After ceasefire, a reckoning

Did Operation Sindoor (OS) advance India's national interest? The answer depends as much on political common sense as it does on expert knowledge of strategic affairs and foreign policy. What is our national interest? Or, whose interest is our national interest? Who decides what is in our national interest? These are political questions that cannot be left to experts.

An assessment must begin by defending the Narendra Modi government from two unfair criticisms, one from warmongers and the other from peaceniks. On the one hand, the political leadership and the armed forces must not be blamed for not taking the operation to its "logical conclusion". No doubt, it is tempting to hold the Modi government to its sarkari boasts and darbari hyperbole. Yet, an understanding of national interest suggests that any action like OS had to be a limited operation focused and short. Quick cessation of hostilities was built into the logic of such an operation. At any rate, no one should wish to see the "logical conclusion" of a war between two nuclear powers. The ceasefire must, therefore, be welcomed.

You don't have to be a security expert to see that if Russia could not inflict a decisive defeat on NATO-backed Ukraine, there is no way India could have forced a 1971-type defeat on China-backed Pakistan. The fantasy among a loud section on social media of Indian forces capturing Islamabad, enforcing an "endgame" or dismembering Pakistan is just that, a deleterious fantasy. It takes only a moment of clear-headed thinking to realise that a divided and shattered Pakistan is not in India's national interest. The last thing India needs is an Afghanistan-like neighbour ever-turbulent, full of weapons, short of legitimate authority. A stable, democratic and peaceful Pakistan is in our national interest.

On the other hand, the government should not be damned for organising a strike in the first place. No doubt, any military action is no solution to the Kashmir problem, unless the long-standing alienation of the Kashmiri people is addressed in a democratic frame. At the same time, an adequate resolution also requires a response to the terrorism that is patronised by the Pakistani deep state, and that cannot be checked by Pakistan's political leadership. You could debate what should have been the best response. Arguably, the quiet but firm route taken by the Manmohan Singh government after the Mumbai terror attacks was more effective. But you cannot rule out a strike aimed at terrorist bases as one of the legitimate options. As long as there are nation states and armies, the use of armed forces to protect citizens from a massacre like Pahalgam would constitute legitimate national interest.

A fair assessment of Operation Sindoor would involve three questions. How effectively did it deter the terrorists and their minders? To what extent did it enhance the country's internal unity in the face of such aggression? And in which ways did it buttress India's position in the global arena? Sadly, India's real national interest has suffered on each of these counts.

The question of the military success or otherwise of OS is best left to defence experts and strategic analysts. All we have in the public domain at this moment is the PM's extraordinary statement in his address to the nation: "Pakistan ki taraf se jab ye kaha gaya ki uski ore se aage koi aatanki gatividhi aur sainya dussahas nahin dikhaya jayega toh bharat ne bhi us par vichar kiya (India considered [Pakistan's offer for a ceasefire] once the Pakistani side said it won't carry out terrorist activity or military misadventure any more)." If that is true, if the Pakistani state has admitted its involvement in terrorist activities and promised to mend its ways, then OS has more than met its objective of deterrence.

The trouble is that the PM offered no details. Who spoke? To whom? Was this a written promise? If not, why was it trusted? Why was it included in an address to the nation? Why has the MEA shied away from reiterating the PM's claim in its press briefing? In the absence of answers, the claim of resounding military success remains debatable.

On the internal signal, the picture is clear and sorry. The Pahalgam massacre was followed by a spontaneous and united nation-wide outrage, cutting across all communities. The Kashmir Valley joined the rest of the country in expressing its disgust at this Pakistan-sponsored attack. The Opposition stood by the government. This moment of "one nation one emotion" was a rare occasion to mobilise the national resolve against the terrorist.

In the wake of Pahalgam, minorities and Kashmiri students have been targeted. Those who spoke against it, including the widow of a soldier martyred at Pahalgam, were viciously trolled, as were even the Foreign Secretary and his family. A government ready with FIRs against any social media infringement cannot wash its hands of these acts by its own eco-system. The plight and death of 22 civilians who suffered the brunt of Pakistan's shelling along the border and LoC were marginalised. The ruling dispensation allowed national interest to be subjugated by petty political interests and its divisive DNA.

The biggest setback is to India's much-touted stature in the international arena. While many countries issued generalised condemnation of Pahalgam, no major power from the G-20 or QUAD joined India in holding Pakistan responsible for supporting terrorism or in objecting to the IMF loan to Pakistan. The coercive diplomacy on the Indus Waters Treaty found no support, especially after the churlish claim by the Union Minister of Jal Shakti, no less, of not releasing even "a drop of water" to Pakistan. The advantage in the global perception battle, thanks to the MEA's measured and professional statements along with the very powerful symbolism of women officers of different faiths, was undone by the warmongers within the ruling party and the ignominious disinformation campaign by darbari TV channels.

The manner of announcement of ceasefire confirmed this backsliding. While US President Donald Trump's claims of having prevented an Indo-Pak nuclear war may have few takers, it is hard to deny that the US played the mediator, if not the monitor. The world may take with a pinch of salt Trump's claims of using the trade deal as a carrot and stick to achieve the ceasefire, but no one can rule this out in the next few months when trade negotiations are due for conclusion. The PM and MEA have ruled out an Indo-Pak dialogue on Kashmir mediated by the US, but this could clearly be the beginning of the US monitored India-Pakistan relationship, something Indian foreign policy has avoided for well over 50 years.

Notwithstanding the PM's silence and the strenuous denials by the MEA, the fact remains that the world got to know about the ceasefire from the US, before India or Pakistan declared it. The ruling party's aggressive posturing and the support of pliant media may well persuade the Indian public to the contrary, but for the rest of the world, the message of the ceasefire was clear: POTUS had arm twisted India into it. That cannot advance our national interest. Nor is it a tribute to sindoor.

(Courtesy: The Indian Express)