 |
|
The article presents a grim assessment of the deteriorating relationship between India and Pakistan, highlighting how a recent tragic event, the Pahalgam outrage, has pushed the already strained ties into a “deep abyss.” It contextualizes the current crisis within the historical framework of recurring tensions and terrorist attacks that have plagued the two nations for decades. The analysis underscores a familiar pattern: a major terrorist incident triggers widespread anger and distress, leading to a cycle of diplomatic and coercive measures. The author draws a parallel to the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament, recalling the challenges faced by the then Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh. These challenges included managing domestic sentiment, containing belligerence, and garnering international support. The current situation, the article suggests, echoes this past, with the Indian government grappling with similar pressures to respond decisively while navigating the complexities of international relations. The piece emphasizes the repeated encounters with variations of the 2001 scenario, noting that while the specific responses may differ, they consistently involve a combination of measures directed at Pakistan, the international community, and domestic public opinion. The Pulwama terrorist attack is cited as a turning point, marking a significant escalation in the military component of the response. However, the author clarifies that coercive elements have never been entirely absent from India's approach. The measures announced by both India and Pakistan in the wake of recent events are portrayed as reflections of the overall state of their relationship. The article argues that the relationship has been progressively weakened since 2016, citing major terrorist attacks like those at Uri (2016) and Pulwama (2019), as well as Pakistan's response to the legislative changes concerning Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019. By 2025, the relationship had reached a near-zero state, characterized by the absence of high commissioners, a lack of high-level contacts, downgraded diplomatic relations, downsized high commissions, a ban on trade, a freeze on civil society, cultural, and sporting contacts, and a shutdown of usual modes of travel. Despite this bleak picture, the article points out that the near-zero relationship had also acquired some elements of stability over the past four years. Examples include the ceasefire on the Line of Control (LoC) in February 2021, the mature handling of the mistaken missile launch in March 2022, and the reopening of the Kartarpur Sahib visa-free corridor in November 2021. This stability, albeit at a low level, provided a precarious foundation for potential future engagement. The author observes that historically, periods of stability have often led to efforts to revive relations, contributing to the cyclical nature of the India-Pakistan dynamic. However, in the past four years, the relationship remained largely frozen at its low plateau, with bilateral diplomacy suspended. The Pahalgam outrage, according to the article, has shattered this fragile stability, plunging the relationship into a deeper crisis. The diplomatic measures announced by India, and subsequently echoed by Pakistan, are described as largely symbolic. However, the Indian announcement that the Indus Waters Treaty will be kept in abeyance is considered a significant and serious step. While its immediate impact may be limited, it raises fundamental concerns for Pakistan, given its status as a lower riparian state and the historical anxieties surrounding water resources that date back to 1947. The Pakistani response, equating the interruption of water to an act of war, underscores these sensitivities. Furthermore, Pakistan's announcement that it shall exercise the right to hold all past treaties with India in abeyance signals a further deterioration in relations. The author concludes that these measures, taken together, do little to improve the already dire situation, bringing a near-zero relationship even closer to zero. The significance lies in the reflection of heightened tension and the realization that this is merely the beginning of a potentially serious escalation. Given the magnitude of the Pahalgam atrocity, such escalation was perhaps inevitable. The author emphasizes that in adversarial relationships like that between India and Pakistan, coercive measures are often unavoidable in such circumstances. However, he stresses the importance of embedding these measures within a carefully designed policy that has clear and realistic aims. The success of any strategy depends on a thorough understanding of what is feasible and what is not, ensuring that actions are not merely reactive but contribute to a long-term vision for managing the complex and volatile relationship between India and Pakistan. This requires a nuanced approach that balances the need for a firm response to terrorism with the imperative of maintaining channels for dialogue and preventing further escalation into a full-blown conflict.
