Islamabad’s intransigence

ByHT Editorial

Apr 26, 2025 08:53 AM IST

Share Via

Copy Link

Pahalgam and the responses thereafter suggest brinkmanship by Pakistan despite its precarious economy and internal security crisis

Pakistan’s response to the Pahalgam terror attacks that claimed the lives of 26 people has been insensitive, churlish and framed in a manner that is detrimental to the stability of the region, particularly its own people and economy. Initially, Islamabad refused to acknowledge the incident as an act of terrorism and its defence minister Khawaja Asif described the attack as part of some imaginary “revolution” against the Indian State. India has so far restrained itself from military action but has sent a clear message to Islamabad – and Rawalpindi, the headquarters of the Pakistan army – that Pakistan should not expect a free run while nurturing an ecosystem that breeds terrorism. (In fact, products of this ecosystem are wreaking havoc within Pakistan now). The decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), along with a slew of diplomatic actions, is a clear signal that India has more options than the conventional military one that can hurt Pakistan. However, the reckless Pakistani State has preferred to remain confrontationist and called India’s move on IWT an “act of war”. It has adopted a belligerent stance by threatening to suspend all bilateral treaties, including the 1971 Simla Agreement. Some of these treaties have survived multiple wars and helped in maintaining a pretence of engagement, essential since both nations are nuclear-armed and share a long and contested border. The script this time, most likely drawn in Rawalpindi, borders on brinkmanship, and will have consequences for Pakistan.

Pakistan’s military establishment mistakenly believes it can force a return to the decades after Independence when the world saw the subcontinent as a hyphenated entity (AFP)

So, why is Islamabad/Rawalpindi pursuing this path of reckless misadventure?

One, Pakistan’s military establishment mistakenly believes it can force a return to the decades after Independence when the world saw the subcontinent as a hyphenated entity. The Cold War dynamic — as it played out in Afghanistan and Iran in the 1970s and thereafter — ensured Pakistan received material and moral support from the West. Subsequent decades exposed its complicity in cross-border terror. In today’s world, where India is seen as an economic power and a leader of the Global South, Pakistan, despite its nuclear weapons, is deemed inconsequential, except for its potential to disrupt through its terror assets. Its old allies such as the US and Saudi Arabia are now closer to India and were quick to condemn the Pahalgam attack. Does Pakistan expect that a confrontation with India, with a nuclear backdrop, will draw international attention?

Two, the Pakistan army and its spy agency, ISI, are facing questions at home about messing up the polity and the economy. Evidence suggests an attempt to go back to the drawing board for ideological sustenance from the argument of religious exceptionalism that led to Partition and the creation of Pakistan. The Pakistani establishment believes that by engaging in brinkmanship, even if this means economic ruin, it can rally the nation around its cause. Its refusal to see Kashmir as a closed chapter and the thinking that it can use terror to dictate terms to India flows from a flawed understanding of contemporary history and geography.

Pakistan should know its future lies in finding ways to co-exist with India, considering its historical legacy and geography — its reliance on rivers that originate in India exemplifies this dependence. As it stands, Pakistan has a restive border in the northwest and its southwestern region — Balochistan — is in ferment. Its all-weather friend, China, will start demanding returns for its investments in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

As for New Delhi, it should avoid a confrontation with Pakistan on the latter’s terms and plot its response carefully and with short-term and long-term goals, and without being overtly influenced by emotions, ego or public opinion. Most importantly, it must make sure that its issues with its neighbour do not take a religious or regional (anti-Kashmiri) turn within the country. The Prime Minister has emphatically said India will not let the Pahalgam pain pass. Now, India must choose the targets and the path carefully, while firewalling its citizens from the consequences.