Abstract
Latent conflict between nuclear armed rivals India and Pakistan, characterizes fragility of Strategic Stability in South Asia. Breakdown of deterrence, could have catastrophic consequences for the region and beyond. India has been seeking space for a limited war, well below Pakistan’s perceived nuclear threshold, ever-since the Kargil conflict. However, limited war under nuclear overhang is simply not an option because owing to the devastation that nuclear wars could potentially unleash, almost all leading social scientists have rubbished the notion of a limited war between two nuclear armed rivals. Surgical Strike and Operation Sindoor are classical examples of Indian hubris and its propensity and proclivity for war, which is evident in seeking a new normal between two nuclear armed rivals. It attempted to trample International laws, conventions and norms, and chose to be the judge, jury and executioner; a pariah state. which resulted in diminishing nuclear thresholds in South Asia, and imperiled the lives and livelihoods of ~1.65 billion people. India’s defeat post Operation Bunyan-un-Marsus was rather comprehensive, as India lost militarily, diplomatically and geo-politically, despite its enormous clout and influence. Wars only bring death, devastation and destruction. War in this day and age and that too between nuclear armed rivals, is a recipe for unmitigated disaster, and must be relegated to the annals of history. If at all, we must, fight with overarching poverty, deprivation, despondency, class differential, social, societal inequality and inadequacies, lack of justice, civil liberties and lack of human dignity. Fight we must, to stave off hunger, stented growth, malnutrition, lack of job security, health security and the overall spectrum of human security. Because war fighting in nuclear neighbourhood is collective suicide. Let’s start talking, let’s start listening, let’s start absorbing, embracing. Let’s start being compassionate, magnanimous and understanding. It’s time to throw away the baggage of history and start living like good neighbours, because war is no more an option in Indo-Pak scenario. Therefore, lets choose wisely, for the sake of innocent masses.
Historical Context: Latent conflict between nuclear armed rivals India and Pakistan, characterizes continued Strategic Stability in South Asia. Breakdown of deterrence, could have catastrophic consequences, including potential use of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Indian strategists’ are convinced that Pakistan is a revisionist state, hence a need to tame Pakistan.India has been seeking space for a limited war, well below Pakistan’s perceived nuclear threshold ever-since the Kargil conflict,In the wake of terrorist attack on Indian Parliament, India launched ‘Operation Parakaram’ in late December 2001, which ended in a stalemate, after eyeball to eyeball confrontation between the two adversaries. This provoked Indian politico-military thinkers to come up with Cold Start doctrine, which propounded multiple shallow thrusts inside Pakistan, by holding Corps, and breakout by offensive corps. Cold Start, quickly changed into Pro Active Operations Strategy (PAO) and was thereafter renamed Pro Active Defence Strategy. Which postulated the notion of hit and mobilise; using the air arm as the predominant actor. PAOs, was manifestation of Indian Limited War Concept.Pakistan’s views are however tangent, it views India as a hegemonic, expansionist state which intervened militarily in 1971 and dismembered Pakistan, craving for regional/global power aspirations, not by acting as a responsible member of comity of nations, but through nuclear, conventional militarization and aggressive actions. In February 2019, post Pulwama terrorism, Indian transgression codenamed Surgical Strike in Balakot,witnessed downing of two Indian aircrafts and capture of Abhinandan.
Academic Construct: Historically wars are limited in definition of notion of victory and thereby limiting politico-military aims/scope and objectives of war, limited in: means, resources, geography, time duration, munitions, whilst keeping channels of communications open, for bargaining with the adversary etc., Bernard Brodie, made it an essential argument that weapons of unlimited capacity had made it incumbent on both the adversaries to find a way to fight without using their full military potential. He went onto add that regardless of the need to limit war, it would be impossible to do so, lest both US and USSR agreed on the concept of war limitation. Another equally important issue, on limited war debate concerned possible limits on resources to be applied in war; should the war be fought for unlimited objectives or limited objectives with unlimited resources? The first was unlikely to gain victory: Korean War is a case in point and the later is counter-productive, in the response it may evoke from a nuclear adversary. As for keeping communication channels open, either before or during the conflict both sides have to agree on the limits, to which they would pursue their politico-military objectives. Thomas Schelling a leading exponent of the subject argued that saliencies should be distinct and known to both the adversaries. Finally, there’s a need to establish a relationship between the limited war as an instrument and the desire to achieve arms control. Albert Wohlstetter posited that limited war significantly increases the chances of a total war, through escalation, and cautioned against use of nuclear weapons. Limited war, he thought was neither likely to be short, nor small. It could be protracted and possibly require significant mobilisation of national resources. Such a trend would tend to escalate unpredictable dimensions, thereby generating an escalatory spiral, leading to a nuclear exchange.
