Pahalgam and Lessons in Dealing With a Hostile Neighbour

Deterrence has a different meaning for the two protagonists of this subcontinental conflict, writes DP Srivastava.

The narrative in Pakistani media is that its forces have given a befitting reply to the Indian side. But if this was true, it would not have sued for peace.

(Photo: Altered by The Quint) 

The Pahalgam attack sent a clear message for India and its leadership. The selective targeting of tourists on grounds of religion betrayed a disturbing, medieval mindset.

The victims included 24 Hindus and one Christian tourist, brutally killed in front of their families. A local Kashmiri Muslim tourist guide, who resisted the attackers, was also killed.

Apart from its dastardly motif, the attack was also significant in terms of its timing. The attack took place while US Vice President JD Vance was still in India, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi was on a visit to Saudi Arabia. 

This is more than just an unlikely coincidence. Since the 1990s, terrorist incidents in Jammu and Kashmir have been staged to coincide with high-level visits to India. More recently, the Pulwama attack coincided with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman’s visit to India in 2019. Those who planned the attack did not like India getting closer to Gulf states. 

Pakistan claims ‘special relationship’ with the Saudi Kingdom, but it remains closer to Turkey, which is Saudi Arabia’s regional rival. 

The 22 April attack was condemned by the international community, including Arab and Muslim countries. After Operation Sindoor, Pakistan, however, made the outrageous claim that it was a false-flag operation by Indian agencies to find a pretext to attack Pakistan. 

Chief Victim? J&K and its People 

This narrative has been a part of a historical paradigm. Pakistan denied responsibility for the ‘tribal invasion’ of Kashmir in 1947. At the time, Col Akbar Khan was a serving officer of the Pakistan Army, who led the ‘tribals’ under the pseudonym of 'General Tariq'. He has written in his memoirs that the plan for invasion was approved in meetings chaired by then Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. This pattern has been followed in the conflicts of 1965, 1971, and 1999. 

Was it a coincidence that the terror attack took place a week after General Asim Munir’s speech of 16 April? Pakistani Army chief in his address reminded his audience of overseas Pakistanis that they belonged to a ‘superior ideology’.

He referred to the two-nation theory. He reiterated his determination not to let Balochistan secede from Pakistan. He described Kashmir as the jugular vein of Pakistan, and vowed not to leave alone the people of Kashmir.  

The two-nation theory has been part of Pakistan’s official creed since Jinnah invented the idea in 1940. It has been rejected by the Bengalis in 1971, when East Pakistan broke away. Balochistan never accepted it; the Khan of Kalat had declared independence in 1947.   

While innocent tourists were killed in Pahalgam because they were non-Muslims, the chief victims of this heinous act are the people of Jammu and Kashmir. 

The attack took place at the beginning of the tourist season. This was calculated to damage tourism, which is the mainstay of their economy. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said in a media interview that this is bound to increase unemployment. Dr Farooq Abdullah, the former Chief Minister, said that Pakistan has been ‘bleeding’ Kashmiris for long.   

Operation Sindoor 

The Indian government’s action was supported by the entire political spectrum as the rightful response to an act of terror.

In terms of spread and depth, Operation Sindoor went beyond Indian responses to terror attacks in Uri in 2016 and Pulwama in 2019. The Indian response then was limited to a single location. This time, the targets included terrorist infrastructure not only in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir but also in Pakistan. 

These included the significant Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) headquarters in Bahawalpur, Punjab, and of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in Muridke. In response to further escalation by Pakistan (targeting Indian civilian and military installations) after 7 May, India hit four Pakistani airbases, including Nur Khan Air Base in Rawalpindi. The Indian Air Force also struck Malir Cantonment, near Karachi, which is a key town.

I was posted at the Indian Consulate in Karachi in the early 1990s, where locals still talked about the Indian naval bombardment of Karachi port in 1971, which had set the oil tanks ablaze. The Karachi port, and its adjoining Qasem port, are Pakistan’s lifeline. Gwadar accounts for one percent of the nation’s maritime trade.

Pakistan resorted to heavy shelling across the Line of Control. It also launched swarm attacks by drones over a wide front. It has access to both Turkish and Chinese drones. The narrative in Pakistani media is that its forces have given a befitting reply to the Indian side. 

If this was true, it would not have sued for peace. While US President Trump has claimed credit for 'mediating', the call to discuss cessation of hostilities was made by the Pakistani DGMO to his Indian counterpart on 10 May afternoon. 

Curiously, attacks continued even on the night of 10 May, despite the 5 pm deadline to stop all military activities on land, sea, and air. The Jammu and Kashmir as well as Gujarat Chief Ministers reported explosions in their respective states.

Does it mean that General Munir is not in control of his commanders? Or he was complicit in fresh attacks? Another question: Is the military not in tandem with the Shehbaz Sharif government?

Pakistan Faces Rift Within 

General Munir is presiding over a divided house. The unprecedented attacks on Army GHQ and the Corps Commander's residence in Lahore by Imran Khan’s supporters in May 2023 show that the army’s legitimacy is being challenged. This was followed by purge in the army’s ranks. This included senior officers. General Faiz Hameed has since been arrested and court-martialled.  

