Living up to its promise, the Indian government, as anticipated, launched highly sophisticated air strikes on ‘terrorist infrastructures’—killing over 70 individuals—across nine sites in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) and Pakistan, under the template of ‘Operation Sindoor’. Prime Minister Modi, among many others, has hailed the brave and precise execution by the armed forces. It needs no mention that this was a response to the barbaric Pahalgam attack by terrorists India claims were backed by Pakistan—a claim outrightly denied by the latter. Taking a divergent line from the emotive aspect that terror-centric India-Pak rivalry is, it will be prudent to see what proof India has to offer regarding the complicity of Pak military and administration in the Pahalgam attack. Venturing into a nation’s territory militarily is an extreme move that breaches the principle of sovereignty. It must be, therefore, backed by conclusive evidence, and not half-baked theories and speculations.
Diplomatically, being firm in its denial, Pakistan has termed Operation Sindoor to be “unprovoked” and asserted that “Pakistan reserves the right to respond appropriately at a time and place of its choosing”. Already, in cross-border artillery shelling following Operation Sindoor, several Indian civilians have been killed, and dozens are injured. Now, this is a signal of potential escalation by Pakistan. Nevertheless, Pakistan doesn’t seem to have enough ground to carry out strikes against India. Indian armed forces have claimed, during Operation Sindoor, they were overtly conscious of ensuring that no Pak military facilities were attacked, and that no civilians were harmed. Pakistan has put forth a counterclaim, saying that Indian forces attacked civilian areas as well, and several civilians were killed in the operation. JeM chief Maulana Masood Azhar, too, confirmed that 10 of his relatives, along with four aides, have been killed during the strikes. However, unlike some would like to present, India has not initiated a war against Pakistan, for it targeted just the terrorist infrastructure as part of its “right to act against terror”. Though India launched strikes in Pakistan’s territory, Pakistan should not contemplate striking back regions of India, for we don’t have any track record of nurturing terrorists! In case Pakistan strikes back, harming Indian civilians—under the unsubstantiated pretext that Indian forces killed Pak civilians—that will be a grave escalation, and a great folly. Pakistan, in that case, might have to pay a heavy price, both diplomatically and militarily. India’s western neighbour has, at best, the right to raise the question of sovereignty, but not to trigger a full-scale war.
In the diplomatic domain, Indian officials have, indirectly, tried to involve major powers of the world by briefing their counterparts on the steps taken by India. That is indeed crucial to create a safe diplomatic valve in case Pak dares to take the dangerous route. However, a range of global conflicts from present and past have shown that involvement of superpowers only makes matters worse for bilateral conflicts, rather than easing the tensions. Furthermore, Pakistan also has friends, and that too in the neighbourhood, with their own vested interests. India should, if not politely then firmly and sternly, make this point clear to its rogue neighbour. Both the nations share the onus to let peace prevail over war. Their failure could be highly consequential.