The ceasefire between Pakistan and India announced last Saturday — its subsequent violation by Pakistan notwithstanding — was pleasantly welcome but completely unexpected given the signs of escalation that both countries had been exhibiting. The first announcement came from the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump. This was also surprising since the US president and, more particularly, the US vice-president, J.D. Vance, had recently made polite remarks about the conflict not being of any concern to the US. Pakistan was the first to acknowledge the ceasefire; there was news that it had violated the same ceasefire later that evening. India’s announcement came a little later with the warning that any violation of the ceasefire by Pakistan would be dealt with severely. The surprise was so large that for a few minutes even social media was unable to spin the news into propaganda. A number of questions are being raised: did India achieve its objectives of using targeted strikes against terror bases? Was there a moral advantage achieved? Would this action, albeit aborted before more destruction could be inflicted, be an added deterrent for Pakistan? Then there was the news of the International Monetary Fund’s $1 billion loan disbursement to Pakistan: India had abstained in the voting for approval. The same nations that voted for the loan were vociferously against Pakistan’s nurturing of terrorist organisations at the United Nations Security Council only a few days ago.
I was on the streets of a busy part of Calcutta when the news of the ceasefire broke. People were first checking whether it was a fake creation of the Indian media or if it was for real. Then there was the feeling of whether India had lost its advantage. I heard someone mention that Pakistan had won. A few others heaved a sigh of relief that normalcy was on the way of being restored. I was personally thinking that the last time victory and defeat had been talked about in the context of a war with Pakistan was more than fifty years ago.
It was back in 1971 when India was helping liberate the people of what is now Bangladesh from a despotic military government. I was in college then. Being a Bengali whose maternal part of the family came from erstwhile East Bengal during the Partition, emotions and expectations ran deep and intense. The world was different then. The erstwhile USSR was our reliable friend. China was not a force to be reckoned with. The US considered Pakistan a close ally. The Seventh Fleet was brought to the Bay of Bengal as a warning to India. Neither India nor Pakistan had nuclear weapons. Above all, there was no State-sponsored, cross-border terrorism by Pakistan.
India’s intervention finally grew into a full-fledged war. The intervention emanated from a humanitarian consideration to liberate an oppressed people. In the strategic subtext, there must have been the intention to have a friendly neighbour on India’s eastern frontier. Indira Gandhi and her colleagues must have been aware of the political rewards her own party would reap in the event of a triumph. She must have also known that the economic and the human costs of the conflict could be a huge strain on a poor, developing nation like India. The massive flow of refugees into India, seeking shelter from the ravages of war, was a gigantic problem on its own. Yet, the messages sent out to the world were from a moral high ground — of helping a people achieve freedom from oppression. The international messaging was never based on revenge or retaliation. A closure to that conflict was achieved, India’s aim was met, and the nation’s standing improved within the comity of nations.
Almost everything has been different this time around, barring the continuing enmity between India and Pakistan. The US is an unpredictable player on the global stage. It suddenly turned from being a neutral observer to a broker for the ceasefire that was supposed to take immediate effect without any details known about the terms and the conditions. Yet the US, as has been revealed, has the power to control both sides. Russia has enough problems of its own and its reputation as a moral authority stands substantially diminished. China, on the other hand, is a new, powerful force today, both in terms of dominance and also because of its close ties with Pakistan. India’s economic strength is far more robust than that of Pakistan. Both nations are nuclear powers and both have greater sophisticated arsenals compared to what they had over half a century ago. The ideology of the ruling party in India is also vastly different from that of the ruling party in 1971.
Going forward, there are a few lessons worth keeping in mind. We live in a restless world where tolerance levels are low. It is a world where international institutions have become moribund and there are no accepted rules of war. In such a situation, the obvious question of concern was this: when, and at what stage, would a tapering-off of hostilities occur? Pundits had been talking about strategic dominance: when one party’s position of strength is accepted by the other, leading to a pause. What was of worry was that no one seemed to know at what level of escalation the fighting might cease. The scariest part was that it could happen even at the stage of nuclear conflict. Having nuclear arms thus makes the ball-game completely different.
The second lesson is that while the two governments are both committed to a strong brand of religious nationalism, India’s economic strength and political stability, along with a higher global standing, give it a guaranteed advantage. Yet, compared to Pakistan, with its weak economy, internal conflicts and troubled borders, India has so much more to lose in the event of an escalated and prolonged strife.
Another lesson is that a protracted period of hostilities, like the kind that we are witnessing in Gaza or in Ukraine — where there is finally talk of a monthlong ceasefire — would lead to a much larger set of economic costs. Markets do not have any religion or nationality. Any nervousness, or indication of instability, could trigger a flight of capital, especially foreign capital, away from India. The economic climate in the country would become unfriendly for long-term investment. International trade is anyway heading for a global reset. A disruption of India’s exports would be costly, more so when India’s ability to enter new markets and establish new partners would be adversely affected if policymakers are distracted by an ongoing conflict.
What the nation has also witnessed in the past few days is dangerous misinformation, irresponsibly and vengefully peddled in the media, both electronic and social. This is an appalling aspect of India’s global image, one the nation can do without. The next thing to remember is that the loss of innocent lives in Pahalgam was followed by the loss of many more lives during the last week. These losses cannot be measured in terms of value.
Finally, when the dust has settled, and Kashmir is once again accessible, the government must assign responsibility for the original intelligence failure and the consequent security lapse that led to the dreadful incident at Pahalgam.