Masood Azhar: A Convenient Pawn

China’s reluctance to declare the JeM chief Masood Azhar a global terrorist is evidence of its symbiotic ties with Pakistan. It will protect it to keep a check on India’s influence in the region

By Col R Hariharan | Global Trends | India Legal | March 24, 2019 |

http://www.indialegallive.com/world-news/global-trends-news/masood-azhar-a-convenient-pawn-62260

Are we missing the wood for the trees by focusing on China putting a “technical hold” on the listing of Masood Azhar, chief of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), as an international terrorist under the UN sanctions regime? It would seem so because China’s response was not unexpected; it had been taking the same stance for the last decade. And it is Pakistan, not China, who is the main villain of the piece. India’s relentless campaign to get the UN Security Council (UNSC) to list Azhar as a global terrorist is not the whole, but part, of its efforts to internationally isolate Pakistan.

The fact that 14 members of the UNSC supported listing the JeM leader against China’s lone negative vote speaks for the success of India’s campaign against Pakistan for sponsoring and supporting trans-border terrorist operations against India.

The proposal to designate Azhar under the 1267 Al Qaida Sanctions Committee of the UNSC was moved by France, the UK and the US on February 27, nearly two weeks after a JeM-inspired suicide car bomb attack on a CRPF convoy killed 40 people in Pulwama in J&K. The committee members had 10 working days to raise any objection to the proposal.

China had put a “technical hold” on the proposal, seeking “more time to examine” it. It said the move would give it time for a “thorough and in-depth assessment” of the case and help the parties concerned to engage in more talks to find a “lasting solution” acceptable to all. China’s explanation would have been laughable, except for the grim fact that it enables Pakistan to delay concrete action to dismantle terror groups operating from its soil against India.

The anger against China after it blocked the UNSC move was palpable on Indian social media. People could not understand what was “technical” about recognising Azhar as a global terrorist. There were calls for boycott of Chinese goods, though they have become indispensable to trade and commerce and to the growth of mobile communication and the power industry in the country.

The public outrage against China is understandable as the grim sequel to the Pulwama attack took India and Pakistan to the brink of war. India had responded to the attack with an air strike on a JeM training centre at Balakot in Khyber Pahtunkhwa province in Pakistan. The Pakistan Air Force’s counter-strike in J&K two days later and the capture of an Indian fighter pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, in Pakistan turned the situation ugly.

Further deterioration of the situation was averted when the US, China, Saudi Arabia and UAE intervened and claimed credit for defusing the situation after Pakistan released the Indian pilot. But the security situation along the India-Pakistan border and LoC in J&K continues to be anomalous. Pakistan continues to fire across the border while Indian troops are carrying out operations to eliminate terrorists and security agencies are uncovering and dismantling sources of supply and finance of Pakistan-inspired terrorist support networks within the state.

High public expectations on l’affaire Azhar have to be understood in the context of events that preceded it. India had been regularly briefing foreign diplomats about the situation leading up to the UNSC meeting. It gave a detailed dossier on Azhar and JeM involvement in terrorist activity to the members, including China. The media gave a huge build-up before the UNSC met to consider the listing of Azhar.

Unfortunately, the “friend or foe” binary vision of the visual and social media in the country got very shrill in the events leading up to the UNSC meeting. As the Indo-Pak confrontation happened close to the general election, it inevitably led to a lot of chest-thumping of the ruling party, countered equally and vehemently by the Opposition. Cumulatively, these developments influenced their understanding of China’s stand on the Azhar issue. People expected China to be more sensitive to India’s concerns about terrorism as their hopes were kindled after Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Wuhan unofficial summit last year.

In this context, the statement of Liu Zongyi, senior fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, quoted in the Communist Party of China’s tabloid, Global Times, is interesting. He said the question of whether to list Azhar as a global terrorist has been a long-lasting dispute between China and India. In 2017, New Delhi’s demand was partly behind the Doklam stand-off. “If New Delhi succeeds in having both JeM and its leader black-listed, Islamabad would be branded a state sponsor of terrorism and isolated on the international stage. This is what India wants to pursue till the end,” he added.

International columnist Fareed Zakaria’s quote that “foreign policy is a matter of costs and benefits, not theology” applies to China’s negative stand on Azhar. It has shown that China’s approach to India will be transactional, selective and based on the hard reality of its national self-interest rather than ephemeral notions of harmony and bonhomie. China-Pakistan relations are built upon what Chanakya said long ago: “There is some self-interest behind every friendship. There is no friendship without self-interest. This is a bitter truth.”

