What Price Freedom!

“It’s good when the oppressed fight for their rights – as long as they do it away from us.”

The young lady who made this statement earned my gratitude for her compassion and her honesty. Indeed, we have no problem with the Palestinian resistance, though some in their neighbourhood might not be very comfortable. The Bosnian war of independence was so far over the horizon that no one here even noticed when we were supporting it. Pakistani hearts may bleed for the Kashmiris but the mere thought that the blood they shed across the line of control could spill over on our side, makes many of us nervous. I recall that when the uprising in the vale was at its peak, a blue-blooded diplomat asked me, ‘why not let the Indian Army crush the movement before it led to an Indo-Pak armed conflict’? And indeed, since the debris of the Afghan wars inevitably fell on us, we have often cursed our geography – at times, also our history. After the Doha Accord between America and the Taliban, we seem to have fallen in love with both.

According to Kissinger, the insurgents merely have to survive to win. On that criterion, the Taliban won their war years ago. But it’s only now when Washington has conceded defeat that we are grateful for having such brave people in our neighbourhood. However, we would also like to remind them of our part in their victory. Those at the helm of affairs for example take credit for bringing the Taliban to the table. Not a big deal if you ask me, as it has been done before: twice each in Doha and Murree. This time the Taliban hardly needed any prodding from us because talking to the US was their primary condition for a settlement. Nevertheless, they do owe us gratitude on another account. Over the last two decades we took plenty of flak for any support that we might have given them. We were accused of playing double-games – taking money from the US and helping its adversary. There was a good chance of being declared a state sponsoring terrorism. Rogue groups were unleashed to subvert our internal fault-lines. And most importantly, a well-orchestrated campaign had created enough doubt in the country that our Taliban policy might backfire. If we still stuck to our guns, today we can rightly claim that we too paid a price for what promises to be the start of a peace process.

Some of us have often complained about the heavy cost that we had to bear for our foreign ventures. Of course, we lost thousands in our wars against India; hosted millions of Afghan refugees; suffered billions in lost revenue while muddling through the crises in the East and in the West – and were saddled with the burden of Kalashnikovs, drugs and militant mind-sets in the bargain. But all of this pales in significance when compared to what some others had to pay in their fight for freedom. Russian loss of 20 Million of its citizens in WW2 might be considered exceptional, but even much smaller nations like the Algerians, the Vietnamese, and the Afghans sacrificed significantly more to defend their liberty.

In fact, no freedom comes cheap. Only the other day when we were surrendering our independence of decision making to the IMF and to the Saudis for some measly billions, one could only infer that we have no idea what it takes to be free. And before one forgets, if today we take pride in our nuclear acquisition that has afforded us some room of manoeuvre in our policies, that too came at a considerable cost—primarily in terms of standing firm.

2050 Climate Prospects – Are We Heading Toward A New Dark Age?

Voltaire must have been referring to nature and climate when he wrote, “Men argue. Nature acts”. At a time when people are required to consider forest-fires, bushfires, and heavy rainfalls in course of planning holiday destinations, we must reflect on where human activity has gone wrong to have created this negative influence on the global climate system. This needs to be considered as a sample of what progressive human civilization has done to us. Emile-Geay, an expert in climate dynamics from the University of Southern California, used data analytics to proclaime that the climate crisis began after the 1850’s Industrial Revolution. It resulted in the weather growing increasingly warm and which, if left unattended, could displace 140 million people by 2050 as per predictions by the World Bank.

Threats in the Making

Global scientific consensus has been established that current climatic ocurrences, including the Australian bushfires, forest-fires in California, Cyclone Idai, Cyclone Fani, the heat-wave in Europe, floods, and low-ice levels in the Arctic, among others, not only threaten the food-chain and put human survival at risk, but are also dangerous for fundamentals like food and fresh water. This has the potential to cause conflicts in the Middle-East and Africa, in addition to tension in the South China Sea over the fisheries.

Moreover, rapidly changing climate may engage global powers into a new strategic conflict over the melting Arctic Ocean. In the same way, South America being considered a hotspot of climate change throughout the 21st century may be dealing with drought and preventing both resource shortages and the revival of military dictatorships of the 1960s to 1990s. Last but not the least, South Asia, being a region with the most number of countries vulnerable to climate change, is expected to have 62 million people below the extreme poverty line as per World Bank estimation. Furthermore, the impact of fluctuation in the monsoon and cyclone patterns on these agrarian economies will contribute to the systematic cataclysm of the regional societal construct. Changes in the physical landscape, therefore, will cause a major shift in the geopolitical landscape.

With rising temperatures, mass migrations from the affected regions would influence global politics. The United Nations has estimated that this century could see a billion climate refugees, and it has already begun to appear disconcertingly true; it has also given rise to politics over ‘climate-refugees’ as we have seen in the recent refugee crises, which may give rise to conflicts and aggravate tensions both within and between countries. The investment bank Goldman Sachs in its 2008 report termed water as “the petroleum for the next century”, putting forward the notion of water weaponization which could turn up into the weaponization of all existent natural resources.

Besides, the global temperature would commercialize farm-free food to replace the cultivated food. British writer and environmental activist, George Mobiot has predicted in his recent column in The Guardian that “the Lab-grown food will soon destroy farming – and save the planet”. He further states, “Scientists are replacing crops and livestock with food made from microbes and water. It may save humanity’s bacon”. Getting hold of animal-protein might become illegal by the 2050’s owing to the danger of extinction. The people, as Bertrand Russell, anticipated, “they will have to learn to be scientific in their tastes, and content with whatever in the way of calories and vitamins the experts consider good for them”. As concerns water, rich developed States would be able to arrange recycled water for their population, while others combat droughts and famine.

The situation in Asia would be devastating as, according to the United Nations, more than half of the world’s population lives in Asia, however, freshwater availability per person over there has been estimated to be less than other continents, often leaving the most vulnerable at risk. This could be considered in line with the United Nations forecasts that by 2050, feeding people world-wide would require a 20% increase in agriculture’s global water use. However, with already scarce water resources due to fading aquifers, drying rivers failing to reach the seas and retreating glaciers, global soil crisis would eke out a living resulting in soil erosion, compaction and contamination. All these subsisting crises would be adding-up to the reactionary chain of events producing many more crises such as; pollination failure, essential natural chemical imbalance in the soil, air and water ultimately becoming the cause of natural energy drain-out from the planet.

Moreover, the low-lying and crowded coastal cities in South and Southeast Asian countries will be among the hardest hit. By and large, Asia, being the agrarian economy with its phenomenal reliance on agriculture and the natural resources for socio-economic gains is likely to be facing the existential threat. Due to an increase in sea-level, coastal communities will be shattered.

Self-acceleratory Climate Crisis – Are we heading toward a new ‘Dark Age’?

