Where do we go from here?

In the revelry after the successful Operation Sindoor, directly linked to the April 22nd tragedy unleashed by terrorists in Pahalgam, Kashmir,  there is a need to wake up to the question, where do we go from here?

By now, after more than a month of Pahalgam attack, and more than a fortnight into the launch of Operation Sindoor, it has been established that, in future any act of terror in the country will be treated as an act of war. In that case, the response would be quite similar or more lethal without falling into the trap of nuclear blackmail. This is a very clear declaration of the future strategy with regard to the dealing with terror.

That is a way of deterring the adversary that has been planning and executing terror attacks in India, especially Jammu and Kashmir, since 1947. The tribesmen’s invasion in October 1947 was an act of war and terror both. It was visible, and so were the three wars fought thereafter – 1965 and Kargil of 1999. The 1971 war became a war, involving Jammu and Kashmir only after Pakistan attacked western borders and breached the airspace.

Let me put things in a different way than what is being said and articulated. Pakistan lost the war on April 22nd; May 10th was just the realization of that. On May 10th, India and Pakistan entered into an understanding to cease the firing and military action – that’s the fourth day of the Operation Sindoor.  Now, we are satisfied that justice has been served. And if there is another such attack, there would be a proportionate response, may be more lethal. This is the new doctrine, which has come out of the thesis on which Operation Sindoor, a multipurpose military action, was based.

This doctrine envisages that an all-time state of readiness to launch a war against terrorism on Pakistani soil – that is a state of permanent state of near war, because the doubts about the intention of the adversary have neither vanished nor diminished. Or is this a posturing which would deter those nurturing terrorists to experiment with their foolhardy acts?  This would mean passing by other alternatives.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and other leaders of his government, has hinted that there is a possibility of bilateral talks with Pakistan, but only on the issues of terrorism and vacation of PoK- Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

This is a silver lining in otherwise gloomy horizon in the Indo-Pak relations, which are in the state of deepfreeze. The concept of the bilateralism, a special part of the Simla Agreement of July 1972, is being re-invoked to keep eagerly waiting would-be mediators at bay. The US President Donald Trump‘s repeated claims and offers on mediation have become quite irksome. The issue is that there is no direct way to snub the US President. He is averse to criticism.  Pakistan is itching for third-party mediation, and it is emboldened by Trump’s utterances of Kashmir – the K word that Delhi doesn’t like to be discussed at international fora, particularly after August 5, 2019, when it abolished semi-autonomous status of the state. The state was bifurcated into two union territories of J&K, and Ladakh.

Pakistan claims victory where there was none. It is behaving like superpower in the region, because it got categorical support from China, and few other countries – Turkyie, and

Azerbaijan. China supported in with fighter jets and missiles in the hostilities between India and Pakistan, most intense in the past 25 years. It should have learnt its lessons that for decades its call for the implementation of the UN resolutions on J&K has gone unheeded. Now, its clamour for third party mediation on Kashmir showcases its internal weaknesses. The best way it is to engage in dialogue with India.

There is a simple formula for Pakistan to show it really wants to move forward in fostering good ties with India. It can take a leaf out of book of President Musharraf’s era, when the forces were mobilized from both sides and they were in eyeball to eyeball position, after the terror attack on the Parliament on December 13, 2001. Caught in a situation, Musharraf went on television on January 12th, 2002 to denounce religious extremism at home and forswear terrorism to achieve Pakistan’s objectives.

He had declared: “No organization will be allowed to perpetuate terrorism behind the garb of the Kashmir cause,” and he went on to pledge: “We will take strict action against any Pakistani who is involved in terrorism inside the country or abroad.”

He also banned two groups that India had blamed for the Parliament attack, Lashkar-e-Toiba , and Jaish-e-Mohammad .  That had set the stage for composite dialogue in  January 2004.

Today, Islamabad should hand over the terrorists whose list has been handed over to Pakistan few years ago. The current political and military – the real power - leadership of Pakistan, says it is the worst victim of terrorism and is on the frontline of fighting terrorism. The UN designated terrorists cannot be its friends, and if they are, then the whole card of victimhood is a deliberately raised smokescreen. It can help in creating atmosphere conducive for talks if it starts being truthful about the menace.

That would be the real deterrence, without even talking about the nuclear weapons.