Pakistan is increasingly becoming dependent on China—strategically, economically, politically, diplomatically and militarily. China will continue to use Pakistan’s vulnerability to protect and pamper it, not merely because it is its long-term friend and strategic ally in South Asia. It suits China that Pakistan firmly keeps a check on India’s strategic strength and influence in the region. Pakistan enlarges China’s options in handling India, its potential challenger in the region and beyond.

Moreover, China is under pressure to make a success of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in which it has invested over $40 billion to showcase the Belt and Road Initiative which has come under heavy weather. CPEC’s infrastructure would enable China to flex its strategic naval power to secure its interests in the Indian Ocean Region and South Asia, which had been dominated by India’s naval power.

Diplomat Gautam Bambawale, who served as India’s ambassador to both Islamabad and Beijing, while addressing the Indian Association of Foreign Affairs Correspondents, recently put the Wuhan meeting in perspective. He said he was averse to the term “Wuhan reset” as some people have described the informal summit. He said both India and China “saw what happened at Doklam, analysed that particular experience and drew their own conclusions from it”. Then they independently came to the decision that it was “much more important to have a relatively harmonious and balanced relationship between the two most populous states on the globe”.

He cautioned that “if the word (Wuhan) ‘reset’ in any way implies that the tensions and ill temperedness of Doklam was being brushed aside or under the carpet, then I strongly object to this term”. He added that he would go along with the use of the term “reset” if it described “a cool reappraisal of the relationship and a desire to put it on an even keel”.

On the Azhar episode, the diplomat was of the opinion that India must have a transactional approach to the issue. “Perhaps China will permit the listing to move ahead if there is something we can do for them or offer them in return? If there is, a bargain can indeed be struck,” he added.

So it is not surprising that despite all the media hoopla over the Azhar episode, India’s take on the issue was realistic as the Ministry of External Affairs’ (MEA) carefully worded statement showed. The statement did not even name China, but merely expressed disappointment “by this outcome. This has prevented action by the international community to designate the leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed, a proscribed and active terrorist organization, which has claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir on February 14, 2019”. However, one wishes the MEA had named China in the statement, at least to signal that India was not happy with its role.

China is here to stay as a powerful neighbour. It is in India’s interest to maintain a cordial working relationship with it, regardless of the hiccups in bilateral relations from time to time. Bambawale in his speech suggested an eight-point Pune Plan to build better relations with China.

These include maintaining high-level political relations, enhanced and expanded military exchanges between both countries, working to increase Chinese tourist visits to India through public-private partnership, focusing on attracting more Chinese students, creating a financial model for Chinese firms to modernise our railway stations, persuading it to join the International Solar Alliance as a member and expanding engagement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

However, some of these proposals might become politically controversial or inconvenient. But any foreign policy strategy to deal with China runs the risk of getting mired in political controversy.

After Modi took foreign policy initiatives to the political main stage with his signature showmanship, foreign policy has become one of the mainstream issues in the national political discourse. In a way, it has become a victim in the raucous election campaign, with rival political leaders making short shrift of nuanced policy initiatives to dispense their penny wisdom to the masses. Can political parties and leaders rise above petty politics to build a consensus on foreign policy?

American elder statesman Henry A Kissinger may well be speaking of India when he remarked that “our great foreign policy problem is our divisions at home. Our greatest foreign policy need is national cohesion and a return to the awareness that in foreign policy, we are all engaged in a common national endeavour”.

Can our polity prove that Kissinger’s words do not apply to India?

—The writer is a military intelligence specialist on South Asia, associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the International Law and Strategic Studies Institute

இந்திய ராணுவத்தாக்குதலை, பாக். ராணுவம் தவறாக திசை திருப்பப்பார்க்கிறது: ...

செய்தி வாசிப்பாளரை வெளுத்து வாங்கிய இராணுவ அதிகாரி | நேரடி ஒளிபரப்பு நிக...

India போரில் வெற்றி பெற இந்த 3 விஷயங்கள் தேவை! - Retd Colonel Hariharan

Sri Lanka Perspectives: February 2019

Sri Lanka Perspectives: February 2019

Col R Hariharan | 28-2-2019 | Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, March 2019 | www.security-risks.com |

Getting ready for the UNHRC session

President Maithripala Sirisena is reported to be seriously examining the implications of withdrawing from the US-backed UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution Sri Lanka had co-sponsored in September 2015. By co-sponsoring the resolution, Sri Lanka was committed to set up a tribunal with international participation to investigate allegations of war crimes committed by the army as part of its accountability for human rights aberrations during the Eelam War.