Lawrence Freedman in his book, Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, contends that nuclear weapons had fundamentally changed the outlook of war. He concurs with stalwarts like Bernard Brodie, Liddle Hart, Henry Kissinger, Robert Osgood and others, that possibility of a limited war in nuclear age, theoretically existed, but clearly shotdown the idea for its applicability on ground; to him limited war without involving the use of nuclear weapons was a difficult proposition, even when both the superpowers were oceans apart. Owing to the devastation that nuclear wars could potentially unleash, almost all leading social scientists have rubbished the notion of a limited war between two nuclear armed rivals, terming it absurd.
Given the fragility of strategic stability in the region favoured India, and the potential nuclear flashpoint in unresolved Kashmir issue, a limited war in South Asia poses a serious risk of escalation based on a number of factors not necessarily under the control of policy makers or military leaders. A history of misperception, poor intelligence and India’s awkward national security decision making system suggests that limited war could be a risky undertaking and will instill further instability in South Asia.Plus, in cold war scenario, both the countries were worlds apart, India and Pakistan do not enjoy the same luxury. V R Raghavan, concluded that in the event of a limited war between Pakistan and India, the probability of a nuclear exchange was extremely high, therefore India should desist from employing this option. Zafar Iqbal Cheema contends that if nuclear deterrence cannot prevent a limited war, how come its escalation and spillover be controlled. He argues that starting a limited war would be India’s choice, keeping it limited, would not be her choosing.
It can therefore be safely inferred that limited war is realistically a far-fetched notion, because if all deterrence fails, what is the guarantee that nuclear deterrence won’t? Therefore, the probability of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan is high, in the event of the two nuclear armed rivals engaging in a direct military conflict.
Balakot, Operation Sindoor and Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos: Balakot strike in February 2019; proclaimed a Surgical Strike in Indian dictum, was precipitated by Pulwama terror attacks, and the ‘supposed’ involvement of Pakistan, therein. Indian media went berserk and shaped public opinion based not on any evidence, but pure jingoism. Balakot strike, invoked Pakistan’s retaliatory strikes: Operation ‘Swift Retort,’which witnessed downing of two Indian planes and capture of Abhinandan.Indian departure from conventional practice, hastened it’s so called ill-conceived Surgical Strike on Pakistan, without sufficient cause, and evidence and thrust the region into a warlike situation, with increased risks of escalation. It was the first time any Indian government externalized an internal situation; to gain electoral advantage, as national elections were afoot. India in its arrogance pushed the region into a grave situation, which could have ended in nuclear exchange. Pakistani government, on its part exercised restraint and returned the captured pilot, which saw a prompt decrease in tensions. Nevertheless, Modi led BJP government, won the 2019 elections, flaunting Surgical strike as a victory. Though Pakistan had no reason to orchestrate such an attack inside Indian held J&K, in view of its recent grey listing by FATF and resultantly, first half of 2019, witnessed no infiltration from Azad Kashmir.Against this backdrop, it is difficult to imagine that Pakistan would have wanted anything to do with a high-profile terrorist incident. Nonetheless, the worst ever terrorist attack in IOK was perpetrated by a Kashmiri youth who had joined JeM.Albeit, Indian government, had set in motion an intrinsically perilous and self-defeating precedent; because reign of terror unleashed by India in IOK, remained relentless and unabated, which clearly meant that India had not seen the last of terrorist attacks in IOK and that any impending attack would require an upscaled response, driving the region into treacherous and bottomless pit of uncertainty. Whilst adoption of this new doctrine, envisaged preclusion of many an escalation rung, which in any case had an inbuilt escalatory trend. Pakistan, though dominated the escalation ladder and therein controlled escalation, both sides claimed notional victory, and in words of Ajay Bisaria, former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, “We only have narratives, no proof of Balakot’s success.”