All this might not be appearing all of a sudden in such a catastrophic form as is being stated. What we will likely see will be an increase in natural calamities, deteriorating air quality index and shrinking water bodies, all of which has been observed in recent years. But we may not connect it with the second law of thermodynamics the way Bertrand Russell has once proposed: “you cannot unscramble eggs”. The real problem is that the climate crisis has become self-accelerating as the global community is struggling to turn around its energy systems. A great deal of carbon emissions being fed to the earth’s atmosphere since the 1850s is more than can be reversed.

Let us imagine, for a moment, living in a world facing demographic, cultural, and economic deterioration with mankind struggling to survive famine, drought, disease, and social stratification, nation-states politicizing and weaponizing the basic needs prioritizing ‘own people’. This undoubtedly gives us a glimpse of the Dark Ages we were once a part of; but this is what we are heading towards if the climate emergency has not been realized already.

What would be our climate situation in the mid of this century is anybody’s guess; we can only base our estimate on what is being predicted by data synthesis. Nevertheless, let us not deceive ourselves. Let us be brave enough to ask ourselves a question: Are we moving toward ‘A New Dark Age’?

Reading the Peace Vision

Third-party initiatives to broker peace between Jews and Palestinians have had within them an embedded element of partiality toward one side. The Balfour Declaration, a letter written in 1917 by Arthur Balfour, the-then Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, to Lord Walter Rothschild, a major figure in the British Jewish community, promised Jews a land where the native Arab Palestinians made up 90 percent of the population. The essence of that promise and its potential ramifications was poignantly captured by Edward Said: “It was made by a European power about a non-European territory in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority residents in that territory.” The Balfour declaration facilitated a wave of Jewish migration across the world to Palestine. However, it was the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany and his subsequent campaign of genocide against Jews that forced an exodus of the latter to Palestine and pushed them to embrace Zionism which promised a homeland for them in historic Palestine.

The UN Plan of November 1947 proposed the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The UN Partition Plan gave the Palestinian Arabs 45 per cent of the Palestinian land, and 55 per cent to the Jews, even though the former constituted close to two-thirds of the total population (69 per cent), and held 92 per cent of the land. The Plan gave the holy city of Jerusalem the status of corpus separatum – meaning it had to be dealt separately, and for the time being remain under international control.

The first Arab-Israel war denied Palestinians even the parts of lands the UN had designated for a Palestinian state. When the war ended and a truce was effected by the UN in January 1949, Israel had control over 78 per cent of Palestine along with West Jerusalem. 750,000 Palestinians, constituting two-thirds of the native Arab population at that time, were displaced and became refugees. The remaining 22 percent of Palestinian lands, comprising of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, came under Israel’s control after the 1967 war. The subsequent UN resolution 242 calling for a two-state solution on the borders of the pre-June 1967 war has been undermined to the point of ‘no-solution’ due to Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Palestinians and Israel tried to work towards a solution of peace in the early 1990s. In this regard, the Oslo Accords were signed between Israel and the Arafat-led Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) under US mediation. In return for Israel’s and international recognition of a politically emasculated Palestinian Self-Government Authority in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Palestinian leadership led by Yasir Arafat capitulated. Real issues of illegal Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, the future of Jerusalem and the return of approximately 5 million Palestinian refugees were left to be discussed in the final status negotiations in a distant future. The West Bank was divided into areas A, B and C respectively. Area C constitutes 60 per cent of the West Bank and is exclusively under Israeli control. The 708 km-long Israeli West Bank barrier, aka the Separation Wall which Israel started building in 2002, separated East Jerusalem from the West Bank, thereby severing cultural and social bonds between the Palestinians living on both sides. Administrative detentions, the grueling process of security permissions and the siege of Gaza continue to make Palestinian lives extremely difficult.

The Peace Vision proffered by Jared Khushner, whose only credential as a ‘peace broker’ happens to be his position of being the son-in-law to President Trump, puts the gloss of American legitimacy on the political developments mentioned above. Under this plan, Jerusalem would remain the exclusive capital of Israel, Jewish settlements in the West Bank will continue and Israeli law will apply to them, and Palestinian refugees will have no right of return. As for a Palestinian state, it would be a geographical archipelago made up of Bantustans and cantons. It would be completely demilitarized, and have no control over its borders and sea lanes.

To add insult to injury, the recognition of this ‘joke of a state’ would be contingent upon the Palestinian leadership meeting a set of security criteria, which, inter alia, includes curriculum reforms ‘that incite or promote hatred.’ It should be mentioned in parenthesis that the Israeli military killed close to 500 Palestinian children during Operative Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip in 2014.

The essence of this peace vision was aptly summed up by Sara Makdisi, a Palestinian-American professor at the UCLA: “As an outline of a genuine peace between Palestinians and Israelis, this document amounts to little more than a badly written joke with a dud punch line.”

By putting the last nail in the coffin of the internationally recognized two-state solution, this peace vision further complicates the Israel-Palestine issue. One inadvertent corollary of this vision might possibly buttress voices that call for a one-state solution in which Jews and Arabs live together as equal citizens in a single state. This idea has been gaining increasing traction among a segment of Palestinian people who argue, even if a Palestinian state is established in future on the basis the UNSC Resolution 242, it will not be a viable state and too weak to fulfill the economic, political and cultural aspirations of Palestinians. If there is one thing Israel and Jewish Right is more afraid than a two-state solution, it is a one-state secular, democratic state where Arabs and Jews have equal political and economic rights. As Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem increase, further shrinking land for Palestinians, experts predict that the Israeli state will evolve into either of one ways: it will either be a secular democratic state giving equal political rights to all people irrespective of religion or it will be an apartheid state.

The Kashmir Impasse

The Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan has been festering for over seven decades, ever since the two nations became independent countries in 1947. Two wars (1947 and 1965) and two serious skirmishes (Siachen and Kargil) that could easily have led to fully-fledged conflicts have failed to resolve the issue. Pakistan’s attempts to free the Kashmir Valley from Indian occupation on moral grounds and through military and diplomatic means, have made little progress to date. Is there a better strategy to resolve the Kashmir imbroglio that would meet the aspirations of the people of Kashmir? A dispassionate study of the earlier unsuccessful attempts by Pakistan might suggest a way forward.

The annexation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) by India in October 1947 was a blatant violation of the principles on which the partition of the Indian subcontinent was based. Jammu and Kashmir, then under the Dogra rule, comprised the Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladhak, Gilgit and Baltistan. Pakistan’s attempts to redress the injustice in its war against India of 1947-48 met with partial success. Only a sliver of the Kashmir Valley was freed from Indian clutches, while the entire Gilgit and Baltistan regions (also known as the Northern Areas) were liberated. Why?

As the 1947 war waged, the Kashmir valley population, despite overwhelmingly supporting Pakistan, were generally silent spectators hoping the Pakistan Army would rescue them from Indian occupation. In Gilgit and Baltistan, on the other hand, the local population rose in support of the Pakistani liberation forces and eventually succeeded in overthrowing the Dogra army. Attempts by the Indian Army to recapture the territories were easily repulsed. Gilgit and Baltistan today is an integral part of the Pakistani federation.

