Whereas it is yet to be decided, whether or not the Pahalgam incident was self-inflicted, both warring countries have tasted a tinge of modern war – a kind of war which depends on flying objects mostly missiles and drones.
The movement of troops remained a formality. It was the movement of robotics which kept dazzling and terrifying an opponent. In the inventory, all permutations of missiles were available such as surface-to-surface, air-to-surface, air-to-air and surface-to-air, besides low-flying cruise and high-flying ballistic missiles, with or without a nuclear warhead. It was like playing a video game: Choose a weapon suitable for an occasion and earn points. The station of the real-time video game was the monitoring room. The basic war strategy revolved around launching an air offence while emboldening an air defence. That is it.
Social media was a new exposure since its birth: manufactured clashes and contrived conquests of areas entertained the viewers to justify monetization in the name of nationalism. The same was the case with podcast commentators, who came up with claims larger than their brains. The rest of the world was a spectator, finding it difficult to fathom, who was winning and who was losing. Artificial intelligence asserted itself. The concept of deterrence fell apart. The international border was insulted. Nevertheless, strategic constraint prevailed over the yearning for perpetuation beyond the fourth day of the war, which ended in a ceasefire without announcing a clear winner or a pure loser. It was an indecisive close, which was a loose end, making it a modern war.
The Simla Accord enjoins upon the signatory parties to curb terrorism and establish peace to continue with the resolution of bilateral unresolved issues.
For most Pakistanis, on May 9, while addressing the National Assembly, Khawaja Mohammad Asif, Minister of Defence, made a surprising declaration. He said that the students of religious seminaries were the country’s second line of defence and that, in any eventuality, their services would be utilized fully. How could that be? What are their services other than religious studies to be utilized? The declaration is an example of the way national priorities in a crisis are empowered to haunt a country at a time of peace. Asif forgot that, after 2014, his party (PML-N) lost the right to rule over the country owing partly to the role played by religious students, who staged protests, threw shoes on political speakers, and participated in sit-ins to choke the whole country. Some of Asif’s fellows, such as Ahsan Iqbal, escaped death narrowly during an election campaign.
In the immediate aftermath of the four-day conflict (May 7-10), Pakistan has been faced with two main challenges: first, how to bring India to the table to talk on the issue of Kashmir; and how to convince the international community of Pakistan’s status of a partner in global war on terrorism.
Regarding the first challenge, Pakistan is shy of laying emphasis on the Simla Accord of 1972. Instead, Pakistan is referring time and again to UNSC resolutions on Kashmir. Pakistan needs to come clean on the point of whether or not it still considers the Simla Accord relevant. Any minimum understanding of international law conveys that bilateral accords take precedence over the international standing of the contending parties. No doubt, Pakistan has lately and hesitantly uttered the phrase a “composite dialogue” which was a corollary of the “comprehensive dialogue” taking place some decades ago under the Simla Accord, Pakistan has not yet openly demanded the resumption of a dialogue as enshrined in the Simla Accord. Pakistan has to do so to fortify its stance.
Any third party, including the United States (US), may help Pakistan and India declare a ceasefire and initiate a dialogue, but it cannot mediate between both countries, which held dozens of rounds of discussion to materialize the Simla Accord. Nevertheless, Pakistan must remember the words of former US Presidents saying that engaging the US in arbitration might generate a decision on Kashmir not liked by both Pakistan and India. It simply means that Pakistan must tread carefully as to which path of discussion suits its ambitions.
Regarding the second challenge, Pakistan is wary of knocking at the door of the UNSC to remove the names of its nationals from the list of proscribed persons. After 2001, the UNSC kept on expanding its list of terrorists who were considered to have been involved in acts of terrorism in multiple countries to be called global terrorists. Whereas the UNSC takes pride in contesting a fight against global terrorism, Pakistan considers many such proscribed persons, who happen to be its citizens, innocent, even though Pakistan has banned their organisations which had also been declared prohibited by the UNSC. The same is the case with the US, which has its list of proscribed persons and prohibited organisations, and which is bent on fighting a global war on terrorism.
Pakistan must take up this matter to the UNSC and contest the case of innocence of its citizens substantiated with requisite evidence. To do so, Pakistan enjoys the expertise of its diplomats, besides renowned lawyers. A similar effort should also be made with the US. Time is quite short. Any lapse is bound to open opportunities for India to remind the world of the presence of such lists and any incidence of violation committed by Pakistan in abiding by such injunctions.
Interestingly, the second challenge has a direct bearing on the first one. That is, the Simla Accord enjoins the signatory parties to curb terrorism and establish peace to continue with the resolution of bilateral unresolved issues.
In short, whereas modern war has established a principle that conquering airspace is more important than subjugating a piece of land, the legendary model of deterrence – whether minimum or maximum – has gone redundant. The modern war demands the setting.
The writer is a former diplomat and freelance columnist.