Given that India and Pakistan have perpetually been engaged in conflicts on several issues at various levels, any “ceasefire” can certainly not be considered as long-lasting or even effective. Indian Prime Narendra Modi has described the “ceasefire” or the so-called ceasefire in India-Pakistan war as a “pause.” What does one understand from this? Even though the present “ceasefire” has certainly led to a “pause” in firing missiles, etc. at each other, the two have not stopped firing verbal missiles and displaying their bilateral diplomatic antagonism to their respective public, media and others regarding differences which are probably least likely to be resolved at least in near future.
At the same time, it is worth noting, there have also been phases when despite their diplomatic animosity, they have moved forward to apparently “cordial” relations at a few levels. One of these is entertainment as Indian movies and actors are fairly popular in Pakistan. Pakistani television-serials may be viewed as a hit in India, with their being an Indian channel on it, which has been suspended at present due to India-Pak tension following Pahalgam-tragedy. There is also a mutual fondness for similar music, dresses, food and so forth. Pahalgam-tragedy led to murder of 26 persons by terrorists allegedly supported by Pakistan in India-controlled Jammu and Kashmir (JK) on April 22.
Pahalgam-tragedy, as was evident, prompted India to strike at “terrorists” in Pakistan, which latter treated as “war” and retaliated. The “war” could have assumed a far more serious nature, with both countries being armed with nuclear weapons. Speculations are certainly being voiced about their having almost reached this stage leading to intervention of other powers for a ceasefire. Paradoxically, India entertains differences about whether “ceasefire” is due to United States’ efforts and whether it has really been reached or not. In his national address, Modi viewed this “ceasefire” stage as a pause in their war and it being a bilateral move. This stand may primarily be due to India and Pakistan having earlier basically resolved their differences bilaterally. This may be linked to two key issues. One is that neither is keen for any external interference in their nuclear drive which has led to bilateral nuclear diplomacy, serving as a “deterrent” in their relations. Second is regarding their differences over Kashmir. It may be noted, the recent tension was feared to having almost reached the stage of a nuclear-war leading to urgent interference by US.
Notwithstanding all the hype being raised by both to their respective people and media about having succeeded against the other in this “war,” one is compelled to deliberate on whether they could have avoided the same. Or was this war-game directed for some other results?
Those supporting Indian strikes and keen for continuation of the same were eager for New Delhi opting for moves similar to that of Israel against Gaza. While the rest of the world was keen for de-escalation of India-Pak war, Israel reportedly voiced its support for India going its way.
Chances of the “war” lasting longer than it did- around four days- were extremely limited, according to some observers. In their view, the “war” was deliberately engaged by leaders of both countries to enhance their image before their respective public and also to demonstrate their military strength to them as well as certain key powers. Now, the question is, to what degree have they succeeded? Demonstration of their “strength” internally was essential, as according to critics, both have not been able to achieve much during their stay in power. Of course, this issue is likely to be deliberated and debated upon for quite some time in both countries with government-controlled media laying stress on the success achieved by their leaders in this “war.” Where military strength is concerned, undeniably, the “war” did open eyes of both the countries and certain key powers to their credibility as well as limitations. Claims laid by each to their respective successes in downing other’s planes and silence maintained about their suspected limitations may be viewed as just a symbolic reality of this fact. Even if it is accepted that India has far greater strength than Pakistan, it cannot be assumed that latter is not as weak as was apparently calculated by former. Besides, the Indian sub-continent cannot be easily equated with Israel-Gaza terrain. Nor can India-Pak military conflict be viewed from the lens that the latter is seen with.
In fact, India-Pak war has also exposed diplomatic as well as political loopholes entertained at various levels about the two permanent enemies’ ties. One is the fear, the apprehension about their nuclear strength edging to the point of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Despite this “war” having displayed missile-drones strikes from both sides, alarming observers about their impact, restrain was exercised by them before the situation could worsen. Interestingly, even the “ego-battle” visible at various levels on both sides, from leaders, government-controlled media, sections of public, etc., was not allowed to act as a barrier in their agreeing to the so-called “ceasefire” or pause in their war.
Equally relevant is the fact that this war also served as a display of who were the two countries’ diplomatic supporters and more crucial, supplier of their weapons, planes and so forth. While India’s strength primarily dependent on what it secured from the West and Russia, that of Pakistan on China as well as Turkey. From this angle, the West, particularly United States was keeping a close eye on the quality of Chinese support. This also raises the question on whether President Trump took a U-turn on the sky-high tariff imposed on China earlier and opting for a 90-day “pause,” because of what it gauged about it from the India-Pak war. Earlier, US had apparently considered favoring India against China. But instability in the Indian region, risen because of conflict with Pakistan and noise about terrorism here may have prompted Trump to give second thought to the same. Perhaps, it is not without reason that Trump has recently chosen to consider a change in diplomatic stand towards China, Iran and also Syria, at least for now. India and Pakistan have a lot to gain and more to lose if they choose to stop firing diplomatic missiles at each other and instead consider a cordial handshake even if just to please other powers keeping a close eye on their ties. “Noise” made in India about “ceasefire” being just a “pause” doesn’t add to diplomatic gains – from other quarters- because of the India-Pakistan war. It is equivalent to raising apprehensions about another such “war” being around the corner. Diplomatically, politically and economically, prospects of this spelling national development or even leaving scope for the same may be ruled out. War can spell only crises, damages and losses at different levels!