Executing Operation Sindoor
By Prof (Dr) DK Giri
(Professor of Practice, NIIS Group of Institutions)
In a powerful speech Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered some hard messages to Pakistan, and by extension, to the world. He said, “If ever there is a dialogue with Pakistan, it will be only on terrorism and PoK”. That is a formidable strategic step. So far, India’s Pakistan policy has been defensive, asserting the integration of the Indian part of Kashmir, not the whole of Kashmir, meaning reclaiming PoK.
The second message is that “blood and water cannot flow together”. Unless Pakistan explicitly delinks from terrorism networks existing in its soil, India should keep the Indus Water Treaty suspended. This is a bold step, especially as it was signed in 1960 by the World Bank etc. The treaty has not been disturbed ever since. For India to take that step is a big departure from history. It is commendable.
The third signal to the world is that Operation Sindoor is not called off; it is just halted, a calculated pause. Pakistan should not assume that it is all over. In the past, India was to absorb the shocks, public anger, and the bloodshed caused by terrorists, in Mumbai, Uri, Pulwama, but no more. The Prime Minister has made it amply clear that terrorists and their handlers will be chased, hunted down and punished. India would retaliate. Remember the foreign policy formulation, any act of terrorism will be construed as an act of war. The messages could not be stronger. The taste of the pudding is in eating. So what matters is the execution of the intent. The action part also is demonstrated through Operation Sindoor.
Let us talk a bit about the issues being debated before and after the 7th May, the date Operation Sindoor was launched hitting 9 terrorist targets inside Pakistan. One strategic issue is whether Operation Sindoor was inevitable, if there was no other option. I have written in detail about this point in my previous pieces in this column that it could not be avoided. It was necessary to dismantle the terror network. Although they have not been done completely, a beginning has been made and Islamabad is expected to finish it. In case, it does not, New Delhi will have to clean it up by appropriate means.
The second issue is if India should have gone for the ceasefire. That is debatable. Nehru made a mistake by stopping the advancing army that was beating back the tribal intruders in Kashmir in 1947. Strategists argue that Modi repeated the mistake by accepting the ceasefire without liberating PoK etc. Well, the nature of military confrontation has drastically changed since 1947. Like former General Navarene said the war is not like a Bollywood movie, there are deaths and destruction on both sides. So ceasefire if it was asked for by Pakistan should have been accepted. Pakistan is crumbling under the weight of its own internal contradictions. It can perish as a viable state even without a war with India. India should ensure that Pakistan is no longer sponsoring terrorism into India.
New Delhi is fully conscious of ramping up pressure on Pakistan. The Prime Minister has assured the country on this. This is the beginning of the end terrorism emanating from Pakistan. The third issue is the lack of international support for India whereas Pakistan got it from China, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. This is not new. Their collusion has been on the card for a long time.
But there is a point in this argument. Except Israel, no country in the world has openly and actively come out in support of India. That perhaps is because India prefers to remain neutral, non-aligned or multi- aligned. India therefore has no friends on board. This again has been argued in my articles where I suggest that you should reach out to partners and recognise friends. The Foreign Minister had said, India needs partners, not preachers. The same can be said about India. Many countries want India as a partner, not a moral preacher.
Another point that is heavily debated is who won the limited battle that lasted some 3 days unlike those in Ukraine and Gaza which have been in since 3 years. Again, the comparison may not be as authentic as India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers. At any rate, both countries know deep inside the extent of their loss and vulnerability.
A word about the role of the media, especially the electronic media, the TV. Less said the better about the media. They have shamed themselves by spreading lies and damn lies to sensationalise India’ reaction and Pakistan’s counter action etc. The action-reaction continuum was lost on the media. In future, none expects the media to report with responsibility and accountability.
Can Pakistan take advantage the ceasefire and regroup to attack again. But New Delhi should remain ever vigilant and willing to retaliate. Eternal vigilance against Pakistan is the price of the security of Indian citizens. — INFA