To Win Without Fighting
May 3, 2025
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
(The article was originally published in Indian Express on May 03, 2025 as a part of Dr Madhav’s column titled ‘Ram Rajya’. Views expressed are personal.)
Although we sincerely believed that “this is not an age of war”, it is everywhere — from Ukraine to Gaza, Yemen to Myanmar. It has now come knocking on our doors. The Pahalgam terror attack has forced India to think about serious action against the agent provocateur, Pakistan. Prime Minister Narendra Modi held high-level meetings with the defence establishment and reportedly gave it a “free hand” to respond appropriately. Pakistan is also making noises to indicate that its war machine has started moving. Defence minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif claimed that a military incursion by India was “imminent”, and Pakistan had reinforced its military presence. Asif even threatened that Pakistan would use nuclear weapons “if there is a direct threat to our existence”. Minister for Information and Broadcasting Attaullah Tarar took to social media to claim that Islamabad had “credible intelligence” that India intended to launch a military strike in a day or two, and said that India would be fully responsible for any “serious consequences” in the region.
Friction between India and Pakistan is not new. Since Partition in 1947, the two countries have remained arch-enemies. Pakistan has done everything possible in the past 75 years to ensure that India remains on tenterhooks. It provoked wars, joined hands with India’s enemies, and finally, unleashed Islamic terror using homegrown proxies. On its part, India tried all options. Having defeated Pakistan in wars and even precipitated the formation of Bangladesh — breaking up what was already, according to M A Jinnah, “a maimed, mutilated, and moth-eaten Pakistan” — India agreed to normalise ties through the Simla Agreement of 1972.
The agreement, which was signed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto after the Bangladesh war, stated that the two countries would “put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations”. It called for the resolution of all differences through bilateral negotiations or by any other “peaceful means” mutually agreed upon.
Although Pakistan declared earlier this week that it was suspending the Simla Agreement, history shows that it never sincerely honoured any of the commitments it made. Soon after Bhutto was jailed and hanged by General Ziaul Haq, tensions resurfaced and India-Pakistan relations went into a downward spiral. While the Simla Agreement stated that both countries would respect the Line of Control and neither side would seek to unilaterally alter it, Pakistan unleashed a proxy war through terrorism in the late 1980s. It culminated in July 1999 when the Pakistan army violated the LoC and occupied territories on the Indian side, leading to the fourth direct military conflict between the two armies.
Interestingly, it was during the governments led by two BJP prime ministers, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Narendra Modi — which the jailed former PM of Pakistan, Imran Khan, wishes to deride as an “RSS mindset government” — that sincere efforts were made to build bridges. While Vajpayee used “bus diplomacy” in 1999 to meet the Pakistani leadership on its soil, Modi used “helicopter diplomacy” in 2015 to make an impromptu stopover in Lahore to greet Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on his birthday and attend a family wedding at Sharif’s residence in Raiwind. Manmohan Singh, as Prime Minister, was never able to go to Pakistan as, midway through his tenure, the Mumbai massacre of 2008 resulted in the snapping of all ties between the two countries.
Having exhausted all other avenues like war, limited military actions, diplomacy and personal overtures, the Indian leadership is now left with no other option but to look for ways to inflict serious damage on the recalcitrant neighbour, at least as a deterrent for some time. That may or may not change the attitude of the Pakistani leadership. But they should at least know that there will be heavy costs for their callous actions.
Pakistan is already a failed state, globally recognised as the epicentre and sponsor of Islamic terrorism. A majority of the Arab world, and even its neighbours like Iran and Afghanistan, prefer better relations with India than Pakistan. A large number of Indian and Pakistani Muslims detest the military-controlled regimes in that country.
Diplomatically isolated, economically shattered and socially imploding, Pakistan’s hapless military leadership might be thinking that a fight with India could help overcome these challenges. For them, a war with India would be an excuse to rake up sentiments of unity in an otherwise utterly divided society. The raison d’etre of Pakistan has been hatred for Hindus and India. It was the reason for General Asim Munir’s crude outbursts last month. At the same time, the Pakistan army is scared of India’s overt and covert capabilities. Pakistan’s war machine is half the size of India’s. In the past decade or so, it has experienced India’s capabilities for covert operations deep inside its territory.
For India, a limited war — if so decided by the political and military leadership — may help deliver a message about the costs of provoking its sensitivities. On the flip side, it may cause temporary distraction in the relentless economic pursuit of Viksit Bharat. It might also drag India back into the hyphenation with a weak, failed and much less credible neighbour.
But if the long-term objective is to create a reformed and democratic Pakistan — one or several — this is the right time to act. Because, although it’s unfortunate, “we can secure peace only by preparing for war”, as John F Kennedy once commented. In any case, Carl von Clausewitz told us that wars are “the continuation of politics by other means”.
