Opinion| After India’s air attack, onus of restraint on Pakistan

India’s air strike on the terrorist camp in Balakot has made its intentions clear – hereafter, a strike by Pakistan through unconventional means will not go without a response on Pakistani territory, and will not be restricted to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

India’s air strike on the terrorist camp in Balakot has made its intentions clear – hereafter, a strike by Pakistan through unconventional means will not go without a response on Pakistani territory, and will not be restricted to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Despite the release of limited information, the pre-dawn strike in Balakot was analysed throughout Tuesday and makes for an interesting study by scholars of all disciplines.

People attend a candle light vigil to pay tribute to Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel who were killed after a suicide bomber rammed a car into the bus carrying them in south Kashmir on Thursday, in front of India Gate war memorial in New Delhi, India, February 15, 2019.(REUTERS file photo)

The target was “non-military,” a smart euphemism for a non-state entity. This served two ends. First, the world at large is fed up of these non- state actors and would side with India – in fact, the Australians have outright supported India and the statement from France too sides with New Delhi. Secondly, and more importantly, it puts the Pakistan establishment in a quandary about whom to strike back against; India does not have any terrorist camps (unless Islamabad invents one) so a riposte would have to be against a military or government target. This would be an act of war, which would be abhorred by the international community, as India would certainly respond with full force. So, and the googly lies here – the onus of upping the ante has just been lobbed across to Pakistan; the pressure not to escalate, which hitherto has always been on New Delhi, is on Pakistan. This is a tough call to make. India has termed the air strike a pre-emptive action against a gathering of militants planning more attacks in India. This has brought in an element of the right to self-defence that any country can exercise, and since Pakistan was complicit in terrorism acts against India, New Delhi had to act; this is an argument that no self-respecting country can go against.

The call that Pakistan has to make is tougher for another reason. In the Indian democratic system, when the 26/11 Mumbai attacks went without a response, the government took the blame and not the Indian military. In Pakistan’s case, if a response does not come, while (Prime Minister) Imran Khan would be criticised, it would be the standing of the Pakistan Army that would take a fatal hit – its standing as the “saviour” of Pakistan would be called into question. Would this force them to take the intemperate step of escalating to war? Do they have a face-saving device? It’s here where the danger of further terrorist strikes ordered by Islamabad comes in; one would be naïve to believe that one Balakot would dissuade Pakistan and India would be rid of the scourge of terrorism inspired from across the border. In the short term, we may hope for an extended period of a peace dividend. For the long term, New Delhi’s guard needs to stay up.

Air Vice Marshal Manmohan Bahadur VM (retd), Addl Director General, Centre for Air Power Studies