In the wake of this Kashmir War, UN Resolution 47 was adopted, which envisioned holding a free and fair plebiscite/referendum in Kashmir to determine whether the people of J&K wished to remain a part of the Indian union or join Pakistan. The solemn promise by the then Indian Prime Minister to honour the UN Resolution, and the lollypop of Article 370 in the Indian Constitution whereby Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) was granted a degree of autonomy in self-rule, lulled the Kashmiris into accepting Indian occupation as a temporary phase.

A decade and a half on, the referendum had still not been held, under one pretext or the other; it became abundantly clear that India, for all intents and purpose, had abrogated the UN Resolution 47 without incurring any censure by the UNO. Pakistan’s military forays in 1965 (Operations Gibraltar and Grand Slam) also failed because the Kashmiris across the Cease Fire Line, instead of supporting the invasion, either remained neutral or a section of them sided with the Indian occupiers. The Kargil attempt in 1998 did not elicit the requisite local support either.

With the nuclear factor in play between India and Pakistan, it would be sheer madness for either to initiate an unprovoked military attack on Azad Kashmir (by India) or IOK (by Pakistan). The world body would come down hard on the side viewed as the aggressor to prevent the crisis from escalating to a level where the spectre of nuclear war becomes a reality. Pakistan continues to support the Kashmiri freedom struggle morally and politically, but any direct material support to the struggling people in the Valley at this juncture will be spun by India, using the prevalent Islamophobia in the West, as terrorism by Islamic militants.

Valiant Burhan Wani and his young troops had shown the way towards freedom, but their efforts and sacrifices were in vain as the militancy was confined to a small cadre; the rest of the population only provided moral and vocal support.

Kashmiris in the Valley have paid dearly for the past seven decades in their struggle against the Indian occupation without achieving freedom, because protests, shutdowns and rallies have been mostly peaceful. An independence struggle by the people there that encompasses all the principal domains of modern warfare—military, political, information, social, economics—is the only way to end Indian tyranny in the Kashmir Valley.

Article 370 of the Indian constitution which prohibited Indians from owning property and claiming Kashmiri nationality, had provided a fig leaf of security to the indigenous population. Its abrogation has finally convinced the majority of Kashmiris in IOK about the nefarious Indian design of ethnic cleansing of the locals. They fear India will commit genocide of the Valley residents and replace them with Hindus from other parts of India, thus making the Kashmir Valley a Hindu dominated region. Even the scions of Sheikh Abdullah, whose family had historically maintained steadfast support for Indian rule, have finally admitted their gross misjudgement and have joined the majority opposing Indian occupation. Kashmiris are now looking towards Pakistan to help them overthrow the Indian yolk.

Even at the current level of atrocities that are being perpetrated by Indian troops in the Valley, a shift among some western legislatures about the Indian version is discernable. They are questioning the veracity of the Indian portrayal of the situation and demanding an independent inquiry to determine the truth. If the atrocities continue to spike, the tide in western democracies will turn further against the Indian story line.

The Indian government is already reeling under the turmoil the Citizenship Amendment Bill is causing among the Indian public and polity. Were the Kashmiris in the Valley to rise against the Indian occupation of their land, it would lead to near paralysis in the IOK. The combined impact of the two existential threats to its nationhood could force Modi to reexamine his disastrous Kashmir policy—it could eventually lead to a resolution of the Kashmir dispute acceptable to the Kashmiris.

For seven decades, the Kashmir Valley has stayed under Indian bondage despite sacrifices made and lives lost. Pakistan, as it has done in the past, will continue to go the extra mile to support the Kashmiri freedom struggle. Success will come once the Kashmiris across the length and breadth of the Kashmir Valley to rise against the Indian military presence in their land—bullies understand only the language of force.

Given the atrocious treatment being meted out to the Kashmiris in the Valley, that day is not far away; and should that happen, no power on earth can stop the movement from succeeding.

Assessing International Endorsements on Pakistan’s Kashmir Stance

Despite the tumultuous developments that have taken place over the last year, the Kashmir issue has once again intensified considerably within the last few weeks. The emergent security dynamics of the South Asian region are directly and indirectly linked with this long-standing issue in several ways. Exactly one year ago, the February 2019 Pulwama attack and the resultant military escalation between India and Pakistan evidenced Kashmir’s potential as a ‘nuclear flashpoint’ between the two countries.  Later on, in August 2019  the revocation of the special constitutional status of Kashmir by the Indian government, referred to as the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, coupled with a brutal lockdown in the disputed region and worldwide criticism have further internationalized the dispute. The diplomatic significance of the Kashmir issue was also made obvious during the UN General Assembly’s 74th session last year as many world leaders emphasized the need for a peaceful solution. In the same vein, it seems that Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts in highlighting these have been acknowledged in the year 2020 due to its measured foreign policy approach.

The Kashmir issue has remained one of the most crucial agenda items during Prime Minister Imran Khan’s recent visit to Malaysia. According to the joint statement at the end of the summit, the Kashmir issue had been raised during the talks between the two leaders. Prime Minister Imran Khan also thanked Malaysian Prime Minister at the time, Dr. Mahatir Muhammad, for standing by Pakistan on the Kashmir dispute and speaking against the injustices being perpetrated by Indian forces in occupied Kashmir. Moreover, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, while addressing the joint session of Parliament during his recent visit to Pakistan, has once again criticized India’s unilateral moves. He reiterated Turkey’s stance on the resolution of the outstanding Kashmir dispute through dialogue and peaceful means and termed India’s recent unilateral steps as alarming. From these statements, it is evident that despite not getting support from the Gulf States or the OIC, Pakistan can still count on support from Turkey and Malaysia based on its religious affinity as well as a more principled show of unity and solidarity.

As Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts towards addressing the worsening situation in Kashmir continue, it is worth mentioning that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, during his maiden and highly significant official visit to Pakistan earlier this month, also expressed his concerns over the worsening situation. He emphasized maximum restraint from both countries and also pointed out the employment of Article 99 of the UN Charter, which authorizes the Secretary-General to bring this matter to the UNSC based on its grave implications for international peace and security. If the ongoing situation continues in Kashmir, the UN Secretary-General might involve the UNSC to once again discuss the issue and provide a road map for its peaceful settlement. Despite India’s unilateral moves to annex Kashmir politically and militarily, Pakistan’s current efforts to internationally raise the issue seem to have borne some success, at least for the time being. Furthermore, such an assertion by the UN Secretary-General is a clear vindication of Pakistan’s principled stance on Kashmir issue, on human rights grounds and its significance for peace and stability in the South Asian region.

Furthermore, as part of US President Donald Trump’s maiden visit to India from February 24-25, there was widespread speculation that he would blindly support the Indian stance on Kashmir. If that would have been the case, it would have been projected as a massive diplomatic coup for India. However, contrary to such widespread speculation, Mr. Trump once again reiterated his offer to mediate between India and Pakistan to resolve the bilateral issue of Kashmir by describing it as a big problem for both countries. It is quite notable here that Mr. Trump did not indulge in any harsh statements against Pakistan by blaming it for sponsoring terrorism or otherwise. In fact, Mr. Trump openly acknowledged Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir as an international and disputed issue, thus still representing a victory of sorts for Pakistan’s recent diplomatic overtures towards the US.