The current Indo-Pak conundrum, is in many ways a byproduct of Surgical Strikes. As soon as Pahalgam terror attacks happened, within minutes Indian media channels blamed Pakistan for the incident. Indian public opinion was informed by continued war frenzy, hysteria and war mongering cooked up by the ruling Indian polity, and abetted by its media, calling for a punitive action against the perceived perpetrators. Pakistan was quick to condemn the heinous killings of innocent civilians, denied Indian claims of Pakistani involvement and called for a transparent, independent, international inquiry. India’s Operation Sindoor, marked mockery of well-established international laws and norms, acting like a rogue, pariah state, which has no respect for international law.Wherein, India assumed the role of judge, jury and executioner and placed the future of ~1.65 billion people in jeopardy.India kept on escalating from night 6/7 May 2025, through 9/10 May 2025, till India targeted air bases in Pakistan, which crossed a redline and eventually invoked a retaliatory strike.Operation Bunyan-un-Marsus started with, early morning strikes 10 May 2025 and struck 26 targets all along its Eastern borders, targeting military facilities which participated in strikes against Pakistan. Within just three hours of Pakistan’s strikes, Indian politico-military leadership sought US intervention and asked US to essentially save India from Pakistan’s missile barrage, which had brought to bear unprecedented and severe firepower/punishment on all selected targets and ostensibly damaged/destroyed many targets in India. Thanks to US President who intervened and averted a catastrophe. However, as is the case in any Indo-Pak dual, both sides proclaimed victory, though all neutral observers and international media outlets, largely recognized Pakistan’s claims.
Saliencies of The War: This short but intense war has left many innovative and novel lessons in its aftermath. Military lessons, perhaps more than others, will be investigated, examined, interpreted and applied by military strategists, all across the globe. This paper will briefly allude to the consequences, which led to certain inferences, point out failures where necessary and therein lessons, which both countries need to analyse and if possible seek remedies, where shortcomings lie. But without delving into operational, geo-political, diplomatic details. This paper will briefly stick to gist of these conclusions and leave the rest to lucid evaluation, interpretation, examination and imagination of the enlightened readers. Endeavour shall be to render views without prejudice and bias towards either party:
ClauseWitzian dictum, ‘War is an instrument of policy,’ is perhaps his most outstanding contribution to evolution of military thought. War therefore has to be regarded as a political instrument and not something independent; war is nothing but continuation of policy by other means, thereby meaning that policy is the intelligent faculty and war, only its instrument.[2] ClauseWitz further posits that the purpose of any war is not violence per se but achievement of an objective, which otherwise may be unattainable.[3] Moreover, Sun Tzu was perhaps, the first thinker to analyse war as an instrument of state policy.[4] He postulated that ‘war is a matter of life and death and therefore needs serious investigation. In his opinion attaining one hundred victories in hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy without fighting is the true acme of war.Modi government it seems to have rather tragically misconstrued the edicts of Sun Tzu and ClauseWitz. Because war is an instrument, which should be used when all other options have been exhausted and the pinnacle of excellence is winning the war, without fighting. India, apparently hurried into a war, its armed forces were seemingly, ill prepared for: Inquiry into the Pahalgam incident is yet to be concluded and infact goes on todate, but India was swift to point fingers towards Pakistan, within minutes of the attack. Moreover, not just Indian media official spokes personnel and sitting BJP ministers, openly told the world, that there was no need to provide any kind of evidence, whatsoever: they assumed the role of judge, jury
and executioner. And rather than acting as a responsible member of comity of nations, India resorted to overt conventional militarization and aggressive actions. India chose to be a bully, hurl threats at Pakistan, notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan besides being a nuclear power has formidable conventional capabilities! India demonstrated remarkable disregard and disdain for international laws, conventions and norms, by choosing to act, without providing a single shred of evidence to international community, even when asked. India in its hubris, kept on perpetuating escalation, without sufficient cause and therein placed the lives of ~1.65 billion people at great peril. India in its arrogance, made strategic miscalculations regarding Pakistan. Brutal Indian attacks on civilian targets, were nothing but savage show of unrestrained and overrated masculinity, with a hope that Pakistan would be forced into responding irrationally, or that it would neither solicit nor exercise its sovereign right to self defence, at all. It acted like a self-assumed, self- proclaimed reginal hegemon and regional policeman, until it was literally forced to reach-out to US for ceasefire, under the relentless onslaught of Pakistani missiles. Yet, whilst the ceasefire negotiations continued, India exhibited further recklessness by using this window, to target RahimYar Khan airport, which is an entirely commercial airport and used by UAE royalty and Pakistani civilians, besides attacking Bolari and Shahbaz airbases, just to covince its domestic audience, that they had also inflicted heavy damage on Pakistan.
