Pause right move. The other road led to long, costly war

This column was originally written with the title ‘It is time for de-escalation’, urging an end to India-Pakistan hostilities. Then came the welcome news from US President Trump that a ceasefire had been reached. Hurrah! India has already made its will and strength clear. It will not hesitate to punish Pakistan for supporting terror attacks; it will not be cowed by Pakistan’s possession of nuclear arms; it has the ability with new drones and missiles to penetrate deep into Pakistan without its planes crossing into enemy air space; and that its Navy too can join other forces in attacking Pakistan defence infrastructure in coastal areas. Having made these points, it was time to de-escalate. A conclusive victory for either side was impossible in the short run. A long-run war would have been a disaster for both sides, changing little while imposing a heavy cost through lives, damage, and military spending. In Washington DC, India and Pakistan have long been viewed as countries that have had military exchanges in the past — as in 2016 and 2019 — but are mature politically and will avoid serious escalation. At one point, it looked as if this view was too optimistic but both countries did find a way to end the conflict though Indian sources contradicted Trump’s assertion of US mediation. medium121063121The media of both countries has been egged on by politicians playing on patriotic themes and swearing to fight till victory is won. There was a time for harnessing patriotic rage and uniting India against terrorism. The time has now come for a ceasefire. Terrorism in Kashmir does not have a military solution. The armed forces have been deployed in the state for decades without solving what is fundamentally a political problem. Too many disaffected Kashmiris are willing collaborators of terrorists with Pakistani support. Changing the mindset of Kashmiris, giving them a feeling of true inclusion, will take time. That requires political skills. Hitting sundry targets in Pakistan will not produce that change, even if it has other rationales. On Indian TV, former army officers and politicians have talked up the military aspects. They have eulogized India’s armed strength, forays into Pakistan, and determination to teach Pakistan a lesson. There was a time for this too, but now realism needs to take over.The media have published charts showing India’s superiority over Pakistan in armed might. India has 14 lakh active military personnel against Pakistan’s 6.6 lakh; 2,229 military aircraft against 1,399; 3,151 tanks against 1,839; 30 ‘major’ warships against around 10 of Pakistan’s; 18 submarines (two of them nuclear) against Pakistan 8 (none nuclear); and two aircraft carriers against none. This may give an impression of immeasurably superior strength that can crush Pakistan.The impression is false. India might have had to spread its armed forces to combat China along with Pakistan. China views Pakistan as an important strategic partner that must be supported if there is any danger of defeat or serious loss of territory. If one publishes a chart showing China’s armed strength versus India’s, India will look puny.India’s biggest nightmare has always been that China will join hands with Pakistan in hostilities. That will truly skewer our boasts. Keeping China out of hostilities was vital. Even if China’s involvement was no more than large accumulations of troops on the border, we had to avoid it. That is a good rationale for the ceasefire.The media has also published data on the economic strength of the two countries to show that Pakistan cannot afford a fight. India will soon become the third largest economy in the world, and is the fastest-growing major economy. But Pakistan has long-term problems and keeps going to the IMF for financial rescues. However, even if Pakistan’s forex coffers go empty, China will offer financial support to keep its strategic partner going. China plus Pakistan will always be stronger, economically and militarily, than India.India opposed the latest tranche of $1 billion from the IMF to Pakistan. A section of the media expressed hope that India would prevail—after all, how could the IMF allow its money to be used to fight a war? But the IMF loan went through easily, showing that other countries and international institutions may condemn terrorism but will not unambiguously condemn Pakistan or penalise it. That must have influenced the decision to accept a ceasefire.A cartoonist had portrayed Trump as holding his head and saying, ‘De-escalate and let me fight my trade war in peace’. That is exactly what has happened. All wars are bad, but some are better than others.