Terms of engagement: India resets rules for Pakistan with new red lines

  India and Pakistan on Saturday reached an agreement and initiated a ceasefire. Although Pakistan is reported to have violated the terms on Saturday night itself, the situation can be expected to stabilise, facilitating the return of civilians in border areas. The leadership of both countries must be commended for having reached an agreement. A prolonged conflict would not have helped either side. Nevertheless, as both sides return to the drawing board to assess the situation, it is worth noting that much has changed since the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack, in which 26 persons, including a Nepali national, were killed. India has made it clear that it is unwilling to tolerate such acts. In its response, India used both kinetic and non-kinetic measures. Besides diplomatic measures, India decided to put the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. India’s military response on May 7 was targeted, measured, and non-escalatory in nature. It struck terrorist infrastructure at nine locations. It neither damaged military assets nor targeted civilians. 

However, Pakistan decided to escalate and started aiming at both military and civilian locations, resulting in the loss of assets and lives. Pakistan’s motivation to escalate the situation is not difficult to explain. The intent behind the Pahalgam attack was to increase tensions with India. Among other things, this would have helped both the civilian government and the military leadership of Pakistan to consolidate their positions while seeking some international attention. It remains to be seen to what extent the Pakistan leadership, particularly the military, succeeded in achieving these objectives. It was surely surprised by India’s response to the Pahalgam attack, which has significantly raised the threshold and is expected to serve as a deterrent.

  Nevertheless, it would be ill-advised to believe that Pakistan will give up supporting terrorism. It is also unlikely that the Pakistan army chief will change his position as articulated in his April 16 address. Thus, India needs to be alert. Its war against terrorism will continue. India needs to continue its work on strengthening its internal security, intelligence network, and military capabilities. It should always be ready to foil terrorist attacks and respond swiftly. The limited military engagement last week would have likely provided plenty of information and data points that can be used to improve the readiness of the Indian armed forces. Further, India must sustain its diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan further and continue raising the cost of the neighbouring country’s support for terrorism.

  The challenge in this context is that, as last week’s military engagement once again showed, the army was in control in Pakistan while the civilian government had very little say. Military leadership, particularly in Pakistan, is not known to have the capacity to see the big picture, and its limited objective is to consolidate power internally. This is the reason it has never allowed democracy to strike root in the country. As a result, civilian governments have very little power and are not in a position to take major policy decisions. The state of the Pakistan polity is reflected in its economic condition and diplomatic isolation. As long as strategic decisions are taken in Rawalpindi instead of Islamabad, which is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, things are likely to remain challenging for India. It is worth mentioning that Pakistan has very little to lose because it has very little to show. India, on the other hand, has economic ambitions. Incidents of terrorism and the possibility of military engagement affect the business environment. India must make all efforts to reduce such incidents.