Modi government is notorious for using armed forces for advancing its internal electoral agenda. Professional armed forces are not meant for such petty politik; soldiers win wars when they identify with a just cause. It is rather obvious, that Indian government failed to take their soldiers in confidence. It is also evident that Indian politico-military leadership grossly overestimated its capabilities, whilst completely undermining professional acumen, resolve, preparedness and strengths of Pakistani nation in general and its armed forces, in particular. The long stated Indian policy on Kashmir is its internalization, but Indian hubris and arrogance, ended up externalizing the issue once again, and brought it right back to ‘center stage’ of international politics. This is unmistakably a direct consequence of incompetent political leadership. Any neutral observer can discern, that Indian leadership lacked the requisite skills: statecraft, prudence, sagacity and foresight. Modi’s opinion was informed by his advisors of the likes of; Ajit Doval, Rajnath Singh, Amit Shah and S Jaishankar, who have clearly misled, and misinformed the government and the people of India. The same is apparent from Jaishankar’s statement, “We are looking for partners, not preachers.”Jaishankar’s cry in anguish, about sums up the current Indian isolation.
May be its time to rethink and reimagine neighbourly relationships: war mongering, jingoism, war hysteria and frenzy don’t win wars, nor do hefty claims. Indian intent to create a new normal in Indo-Pak scenario was akin to playing with fire, such propensity and proclivity to war, in nuclear armed region, could lead to cataclysmic consequences,not just for both the belligerents but for the region and beyond.The very idea of war in the given circumstances is not just preposterous, and absurd, but could jeopardize future of one fifth of humanity. That numbers don’t matter, but national will and resolve do. That international laws and norms,are to be stringently observed, especially when the country is seeking pre-eminence at the global stage. No country is above international laws, conventions and norms, even a country as big as India, and as influential, economically well placed and militarily powerful, can get away with impunity. IWT,is a matter of life and death for 240 million strong Pakistani nation. It’s not only reprehensible but ludicrous to even entertain the idea of starving an entire nation to death; though the rhetoric coming from other side suggests otherwise. India’s defeat in effect, was rather comprehensive, as India lost militarily, diplomatically and geo-politically, despite its enormous clout and influence. May be, reappraisal and moderation could be an alternative to hubris and arrogance. It is also perhaps time to think of negotiated solution to all outstanding problems. It is perhaps also time to answer some questions, rather than evading accountability.