To date, India’s expectation of a diplomatic win over the Kashmir issue led by Mr. Modi has not entirely met his expectations. Contrary to his intentions, the issue remains internationalized as Pakistan has still gained considerable support from prominent international leaders such as Trump and Antonio Guterres. This is in addition to the support it has consistently received from China as well as the shift in stance from Russia on this issue. These leaders have publicly expressed acknowledgement of the sensitivity of the Kashmir issue and seem to be focused on supporting a peaceful settlement. This, however, does not guarantee that the situation would remain the same in the future as well. Pakistan needs to redraw a long term strategy to present its case in front of the international community against the backdrop of the emerging dynamics of the Kashmir issue that seems to be worsening day by day. There is still a lot more to be done to get support firm support from other forums like the OIC and EU.

The Other Frontline: South Asia in the Emerging Great Power Competition

The collapse of the Soviet Union sealed the fate of the realist-bipolar world order and the United States – the leader of the so-called free world – ascended triumphantly. It asserted itself as a liberal hegemon and instituted the rules-based liberal world order, which determined global affairs for more than two decades. Nonetheless, contrary to liberal imagination – which John Mearsheimer brands as “delusions” – the rules-based order proved to be evanescent. While the US was engaged in costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, China – the onetime sleeping dragon – steadily transformed its latent potential into tangible economic power, and by the end of the first decade of 21st century it had elevated itself to supplant Japan as the world’s second-largest economy, preceded only by America.

As China’s economy underwent astonishing growth, it began translating its economic might into military power and sought to expand its geopolitical influence, aiming to establish its own order by replacing the US-led order. Chinese aspirations were unveiled after Xi Jinping’s rise to the power. And post 2013, the dragon in effect repudiated the famous dictum of Deng Xiaoping, “hide your strength and bide your time” and embarked upon the mission to project its power beyond its borders and shores. Unsurprisingly, the upsurge of China and its grand ambitions resulted in a security dilemma for the US and, in a classic manifestation of the Thucydides Trap, catalyzed a geostrategic competition between the status-quo power and the revisionist one.

Nevertheless, even though this competition is unlikely to culminate in a direct military confrontation, an intense security competition has already begun, as evidenced by a reinvigorated global arms race in the nuclear and conventional realms. This competition, however, is not limited to military realm only and its manifestation can be discerned in the economy  where a bitter trade war has just waned after the conclusion of a trade deal; in diplomacy, where both giants are vying for influence in various parts of the world; and most importantly in technology, with both countries competing for dominance in Artificial Intelligence and 5G technology.

For decades, South Asia remained an important geographical arena for great power politics. In the 21st century, the region’s geostrategic significance has just multiplied. It is home to roughly a quarter of the world’s population; two generally hostile nuclear powers evoke intermittent great power interventions; the US still maintains its two-decade-old presence in Afghanistan, which may end soon; the resource-rich Middle East and Central Asia are located next-door; revisionist China is the immediate neighbour and has direct stakes in the region; and above all, the South Asian landmass forms the littoral of the Indian Ocean, through which pass some of the world’s most crucial Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs).

Competing Strategies of the US and China in South Asia.   At the dawn of the 21st century, the US found itself directly involved in the South Asia region. At one hand, the superpower was waging a sanguinary war against terrorism in Afghanistan that necessitated a close partnership with Pakistan; on the other, it entered into a strategic partnership with India after the two countries signed a groundbreaking civil nuclear deal in 2005. In 2011, President Obama announced the “Pivot to Asia” policy, which envisioned shifting America’s attentiveness to the Asia-Pacific – the region prophesied to host the most consequential geostrategic competition in the 21st century – after the relative oblivion of more than two decades.

However, it was in all probability too late. China – which emerged as the prime beneficiary of the rules-based international order and relished a “free ride” – had already acquired the wherewithal to challenge the liberal hegemon and redesign, if not re-mould, the international order.

In 2013, newly installed Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – a multitrillion-dollar economic plan that envisions connecting China with the rest of Asia, Europe and Africa through a network of highways, railway, and ports. Pakistan – China’s all-weather friend and geopolitical pivot on the Eurasian chessboard – became a destination for BRI’s flagship project, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which contributed towards the further strengthening of the decades-old relationship between the two countries. China also reached out to the smaller countries of South Asia such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the Maldives, while regional giant India – because of its geostrategic rivalry with China – continued opposing the scheme.

In pursuance of the BRI, China acquired a series of ports along the Indian Ocean littoral besides securing direct land access to the Arabian Sea via Pakistan. The projects, operational, are likely to enable China to mitigate its Malacca Dilemma and assuage its strategic vulnerabilities vis-à-vis the Indian Ocean.

Though China has been accentuating the economic outlook of BRI and negates any geopolitical angle associated with the scheme, it is irrefutable that economic influence always wields geopolitical sway and, unquestionably, the BRI has implications far beyond economics. Arguably, the BRI appears to be a grand geopolitical strategy aimed at displacing the US as the dominant power in China’s immediate neighbourhood and defying its global dominance elsewhere; thus, establishing a bounded Chinese order at the cost of the United States’ liberal order.

In response, the US intensified its “rebalancing towards Asia” efforts. In 2016, Uncle Sam sponsored a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – which was to cover 40% of world trade – and sought to strengthen regional alliances; but the election of President Trump led to a reversal in the policy. In 2017, the US withdrew from the TPP, sending shockwaves among its allies in the Asia-Pacific region and casting shadows over the liberal hegemon’s global commitments.

However, the Asia-Pacific was not a region to be overlooked so conveniently. In 2018, the Trump administration presented the Indo-Pacific Strategy, which came as another formal acknowledgement of China’s revisionist status – a threat to the rules-based international order necessitating containment at the earliest.

From a South Asian perspective, the term “Indo-Pacific” emphasized India’s augmented significance for the US in the Asia-Pacific, and further reinforced the beliefs that it was strategizing to use India as an offshore balancer to counterbalance China. Furthermore, some efforts were made to revive the Quad – a group of maritime democracies belonging to the Indo-Pacific rim – with a perceived common objective to contain China. However, as opposed to BRI – which has already made considerable progress – the US initiatives were without any real strategy, policy frameworks and implementation mechanisms, merely an aspirational set of goals.

Certainly, China’s BRI has challenged America’s long dominance of Eurasia and South Asia. The status-quo power has yet to come up with something as impressive and tangible as BRI, which – despite facing hurdles and setbacks – is flexible enough to adapt to regional requirements and accommodate the aspirations of host countries.

Implications for South Asia

A shift in the alliances and intensification in regional competition.           The South Asian regional order is undergoing a transformational shift in alliances as regional powers realign with great powers according to emerging trends in the global distribution of power. Pakistan – the transactional partner of the US – has become China’s most trusted ally, while India – the declared non-aligned country during the Cold-War – has entered into a strategic partnership with the US. Afghanistan – the third-largest country in the region – is the arena for the power struggle between regional and extra-regional countries; with the imminent US withdrawal, the power struggle is only expected to intensify. On the other hand, smaller South Asian countries have a relationship with the US that is of little consequence, but are trying to maintain a delicate balance between India and China; the latter, owing to its unmatchable economic enticements, enjoys a competitive edge.

