Operation Sindoor, launched by India on May 7 against terror hideouts in Pakistan, has since been paused. This peace is deceptive. The battle stays suspended for now, but the war is far from over. It’s neither the first nor the last such clash, but a mere blip in a long conflict.
Neophytes to the Subcontinent’s history are upset with Prime Minister Narendra Modi because he halted the ongoing conflict without fixing Pakistan for good and retrieving PoK. They forget that the India-Pakistan dispute isn’t about geography, borders or Kashmir. It’s about protecting the defining characteristics of the nation.
Can any give-and-take formula resolve the differences between India and Pakistan? It’s time to reflect on why all such efforts have come to nought. Irrespective of the governments in office in Islamabad and Delhi, the two countries have seldom been cordial, frictionless neighbours.
Pakistan styles itself as a successor to the Islamic invaders. The heroes of Pakistan include historical figures such as Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori, Aurangzeb and Ahmad Shah Abdali, who, driven by religious zeal, decimated Indian cultural icons. No wonder Pakistani missiles are named after some of these figures. Indian missiles, in contrast, are named after elements of nature — Prithvi, Akash, Agni, etc
Pakistan sees itself as a nation that has the God-given responsibility to complete the “divine” mission of “Ghazwa-e-Hind” — that is, turn the Subcontinent into an Islamic state, a task left unfinished by its medieval role models. That is the point Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir made on April 16 while reiterating the two-nation theory. On May 11, the director general, Inter-Services Public Relations, Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif, said that Islam was part of the Pakistan army’s training, going beyond personal beliefs. “It is part of our faith… that iman, taqwa, jihad fi sabilillah (faith, piety, struggle in the name of God) drive us,” he added. The Pakistan army’s motto changed from Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s “Ittehad, yaqeen, tanzeem” (unity, faith, discipline) during General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime.
After the demise of Jinnah, Pakistan defined its identity and objectives. The Objective Resolution, adopted by the Constituent Assembly (Liaquat Ali Khan was the Prime Minister) in March 1949, declared that “sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan… is a sacred trust”. The Objective Resolution went on to be incorporated as a preamble to the 1956, 1962 and 1973 constitutions.
Pakistan’s threats during the 1965 war, that it would fight India for the next “thousand years” at the United Nations; its strategy after the 1971 defeat of inflicting “a thousand cuts” on India; its attempt to occupy Siachen in 1984; its betrayal in Kargil in 1999 after a peace initiative, and its overt and covert involvement in terrorist attacks over the past four decades — all form part of a conflict that owes to a fundamental difference in the characters of the two nations.
The recent flare-up was triggered after Pakistan-sponsored terrorists gunned down 26 people in Pahalgam. Pakistan’s first terrorist attack on India, less than three months after its creation — on October 22, 1947 — was in Kashmir, when its army, in cahoots with Islamic tribal militias, advanced towards Srinagar, engaging in plunder, murder, and rape of the local population along the way.
Seventy-eight years have gone by, and nothing has changed for Pakistan. It’s still fighting in the same terrain, using old, loathsome techniques. Pakistan continues to walk the beaten path of bigotry and hate.
Meanwhile, the terms of engagement between the two countries have changed. When PM Modi declared, “Terror and talks cannot go together… Terror and trade cannot go together… Water and blood cannot flow together,” he not only underscored the objective of Operation Sindoor but also charted the future trajectory of India-Pakistan relations.
Will Pakistan-sponsored terrorism now come to an end? Not anytime soon. In 1971, India, through decisive military intervention, partitioned a civil war-ridden Pakistan and facilitated the creation of Bangladesh. Despite paying such a heavy cost, Pakistan has refused to revise its anti-India paradigm.
War has its limitations. Most wins are pyrrhic. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, a member of the House of Lords, was right when he said, “What wins wars is weapons, but what wins peace is ideas”. It’s a war of ideas that India is fighting. On another occasion, the rabbi said, “There’s no quick fix here. You don’t suddenly turn radicals into moderates. You have to educate a generation.” This is indeed a challenging task.
Pakistan was not born of any natural, historical, or geographic process. It is a construct, engineered by a section of Indian Muslims aided by the British. It’s full of contradictions, which add to its insecurity. Its various mutually antagonistic Islamic sects are involved in internecine wars. Some of its regions are desperate, struggling to secede.
Against this backdrop, India’s new policy of zero tolerance toward terrorism will serve as a continuous reminder to the Pakistani establishment of the heavy price of nurturing terrorism. Sooner or later, a segment of the Pakistani establishment will have to realise that sponsoring terrorism is an expensive and self-destructive exercise.
India, meanwhile, will have to be on constant alert to sustain pressure on Pakistan. Fear of an unforgiving retribution is the only effective deterrent against terrorism. In this context, the words of Dwight D Eisenhower, America’s 34th President, resonate deeply: “We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it.”
The writer is former chairman, Indian Institute of Mass Communication
