnessed through the fog of war was shrouded in a barrage of claims and denials by both sides, with each claiming victory. However, Indian claims have upheld in the days that followed. Airpower, often considered high up in the escalatory ladder, was employed ab-initio. Pakistan’s response using modern day weapon systems like drones was met with equally effective counter measures by India’s air defence. Action on ground was limited to exchange fire across the LC with some damage to both sides. Indian Navy played a part in attacking targets in the deep by Brahmos missiles. India’s retaliation on May 10 against Pakistan’s airbases especially Nur Khan (near Rawalpindi), Sargodha and Jacobabad caused extensive damage to the infrastructure and air assets of Pakistan while still on ground. Jury is still out on what happened at Kirana hills, triggering alarm bells of a nuclear leak from the storage area of nuclear assets. Thus Pakistan stopped the conflict in the face of India’s undeterred political resolve despite looming nuclear threat and scale, speed and precision strikes by Indian armed forces.

There was sudden cessation of fire especially when India had the upper hand and Pakistan was perceived by Indian public and some strategists as on the verge of being down and out. Why was the knockout punch never delivered?

Analysis

The aim was clearly enunciated by the PM but in the heat of the battle everybody wanted to go for the knockout punch. Selection and maintenance of aim is the prime principle of war. Deviation or extension to aim can be disastrous if the conflict had prolonged. It was the right decision. Another important aspect is ‘conflict termination’. It must be when you have the upper hand. The message that next time the response will be more punitive will remain with the adversary for a long time.

Political: India showcased its firm resolve in not only countering terrorism but also taking the battle to its perpetrators and states actively, using them as an instrument of war. Pakistan’s nuclear bluff has been called out. Exposure of the US’ secrets was perhaps a by-product. By holding Indus Water Treaty in abeyance and getting leverage over water allocation to Pakistan as a non-kinetic weapon to bring it to accountability has been a masterstroke. Pakistan did not anticipate the level of response given that the treaty had held true during last three wars.

Strategic communication was found wanting. Brilliance of military accomplishments were diluted by inability to exploit the moral compass in building global narrative in favour of India. The PM lost an opportunity in not calling for a joint session of Parliament which could have condemned the Pahalgam attack, strengthened his hands for a punitive action against Pakistan with full support of all the political parties and showcase India’s resoluteness against Pakistan’s support to terrorism.

Military: India’s home-grown technology stood the test of time, for now. BrahMos, integrated air defence systems including anti-drone technology, electronic warfare systems have proven that India is capable of indigenising its defence requirements of modern day warfare. Seamless integrated operations across all the three services paid rich dividends despite no theatre commands. Chinese and Turkiye weapon systems bolstered the Pakistan’s war capability but were effectively countered. Next round may witness a better technology with the adversary and therefore the need to prepare accordingly.

Information Warfare: Lack of dissemination of information led to electronic and social media going berserk. Not only it polluted the environment with misinformation but thickened the fog of war which could have been avoided by official briefings by the armed forces similar to those done during Kargil War. Reliability and credibility of media houses has taken a nosedive. Symbolism has no place in war/ conflicts. In armed forces briefings, women officers reading a prepared script under the watchful eyes of the foreign secretary with no questions being asked was a bad idea. Getting all three military operations head, as an afterthought, was an overkill. By then the horses had bolted, relying on any information available in the environment.

Defence experts were available dime a dozen. Freelancing such serious business has its pitfalls and may well be restricted to well-known strategists and defence research scholars. Media houses in their quest for eyeballs need to look inwards.

Geopolitics and South Asia

The global stage has changed forever post the US elections. The allies and foes are getting aligned and realigned in the aftermath of the tariff wars and public statements coming out of the White House. The US is seeing retaliation from its closest allies diminishing its stature as the only superpower in the world. China is seen as effectively countering the US, blow for blow, and even coming out on top in some areas. To understand how all this affects South Asia and especially India, one has to dive into the history of global powers interference in South Asian affairs to further their national interests.

US-Pakistan-China

Historically, the US has always been aligned with Pakistan since independence. The non-alignment policy of India to fiercely safeguard its newly acquired independence in 1947 was an irritant in the quest for global domination by the US. Pakistan joined alliances like Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) and became the darling of the US and western powers.

Even so that in 1971, given the genocide perpetrated by Pakistan Army in the then East Pakistan, the US stood with its ally threatening India of consequences by sending its seventh fleet into the Bay of Bengal. That India came up trumps was primarily due to the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) coming to its aid. The Cold War entered the region. The US had armed Pakistan with their latest equipment, but it was a body blow to the US standing in South Asia. In 1974, when India carried out its nuclear test, the US immediately imposed sanctions, making it clear its anti-India stance in global affairs. It also turned a blind eye and ignored Pakistan’s clandestine acquisition of nuclear technology, perhaps tacitly supporting it.

In 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Nothing would be the same thereafter. The US propped up Pakistan as its key ally and started raising mujahideens with their help. After a protracted 10-year war, the erstwhile USSR withdrew. The US had achieved its aim. During this period deep-rooted bonds were established between the US deep state and Pakistan’s military and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). A bond that still runs deep.

In 1998, India carried out nuclear tests again. But this time, Pakistan duly aided by the US and China also followed suit. The US persuaded Pakistan to store its warheads along with the US nuclear arsenal in Pakistan, thereby effectively gaining control over the nukes.

Then, 2001 happened and once again Pakistan became a frontline state. The US entered Afghanistan with global alliance on war against terror. The bonds were rejuvenated. Pakistan became the darling of the West again. However, after two decades the US also left Afghanistan in a humiliating manner. All this while Pakistan had been double crossing the US and the Taliban. The US knew it but turned a blind eye, perhaps due to its nuclear dimension.

