Ten days have passed since the gruesome killings of 26 people at Pahalgam on April 22. In the following days, Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave a lead to the boiling mood of the nation by announcing a number of measures, including the suspension of the 1960-signed Indus Water Treaty, followed by Pakistan’s retaliation through its own set of counter-measures, including coming out of the 1972 Shimla Agreement.
On April 29, the Prime Minister held a meeting with his military chiefs, and reportedly gave them the carte blanche to decide on the timing and nature of the action against Pakistan. The same night, Pakistan information minister told newsmen that Pakistan was expecting an Indian military attack within 2-3 days based on their intelligence reports, and their country was fully prepared.
While the Indian TV channels and a part of the national media reiterated that Modi’s attack against Pakistan was certainly coming, the situation radically changed on Wednesday, 30 April, when the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio dialled both the Indian external affairs minister Dr. S. Jaishankar and the Pakistan prime minister Shehbaz Sharif, calling for de-escalation and maintenance of peace and security in South Asia. The tone was quite focused and it had not that tone of Trump, who initially gave the impression that the US would go with everything that his dear friend Narendra Modi would be doing as a part of retaliation.
If Rubio’s observations are analysed, it can be inferred that he reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to cooperation with India against terrorism. However, at the same time, without mentioning about any involvement of the Shehbaz Sharif government in the attack, Rubio took a formal position of politely demanding de-escalating tensions. Significantly, in the US State Department statement, it was mentioned that both Rubio and Sharif reaffirmed their continued commitment to holding terrorists accountable for their heinous acts of violence.
What does the latest US position mean for any possible Indian military attack on Pakistan, which has the potential of escalation into a full-fledged war between the two nuclear-armed neighbours? First, Rubio strongly favours India to pursue its actions of tracking down the perpetrators, and he wants Pakistan to fully collaborate in this task from its side. Rubio must have communicated strongly President Trump’s feelings on the Pahalgam massacre. But at the same time, Rubio has not given any indication that Shehbaz Sharif government has direct links with the terrorists involved in Pahalgam genocide.
Regarding Rubio’s conversation with Sharif, a readout by the US Department of State said that he spoke of the need to condemn the terror attack. Both leaders reaffirmed their continued commitment to holding terrorists accountable for their heinous acts of violence, it said.
“The Secretary urged Pakistani officials’ cooperation in investigating this unconscionable attack. He also encouraged Pakistan to work with India to de-escalate tensions, re-establish direct communications between the two countries”, it stated.
This scenario ten days after the April 22 Pahalgam massacre has many similarities with the India-Pakistan military standoff witnessed in June 2002, when the western countries got information that the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had taken a decision to attack Pakistan. Vajpayee had lost all hopes for a dialogue with Pakistan after the Pak-inspired terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in Delhi in December 2001, followed by another massacre at Kaluchak in Jammu in May 2002. The Indian operation was named Operation Parakram. Both India and Pakistan mobilised huge troops along the Line of Control and the navy and army units were fully prepared.
But then, the US strongly intervened. Robert Armitage, the US state department official looking after South Asia spent hours in Delhi, persuading the Indian side to avert war with the promise that the Secretary of State Colin Powell was talking to the Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf on removing the terror camps inside Pakistan, and taking action against the terrorists operating from within Pakistani soil. Powell finally succeeded and the war was averted, though Prime Minister Vajpayee was not happy. But at the same time, he knew that it was not possible for India to go for a war with Pakistan by antagonizing the USA.
Interestingly, I was in Moscow in June 2022 over a separate assignment amidst the heightening tensions on India-Pakistan border. The day I was returning to Delhi from Moscow, I discovered at the airport that the then principal secretary to the Prime Minister, Brajesh Mishra, along with senior officials of the Indian government were boarding the same flight for Delhi. I was surprised as the PM had no programme in Moscow, and Vajpayee was on a tour of a Central Asian state. I was told by an official that Mishra was sent by the PM to talk to President Vladimir Putin and Russian officials about the latest position on India-Pak standoff, indicating the importance of the Russian stance on any Indian geopolitical chess move impacting the whole of South Asia.
The 2002 June incident demonstrated that Prime Minister Modi has to take into account many factors before opting for any final decision on striking against Pakistan. The TV channels may go claiming that a strike was imminent, the BJP supporters may be waiting for the coming humiliation of Pakistan, some self-declared experts might say on belligerent TV media that Pakistan would be divided into four parts, but the geopolitical reality on the ground is quite different. Prime Minister Modi also knows it. After giving full freedom to the military chiefs to decide on the nature of action, the Prime Minister may have to see what assurances the US can give to India on stopping cross border terrorism and disbandment of terror camps before giving signal to any stronger action. (IPA Service)
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