The President’s rethink on the resolution comes on the eve of the 40^th annual session of the UNHRC being held in Geneva from February 22 to March 25.  It will be taking up the review on Sri Lanka on March 20 when the core group consisting of the UK, Canada, Germany, Macedonia and Montenegro is expected to urge the Council’s support for the resolution once again. Though the US is not part of the Core Group as it had quit the Council, it has continued to work with Sri Lanka government on the implementation of the UN resolution.

The Core Group on Sri Lanka is expected to present a resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, making it more a semantic exercise than a substantive value addition. The resolution will buy time as will have to buy time as all the four aspects of transitional justice are still not fully implemented.

President Sirisena speaking to the Colombo weekly the Sunday Times had said, “I would wish we can withdraw from it. Discussions are now on over this matter.” This reflects President Sirisena’s exasperation in handling the consequences of the UNHRC resolution passed under his watch. He never accepted international involvement in the process to investigate the war crimes allegations as he considered it a domestic issue.

He had always maintained the army never committed any war crimes during the Eelam war.  This is understandable as he had served as defence minister in President Rajapaksa cabinet during the Eelam War. In spite of his reservations, in 2015 President Sirisena probably for reasons of political and diplomatic  expediency went along with foreign minister Mangala Samaraweera’s suggestion to co-sponsor the diluted US draft resolution.

Moreover, at that point the Presiden probably felt he was beholden to the US and its allies for their open support that had enabled him to defeat President Rajapaksa. He probably also saw sponsoring the resolution would be seen as part of the yahapalana vision, when he joined hands with the UNP to defeat Rajapaksa’s attempt to stage a come-back in the August 2015 parliamentary election.

In the final draft of the 2015 resolution, the US had agreed to tone down the requirement for foreign participation in the tribunal, by not specifying the exact nature of foreign participation, while retaining it in a domestic mechanism. The revised resolution was passed as it recognized the serious nature of the allegations as well as the failure of Sri Lanka to act upon them as required by earlier UNHRC resolutions.

The final resolution disappointed many Sri Lankan Tamils and Tamil Nadu political parties as they had been demanding only international mechanism. They had justifiably little faith in Sri Lanka’s domestic process, because in the past domestic inquiries into any human rights aberrations were subjected to heavy political interference. In spite of this, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) chief Sampanthan accepted the resolution at that time as he felt only a consensus resolution could make its honest implementation possible. Moreover, the resolution also addressed the main issues of accountability and reconciliation. On foreign participation, he was of the view that involvement of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence counsel, prosecutors and investigators would give the judicial process much greater credibility. 

But much to the dismay of those who wanted to usher in a clean government and voted the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo to power and to the disappointment of the US and the EU who had supported their rise, their government never implemented the UN body’s resolution either in letter or spirit. With President Sirisena breaking away from Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNP coalition we can expect the resolution to continue to remain in the half way house, as yet another belied promise.

As the implementation process is connected to good governance, distrust is a growing in the political process itself. Growing national solidarity with the demands of the relatives of missing persons, who have been protesting in Kilinochchi continuously for over 700 days is a testimony to it.

If President Sirisena withdraws Sri Lanka’s sponsorship at the UNHRC, it will only reinforce the long standing belief of among Sri Lankan Tamils that Sri Lankan government never maintain their promise to deliver equitable justice to minorities. In 2015, India had supported the revised US draft, though on principle India is always opposed to the role of foreign judges in internal conflicts.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had earlier spelled out India’s stand on the issue:“Our position is very clear. We stand for justice and at the same time we are respectful of the Sri Lankan sovereignty issues to the extent the Sri Lankan government is comfortable with the formulation that marries the two.” Even as the UNHRC discusses the Core Group’s resolution on Sri Lanka, Prime Minister Modi will be in the thick of the general elections. His party BJP is contesting the elections in Tamil Nadu in alliance with AIADMK and two other smaller parties. So India’s stand could be conditioned to some extent on Tamil Nadu political perspectives on Sri Lanka and UNHRC resolution. However, Sri Lanka Tamils have lost much of the political traction they had in the past. So India can be expected to maintain its stand vocalized by PM Modi.

Col R Hariharan, a retired MI officer, served as the head of Intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies, South Asia Analysis Group and the International Law and Strategic Analysis Institute, Chennai. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com  Blog: http://col.hariharan.info

Indo-Pak Confrontation: Now What?