The shift in alliance and the emerging regional power structure imply that South Asia will be an important battlefield for the global geostrategic competition between the US and China. In fact, in Pakistan, this battle for economic, diplomatic and military influence is already underway. The US is hypercritical of CPEC and considers the Chinese financial ventures a debt trap for Pakistan, while China has branded CPEC as the flagship of the BRI and successful implementation of CPEC projects in Pakistan will be a major confidence booster for the same. Moreover, China – despite strategic anxieties and border disputes – has expanded its trade relationship with India and is a major economic partner of other smaller South Asian countries. Antithetically, Trump’s isolationist US – with nothing tangible to offer in the economic realm – is only circumscribed to expanding its defence cooperation with India.

Appeasement of Fascist Modi regime by the US and increased chances of military confrontation in South Asia.             Under the fascist Modi regime, India is undergoing a massive transformation. Apart from pursuing divisive policies at home, Modi has been very keen to portray himself as a strongman against Pakistan. Tensions between the two arch-rivals have soared after India unilaterally abrogated Indian Occupied Kashmir’s special status; high ranking Indian officials have even hurled unveiled threats to militarily take over the part of Kashmir under Pakistani control. Given Modi’s hyper-nationalistic rhetoric, his fixation on engaging in dangerous brinkmanship to earn domestic political mileage, and threats of invading Pakistan Administered Kashmir, the risk of a major military confrontation in the disputed Himalayan region has increased manifold.

The worrying trends in India, however, fail to constrain the US against continuously appease the fascist Modi regime. Owing to economic and geopolitical expediencies, the former has turned a blind eye towards India’s bellicosity. In the absence of any international rebuke and with the US and other Western powers providing subtle support, India has emerged as more assertive and domineering than ever and poses a grave threat to the stability of the South Asia region.

After the launch of CPEC, the Pakistan Administered areas of disputed Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan have assumed strategic significance for both Pakistan and China. The region connects the two all-weather allies and is home to various infrastructure projects planned under CPEC. This creates direct Chinese stakes in the disputed region; the recent assurance by the Chinese President to safeguard Pakistan’s “core interests” – which admittedly include Kashmir – makes no secret of its intentions. Therefore, it is safe to argue that in case India embarks upon a military adventure in Pakistan Administered Kashmir, the response may not be from Pakistan only and the situation may drift towards uncontainable limits.

Intensified Arms Race in the region.      India is already the world’s second-largest importer of arms; as its geostrategic competition with China intensifies and tensions with Pakistan soar, the country is likely to further intensify its arms procurement and military modernization. Convincingly, it will create a security dilemma for Pakistan and the country will be left with no other option except to increase its own arms procurement to deny India any significant advantage. This will ensure arms race stability in the region, which forms an important component of Strategic Stability. Consequently, the country’s already crippling economy is likely to come under further pressure, and less allocation to the Human Development Index related domains means further increase in impoverishment in the world’s sixth most populous country.

An upsurge in proxy wars and increased instability in the region.       Theory of Nuclear Deterrence proposes that two nuclear-armed states avoid engaging in a direct military confrontation. Consequently, nuclear weapon states became proficient at obtaining their political objectives using proxies. Although, because of the regular nuclear brinkmanship of the leaders of India and Pakistan, South Asia provides a paradoxical case study for Nuclear Deterrence, yet the countries here have also mastered the art of proxy wars and have been employing irregular warfare to inflict damage upon their adversaries.

In the wake of intensifying regional tensions and with global powers getting more involved in South Asian affairs, the fomentation of subversive activities by regional states against each other, with the patronage of global powers, is expected to further intensify; and Pakistan can be the most immediate victim. Given the common interest of the US and India to disgruntle Chinese designs linked with CPEC, connivance between the two strategic partners to foment destabilization inside Pakistan is the most opportune strategy to counter growing Chinese influence.

The trend of proxy wars is also expected to escalate in war-torn Afghanistan. In addition to the US and China, India and Pakistan – which have long been fighting an undeclared indirect war for influence in the country – are likely to further intensify their exertions once a power vacuum is created after the proposed US withdrawal.

Ironically, if Pakistan and China decided to respond to India in the same coin and launch schemes to exploit the fault lines within Indian society – which are deepening owing to divisive politics played by Modi’s regime – it can lead towards an ultimately nightmarish scenario and the whole region may be propelled into the whirlpool of instability.

Ever decreased chances of regional connectivity.         South Asian countries have tremendous economic potential. If Pakistan and India can sort out their differences and become more economically integrated, it can not only reduce the risk of wars but can also usher into a new era of economic progress and advancement. However, given the imminent scenario in which geopolitics is all set to dominate the region, chances of any regional economic interconnectivity are likely to diminish further, and create an appalling scenario for the region’s impoverished masses.

Conclusion.     South Asia is all set to become one of the most important battlefields for the emerging geostrategic competition between the US and China. It is already home to ever-hostile nuclear-armed neighbours and the emergence of new great power politics in the region is likely to lead towards further instability. Add to the precariousness is the rising fascism in India and, due to India’s strategic efficacy, America’s continuous policy of appeasing the fascist Modi regime. Absolute impunity for its tyrannical moves and hysteria has rendered India ever more assertive and aggressive, and there are chances that the country may instigate a war over the disputed region of Kashmir, which can escalate to cataclysmic levels. Soaring regional tensions are probable to enhance the Modi regime’s romance with an arms buildup, and an unrestrained arms race in the conventional and nuclear domains is very much on the cards. Furthermore, soaring geopolitical tensions leave no space for toning down the trend of proxy wars; once adversarial countries are bent on exploiting each other’s fault lines, it will just augment the instability and volatility in the region. Increased instability and the ratcheting-up of hostilities are likely to condense the chances of any economic cooperation between India and Pakistan, and South Asian economic integration would remain a dream unfulfilled.

One Year of Pulwama: Mapping the Nuclear Rhetoric

On 27th February 2019, India and Pakistan came close to the brink of a major war for the fifth time in history. Pakistan’s ‘Quid Pro Quo Plus’ policy against a limited Indian attack was manifested in the form of an unprecedented measured and successful action to communicate its ability to deal with any sort of aggression from the Indian side. This also helped Pakistan manifest its resolve and commitment to defend its territorial sovereignty and rebuff the enemy’s belligerence. Fortunately, the crisis de-escalated short of witnessing nuclear escalation despite Indian deployment of SSBNs. The crisis, however, presented India and Pakistan with the peculiar challenges associated with de-escalation.

