How to solve a problem like Pakistan

THE Americans are back to doing what they do best, trying to walk the middle path on the Pahalgam massacre, on the one hand underlining that PM Modi “has our full support,” but at the same time careful of being overly critical of Pakistan. After all, if you publicly accuse the perpetrator, goes the argument in DC, how are you supposed to ask him for help?

At the end of the day, make no mistake, nobody wants war. Not the Americans, not the Europeans. The Russians don’t care that much – they have been in a war for three years and lost many men, but Vladimir Putin seems determined to get the slice of Ukraine he covets. As for the Chinese, they don’t want war because, as Jabin T Jacob has written in these pages, they would much rather let tensions between India and Pakistan continue, “short of war,” which would gradually drain each other.

The aftermath of Pahalgam is certainly unusual. First, innocent civilians have been killed, unlike in Uri in 2016 and in Pulwama in 2019, when soldiers lost their lives. India responded to the Uri attack by conducting “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control and to Pulwama by sending missiles deep into Pakistan territory to strike at terror camps in Balakot.

Second, all previous wars between India and Pakistan, including the conflict at Kargil, have been fought — and won — by India, even though India never started the fire.

This time around, PM Modi has publicly upped the ante. From promising that his government would go to the “ends of the earth” to find the terrorists who carried out the attack to Home Minister Amit Shah saying, in Hindi, “chun-chun ke jawaab diya jayega,” it seems clear there will be retribution.

Clearly, the PM wants to change Pakistan’s behaviour forever. Previous governments, both BJP and Congress — led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh — have tried the gamut of responses. From fighting a war in Kargil to inviting Pervez Musharraf for talks in Agra but refusing to consummate an agreement with him, to shutting down ties after the Mumbai attacks to restoring relations by sending a foreign minister on a direct, special flight from Delhi to Rawalpindi — everything has been tried in the last 30-odd years.

Question is, how to solve a problem like Pakistan?

Like every PM who has wrestled with this question, Modi understands that his legacy will be affected by how he deals with his western neighbour. He has attempted the handshake too, not just by inviting Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif to Delhi in 2014, but by visiting him in his lair in 2015. The next few days and weeks are expected to be some of the toughest.

The America factor is amongst the most important. As the only power with significant purchase both in India and in Pakistan, the Trump administration has been in touch with both sides, hoping to cool passions. But the fact that no US special envoy has packed his suitcases and sallied forth for New Delhi and Islamabad — even though New Delhi publicly abhors the idea of “third party” — should indicate that DC has many other fish to fry, including the pursuit of tariff deals with India as well as the world.

In fact, India and the US are expected to be among the earliest countries to sign a bilateral trade agreement that puts an end to some of the economic anxiety that was a staple of the pre-Pahalgam days.

Note, then, Donald Trump’s early comments on Pahalgam. “I am very close to India and I’m very close to Pakistan, as you know. And they’ve had that fight for 1,000 years in Kashmir. Kashmir has been going on for 1,000 years, probably longer than that…” Trump told press reporters a week ago.

But as the rhetoric from Delhi has escalated, echoing the grief of families across the country, US Vice-President JD Vance’s latest comments mirror some of Bill Clinton’s nervousness during the 1999 Kargil conflict which, he felt, could boil over into a “nuclear flashpoint.”

Vance’s remarks to Fox News Thursday were like a flashback. “Well, sure, I’m worried about any time you see a hot spot breaking out, especially between two nuclear powers,” he said.

Vance added: “Our hope here is that India responds to this terrorist attack in a way that does not lead to a broader regional conflict…And we hope, frankly, that Pakistan, to the extent that they're responsible, cooperates with India to make sure that the terrorists sometimes operating in their territory are hunted down and dealt with…”

Glass half-full or half-empty? Like all big powers who like to play both sides, Vance is both sympathetic of India, but clearly wants it to use restraint. Meanwhile, he is also telling Pakistan to “cooperate with India”, while he distances America from the international probe that Pakistan wants. But note that Vance also doesn’t seem fully convinced that the terrorists always operate from Pakistani territory — only “sometimes.”

Then there is the Arab world. Saudi Arabia’s reaction to the Pahalgam crisis has significantly evolved in the last 10 days — remember, PM Modi was visiting Riyadh when the massacre took place. At the time, a joint statement between the powerful Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and PM Modi had condemned “cross-border terrorism” and said there cannot be “any justification for any act of terror.”

But as Pakistan has sought to internationalise the situation, while it hikes up its defence preparedness and shuts its airspace, the Saudis have said both countries should “avoid further escalation and resolve disputes through diplomatic means.”

What happens now? No matter what the world tells PM Modi, he and his government would have made it clear to the international community, especially the Americans, that if Pakistan doesn’t quickly bring the guilty to book, India would have no option but to take matters in its own hands.

Question is, how long India is prepared to wait and whether the monsoons will offer their own deadline to the decision. The next few days and weeks will be key.