Analysis | A war no one wants

For nearly two weeks after the Pahalgam terrorist attack, while the major world capitals condemned the dastardly act and called for restraint, the demand for retaliatory actions grew in India. After suspending the Indus Water Treaty of 1960, and other punitive actions, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave armed forces “complete operational freedom to decide on the mode, targets and timing” of any Indian military action. Pakistan reacted by calling for an inquiry into the terrorist incident, while insisting that the use of force by India will be met with a response. The US Vice President was in India when the attack took place, and immediately condemned it. The Indian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister S Jaishankar talked to important world leaders to apprise them of the situation. Pakistan appealed to Russia, China and Western countries to intervene, calling for ‘fair investigation’.

In the last more than 25 years since India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998, South Asia has been labelled by the US and West as the ‘world’s most likely nuclear flashpoint’. Since then, the two countries have faced serious flashpoints at least half a dozen times, starting with the Kargil War of 1999. During these crises, third-party actors played an important though tacit role in crisis de-escalation, with the US, as the single most important player, proactively engaging in crisis mediation. It might once again perform that role. It received support from its allies in Europe (e.g., the UK) and West Asia (Saudi Arabia and UAE), and even non-allies like China and Russia have largely followed the same approach of advising de-escalation. 

This is true about 2016, when India responded to a terrorist attack in Kashmir by conducting surgical strikes in Pakistani Kashmir. The US, without criticising India, blamed Pakistan for not being able to control anti-India militancy, while calling for de-escalation. In 2019, after the Pulwama incident, India went a step further by becoming the first country to conduct air strikes deep inside the territory of a nuclear neighbour. The US seems to accept New Delhi’s policy of pressuring Pakistan to stop its support for anti-India activities. This may be construed as tacit US Support for Indian military action. That was during Trump’s first presidency. 

However, during the initial two weeks of the current crisis, the US didn’t take a proactive role in coordinating crisis diplomacy globally, though Secretary of State Marco Rubio did speak to Indian and Pakistani decision makers on April 30, urging restraint. After the Indian military action, Trump expressed annoyance by declaring:  “It’s a shame. Just heard about it. I guess people knew something was going to happen based on a little bit of the past…I hope it ends very quickly,” The US administration said it was closely following the military escalation in South Asia.

“I am monitoring the situation …and will continue to engage both Indian and Pakistani leadership towards a peaceful resolution,” Marco Rubio posted on X. It is likely that the US will be active behind the scene to bring some resolution, just as it is trying in Ukraine and Gaza Wars. In fact, this might succeed and be the only success Trump can claim.

Russia and China, in the first two weeks, while advising restraint, fell back to their traditional position, with the former more accommodative towards its historical ally India, and the latter supporting its ‘all-weather friend’. On Wednesday, Russia expressed deep concerns over the current situation between India and Pakistan. While denouncing all forms of terrorism the Russian foreign ministry’s spokesperson said “We hope that the differences between New Delhi and Islamabad will be resolved through peaceful, political and diplomatic means on a bilateral basis in accordance with the provisions of the Simla Agreement of 1972 and the Lahore Declaration of 1999”. This at a time when Pakistan has declared that it will not abide by that agreement. With the ongoing Ukraine conflict, Russia is not keen to get involved in this conflict. China urged both India and Pakistan to show restraint and prioritise regional peace and stability. Expressing concern over the situation, the Chinese foreign ministry also voiced regret over India's recent military actions, emphasising the need to avoid further deterioration. In view of its escalating trade war with the US, and need for trade partners like India, Beijing is also averse to any further deterioration in India-Pakistan tensions. The countries of West Asia, e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, have good relations with both the parties, and don’t want to choose one. They are preoccupied with the Gaza War, just as Europe is with the Ukraine War. India has a limited objective of giving a clear message to Pakistan and the world at large that the country will not let any such act as Pahalgam go unpunished.

Pakistan, with its precarious economy and political uncertainties, may still make some noise and pretence of retaliation. But ultimately, Sharif junior wants a face saver, something that Sharif senior got from US President Bill Clinton to end the Kargil and extricate his country from an unaffordable war. This may lead to a resolution, and the world may heave a sigh of relief.

(Sanjay Kumar Pandey is a Professor at the Centre for Russian and Central Asian & East European Studies, School of International Studies, JNU)