No one in the party or govt is responding to what many supporters are asking: why did Modi not go by the maxim that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush?
In his first public statement, since the recent military strikes against Pakistan and after the announcement of the ‘ceasefire’, PrimeMinister Narendra Modi tried to address the spontaneous sense of dismay among sections of his supporters for not continuing the strikes ‘till finish’ and instead halting operations when it appeared that Islamabad was close to caving in.
In an effort to convey the message to his electoral constituency, especially those not part of the Sangh Parivar and thereby not organisationally committed to backing his regime, Modi asserted that Operation Sindoor “achieved” its “objectives”.
Also read: Trump: US stopped India-Pakistan 'nuclear conflict', will do 'lot of trade' with them
This assertion was aimed at providing this lot a sense of ‘victorious’ closure to this episode.
Claims and reality
The actual outcome of the conflict is clearly short of what Modi promised on April 24, two days after the Pahalgam terrorist strike. He said: “India will identify, track and punish every (sic) terrorist and their backers. We will pursue them to the ends of the earth.”
The government claims its assaults met with fair success and listed as dead several extremely dangerous terrorists, individually involved in several past strikes.
But just as the strike in 2019 on Balakot was on a bigger scale than the ‘surgical strike’ in 2016, Operation Sindoor too was on a larger scale and involved several rounds of assault on many more terrorist and military facilities.
Objectives not met?
Importantly, the terrorist offensive in 2019 was more macabre than that in 2016 in Uri, and the attack on April 22 in Pahalgam was also much more heinous than the Pulwama terrorist assault.
Modi pledged that India will once again strike whenever terrorists and their backers dare launch another attack on Indian soil, its people and infrastructure. This statement, however, indicates that the intended objective of identifying, tracking and punishing “every terrorist” has not been met.
To assuage distraught supporters, Modi said that India merely “suspended our retaliatory action against Pakistan’s terror and military camps”.
Trump's role in truce
But questions remain on the feasibility of repeated editions of Operation Sindoor (or with another name), the cost of operations certainly being among the most important.
The elephant in Modi’s room is clearly the United States and its President, Donald Trump. Less than an hour before Modi began his televised address, Trump claimed that he had “prevented a nuclear war between India and Pakistan”.
This contention should be juxtaposed with Modi’s assertion that “India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail”. This is clearly at odds with Trump’s declaration and its implication that the ‘ceasefire’ was worked out because Islamabad threatened to press the nuclear trigger and this eventually led to India agreeing to halt the operation.
US' claims vs India’s
In fact, from the time Trump and others in his administration, including the US State Department, made the first dramatic announcement of the “US-brokered ceasefire” between India and Pakistan on May 10, repeated claims have been made by the Americans regarding mediating the negotiations.
Also read: Op Sindoor: Who are top Pak Army officers, cops who attended funeral of terrorists?
Trump in fact claimed it was a “permanent ceasefire”, in total contrast to Modi’s declaration.
Modi’s contention regarding Pakistan’s DGMO contacting his Indian counterpart after Islamabad “started looking for ways to escape” and this initiated along with its pledge that “it will not indulge in any sort of terror activities or military audacity further” did not add to India’s statements.
India and Kashmir issue
Modi too, like his officials, chose silence on statements by Trump, his Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the State Department regarding their role in brokering peace, a clear ‘third-party’ intervention that goes against the grain of India’s past stand of resolving issues bilaterally.
But more importantly, Modi did not also comment on the American assertion that the two countries agreed to “start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site”.
India has been steadfast since the 1972 Shimla Agreement that there shall be no third-party involvement in deliberations between the two countries.
Modi’s public statement
The American claim of having played a role and India sidestepping is a reflection of the dichotomy between the necessities of realpolitik during conflict in a nuclear theatre, and a long-stated position.
As a result, Modi in his speech added the issue of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir as one of the items on the agenda for any future talk which can be held only when there is no ongoing terrorist activity against India.
He also indicated that the Indus Waters Treaty shall remain in abeyance, contending that “water and blood cannot flow together”.
Gen Malik’s concerns
By imposing several fresh conditions for talks, Modi made it clear that the American suggestion about the imminence of resumption of Indo-Pakistan dialogue was an instance of over-reading.
Yet, the answer to the primary question, about the impelling need for India to agree to a brokered peace arrangement, remains unanswered.
Also read: What role did US play in Indo-Pak truce? Here's when Vance called Modi
India’s former Army Chief, General Ved Prakash Malik, who helmed the force during the victorious Kargil War, posted after the hostilities were called off (or paused as Modi claimed), that “We have left India’s future history to ask what politico-strategic advantages, if any, were gained after its kinetic and non-kinetic actions post Pakistani horrific terror strike in Pahalgam”.
Questions need answering
There is certainly a significant section of Indians who backed Operation Sindoor and now feel similarly. Modi’s efforts at addressing their concern fell short.
In his address, the prime minister mentioned how post-Pahalgam “the entire nation, every citizen, every community, every class, every political party, unitedly stood up for strong action against terrorism” and that his government, “gave full freedom to the Indian forces to wipe out the terrorists”.
When the strikes were ongoing, the government responded harshly against individuals or organisations making independent and non-partisan assessments of the scenario or posing questions.
Facts being hidden?
But the ‘licence’ that the government secured following the Pahalgam incident will no longer be valid. Opposition parties have sought more information and specifically called for a special session of Parliament.
The government stonewalling these demands will only suggest that Modi and the government have not shared every bit of non-classified information with the people.
The Indian people still do not have complete facts regarding the conflict with China in the east Ladakh region in 2020. We remain short of information on the present situation. It is imperative for India to know why, despite having a clear military momentum to push for a more ‘decisive’ outcome, American Vice President JD Vance could convince Modi of restraint.
A pause, not a ceasefire
The very fact that hostilities across the LoC and other sites had broken out after the ceasefire suggests that it had not been assessed and agreed on by the two sides on the battlefields.
As is evident from Modi’s address, the primary cause for the conflict with Pakistan remains a security concern. Consequently, the question raised by General Malik becomes more pertinent and it is for the government to respond.
The government and the Bharatiya Janata Party’s publicity and political campaigns have begun with Tiranga Yatra and selective leaks that Modi’s ‘gola for goli’ declaration to Vance demonstrates the prime minister’s resoluteness.
Modi doctrine
Much is and will be, made out of Modi’s three-pronged ‘doctrine’ for future engagement with Pakistan and the reduced options before it.
Also read: Congress demands special session of Parliament to discuss Pahalgam, Op Sindoor
It will also rave that he has added new elements (IWT and trade) for which Rawalpindi’s bosses will direct their civilian puppets to ‘humbly’ seek from India.
But no one in government or the party is responding to what many of its supporters are asking; why did the government and Modi not go by the maxim that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush?
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)
