Pak leadership seems uneasy

EVEN after struggling with the intense blowback of its use of terror as a foreign policy tool and being on the brink of economic default, Pakistan’s thinking has not altered. While India has covered an astounding journey in terms of its strategic, financial and diplomatic growth, Pakistan has failed to overcome the challenge of its identity crisis post 1947. It continues to thrive on its hostility with India. The Pakistan military has led the national discourse, and till today, it seeks its identity in its strategic posturing vis-à-vis India and relies on the Kashmir issue for its survival.

Tensions between India and Pakistan have escalated after the April 22 killing of Hindu tourists in Pahalgam, claimed by the Pakistan-linked terrorist outfit The Resistance Front (and later disowned). The attack has led to widespread anger in India. In Pakistan, there is apparent anxiety and there are melodramatic chest-thumping statements by its civilian and military leadership, trying to build a narrative of a false flag operation by New Delhi and project Pakistan’s military readiness to counter India’s potential kinetic moves. Pakistan is seeking ways to gather support from its allies to de-escalate the crisis.

Post Pahalgam, Pakistan estimated a manageable Indian military retaliation. But India’s punitive actions, specifically the Indus Waters Treaty abeyance, are a body blow to it as it thrives on agriculture. Islamabad also appears to be prepared for India’s aggressive position in terms of holding Pakistan accountable for terrorism at the international level. It did use its position as a non-permanent member and brotherhood with China to tone down the April 25 UNSC statement condemning the Pahalgam attack.

Pakistan’s political stability has been challenged by the popularity of Imran Khan, who has blamed the military for being corrupt and responsible for Pakistan’s woes. There has been polarisation in society; a high debt burden suffocates the economy, which remains dependent on external aid; the security situation remains challenging, with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) attacking security personnel; and the Baloch resentment and Pashtun nationalism have been more pronounced than ever. For the first time, its military’s image has been tarnished by Imran Khan’s posture and popularity. Second, for decades, the military has projected itself as the sole guarantor of the nation’s territorial and ideological boundaries, but it has been unable to control attacks on it by the TTP and Baloch separatists. Third, Pakistan has been wriggling with the loss of its strategic relevance after the US’ exit from Afghanistan.

The Pahalgam attack is a desperate attempt by Pakistan’s military to regain its strategic relevance, internationalise Kashmir, find a distraction for its people from grievances and instigate communal dissonance in India. However, the leadership appears to be uneasy post attack. Pakistan cannot afford an external war while fighting the resentment in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Its relationship with Afghanistan has been strained and the repatriation of Afghan refugees and frequent skirmishes on the border have kept it unstable. Reports suggest that Nawaz Sharif has advised PM Shehbaz Sharif to use diplomacy over conflict. It looks like Pakistan’s efforts would aim to attract international attention and intervention to deter India.

How do we see Pakistan’s evolving response to the crisis?

1) At the domestic level, the effort is to assure the people that the military will guard the nation’s sovereignty against hegemonic India’s potential military moves. The rhetoric challenging India’s decision on the Indus Waters Treaty is likely to continue.

2) Pakistan has talked about nuclear weapons in both countries. It is likely to escalate the threat of nuclear weapons and it will highlight the projection of a low nuclear threshold to attract global attention. The objective of Pakistan’s nukes has been to avoid a conventional war against India and, thus, it has persistently relied on a projection of ambiguity. It has maintained a First Use Nuclear Doctrine and has been confident of achieving a Full Spectrum Deterrence in recent years.

3) At the international level, Pakistan would try to gain leverage by highlighting the threat of regional instability.

4) Pakistan will rely on its bonhomie with Turkey and bond with Beijing to deal with the crisis. Both these countries have expressed support for Pakistan and urged for de-escalation of tensions.

Shalini Chawla is Distinguished Fellow, Centre for Air Power Studies.

Comments