The historical context provided in the article is crucial for understanding the current impasse. The relationship between India and Pakistan has been marked by periods of conflict, tension, and fleeting moments of cooperation. The legacy of partition, the unresolved issue of Kashmir, and the ongoing threat of terrorism have consistently undermined efforts to build a stable and peaceful relationship. The author's reference to Jaswant Singh's experiences after the 2001 Parliament attack highlights the enduring challenges of managing domestic expectations, containing extremism, and engaging with the international community. The Pulwama attack serves as a reminder of the devastating impact of terrorism on bilateral relations, leading to a significant escalation in India's response. The article's description of the progressive hollowing out of the relationship since 2016 underscores the fragility of any progress made. The absence of high commissioners, the lack of high-level contacts, and the restrictions on trade, travel, and cultural exchanges have created a deep divide between the two nations. However, the article also acknowledges the surprising elements of stability that emerged in recent years, such as the ceasefire on the LoC and the mature handling of the missile incident. These developments suggested a potential for de-escalation and a willingness to avoid a major conflict. The reopening of the Kartarpur Sahib corridor, which allows Sikh pilgrims to visit a holy shrine in Pakistan without a visa, was another positive step. Yet, these gains have been overshadowed by the recent Pahalgam outrage, which has triggered a new wave of tensions and brought the relationship to a critical juncture. The author's analysis of the diplomatic measures announced by India and Pakistan is particularly insightful. While some measures may be symbolic, the decision to keep the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance represents a significant departure from past practices. The treaty, which has been in place for over six decades, has been a cornerstone of cooperation between the two countries, even during times of conflict. India's decision to suspend the treaty signals a deep level of dissatisfaction and a willingness to exert pressure on Pakistan. Pakistan's hyperbolic response, equating the interruption of water to an act of war, underscores the sensitivity of this issue. The Indus Waters Treaty is not merely a technical agreement; it is a symbol of cooperation and a vital lifeline for Pakistan's agricultural sector. Any disruption to the treaty could have far-reaching consequences. The author's conclusion that the recent measures do little to improve the already dire situation is a stark assessment of the current state of affairs. The relationship is not only near-zero but is also poised for further deterioration. The heightened tension and the potential for escalation are cause for serious concern. The author emphasizes the importance of a clinically designed policy with clear and realistic aims. This requires a strategic approach that considers the long-term implications of any actions taken. Coercive measures may be unavoidable in certain circumstances, but they must be carefully calibrated and embedded within a broader framework of diplomacy and conflict resolution. The article's overall tone is one of cautious pessimism. While acknowledging the potential for future cooperation, the author emphasizes the deep-seated challenges that continue to plague the relationship between India and Pakistan. The legacy of conflict, the threat of terrorism, and the unresolved issue of Kashmir remain major obstacles to peace and stability. The Pahalgam outrage has further complicated the situation, pushing the relationship into a deeper abyss. The path forward is uncertain, but the author's analysis provides valuable insights into the complexities of this enduring conflict.
The most critical aspect of the article lies in its emphasis on the need for a well-defined and strategically sound policy framework. The author argues that coercive measures, while sometimes necessary in adversarial relationships like the one between India and Pakistan, should not be implemented in isolation or as knee-jerk reactions. Instead, they must be integrated into a comprehensive policy that is underpinned by clear objectives and a realistic assessment of what can be achieved. This requires a deep understanding of the historical context, the political dynamics, and the potential consequences of any action taken. The policy should also be flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances and new developments. In the case of India-Pakistan relations, the policy framework must address several key challenges. First, it must address the root causes of terrorism and extremism, which continue to pose a major threat to both countries. This requires a multi-faceted approach that includes strengthening law enforcement, improving intelligence gathering, and promoting education and economic development. Second, the policy must address the unresolved issue of Kashmir, which remains a major source of tension. This requires a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue and to explore creative solutions that address the concerns of all parties involved. Third, the policy must promote greater economic cooperation between the two countries. Trade and investment can help to build trust and create a shared interest in peace and stability. Fourth, the policy must strengthen people-to-people contacts, which can help to break down stereotypes and promote understanding. This can be achieved through cultural exchanges, educational programs, and tourism. Fifth, the policy must engage with the international community to build support for peace and stability in the region. This requires a concerted effort to explain the challenges facing India and Pakistan and to seek assistance in addressing them. The author's call for a clinically designed policy with clear aims is a valuable contribution to the debate on how to manage the complex and volatile relationship between India and Pakistan. It is a reminder that coercive measures alone are not enough and that a more strategic and comprehensive approach is needed. Only by addressing the root causes of conflict and promoting greater cooperation can the two countries hope to build a more peaceful and prosperous future. The Pahalgam outrage has served as a stark reminder of the fragility of peace in the region. It is now more important than ever for India and Pakistan to engage in meaningful dialogue and to work together to address the challenges that they face. The author's analysis provides a valuable framework for understanding the current situation and for developing a more effective policy for managing the relationship between the two countries.