What will the future be The Statesman 13 May 2025
Article Read Time
What will the future be The Statesman 13 May 2025
India and Pakistan have agreed to a ceasefire. There will be fits and starts, but ultimately it will hold. The agreement for the same flowed after the Pakistan DGMO spoke to his Indian counterpart. The Pak DGMO, Major General Kashif Abdullah, called his Indian counterpart, Lt Gen Rajiv Ghai, initially around 9 am, but was ignored. He made another call at 3.35 pm reiterating his request for a ceasefire, which was accepted. The Pak side conveyed that this offer came from their army chief. Two calls from Pakistan on the same day, both with a similar request, is not normal.
It was not international pressure which pushed the calls but India’s retaliation. India refused to respond to the first request as it had already planned to target Pakistan’s air bases, which it did, damaging them and making them non-operational, while destroying or damaging many of their aircraft.
A second reason was India’s direct missile hit on Kirna Hills, a hardened military storage site for nuclear weapons, near Sargodha airbase. This rattled Pak. It went crying to the US as it was now at the end of its tether. Finally, with troops withdrawn from Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, freedom fighters had gained the upper hand. If conflict endured, Pak could face significant losses in the west.
Meanwhile Donald Trump tweeted that the two sides had agreed to a ceasefire. This was based on Pakistan’s panic call seeking peace, a repeat of Kargil. India refused Trump’s comment, insisting the ceasefire was agreed to on Pakistan’s request, which came on US prompting after Pak begged for their interference. Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharief, thanked Donald Trump for his intervention, implying that it was desperately seeking a way out. Pakistan has always sought third party mediation, which India has rejected.
What did India achieve in Operation Sindoor? India’s aim was to hit Pakistan’s terror factories, expose it as a supporter of terrorism and send a message on its new red lines which, if crossed, would lead to military retaliation. Reports of actual casualty figures in strikes on terrorist hideouts may never be known but are most likely way beyond a hundred, including many known terrorists, an apt response to the Pahalgam attack.
The picture of Pak army officers standing alongside globally designated terrorists at the funeral of those eliminated in Indian strikes, speaks a thousand words and can never be denied by Islamabad. To make matters worse, terrorist coffins were draped in the national flag. Its role and involvement in global and regional terrorism are now established. The DGMO in his talks mentioned that any terrorist strike in the future would be considered an ‘act of war’ and retaliated to.
The next question is what next? Only military aspects of the ceasefire would have been discussed by the two DGMOs. Once again, a stark warning on terrorist strikes and India’s red lines would have been conveyed. The ceasefire should largely hold.
Any further talks would be at the political level and only bilateral, which is unlikely for some time. India will refuse to discuss any aspect, including the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), trade or reinstating diplomatic staff until Pak dismantles its terrorist network, which it may not do currently. Hence, India will keep the IWT in suspension, block movement of APIs (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) and medicine exports.
India anyway had no plans to continue with the IWT in the current form and now has a justification. The World Bank has already wiped its hands off the subject by mentioning that it is only a facilitator. The IWT will remain a strong card in India’s arsenal. The fact remains that any discussion on it will be based on Pakistan accepting India’s terms.
The disinformation game from Pakistan is rising as it is desperate to save face amongst its populace. Pak leaders have been crediting the US for the ceasefire, avoiding mentioning the call for a ceasefire came from their end, while projecting victory and praising their armed forces. They make no mention of destruction of terrorist HQs and numbers of those killed, trying to hide them as civilians, damage to their air bases and targeting of their nuclear facility. Pak marked the ceasefire as ‘Youm-e-Tashakur’ meaning ‘day of thanks.’
This is akin to Gaza claiming victory over Israel despite destruction of its infrastructure and high losses of terrorists. Most videos displaying India’s successful strikes and destruction of their strategic assets have flowed from Pak nationals.
What is the difference between Balakote and now? In Balakote, India conveyed its intent, which Pakistan understood, but hid, as there was no visual evidence. Some Indian politicians too sought the same. This time, everything was recorded employing UAVs and satellites. Added were videos and images from common Pak citizens. India hit what it planned to, caused requisite damage and conveyed its intent. Pak could not get away.
What did India prove? India proved that it can achieve what it intends to, hitting Pak where it hurts and blocking Pakistan’s counters. It also conveyed that it now a global military power which can merge technology with raw military power. Finally, its domestic defence industry is now of age.
India’s entire air defence was centred around its indigenous Akash system which had been integrated with the Russian S400, Indo-Israeli Barack missile system, amongst other manually controlled weapon systems. It proved to be extremely effective, blocking almost all Pakistan’s drones and missiles. India also employed its Brahmos missiles for specific targeting, each of which was a resounding success.
On the contrary, Pakistan relied on the Chinese manufactured radars and missiles. These radars failed to destroy a single Indian missile nor were Chinese missiles accurate and effective. All were destroyed in flight. To hide their failure, Chinese handles flooded social media, backing Pakistan in its claims against India.
The fallout is that India’s Akash system and Brahmos missiles would be in global demand, while Chinese equipment would be considered junk.
Will Pakistan learn? This is unlikely. The Pak army, which controls the nation through brute power while claiming that it exists only to prevent India from balkanizing their country as also regaining Kashmir. It is this army which backs terrorist networks. Expecting it to stop this immediately is foolish.
However, suspension of the IWT and blocking medical supplies would impact their masses, though not immediate, but in a near timeframe. This would add to pressures within. In such a scenario there would be limited choice but dialogue, which would have to flow on Indian terms. For this to happen India must commence investing in harnessing desired quantities of water from rivers earmarked for Pak.
The reality is that a long-drawn war is not an option nor would it be of advantage to India, as Pak would be armed and funded by China to keep India engaged. Pakistan is to China what the Hezbollah was to Iran, keeping Israel and here India engaged. Apart from slowing down the Indian economy, it would benefit China, which would prefer India involved in a conflict with its vassal state, Pakistan. With India seeking to attract western industry leaving China, instability and conflict would be a deterrent.
India is aware that its major threat is from the north, from which it cannot divert attention. Peace along the LAC is fragile and can be exploited anytime by the Chinese. Indian force levels and reserves for the Chinese front have greater priority than the Pak front.
The best solution is to let Pak fight its internal turmoil, which apart from rising discontent in its western provinces, will be within when water flows impact agriculture in Sindh and Punjab. Agriculture forms 20% of Pak GDP and employs over 40% of the population.
India has conveyed its message and should now sit tight waiting for Pak to request talks, for which Indian conditions should be clear. The Balakote strike kept Pak at bay for six years (2019-2025). Operation Sindoor should have a longer impact. Indian concentration must remain on its economy, improving well-being of its population and keeping the Chinese at bay. Pakistan is a ‘has-been’ threat, can be tackled anytime and this was proved.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army