Better sense prevailed

After a round of saber-rattling, Prime Minister Imran Khan moved swiftly to preempt escalation by announcing the release of captured Indian pilot Wing Cdr Abhinandan. Reportedly, this was conveyed to India late Wednesday night and on Thursday PM Khan made the announcement before a joint session of parliament. With that, a dangerous military standoff and cross-border air attacks and counter-attacks came to an end. As compared to Prime Minister Modi’s bellicosity, Khan’s disarming approach for peace won.

Unlike the Mumbai and Pathankot attacks, India crossed the threshold this time and attacked a remote place in Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – thus inducting a conventional military deterrence across the international border in response to terrorism. It was quite amusing to hear Indian MEA Secretary Vijay Gokhale explain it as “non-military preemptive action” – which was neither non-military nor preemptive – while recalling the assurance of January 2004 given by General Musharraf against cross-border infiltration. As the Indian war media celebrated it as prolific revenge, the Pakistani side was too happy to show the corpses of mutilated trees. Still not gratified by this mock show, our video-game warriors on social and mainstream media craved for a war trophy. The Pakistan Air Force brought down a plane and a captured pilot was rescued from a mob and then paraded on the media.

For Sun Tzu, victory is not the triumph of one or the other side of the contending armed forces, but the achievement of the intended political objectives. So what was intended by Prime Minister Modi? He could not take the embarrassment of the Pulwama ambush being mourned in most of the Hindi belt, especially when he was already on a relatively less promising re-election trail. For the Indian military, it was a matter of crossing the barrier of hot-pursuit across the border and introducing conventional deterrence. This was the first time after the 1970 war that the Indian Air Force violated Pakistan’s air space so blatantly. Followed by a rare meeting of the National Command Authority – exhibiting nuclear deterrence – the PAF responded in air combat to show that we too can match Indian air intrusion with immunity.

Apart from fulfilling psychological and propaganda purposes, the two militaries have followed Western military strategists Carl von Clausewitz and Antoine-Henri Jomini who treat military strategy in its own right. But for politician Modi, it was in Clausewitz’s dictum a tactic of “continuation of politics by other means”. How far Modi has gained out of these propaganda victories is still a moot point contested by independent media reports. But a war-like environment suited his supra-nationalist agenda, bolstered by the hype created by mainstream Indian media. Modi would have liked to continue to keep the pot boiling on the borders while inflicting additional costs to Pakistan’s dwindling coffers. But Imran Khan outmaneuvered him.

As appropriately cautioned by Prime Minister Khan, there was no guarantee against miscalculations. However, despite the clarity in both civilian and military minds not to escalate the conflict on the eastern front – as vividly shown by the PM’s second speech and the DG ISPR’s briefing – the armed forces could not lower their guard. It seemed escalation of conflict didn’t suit either side, but keeping the border hot did suit India to keep Pakistan under pressure. Internationally, two messages were emanating from diplomatic pressure: both sides de-escalate and engage in talks that suit Islamabad, and Pakistan takes verifiable measures to rein in terror groups. A day before the announcement of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) regarding lack of “understanding of the terror finance posed by Daesh, Jamaat-ut-Dawa (JuD), Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation (FiF), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Haqqani Network and persons affiliated with the Taliban”, the National Security Committee had moved to ban JuD and FiF. After the Pulwama attack, the Punjab government had taken administrative control of a madressah and mosque in Bahawalpur that Indian media alleged was run by the JeM. The NSC had also resolved to more vigorously implement the National Action Plan.

In a significant development after the Pulwama ambush and the IAF’s attack near Balakot, China, India and Russia agreed for closer policy coordination to eradicate “breeding grounds of terrorism”. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at the end of the trilateral meeting: “We agreed to jointly combat all forms (of) terrorism through closer policy coordination and practical cooperation. Especially important is to eradicate the breeding grounds of terrorism and extremism”. The RIC foreign ministers resolved that “those committing, orchestrating, inciting or supporting terrorist acts must be held accountable and brought to justice”. During the meeting, Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj defended the airstrikes by India. The Chinese foreign minister responded by saying: “As a mutual friend to both India and Pakistan, we do hope that they can conduct a dialogue to establish facts through investigation to keep things under control, maintain peace and stability in the region”.

While terming the IAF air strikes as “counter-terrorism actions”, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on both states “to exercise restraint and avoid escalation at any cost”. Pakistan did go ahead with its reprisal by shooting down Indian plane(s) as a demonstration of its “right, will and capability for self-defence”. In yet another diplomatic development, the OIC had invited the Indian external affairs minister as a guest of honour at its inaugural session in the UAE. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi demanded from the OIC to withdraw the invitation to Sushma Swaraj or he would be boycotting the moot. He has since announced that he would not be attending the summit. I think this knee-jerk reaction is not, perhaps, in sync with the mediation Islamabad had sought with India through Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman who might have persuaded the crown prince of the UAE to invite Indian external affairs minister for some kind of mediation.

Taking note of the international diplomatic pressures and after showing Pakistan’s ability to retaliate, Prime Minister Khan again rightly offered to investigate the Pulwama attack and warned against further escalation. India has also sent a dossier to Pakistan with “specific details of JeM’s complicity in Pulwama terror attack and the presence of (UN-proscribed) JeM terror camps and leadership in Pakistan”, according to the MEA of India. What is quite strange about the inconsistent logic of the MEA of India is that it justifies the IAF’s attack and on similar grounds castigates the PAF’s retaliatory attack.

Whatever the notions of the two adversaries, if the violation of international borders or LoC had continued it would have further escalated the conflict into a sort of ‘mini-war’ that neither side wanted beyond certain limits at this point in time. It was in both countries’ interest to show extreme caution in miscalculating the intentions of the other side. True to its national consensus against the use of Pakistani territory for terrorism, Islamabad must demonstrate its will to do what is needed in our own national interest. Since the Khan government is keen to defuse the tension on our eastern border, it must not let go of any opportunity to engage India in negotiations, even if it takes place on the sidelines of the OIC moot. After winning a bronze point in the air, the graceful and magnanimous gesture of returning the Indian pilot has earned many thanks from India, leaving chauvinists in a quandary.

Sun Tzu had said: “Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle but in defeating the enemy – without ever fighting. The highest form of warfare is to attack (the enemy’s) strategy itself”. Modi’s strategy was to keep the flames of military tensions high, Imran Khan’s was to defuse it. Now, the challenge is to not let the terrorists play havoc with Indo-Pak peace and jeopardise the Kashmiris’ peaceful struggle for their inviolable rights.

The writer is a senior journalist.

Email: imtiaz.safma@gmail.com

Twitter: @ImtiazAlamSAFMA