Following the crisis, the signalling from both sides reflected particular crisis-time behaviours. The statements from Pakistani leadership indicated a desire to calm the tensions and particularly mentioned the imperatives of avoiding a nuclear war; whereas, Indian statements and actions were aimed at creating war hysteria and flaunting its nuclear muscle vis-à-vis Pakistan. Careless statements made by PM Modi (nuclear weapons are not meant for Diwali) portrayed India as an irresponsible nuclear weapon state headed by an irrational leader. India had adopted a similar threatening approach in the aftermath of Pathankot and Uri attacks in 2016. The international community’s reluctance to openly criticize India’s attempt at creating a new normal in the form of surgical strikes, has given more credence to the destabilizing Indian actions. The world has always put the onus of de-escalation on Pakistan through exercising various pressure tactics. Such biased crisis management roles have refrained India from mending its ways and behaviour and prevents it from realizing the actual cost of escalation. The US exceptionalism vis-à-vis India has emboldened it to take a more aggressive stance towards other regional actors, particularly Pakistan. Furthermore, the strategic discrimination meant for other US priorities, has led to an intensification of the nuclear and conventional arms race in South Asia.

Pakistan’s inaction following the so-called surgical strike in 2016 made India believe that Pakistan would not use its nuclear or conventional capabilities in the face of Indian aggression and that there was still space for conventional war with Pakistan. This particular belief was seriously challenged through Pakistan’s response in the form of Operation Swift Retort. However, India apparently did not learn any lessons and continued to downplay the role of nuclear deterrence. While discussing the role of nuclear weapons in crisis de-escalation in a recently held workshop, Lt. Gen (retd) Khalid Kidwai asserted that it was precisely the presence of nuclear weapons that deterred, and in that specific case [Pulwama], deterred India from expanding operations beyond a single unsuccessful air strike. The new Indian Army Chief’s statements, threatening pre-emptive strikes inside Pakistan and Army’s readiness to conduct larger-scale operations in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, reflect India’s discomfort with the idea of deterrence stability in the region.

Besides belligerent leadership, India is also developing and acquiring systems and technologies which will enable India to adopt a more aggressive doctrine against Pakistan. For instance, the Indian Air Force (IAF) Chief claimed that “had India procured Rafale jets during Balakot airstrikes, things would have been different in the aftermath when Pakistan launched a counter-attack on India’s military installation.” Similar assertions were also made about the S-400 Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system. IAF chief said, “S-400 is a game-changer in terms of the surface to air systems. Once deployed, there would be a total scenario change in terms of how the air battle will be conducted.”

India is seeking missile systems that complement its pursuit of counter-force targeting, particularly when it has already signalled the desire to launch a comprehensive strike. The development and deployment of shorter-range missiles Prahaar and BrahMos is very crucial in this regard. The chances of the success of conventional counter-force strike are debatable, therefore, it is likely that Prahaar and BrahMos will be equipped with nuclear warheads.  Hence, a counter-force strike can very well be a nuclear first strike given the cannisterization of Prahaar and it being a replacement for the nuclear-capable Prithvi missiles.

Counterforce capabilities complement a doctrine based on the flexible use of nuclear weapons, which is clearly not in line with Indian NFU pledge that requires a state not to pursue the weapons or technologies that could be used to carry out a first strike. In an attempt to pursue counter-force targeting capability, India will not only have nuclear forces to develop means for a   successful first strike, but will also force Pakistan to increase its nuclear forces in order to ensure the survivability of its forces in such an eventuality.

In a region where crises between two nuclear neighbours are frequent and there is no formal dialogue mechanism, such developments will only keep South Asia in a perpetual state of strategic instability. For decades, Pakistan has been fulfilling the responsibility of maintaining strategic stability in the region, despite India’s repeated efforts to destabilize it. The situation is becoming even worse with extremist and religious fanatics of the RSS and BJP – characterized by strategic recklessness and irresponsibility – in firm control of India’s nuclear weapons. Pakistan has continued to propose the Strategic Restraint Regime (SRR) to India for the establishment of durable peace, avoidance of an arms race, to reduce the risk of conflict, and to enhance regional stability. However, India has manifested in every possible way that it does not want peaceful settlement of outstanding disputes with Pakistan and has chosen to remain disengaged.

Donald Trump’s Bharat Yatra

US President Donald Trump’s maiden visit (yatra) to India (Bharat) has been deemed a roaring success by the spin doctors. Let us briefly examine the positives of his historic visit. Narendra Modi, India’s Prime Minister, rolled out the proverbial red carpet for the visiting dignitary. The personal bonhomie between the two world leaders was visible while Narendra Modi returned the favour of the “Howdy, Modi: Shared Dreams, Bright Futures” event at the sprawling NRG Football Stadium in Houston, drawing a crowd of half a million people last autumn. Modi, arriving in tandem with the US President Donald Trump, drew a deafening applause from the mostly Hindu audience at the gathering. Modi and Trump spoke of strengthened ties between India and the US and called each other “loyal friends”. They used each other’s campaign slogans; Modi endorsed Trump’s re-election with Abki baar Trump Sarkar and ‘Make America great again’, while President Trump borrowed the ‘Make in India’ slogan to promote ‘Made in America’.

The crowd at Ahmadabad “Namaste Trump” (Good Morning Trump) during President Trump’s visit consisted of over 100,000 people, who cheered on the visiting dignitary with zeal and passion. In the election year, the incumbent US President seeking a second term, reached out to the Indian diaspora in the US. He struck many of the right notes with his hosts: “America loves India — America respects India — and Americans will always be true and loyal friends to the Indian people,” he said. Trump drew contrasts with another large Asian country: “There’s all the difference in the world between a country that seeks to claim power through coercion, intimidation, aggression and a country that seeks to grow by setting its people free and unleashing their dreams, and that’s India.” His self-confidence and ease of addressing crowds overseas must have rubbed off on the lawmakers at home too, raising his esteem.

No trade agreements were finalized during the visit, but this was not surprising since prior to his departure for New Delhi, President Trump had announced that trade agreements would only be finalized after the US Presidential elections later this year. On the economic side, two-way trade in goods and services has increased; India is now the US’ eighth-largest trade partner and the US is India’s largest. Energy trade, in particular, has propelled. The number of US companies active in India have grown. For most US-based tech giants, India is now one of their top three customer bases. Indian companies are investing heavily in the US, as Indian CEOs highlighted to Trump. Meanwhile, Indians have established the largest number of billion-dollar start-up companies in the US founded by immigrants.

There are a number of points of discord between the two countries too. Trump had imposed duties on the import of steel and aluminum from India while New Delhi had levied heavy duties on the US import of agricultural implements and medical equipment. The diplomacy on both sides has been burning the midnight oil to cement the breaches. India has been apprehensive of possible US sanctions against it with respect to New Delhi’s acquisition of Russian S-400 Missile Systems. These fears have diminished following complications arising from Turkey’s acquisition of similar equipment. The consequences of heightened US tensions with Iran have been managed, with India given time and space to diversify its energy supplies while receiving a waiver from US sanctions for the port project in Chabahar. Many major trade differences have been bridged, including those on agriculture and health care; although new points of friction have arisen, related to digital payments, data localization, and e-commerce.

