In his speech to the nation on May 12, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserted, “… when Pakistan appealed and said that it will not indulge in any sort of terror activities or military audacity further, India considered it. And I am repeating again, we have just suspended our retaliatory action against Pakistan’s terror and military camps. In the coming days we will measure every step of Pakistan on the criterion that what sort of attitude Pakistan will adopt ahead.” The prime minister’s statement implies that Operation Sindoor has only been paused; it has not concluded. Any operation has a beginning and an end. As long as Operation Sindoor continues ‘technically’, it would be the government’s prerogative to not put out sensitive information in the public domain regarding its military and diplomatic aspects. At some stage, though, the government will have to indicate that the operation has concluded. That, however, will not mean that our current posture on handling Pakistani terrorism will change.

The Indian military’s performance during the active phase of Operation Sindoor was in keeping with its high traditions of valour and ability. The chief of defence staff, General Anil Chauhan, has said that India suffered some losses in the air on the first day. Separately, the air force made it known that all pilots returned safely from their missions. It is also a fact that India was able to hit all the terrorist bases it wanted to on the first day itself. General Chauhan has also said that India changed tactics and thereafter it was able to “penetrate” Pakistani air defences with “impunity”, striking its air bases with precision. This has been acknowledged by global experts, though the loss of Indian aerial platforms has also attracted attention. The Indian action unnerved Pakistan and it sued for a cessation of hostilities. At the appropriate time such other details as can be made public should be revealed. The Indian public certainly has the maturity to understand that some operational losses may have to be incurred while achieving the objectives of military action.

The clear message that Modi has conveyed to Pakistan and which was reiterated by the seven teams of MPs that visited different countries in the world is that Pakistani terrorism will invite retaliatory Indian action. The problem is that Pakistan is unlikely to abandon terrorism because it is part of its security doctrine. Hence, there is always the possibility of Field Marshal Asim Munir resorting to a major terrorist attack to test India again. But he is unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future because his first priority now
will be to shore up Pakistan’s aerial defences.

There is no doubt that the government will introspect on the diplomatic and the military actions relating to Operation Sindoor as part of normal governmental processes but also because of Pakistan’s intransigence on terrorism. The issue is whether a committee of experts should be appointed to consider all aspects of Operation Sindoor along the lines of what was done by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, which had set up the Subrahmanyam Committee after the conclusion of the Kargil war of 1999. Its recommendations proved valuable for the nation. It is for the government to decide if there should be two committees — one to examine India’s military response and the other its diplomacy over Operation Sindoor — or a single committee because of the linkages among diplomacy, intelligence and military operations in the case of such an operation.

Despite Pakistan using terrorism as part of its strategic doctrine, India’s primary diplomatic objective has to be to convince the world to put pressure on Pakistan to abandon terrorism. Pakistan has used its nuclear weapons as a shield to undertake terrorism. Modi has done well to straightforwardly emphasise that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will not deter India from striking at Pakistani terrorist centres wherever they may be. India has also correctly said that the “original escalation” lies in a terrorist attack. The clear implication is that the major powers should focus on Pakistani terrorism if they fear that a military engagement between India and Pakistan is escalatory and contains the danger of Pakistan using nuclear weapons. Indian strategic experts and diplomats must emphasise that no other nuclear-armed State has ever undertaken terrorist or provocative actions on the territory of another nuclear State. Hence, by doing so against India, Pakistan has irresponsibly turned Western doctrines on strategic stability on their head. It has done so for far too long and it must be stopped. It would be dangerous to indulge it any longer.

While India’s standpoint is correct and the West may put pressure on Pakistan, the fact is that once India-Pakistan military action begins the international community does not look at the “original escalation” but wants it to end quickly. That poses a challenge to Indian diplomacy for it is when India-Pakistan military action is taking place that the major powers have to keep in mind the “original escalation” and demand that Pakistan should stand down its military action. This is especially because India is likely to target only terrorist infrastructure in the first place. The Pakistan State should not have permitted that to exist in the first place.

Another aspect which deserves Indian diplomatic attention is Pakistani attempts to portray that India is helping the Balochistan Liberation Army and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. Recently, a bus transporting children in Khuzdar in Balochistan was attacked and children were killed. Pakistan blamed India for the incident. It was good that the ministry of external affairs spokesperson set the record straight even while condemning the incident. The world knows that Pakistan is the epicentre of terrorism and does not take its charges against India on the BLA and the TTP seriously, but India cannot be complacent on this issue.

India has a good case to keep the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, but it should carefully evaluate whether its moves on the Financial Action Task Force and World Bank assistance to Pakistan will get traction. This is because the major powers do not want an unstable Pakistan. Indian diplomacy must not undertake actions that do not have a chance of succeeding because that will only give satisfaction to Pakistan.

Vivek Katju is a retired Indian Foreign Service officer