India-Pakistan War The Ceasefire Controversy

Dr. D.K. Giri
The Indian Parliament in its full strength debated the context of the ceasefire of Operation Sindoor. The Prime Minister leading the discussion asserted that neither any country, nor any leader influenced the ceasefire decision. The Leader of Opposition and almost all Opposition parties asked the Prime Minister to refute in clear terms the claims made by American President Donald Trump. The Minister of Defence revealed in the Parliament that the ceasefire was asked by Pakistani army and Government of India (GoI) responded positively to it. The Minister of External Affairs stuck to India’s strategy on dealing with Pakistan on Kashmir. That is to allow no third party involvement.

The war with Pakistan, code-named ‘Operation Sindoor’ lasted for about four days from 7 May to 10 May, about 88 hours to be precise. The war was retaliation by India to a Pakistan-sponsored terror attack on 22 April in Pahalgam. Twenty-six innocent people on a site-seeing tour in Pahalgam were killed in cold blood provoking the entire country into an unprecedented outrage. GoI ordered the army to strike at the terror infrastructure deep inside Pakistan. Islamabad struck back.

Surprisingly, a ceasefire was announced by India just after three days of intense exchange of fire power. It was good that the war ended soon or was halted as, GoI says. India caused substantial damage to Pakistan’s image, infrastructure and intent which has been malevolent towards India since the partition. There have been counter claims by Pakistan that they had inflicted equal damage to India. But their claims have not been verifiable as before.

The digital media, especially in India as perhaps it is bigger in size and reach, went over the top to telecast even disinformation to whip up war hysteria. That was done to increase their TRP etc. Thankfully, GoI has begun a crackdown on such disinformation that misleads the country and presents a wrong image of India in the world.

On the other side, Pakistan has been consistently spreading calumny about India’s position on Kashmir and related issues. A few countries, especially, their conservative and capricious leadership, have bought into the Pakistani propaganda. In order to clear the clutter, for the first time, GoI sent seven multi-party delegations consisting of 59 members to 32 countries. But what is still persisting is the controversy about the ceasefire! How did it happen? Who called it, under whose behest? The mercurial American President Donald Trump’s jumping into the scene has made the controversy curiouser and curiouser. The driver behind the ceasefire decision continues to be shrouded in mystery. The crux of the debate in the current session of the Indian Parliament was the ceasefire decision.

Ideally, to throw a caveat, war is not good for any country. Dialogue and diplomacy are the way to resolve disputes. But, a good deal of international political theory exists on war, some of which legitimize it on certain specific ground. There are many popular quotes, quite a few of them debatable, on war and peace. To sample some, “it is necessary to wage a war in order to prevent a war”; “all wars represent a failure of diplomacy”. Gandhi’s advice on violence and war is ever so true, “an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind”. We also know of Chinese strategists Sun Tzu’s, ‘The Art of War’. That said, “All wars end up in deaths and destruction, even of innocent people”.

The tragic consequences of war between Palestine and Israel, Russia and Ukraine are pathetic indicators of failure of diplomacy. A similar development just took place between Cambodia and Thailand. There are other wars too which are unfortunate and unacceptable: Serbia and Kosovo, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo, Israel and Iran and so on. In such dismal scenario, the end of the war between Pakistan and India is a welcome step.

On the ceasefire, the controversy is caused by Donald Trump’s claim that he brokered it. He has said it a few times. The latest is the reiteration of his role of a peace-broker with Keir Starmmer, the British Prime Minister in their meeting on 28 July in Scotland. Trump said, “The big one (war) was between India and Pakistan, two nuclear nations”. He added that he used the ongoing trade deals of America with both countries. He also knew the leaders of both countries very well. Trump was extra-worried about the consequence of war between India and Pakistan, the possible use of nuclear weapons and the spread of nuclear dust across the world. He seems to have threatened to suspend the trade negotiations if India and Pakistan continued the war. Trump says to have used a similar tactic with Cambodia and Thailand, both trading with America.

Pakistan has endorsed Trump’s assertion that he was instrumental in ending the war. India continues to deny Trump’s role. The Ministers of Defence and External Affairs say that the ceasefire was announced on the request of Pakistan, which Islamabad denies. Trump also said that he knew the leadership in India and Pakistan well and perhaps ‘knew some of them a lot’. The reference could be to Modi as he had endorsed Trump’s bid for the second term in 2020 on the US soil. It is another matter Trump lost that election. Trump had also praised Modi effusively in his last visit to India.

Why then is GoI including the Prime Minister denying Trump’s involvement? Is it the case that Trump is repeatedly making a false claim? He is known for his volatile nature, but lying may land him in trouble in his own country. Irrespective of the veracity of Trump’s assertion, New Delhi’s denial is based on one strategy, that is, refusal to accept third party mediation in India-Pakistan conflict, mainly over Kashmir. This strategy is however a hangover of the Congress regime, from Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Historically, it was India which took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations, and then of course, both countries decided to settle the Kashmir dispute bilaterally as per the Shimla Agreement of 1972.

BJP has not made any radical departure from this strategy, except giving muscular response to Pakistan’s move on Kashmir. The most notable change, of course, is the claim on PoK and New Delhi’s resolve to take it back. Even if New Delhi’s sticks to the Shimla Agreement which precludes third-party involvement, should it apply to a war. Modi has been trying, in his own way, to bring about a ceasefire in Ukraine. It is a commendable initiative. The entire world acknowledged when Modi told the Russian President Putin, “It is no time for war”.

In that sense, is it advisable to lock horns with Trump and maintain that Trump is not correct? It is perhaps good for India’s self-image as a growing economy and an aspirational world power. New Delhi could stand up for its convictions and principles and so on. But nobody knows more than Modi that “politics is art of possible, the attainable”. Why keep the fire of controversy burning and deepening the difference of assertion between Modi and Trump?

A way out could be to announce that India did not want the war; it was provoked by Pakistan into it. It is good that ceasefire has happened and Operation Sindoor has not stopped, just been suspended. If Pakistan does not desist from sponsoring terrorist attacks in India, New Delhi reserves the right to strike deep into Pakistan to hunt down the terrorists, destroy their hideouts and infrastructure etc. Can we not resolve an unsavoury and almost useless controversy? The best minds in the South Block know better than us, the lesser mortals! —INFA

The post India-Pakistan War The Ceasefire Controversy appeared first on Daily Excelsior.

News