The two sides did conclude new defence agreements, which must have brought joy to Mr. Modi. The latest deal has raised the number of US-origin weapons platforms comprising the Indian military inventory to seven, although a number of the components will be manufactured or assembled in India. The signing of three significant defence cooperation agreements, upgraded bilateral, trilateral, and quadrilateral dialogues, and regularized military exercises involving all three services, have further cemented Indo-US defence ties.  There is an enhancement in coordination on connectivity infrastructure, maritime security, counterterrorism, and cyber security. Contrarily, Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesperson, in her weekly briefing, expressed alarm at the defence deal between India and the United States, particularly the sale of sophisticated weapons system to India, saying it would further destabilize an already volatile region.

A slightly negative aspect for the hosts was that during a press stakeout, an Indian journalist asked President Trump about Imran Khan, hoping that he would bad-mouth the Pakistani Prime Minister. Much to the chagrin of India, President Trump responded very maturely and stated that Imran Khan was his friend. Donald Trump went on to offer his good services to mediate between Pakistan and India on the Kashmir issue, which was rejected by India.

Despite the royal protocol extended to him by his hosts, President Trump expressed his displeasure at the promulgation of parochial legislations by the Indian government. This view was rather statesman-like from Trump. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi welcomed the observations on Imran Khan by the US President and declared it a vindication of Pakistan’s efforts. His joy must have been short-lived, since in the joint declaration, both the US and India called upon Pakistan to reign in terrorism.

Narendra Modi specializes in extending warm greetings to his visitors and develops a camaraderie with international dignitaries. Apart from the fact that India is a huge market and offers major potential to countries seeking healthy outlets for trade and commerce, Modi’s personal charm rubs off on visitors to New Delhi and he wins them over.

India was vindicated by President Trump’s declaration that his administration was “working with Pakistan to crack down on the terrorist organizations and militants that operate on the Pakistani border,” he also expressed hope for “reduced tensions” and “greater stability” in South Asia.

Some analysts in Pakistan opine that President Trump should have toured Islamabad too, since Pakistan’s esteem is rising and its contribution to the US-Taliban peace accord should have been acknowledged. The fault perhaps lies with Pakistan, which did not vigorously pursue an invitation to President Trump to visit Pakistan.

A distressing development is that while the Presidential visit was in progress, violent Hindu mobs torched two mosques, numerous houses, schools, gas stations and tyre factories. The death toll was 38 while over 200 were injured.

Overall, President Trump’s first visit to India must be deemed a success and it also provided Narendra Modi some respite from his challenges at home.

Indian Force Modernization and The Looming Shadows of Arms Race in South Asia

A new cycle of arms race is on the horizon as major powers strive for power projection. Rapid force modernization has initiated a domino effect across various regions, coercing states into an arms race. Global defence spending has reached USD 1.82 trillion in 2018, with US (USD 649 billion), China (USD 250 billion), KSA (USD 67.6 billion) and India (USD 66.5 billion) accounting for 60% of total spending. The hegemonic ambitions of India under the Modi regime have initiated a force modernization program, instigating major procurement of weapon systems and hardware for the tri-services by allocating USD 16.91 billion. The gravity of the issue can be observed by the fact that the Modi regime spent USD 1.23 billion for emergency procurements for the armed forces within the first 50 days of its re-election, thus moving towards the destabilization of the strategic balance of the region.

The Indian Army’s Future Infantry Soldier System (F-INSAS) program, aiming to equip infantry soldiers with new weapons, armour and network-centric communication systems, received USD 6-8 billion investment by the DRDO to upgrade 325 battalions by 2020. It has allocated USD 3.4 billion to the Field Artillery Rationalization Program to equip its 169 artillery regiments with 3,000 tracked, self-propelled 155 mm Howitzers by 2025. The Indian army’s 65 armoured regiments comprising of 3000 tanks are to be replaced by T-90S Bhishma MBTs under a USD 1.93 billion Transfer of Technology (ToT) agreement from Russia.

The Indian Air Force has embarked on a major force modernization program with purchases worth USD 1.088 billion cleared for IAF during May-July 2019. Meanwhile, deals for procuring 170 aircrafts, including 114 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) and 56 C-295 cargo jet worth USD 22 billion, are also underway. Moreover, the deal for 36 Rafael jets worth USD 8.6 billion and S-400 BMD worth USD 5.5 billion is to be finalized by 2022 and 2023 respectively.

The Indian Navy aims to man over 200 naval vessels by 2027. Under the Advance Technology Vessels (ATV), work on six Arithant Class SSBNs is underway for USD 13 billion. The Indian Navy’s first indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, is also under construction which is worth over USD 2.4 billion; it is expected to be inducted by 2023. Meanwhile, major deals for acquiring advance frigates, destroyers, AEWACs, and replenishing vessels are in the pipeline.

India has been running the largest un-safeguarded nuclear program, however, it was given a waiver in NSG in 2008. The Indian Nuclear City project at Challakere, Karnataka, boasts of being world’s largest nuclear site, with fissile material production capabilities enough to manufacture over 2,500 nuclear devices, including hydrogen bombs. According to estimates, India possesses fissile stocks ranging from 4.0±1.4 tonnes of HEU (30% U-235) enriched to 0.58±0.15 tonnes of weapon-grade plutonium.

The Indian space program with a budget of USD 1.6 billion has embarked on multiple projects, including sending manned missions to space. India, on 27 March 2019, carried out an ANTISAT test targeting its own satellite, indicating its reckless ambition to militarize space. It has launched over 29 satellites in three different orbits, which include satellites for navigation, weather monitoring, and military intelligence-gathering. Moreover, the formation of India’s Defence Space and Cyber Agencies will broaden the country’s offensive capabilities.

The new era of India’s arms race in various domains, conventional, nuclear, space and cyber, showcases its hegemonic ambitions which can potentially destabilize the region. The balance of power in the region is gradually shifting, thus creating an impetus upon Pakistan to indulge in this arms race to maintain balance of power. Indian force modernization along with cyber and space defence commands in the coming decades will subsequently increase security and strategic implications for Pakistan. The massive spending and procurement of weapons systems and rapid force modernization by India poses a grave danger to regional stability by 2030, upon maturation of Indian defence projects.

Moreover, the force build-up could give India the ability to engage Pakistan across all spectrums of the battlefield using network-centric warfare capabilities. In its second term, the Modi administration has spent an alarming USD 2 billion on its defence needs, indicating the belligerent and hostile intentions of India. As India is crucial to the US Pivot to Asia policy, India is on a spree of force modernization in an attempt to quench its hegemonic desires albeit at the cost of destabilizing strategic balance in South Asia. The picture that will emerge after the ripening of Indian defence deals displays a considerable threat to the national security of not only Pakistan, but also China. Assessing emerging battlefield scenarios, it is imperative for Pakistan to reinvigorate its warfighting capacities across various domains. Pakistan should capitalize existing capabilities, ensuring the survivability and efficiency of command and control structures, enhancing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities such as spy satellites, and develop delivery means such as long-range strategic and cruise missiles capable of striking targets deep within enemy territories while suppressing enemy air defence systems. Therefore, it is proposed that China and Pakistan should further strengthen their military ties and initiate a joint venture for research and development in the conventional domain, emerging aerospace and naval domains, and most importantly the space and cyber domains, which will be the battleground of the future.