The situation is worse for General Munir after the recent exchanges with India. Though the recent exchange is being projected in Pakistani media as an unqualified success for Pakistan, the regime cannot hide the losses suffered. The army has been unable to protect JeM and LeT headquarters. The extremist constituency the army has cultivated must be disappointed. The rank and file within the army would also be asking questions. 

Lost wars have always resulted in changes at the top in Pakistan. After the 1965 war, Mohammad Ayub Khan was a weakened President and had to eventually go in 1969. After the 1971 war, the change was quicker. In 1999, Pervez Musharraf managed to transfer blame to Nawaz Sharif. Who will Munir blame? 

Shahbaz Sharif came to power with the army’s support after his party finished second in elections in February 2024. ‘Independents’ supported by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) bagged the largest number of seats even though they were denied the use of the party symbol, and their leader Imran Khan remains in jail. 

The party has nevertheless come to power in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Immediately after Operation Sindoor ended, Shahbaz Sharif presided over a Cabinet meeting to decide whether to impose Federal Rule in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.  

Water Politics

Pakistan never observed the Simla Agreement or any norm of international behaviour. It upholds the Indus Waters Treaty as sacrosanct because it has given that country a unilateral advantage. It awarded the lower riparian with 1/7th of India’s population, 80 percent of Indus waters. This has no parallel anywhere. China has refused to commit itself to any agreement with lower riparians.   

Within Pakistan, there are accusations that Punjab, as an upper riparian, has been steadily encroaching upon Sindh’s share of Indus water. A recent scheme mooted by Punjab to build six canals to irrigate the arid region in the province drew sharp reaction from Sindh. Bilawal Bhutto’s threat to withdraw support to Shahbaz Sharif government led to an agreement to shelve the scheme for the time being. According to one estimate, Pakistan wastes 30-40 percent of its water resources due to an inefficient canal system.  

Interestingly, PoK gets 15 paisa for the same molecule of water for which Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa earn seven times more at Rs 1.10. This discrimination against Kashmiri Muslims is justified on the ground that hydropower royalty under Pakistan’s constitution is allowed only to Pakistan’s provinces.

As this author has explained in his book Forgotten Kashmir: The Other Side of the Line of Control, the discriminatory provision has not been revised despite 26 amendments to Pakistan’s constitution. 

On the other hand, Pakistan’s numerous objections any construction by India on the three rivers assigned to it has deprived the people of J&K of their fair share of water. 

Deterrence

Pakistan’s oft-repeated threat to use nuclear weapons in case India reacted to a sub-conventional attack failed to deter an Indian response. This would be a major lesson to the Pakistan Army and those who plan terror attacks through proxies.

This, however, does not mean that the threat has gone away. It will be premature to lower our guard and restore the status quo ante unless Pakistan takes verifiable steps to dismantle the terror structure.

Deterrence has a different meaning for the two protagonists. Deterrence for Pakistan means deterring India's conventional response to a sub-conventional attack by Pakistan. This obviously failed. India made a counter-attack across a wide front. Deterrence for India in this context means deterring Pakistan's terror attack in the future. This, only the future will tell.

Professor C Christine Fair, a noted commentator on South Asia, who teaches at George Town University, has expressed her pessimism.

The PM said after Operation Sindoor said that the GoI would only talk to Pakistan now about terror and PoK. President Trump has claimed that American mediation stopped the war between the two nuclear-armed countries. Pakistani Prime Minister promptly thanked Trump. Indian sources have denied any mediation by the US.

What is the truth? This is what we know: the request for discussions between the DGMOs came from the Pakistani side; India agreed to a bilateral agreement. Pakistan sought US mediation after it suffered reverses on the ground and failed to draw Chinese support.  Pakistan would have gone for the kill if it were on a winning streak.

What is the truth? This is what we know: the request for discussions between the DGMOs came from the Pakistani side; India agreed to a bilateral agreement. Pakistan sought US mediation after it suffered reverses on the ground and failed to draw Chinese support.  Pakistan would have gone for the kill if it were on a winning streak.

Interestingly, the Chinese statement in support of Pakistan’s sovereignty came after the agreement to stop military activities had gone into force on the evening of 10 May evening. Pakistan is using the American offer of mediation to revive the Kashmir issue. As Prime Minister Modi announced in his address to the nation on 12 May, talks and terror cannot go together.

President Trump’s statement has provided Munir a face-saving for the time being. As for India, it now needs to stand with the families of those killed in the Pahalgam terror attack. Perhaps some crowdfunding could be arranged for them? This should, of course, cover the local Muslim guide who was killed by terrorists. We also need to support the people of J&K who have been victims of Pakistan-supported terrorism for decades.

DP Srivastava is a former Ambassador to Iran, with years of experience serving in the Indian Consulate at Karachi. He is the former Director of Gail and author of Forgotten Kashmir: The Other Side of the Line of Control. He is currently working on his latest book 'Pakistan: Ideologies, Strategies and Interests', available on pre-order on Amazon. Views expressed in this piece are personal.