Pakistan on its part was able to rediscover itself and revitalize as a country and a state; fighting at numerous fronts, facing multifarious, multidimensional challenges. Pakistani people once again demonstrated that they will stand alongside its armed forces in every just cause, come what may. Even under adverse and highly provocative circumstances, Pakistan displayed remarkable restraint, maturity and rationality. Whilst facing illegitimate and uncalled for Indian aggression and violence unleashed against innocent civilians, spanning well over 72 hours.As India kept upping the ante and escalating perpetually till night 9/10 May. Pakistan also learnt that humility, rationality and vigilance are of supreme importance, that sweat in peace saves blood in war, that stated positions and opinions are subject to change overnight. That operational readiness has no alternatives, that mastery in the art of war is a must in any form of warfare, but is essential to modern day warfare. That wars are not won by chance. It’s probably also time to rethink roles, perhaps time to give added importance to economic well-being of individuals, and that it should never be ostensibly relegated. Its perhaps is also time to rethink and undo mistakes of the past and align itself with the rest of the world, wherein CIAs, Pentagons, Homeland Security, NSAs, SVRs, MI5s/MI6s, Mossads, RA&Ws, etc., alongside their respective armed forces, wield tremendous power and influence. And all these actors exert and exercise those powers with impunity, yet remaining completely invisible and firmly hidden behind democratically elected civilian facade. It is perhaps the time to lay more emphasis on comprehensive human development, and comprehensive human security. Our future lies in the hand of youth, their hands must be strengthened: ‘Zara num ho tau yeh mitti, bari zarkhaiz hae saqi’: trans., This soil is exceedingly fertile, given the right set of conditions.
Where to Go from Here: Wars only bring death, devastation and destruction.War in this day and age and that too between nuclear armed rivals, is a recipe for unqualified fiasco.Wars should therefore be relegated to the annals of history. Both have a lot to lose, but India being a far bigger economy, will definitely lose far more. The post-independence history of India and Pakistan is understandably bitter, because it entailed a lot of un-warranted bloodshed, and Indian military intervention in 1971 led to dismemberment of Pakistan; though seemingly, Indians are regretting the same, today. It’s primarily built upon deep-seated, deep-rooted mistrust, misunderstandings, rivalry, lack of confidence and heinous propaganda. Relations have therefore remained sour. However, a bit of analysis reveals that almost all these violent acts, happened ‘solely’ under BJP’s vigil! And when either there’s a high-profile visit or elections are afoot or when leadership of both countries thinks of normalising relationship, establishing trade links, advancing people to people exchanges, such heinous and deplorable attacks happen? By reacting the way India does, whose hands is it strengthening! Isn’t it playing into the hands of few miscreants, irrespective of which side of the divide, they belong to? Plus, incidents like Samjhota Express, Uri, Pulwama, Pahlgam and even Mumbai attacks, atrocious massacres in KPK and Balochistan etc., leave many a question un-answered! Elias Davidson’s ‘Betrayal of India,’ and ‘Who killed Karkare,’ by ex-Indian IGP, S M Mushrif, raise damning questions. Nonetheless, the purpose here is not to telescope or dig into the past, but to move on.
Both the countries need to think about the future of roughly 1/5 of humanity. Both countries have shared history, commonalities in cultures and share a few common languages. Only peaceful coexistence will ensure prosperity, security, well-being and affluence. Its proven by the Western experience over the last seven decades that regions grow together, not in isolation. Respecting each other’s sovereignty, dignity, right to freedom, right to life, right to grow, right to evolve etc., is the way forward. Celebrating, admiring and applauding each other success, diversity, plurality, multi-dimensional multiplicity, giving each other space rather than the opposite, provides for a secure and shared future. Celebrating music, poetry, prose, performing arts, architecture, scientific discoveries, social and economic revival etc., are the goals to look forward to. But failing to reach-out to each other, not engaging in dialogue, only compounds problems. Comprehensive dialogue, covering all the areas of agreements and disagreements will bridge all chasms, address all misgivings, misunderstandings and create a healthy environment in all spheres.
If at all, we must, fight with overarching poverty, deprivation, despondency, class differential, social, societal inequality and inadequacies, lack of justice, civil liberties and lack of human dignity. Fight we must, to stave off hunger, stented growth, malnutrition, lack of job security, health security and the overall spectrum of human security. Because war fighting in nuclear neighbourhood is akin to collective suicide.
Let’s start talking, let’s start listening, let’s start absorbing, embracing. Let’s start being compassionate, magnanimous and understanding. It’s time to throw away the baggage of history and start living like good neighbours, because war is no more an option in Indo-Pak scenario.
Let’s choose wisely, with fortitude and sagacity for the sake of innocent masses.
Author
Felix Edgar, a frequent media commentator, a retired army officer, holds Mphil in Strategic Studies from National Defense University, Islamabad.
