It is perhaps too soon to dissect the intricate details of the conflict that was triggered by the horrific terrorist attacks that took place at Pahalgam on April 25. Yet, some lesssons can be learnt and some inferences drawn even at this preliminary stage.
Change in military doctrine: By declaring to the outside world that any future terrorist attack will be deemed an act of war, India has signalled a fundamental change in its military doctrine vis-a-vis Pakistan. This should act as a serious deterrence but only time will tell. Having announced this doctrine, we must do everything to implement it fully and unreservedly, should an eventuality occur in the future.
Airpower: In terms of the number of fighter aircrafts, India only enjoys a slight numerical advantage i.e. 513 for India as opposed to 328 for Pakistan. This plus the fact that our initial attacks had lost all element of surprise helped matters for Pakistan. Pakistan may have had lesser drones, overall, than India, but it is a fact that 300 to 400 drones were used just on the night of 8 and 9 May alone, as confirmed by our military. This may be kept in mind for the future. There must be an audit, in due course, of how effective our fighter aircrafts were, how many we lost and more crucially, the role of Chinese fighter aircrafts and Turkish drones in this conflict. Remedial measures after proper evaluation cannot be postponed any further.
Air Defence: This is one area where India came out absolutely on top. S 400 missile defense system deserves praise, perhaps the best in the business. With its ability to engage multiple targets simultaneously (as many as 36) it probably saved a lot of lives and property for us. The Barak-8 used by us, was jointly developed by India and Israel, and is a versatile surface-to-air missile system designed for both land and naval platforms and offers a range of 70 to 100 kilometers. Finally, we also used the indigenous Akash which is a short range defence system to protect vulnerable areas and vulnerable points from air attacks. The attack by the Pakistan Fatah-II missile on India was thwarted in Sirsa (Haryana) and that was dangerously close to Delhi. All three missile defense systems therefore deserve praise, but the “Sudarshan Chakra S-400” system takes the cake.
Tipping point? It is too early to confirm this, but the tipping point in this conflict may well have been our attack targeting the Nur Khan, Murid and Rafiqui airbases. Nur Khan base, Rawalpindi, is a mere 10 Kms from Islamabad. More importantly, it is not that far from Pakistan’s Nuclear Command Headquarters. The existential fear of Pakistan is that India, through a strike, can decapacitate this nuclear command centre. Is it possible that this was conveyed by the Pakistan Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir to American Secretary of State Marco Rubio? The IMF loan to Pakistan may have also played a secondary role.
US Role: It is hard to deny a substantive, if not exclusive, role played by the US in all of this. There have been telephonic conversations not just between Rubio and Indian interlocutors, but Vice President JD Vance seems to have talked to PM Modi as well. This after saying previously that the Indo-Pak conflict was “fundamentally not the business” of the US. Again, what made the US change its mind so quickly? The above fear of nuclear conflagration may have been one reason; second, it is good for the Trump administration to score a diplomatic success while facing headwinds in both Ukraine and Gaza.
Support for India: Israel’s support for India was unconditional and that was good to see. US certainly supported our right to defend ourselves against terrorist attacks, before getting involved in some kind of mediation. Our other partners such as EU, Japan and more broadly the G7 countries made it a point to condemn the terrorist attacks before calling on both sides (emphasis mine) to exercise restraint, thus creating a morally false equivalence. Worse still, no one really called out Pakistan by name. This requires detailed scrutiny and introspection by us. Could it have been any different if we had furnished some proof of Pak involvement? What about the five eyes’ countries and their evidence gathering ability? We must hold them to this at least in the future. Also, if we had proof that two of the terrorists were Pakistanis, could we have shared this with the world at large. May be we did with select partners, but international press coverage may have been a tad better if we had done that without compromising our sources. That said, the Western press coverage of the Pahalgam incidents themselves were abysmally one-sided and misleading.
Future Scenarios: We have made it clear that while we accept the cease fire, all other measures announced in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist attacks such as our holding the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance etc will remain. For now, we must maintain only military level contacts at the level of DGMO which is essential for maintaing peace. During the conflict, there were unconfirmed reports of the National Security Advisers of both countries being in touch. There was a curious reference in the message on “X” by Secretary Marco Rubio that both India and Pakistan have consented to start talks on a “broad set of issues at a neutral site”. This has since been denied by Indian sources. Be that as it may, what did Secretary Rubio have in mind? Back-channel talks? Either way, this will be problematic for India and may be widely perceived as Pakistan being “rewarded” for carrying out terrorist attacks. In any case, in the immediate future the goal must be on maintaining peace and tranquility between the two countries.
Big Picture: I had said earlier that for India, Pakistan must remain a sideshow. It cannot take its eye off the ball when it comes to achieving economic heft, military dominance and maintaining social cohesion. The last mentioned point was admirably displayed by the nation during the conflict. Political parties in India also spoke with one voice. But India is at a crossroad. A lot of nation building is still required on the political, economic, social and military front. The country must now move on from this sad episode and hunker down to achieve the ultimate goal of overwhelming and comprehensive national power.
Diplomacy and Geopolitics 