Truce or Trap? India’s calculated calm with Pakistan
Islamabad’s political instability, revisionist objectives, ideological mindset pose great challenges for the ceasefire agreed by New Delhi Read Full Article at RT.com
New Delhi agreeing on ceasefire with its troubled neighbor poses many going ahead – due to Islamabad’s risk-taking, military control, and proxy tactics
Following four days of intense hostilities, India and Pakistan reached an agreement for a ceasefire. However, in light of Pakistan’s historical pattern of violating ceasefire agreements, there remains little belief in India that this cessation of hostilities will endure.
The concern is not whether a breach will occur, but rather when. The frequency of ceasefire violations by Pakistan has prompted a prominent International Relations scholar and professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, to dedicate an entire book to the issue. The work, titled “Line on Fire: Ceasefire Violations and India-Pakistan Escalation Dynamics”, delves into the complexities of this ongoing conflict.
For New Delhi, a precarious peace has been established. Accordingly, there is little ambiguity regarding the statement issued by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and the Indian Ministry of Defence on the ceasefire. Both ministries emphasised that the armed forces would remain fully prepared and vigilant, committed to safeguarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation.
Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi in his address to the nation on Monday announced that Operation Sindoor has “redefined the fight against terror … setting a new standard and a new normal in counter-terrorism measures.” The prime minister singled out a hardening of India’s stance against cross-border terrorism, and its resolve in the face of perceived threats.
Military standoff
The sequence of events began on April 22, when a deadly terrorist attack orchestrated by the Pakistan-backed militant group, the Resistance Front (TRF), resulted in the deaths of 26 Indians, predominantly tourists.
TRF, an armed separatist organisation operating in Kashmir, is a faction of the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Established in 2019 in the aftermath of the Indian government’s revocation of Article 370, TRF initially claimed responsibility for a series of smaller attacks, including several targeted killings, beginning in 2020. However, the attack in Pahalgam represents the most significant operation carried out by TRF to date.
In response to the attack, India initiated a significant counterterrorism operation, codenamed Operation Sindoor, on May 7. Under the operation, India targeted nine terrorist camps of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed located in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Following the strikes, India faced a series of drone assaults along the northern and western sectors of the border, particularly in regions such as Jammu, Pathankot, Udhampur, and extending as far as Jaisalmer.
Fortunately, these drone attacks were successfully intercepted by Indian forces with minimum damage. In phase two of the operation, on May 8, India conducted an airstrike that targeted and destroyed the air defence system in Lahore.
The ceasefire
Immediately following the signing of the ceasefire agreement, US President Donald Trump claimed credit for successfully mediating between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. Paradoxically, on the same day, a financial institution with significant US influence, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), approved a $1 billion loan to Pakistan under the Extended Fund Facility (EFF). In addition, the IMF sanctioned another $1.4 billion to Pakistan under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF).
As anticipated, India abstained from voting at the IMF Executive Board meeting, signalling its opposition within the constraints of IMF protocol, as there is no provision for a formal rejection. By abstaining, India expressed significant dissent and seized the opportunity to formally register its objection. The loan from the IMF has provoked an intense backlash against the IMF, with critics using expressions such as “terrible optics,”“blood on its hands,” and “IMF bankrolling bloodshed.”
Meanwhile, India’s decision to enter into a ceasefire has largely disappointed those who believed that the time had come to assertively address Pakistan’s actions and seek retribution for the victims of the May 7 attack, along with others. In fact, many of these analysts contend that the ceasefire is a temporary pause and that India is likely preparing for a more substantial action to deliver a decisive message to Pakistan. In his speech before the nation Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave Pakistan a veiled warning that the army stands ready, in case of any future act of terror.
Nonetheless, the reasoning behind the timing of the ceasefire agreement remains perplexing.
Challenges ahead
Ceasefire agreements are inherently challenging, even in the most favourable circumstances, as they are contingent upon the adversary’s cost-benefit calculations.
Despite power asymmetries, a resolute opponent may still choose to employ force. Whether through proxy warfare or conventional military engagement, with or without the threat of nuclear weapons, Pakistan’s revisionist objectives, ideological mindset, high tolerance for risk, and the preeminent role of its military make it particularly difficult to deter. Pakistan does not operate as a typical state; it does not perceive the consequences of using force in the same manner as other nations.
