Pakistan’s prime minister Nawaz Sharif had called a full-scale National Security Council (NSC) meeting on 9 October. It was attended by the various military heads including the three chiefs; interior minister, Chaudhary Nisar Ali, defence minister, Khwaja Asif, the defence minister and the diplomatic and military adviser, Sartaj Aziz.
In that meeting, Sharif had declared, ‘War is not an option between India and Pakistan.’ Did the army provide the elbow room to the PM to make the statement. An Express Tribune report on the meeting had stated that the three service chiefs and Sartaj Aziz had met Sharif just before the full scale NSC. So was it the occasion when the armed forces of Pakistan decided to de-escalate?
Did Narendra Modi’s calculated ‘irrationality’ again turned trumps? Early in the month, the prime minister had apparently told the Indian army and Border Security Force (BSF) a ‘free hand’ in dealing with the cross-LoC firing by Pakistan’s armed forces. The forces’ ‘retributive volleys’ into the borderline areas had come as a surprise as they also targeted civilians on the Pakistan side – a fact that the media of the country was tom-tomming right since Eid on 6 October. Even that day the Indian forces did not relent on their barrage.
Millions, indeed tens of millions of civilians, had been killed in the two world wars in Europe. In all the American ventures since Korean War till the current aerial bombing in Iraq and Syria had big civilian tolls. In fact, they created the quaint term, ‘collateral damage’ to describe the non-combatant deaths.
Yet, ‘collateral damage’ has never been a big issue during any of the two major wars that Pakistan and India had fought in 1965 and 1971.
This time in the retaliatory fire of the Indian forces, the civilians were killed in fair numbers in proportion to the force employed. This was unusual. The military briefers in New Delhi had been explaining that away as variable created out of the larger settled population on Pakistan’s side of the LoC. Was this a part of Modi’s ‘free hand’?
But then Pakistan decided to de-escalate first, without even a flag meeting. Why did they begin the process? Did they want to test Modi’s resolve in the light of his public snub by cancelling the talks? These issues will need answers from analysts on both sides. Pakistan’s leaders of armed forces could not have emerged unscathed out of this relatively minor tussle. Did General Raheel Sharif blink?
It is possible that the answer to this question will come from another crisis. Meanwhile, the UN chief Ban Ki Moon and the overlords of US have urged the two countries to talk to each other. The question is: will there be a talk, in line with their desires.
In that meeting, Sharif had declared, ‘War is not an option between India and Pakistan.’ Did the army provide the elbow room to the PM to make the statement. An Express Tribune report on the meeting had stated that the three service chiefs and Sartaj Aziz had met Sharif just before the full scale NSC. So was it the occasion when the armed forces of Pakistan decided to de-escalate?
Did Narendra Modi’s calculated ‘irrationality’ again turned trumps? Early in the month, the prime minister had apparently told the Indian army and Border Security Force (BSF) a ‘free hand’ in dealing with the cross-LoC firing by Pakistan’s armed forces. The forces’ ‘retributive volleys’ into the borderline areas had come as a surprise as they also targeted civilians on the Pakistan side – a fact that the media of the country was tom-tomming right since Eid on 6 October. Even that day the Indian forces did not relent on their barrage.
Millions, indeed tens of millions of civilians, had been killed in the two world wars in Europe. In all the American ventures since Korean War till the current aerial bombing in Iraq and Syria had big civilian tolls. In fact, they created the quaint term, ‘collateral damage’ to describe the non-combatant deaths.
Yet, ‘collateral damage’ has never been a big issue during any of the two major wars that Pakistan and India had fought in 1965 and 1971.
This time in the retaliatory fire of the Indian forces, the civilians were killed in fair numbers in proportion to the force employed. This was unusual. The military briefers in New Delhi had been explaining that away as variable created out of the larger settled population on Pakistan’s side of the LoC. Was this a part of Modi’s ‘free hand’?
But then Pakistan decided to de-escalate first, without even a flag meeting. Why did they begin the process? Did they want to test Modi’s resolve in the light of his public snub by cancelling the talks? These issues will need answers from analysts on both sides. Pakistan’s leaders of armed forces could not have emerged unscathed out of this relatively minor tussle. Did General Raheel Sharif blink?
It is possible that the answer to this question will come from another crisis. Meanwhile, the UN chief Ban Ki Moon and the overlords of US have urged the two countries to talk to each other. The question is: will there be a talk, in line with their desires.