While the US-Pakistan relations went into freeze, China stepped in with economic and military aid to Pakistan. Thus Pakistan, which is now tied by the Gordian Knot to both the super powers and each unable to unshackle itself, is assured of its safety and security against Indian threat. This was articulated by China in no uncertain terms.

In his book, Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding, Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US and a prominent scholar, has explored the complex and often duplicitous relationship between Pakistan and the US. He argues that ‘Pakistan has adeptly leveraged its strategic position and nuclear capabilities to secure military and economic aid from superpowers, particularly the US, while simultaneously pursuing its own divergent interests that often run counter to the interests of its benefactors.’

Indo-US Relations

In the recent past, India has cozied up to the US and the West in its quest for economic gains without sacrificing its stated policy of retaining strategic sovereignty. However, this makes India an unreliable partner in the eyes of the US and the West. The view is further strengthened by its neutral stance (read pro Russia) in the on-going conflict in Ukraine. India’s past relationship with Russia and its continued preference for Russian weapons is seen as a stumbling block in developing close relations with Western alliances. Buying cheap Russian oil despite the US sanctions and political support to Russia is being interpreted as defiance of the US-led coalition. The destruction of F-16s by India during Op Sindoor has raised heckles in the military industrial complex too. So, is the current guarded support to India in its ‘war against terror’ a fallout of India’s policies?

India is, however, also seen as a potential lever against China, both economically and militarily, and therefore a necessity for the US and the West. India is being seen as a destination for diversifying the supply chain by the US. This would hurt China and therefore China’s anti-India stance in its foreign policy has come to the fore. Post the US elections, Trump-led tariff war against China has also dragged India into an adversarial position vis-a-vis the US.

The US is unable to ditch Pakistan due to nuclear and deep state linkages and retention of some leverage to counter Chinese incursion into Pakistani space. Therefore, overall future of Indo-US relations is likely to be transactional with more emphasis on trade rather than based on moral compass. China, meanwhile, understands the US compulsions and is taking advantage of the scenario to corner India without fear of pushback from western powers.

Indo-Russia Relations

Prolonged Ukraine war has put Russia under stress militarily and economically, weakening its erstwhile super power status and forcing it to put greater reliance on China. This has dented the Indo-Russia relations which had stood the test of times for more than five decades. While Russia may still support India in other forms but sale of high-end technology and advanced weapon systems may be subject to China test. The result will be a more transactional and limited defence relationship between India and Russia, unlike the deep strategic trust of the past.

Indo-Pakistan Relations

To forecast the future of Indo-Pak relations, one has to view the past seven decades through the prism of ‘geopolitics of emotions’. Right from birth, Pakistan’s actions can be attributed to its sheer hatred for India (read Hindus). All its actions, be it horrors of the Partition, four wars in 1948,1965, 1971 and Kargil in 1999 respectively, terrorist attacks in Mumbai, on the Indian Parliament, Uri and Pulwama are based on jealousy. It could not accept it being given a smaller part of land and being denied its claim in Kashmir. To top it, the partition of Pakistan by the Indian military in 1971 was a huge blow to its own army’s reputation, which was running the country through coups. Its army has held this grudge to avenge its loss by annexing Kashmir through indirect means. Singular focus on Kashmir has ruined Pakistan without it knowing it. Pakistan’s public has been fooled all this while. However, it boosted its investment in creating a negative psyche of the nation. The asymmetric warfare in Afghanistan and defeat of Soviet Union and the US gave them hope of victory against India too. Kargil war and its continued reliance on state-sponsored terrorism to achieve its political and military ambitions has left the nation on the brink of collapse, only held together thanks to the doles from International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.

On the other hand, India has always sent positive signals for a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship. The Indus Water Treaty was in good faith and is so enshrined in the treatise. But Lahore bus diplomacy resulted in Kargil and PM Modi’s unplanned halt for Nawaz Sharif’s daughter’s marriage was responded by Uri attack. The negativity espoused by the Pakistan Army against India has devoured the nation. In contrast, India’s rapid progress post 1991 has left Pakistan way behind, forcing it to cling on to age-old disputes to get a semblance of importance or a sense of parity. The jealousy has grown so much that it has given way to outright hatred as evident from Asim Munir’s speech.

Prognosis

Operation Sindoor achieved its limited aim of showcasing India’s resolve in its fight against terrorism, but the moot point is—will anything change going forward? Maybe very little. The US and China will continue their engagement with Pakistan by bailing it out every time there is a financial crisis and providing military aid/ weapon systems to counter India’s rise. Pakistan will continue state-sponsored terrorism against India, albeit after a pause, given that Munir has been elevated to the post of Field Marshal. The increasing coziness between China-Pakistan and Bangladesh will create a new dimension in security challenges for India in the Northeast. India will continue with its independent foreign and economic policy inviting guarded response from the US and other western powers. Thus, relationships will be purely transactional without strengthening strategic alignments.

Conclusion

India’s fight against terrorism is on moral grounds. In geopolitical arena morality is based on harsh realities of inter-state relations, threat to their security and economic linkages. Pakistan, despite being exposed for its state-sponsored terrorism time and again, still remains at the core of global support, both financially and militarily, and therefore will be unfazed by the thrashing it has received in Operation Sindoor. The next round will come sooner than later. India has to focus on its defence budget and speed up the Aatmanirbharta programme. India recognises this and rightly declared that Operation Sindoor is still on.