Secondly, ceasefire agreements are inherently difficult to enforce, as they depend on the absence – rather than the presence – of hostile actions. As a result, occasional breaches are inevitable. While the desire to penalise Pakistan is understandable, New Delhi must also acknowledge that such violations have become less frequent than in the past. Pakistan-backed terrorism is now primarily confined to Kashmir, where major attacks occur sporadically.
Thirdly, proxy wars complicate the enforcement of a ceasefire, as plausible deniability obscures accountability and undermines the effectiveness of targeted responses. Given the Pakistani Army’s historical involvement in similar offences, it is not unreasonable to regard it as a suspect, as this behaviour reflects a pattern that cannot be overlooked.
Finally, ceasefire agreements entail significant costs, and any military action must be carefully assessed in light of the potential harm and the associated risks of escalation. India has every right to impose costs on Pakistan and should demonstrate a higher tolerance for risk in order to counter Pakistan’s resolve. Penalising the Pakistani Army is preferable to allowing it to sponsor terrorism with impunity. However, in strategic calculations, the adversary’s response must always be considered – Pakistan is not a state to be underestimated, and each crisis-response cycle increases the potential for future escalation.
Key takeways
Despite the rather unwelcome ceasefire, India achieved certain objectives in the 72 hours. It successfully destroyed several key terrorist launchpads in Pakistan. Additionally, a significant shift in India’s Pakistan policy occurred during this period. Going forward, any act of terrorism originating from Pakistan will be regarded as an act of war, prompting a conventional response that extends deep across the border.
In other words, in future instances of terrorism, India will no longer merely target the terrorists but will instead launch direct attacks on Pakistani territory. Consequently, the ceasefire has failed to extinguish the underlying tensions and, at best, serves only to sustain the precarious volatility of the nuclear threat.
Another crucial lesson for Indian leadership is recognising the level of international support it can garner in the event of direct conflict. Except for Israel, no other country offered unequivocal support to India. While the ambiguous positions of the United States and the United Kingdom were anticipated, Russia’s neutral position represents a significant setback. Although Russia pledged full support to India in its fight against all forms of terrorism, the absence of direct condemnation against Pakistan may also carry an important message for India. In recent United Nations votes concerning Russia, India either abstained or favoured Ukraine. If India wants to shore up diplomatic support in its favour, it may need to behave more assertive diplomatically and stand up for what it believes is right.
Moreover, most nations, including those in the Middle East, have adopted a firmly neutral stance. Turkey, notably, was the only country that openly expressed support for Pakistan.
India has also come to understand that, despite recent diplomatic efforts, China will not deviate from its long-established policy of supporting Pakistan and limiting India’s influence in the region, confining India in the “South Asia box”. As China’s influence grows, New Delhi will need to leverage American power and strategic alignment more effectively to counterbalance this challenge.
In conclusion, although India asserted that the launch of Operation Sindoor was a strategic initiative aimed at dismantling terrorist infrastructure based in and sponsored by Pakistan, this rationale can, at best, be seen as an attempt to justify the action.
In essence, the operation was an emotional response driven by the desire to avenge the deaths of the victims in Pahalgam. In politics, optics play a significant role, and any silence – whether framed as strategic patience or not – by the Modi government would likely have been interpreted by opposition parties as a sign of weakness.
Pakistan has consistently assumed the role of the provocateur, instigating violence while simultaneously portraying itself as the victim. This dual strategy has been amplified by certain Chinese and Western media outlets, which have, at times, uncritically propagated pro-Pakistan narratives. These include unverified claims such as the downing of Indian fighter jets, including Rafale aircraft, the capture of an Indian female pilot, and the destruction of Indian military installations. Though lacking substantiation, such reports contributed to a perception of victory for Pakistan.
India must develop a robust and strategic international communication framework to disseminate its narrative and secure broader global support effectively. In this regard, India could draw lessons from Russia, which – despite extensive Western sanctions, information warfare, and diplomatic isolation – has sustained its lone fight in Ukraine, a country backed by NATO. Furthermore, India should explore and leverage the internal political fissures within Pakistan, as these divisions render the state increasingly susceptible to domestic instability. India certainly hit pause but not reset.
