1. Home
2. Editorial

Tensions must de-escalate

Kashmir Times. Dated: 2/21/2019 11:07:29 AM

Imran's reaction is too little, too late but military pursuit will achieve nothing

The sound and sanguine advice of the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres who called on India and Pakistan to take immediate steps to de-escalate tensions should not be lost in the din of jingoism on the Indian side and the denial mode of Pakistan establishment in the aftermath of the Pulwama attack. Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan on Tuesday made a belated response to the Pulwama attack but the response is mired in ambiguity, is too late and too little. Far from defusing tensions, the statement has led to a war of words. Bellicose rhetoric on the Indian side has been at an all time high since the Pulwama attack in which over 44 CRPF men were killed sparking nation-wide outrage. The words of the Pakistani premier are too late to assuage the wounds on this side. They are laced with double-speak of 'blow hot, blow cold' and reflect cautious diplomacy. The lack of trust deficit between India and Pakistan calls for greater restraint on both sides. While the war cries and revenge slogans, including of some of those in the government, do precious little in building restraint. In a bid to infuse some confidence, the Pakistan establishment was expected to give a more forth-right assurance. It has neither expressed enough grief at the loss of lives that appears to have hurt the Indian sentiments extensively, nor is it willing to grapple with questions that point to the Pakistan angle behind the Pulwama attack. It doesn't need evidence to crackdown on the terror groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed that operate from the country, whether or not there is the hand of Pakistan's establishment, army or its intelligence agencies behind the Pulwama attack. Such a move could have helped de-escalate tensions. The Indian response to his remarks also needed to be more seasoned than just blanket condemnation. Imran Khan has also called for dialogue with India to discuss all issues including terrorism, maintaining that this is a concern for both sides, and this offer should have helped at least in toning down the belligerence. Unfortunately, there is a tendency on the Indian side to weigh the remark of "retaliating if India attacks" appended to the call for dialogue. It seems apparent that the reactions on both sides are designed for optics to please extremist constituencies on both sides. For the BJP in power on the Indian side, this need with elections round the corner is even more crucial. Jingoism peppered with doses of Islamophobia can easily help revive its sagging fortunes. However, it pushes South Asia into a very fragile situation, whatever military option that India decides to choose against Pakistan.
Another surgical strike, which affected no loss, may be good for propaganda and weaving illusions. But it is already proved that this is no deterrent for terrorism or from stopping hostility from Pakistan. Similar is the likely impact of a huge troops build-up as happened in 2001-2002 during Operation Parakaram, bringing India and Pakistan eye-ball to eye-ball but keeping military action on low key. The move did not achieve anything then, other than dislocating millions of people living on the borders and adding to the stress levels of the armed forces. A limited skirmish like during the Kargil war is likely to be retaliated by Pakistan. A related question to that is whether amidst the worst ever atmosphere of belligerence, could both sides keep the skirmish limited enough. Pulwama attack has hurt the Indian nerve badly but is there any other option than to enter into a diplomatic engagement as a way to pressurize Pakistan into acting much more against terror groups. Additionally, it is pointless putting the entire blame on Pakistan when the attack demonstrates that the Indian side was caught napping, as it happened in Mumbai terror attack or before that in Kargil. A more pragmatic road for preventing Pulwama-type attacks is to look into the glaring lapses and launching a diplomatic process, which is not made through noises and sloganeering but through adequate collection of facts and through process of engagement. The repeated calls for revenge smack of political designs inspired by vote-bank compulsions not the desire to bring peace in the country and the region.