India’s ‘Surgical Strike’ Doctrine: Implications for South Asian Strategic Stability

One year ago, on Feb 27, 2019, India and Pakistan engaged in a short aerial encounter that led to the shooting down of two Indian Air Force (IAF) aircraft while an MI-17 helicopter was lost due to fratricide. The engagement between the two nuclear neighbours not only challenged the myth of India’s conventional superiority but also re-established the credibility of conventional deterrence, besides establishing the primacy of nuclear deterrence in South Asia.

Despite the humiliation meted out to India’s military pride its leadership claimed victory by asserting that the surgical strikes shall be the new ‘norm’ against Pakistan, thus highlighting the fact that India has not yet understood the meaning of nuclear revolution, which makes war as an unthinkable option between the two nuclear-armed adversaries. Despite experiencing several crises, India’s military and political leadership continue to explore space for a conventional conflict without fully realizing its implications for the region as well as global security.

The Balakot Strike.     On Feb 14, 2019 a young local Kashmiri militant attacked a military convoy and blew himself up resulting in the killing of more than 40 personnel of the Indian security forces. India blamed Pakistan and threatened a punitive action. Twelve days later on Feb 26, 2019, the IAF launched aerial surgical strike close to a place known as ‘Balakot’ targeting a religious seminary that India described as a militant camp and claimed killing more than 300 terrorists but without sharing any supporting evidence that could otherwise corroborate the Indian claims.

In response to the Indian action, PAF launched a counterstrike on Feb 27, 2019, intended primarily to demonstrate Pakistan’s resolve and carefully crafted to avoid casualties on ground. During the short aerial encounter that followed the PAF managed to shoot down two IAF aircraft and captured one of the pilots of a Mig-21 that fell inside Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The pilot was later released as a goodwill gesture and to avoid further escalation. The unexpected but effective riposte by the PAF unnerved the Indian side, which resulted in shooting down of one of their own helicopters in a friendly fire killing all six military personnel onboard. The entire episode caused a serious blow to India’s military image since it claims to be a regional power preparing to fight a ‘Two Front War’ against China and Pakistan.

PM Modi, who was seeking re-election for another term in the office threatened to launch a ‘punitive’ missile strike forcing Pakistan to signal that any adventurism would lead to an assured response, and with premium, as per its policy of ‘Quid Pro Quo Plus.’ The chaos within India’s military hierarchy was revealing when one of India’s conventional submarines surfaced closer to Pakistan’s territorial waters and was intercepted but allowed to escape to prevent escalation. Some reports suggest that the Indian Navy had also readied its nuclear-capable submarine Arihant for deployment in the Arabian Sea apparently without the authorization of India’s Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) thus raising serious concerns about India’s thinking on employment of its nuclear weapons and the command and control structure to manage the second strike capability.

Two Conflicting Narratives.   After the Balakot strike, India claimed that its air force had managed to kill more than 300 terrorists while Pakistan and several international observers negated the claim as there were no casualties and the bombs had clearly missed their intended target. India also claimed that one of its Mig-21s had shot down Pakistan’s F-16 aircraft which was also refuted by an influential Foreign Policy magazine based on the interviews with the US Department of Defense (DoD) officials who verified that no F-16 was missing from the Pakistani inventory.

These claims and counter claims exposed India’s story of lies and deceit. On one hand, the surgical strike was touted as a great success and declared as a ‘new norm’, while on the other side, India’s senior leadership blamed  the failure on the non-availability of aircraft like Rafale, which according to them would have changed the outcome of Balakot crisis. India is already operating state-of-the-art SU-30 and Mirage 2000 aircraft that are capable of delivering payload with precision, but the IAF could not utilize these to their full potential. Whether Rafale will make any significant difference to IAF’s strike potential – is a matter that can only be assessed in a future India-Pakistan crisis.

India’s Surgical Strike Doctrine and Pakistan’s FSD.       India’s surgical strike of Feb 2019 was the first time since 1971 that its air force was employed in an offensive strike across the international border. This led some of the commentators to question the credibility of Pakistan’s Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD) posture by terming the Indian military action as an attempt to call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff as successful.

Pakistan’s FSD was never aimed to deter a surgical strike by the adversary, but is intended to deter a war, ranging between a limited to an all-out military conflict. It would be unrealistic to expect that in response to a ground or an air-launched surgical strike Pakistan would resort to the threat of nuclear retribution. Doing so would have been disproportional and therefore not credible. In addition to the nuclear options, Pakistan has credible conventional responses designed to meet different contingencies as was evident from the counter aerial surgical strike which is part of what is now known as the policy of ‘Quid Pro Quo Plus.’ This has not only reinforced the credibility of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence but has also helped restore confidence in the conventional deterrence against an adversary that has significant conventional advantage.

New Technologies and Implications for Strategic Stability.   India is in the process of developing its own version of Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs) by modifying the existing Brahmos supersonic missiles. It has also acquired next generation Rafale aircraft which would allow greater standoff launch capability against targets across the international border, and is also in the process of acquiring the S-400 anti-ballistic missile system that could potentially offer protection against Pakistan’s counter-strike. All of these combined together could encourage the Indian decision makers to contemplate surgical strikes in a future conflict with Pakistan, having a false sense of security that the S-400 together with India’s indigenous ballistic missile defences could provide immunity against Pakistan’s response.

This line of thinking is dangerous and delusional, keeping in view the nature of their adversarial relationship and the history of past crises. Any attempt to undermine Pakistan’s security would evoke a matching response that may lead to unintended escalation with the possibility of a nuclear exchange between the two neighbours.

Conclusion.     Both India and Pakistan continue to remain embroiled in a cycle of stability-instability with India introducing destabilizing technologies and war-fighting concepts, and Pakistan responding by taking measures that could ensure the credibility of its overall deterrence posture. After experiencing humiliation at the hands of PAF in Feb 2019, India has so far remained cautious, but the induction of new aircraft and anti-missile systems, together with growing militant nationalism amongst India’s decision-making elite, could once again push the region towards instability. India and Pakistan have so far managed to avoid a major war, but every time India introduces destabilizing technologies and war-fighting concepts to assert its military dominance, the region moves towards instability forcing Pakistan to take corrective measures and restore the regional balance. This stability-instability pendulum has kept the region in a state of ‘elusive strategic stability’, and if these trends continue the region may soon experience another crisis that may not remain limited in nature and could end up into a nuclear holocaust.

It is therefore imperative for countries that are helping India to become a dominant military power in the region by permeating perpetual instability in South Asia to understand the consequences of their actions, and instead should help resolve outstanding disputes and encourage both India and Pakistan to engage in trust and confidence-building measures that could at least reduce the frequency of crisis frequency between the two nuclear powers.