Pakistan releasing the downed IAF pilot Abhinandan Varthaman has  the ball in India’s court. But Imran Khan, too, will have to de-escalate the situation by dismantling terrorist camps

Col R Hariharan | Perspective | India Legal | March 1, 2019 |

http://www.indialegallive.com/did-you-know-facts-about-news/perspective-news/indo-pak-confrontation-now-what-61452

With IAF pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman back home from Pakistan and receiving a hero’s welcome, tempers have cooled down somewhat between India and its neighbour which were on the brink of a confrontation. These relations entered a potential conflict zone after 12 IAF Mirage 2000s carried out a carefully crafted mission to destroy the largest Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM)training centre in Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan. Apart from this, camps were destroyed in Muzaffarabad and Chakothi in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) on February 26. India’s muscular response was to avenge JeM’s suicide bomb attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama in J&K, killing 40 jawans.

Though India’s response came 12 days after the Pulwama attack, it was well-planned to cover political, diplomatic and military aspects. This was evident in the way the Air Force had meticulously planned to ensure total surprise. The IAF strike was supported by airborne early warning and control radar systems designed to detect and track aircraft, missiles and ships, and air defence cover by Sukhoi 30MKI aircraft, while Heron drones conducted surveillance of the LoC. In order to achieve total surprise, the Mirages were inducted directly into operation from Gwalior with Ilyushin (Il-78) aircraft providing mid-air fuelling facility. It was a demonstration of the IAF’s capability to carry out a complex air operation. Both Pakistan and China would have taken note of this to factor it in their strategic matrix.

India has made it clear that the operation was not against the Pakistan military or its people. Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale, in an official statement, called the operation “an intelligence-led operation” carried out in the early hours of the day. He said: “India struck the biggest training camp of JeM in Balakot. In this operation, a very large number of JeM terrorists, trainers, senior commanders and groups of jihadis who were being trained for fidayeen action were eliminated.”

He added that Pakistan had taken no concrete action to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism, though India had been repeatedly urging it to act against the JeM. Justifying the action, he said that “credible intelligence was received that JeM was attempting another suicide terror attack in various parts of the country”. He described the action as a “non-military pre-emptive action” and emphasised that “the selection of target was also conditioned by our desire to avoid civilian casualties. The facility is located in thick forest on a hilltop far away from any civilian presence”.

Pakistan was in a tizzy after the Indian air strike. It closed its air space for civilian air traffic. Pro­vincial governments were put on security alert. According to an IAF spokes­man, over the next two days, Pakistan aircraft had violated Indian air space in J&K 32 times. Pakistan’s retaliatory strike came a day after the Balakot attack when three PAF fighters, out of a formation of 10 PAF war planes including F-16s, JF-17s and Mirage 5s, crossed the LoC and intruded seven km into Indian airspace in Nowshera area to strike at three military targets. According to media reports, Pakistan’s targets included a brigade headquarters in Krishna Ghati (Poonch), a battalion headquarters (near Nangi Tehri) and a supply dump and ammunition point in Nyari. However, two MiG-21 interceptors scrambled to drive away the Pakistani aircraft, which dumped their bombs in open ground.

Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan initially put up a brave face when he addressed the joint session of his parliament to discuss the increasing tension. He said that despite his multiple overtures for peace, the response from New Delhi was not encouraging. He said: “We realised that it was because of upcoming elections in India.” So the government decided to wait until the polls in India were over before making another offer for talks. However, he “feared they would do something”.

He said he had a meeting with Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa after the Indian aircraft violated Pakistani air space. At this meeting, it was decided that Pakistan would not respond straightaway. “We realised that Pakistani people might get upset that we did not respond, but we decided that since we did not know if there were any casualties, in case of an immediate response, there will be escalation.”

His explanation that the only purpose of Pakistan’s strike was to demonstrate its capability, and not to inflict any casualty on India, is unbelievable. It is doubtful if any country would use its valuable air assets merely to demonstrate its capability, particularly in an operationally critical situation.

However, the capture of its pilot skewed India’s priorities for a while as the air strike in Balakot and PoK was carried out to fulfill PM Narendra Modi’s promise to avenge the Pulwama killings and put a stop to JeM terrorist activity in J&K. However, after Pulwama, Imran Khan promised to take action if India produced evidence of the alleged involvement of Pakistan-based JeM terrorists. This has been Pakistan’s standard ploy to delay action on India’s complaints. After the dastardly 26/11 attack in Mumbai, India had produced dossiers of evidence, but there was no follow-up action.

However, after the air strike on Balakot, India made available the dossier of the evidence to Pakistan. Earlier, India had given the dossier to the US, China and other powers too. Modi’s action was in tune with the public opinion in India, which applauded the IAF’s successful strike. But a day later, public opinion rallied to demand the release of the pilot, turning it into the first priority.

The pilot’s capture gave a breather to Imran Khan as tremendous international pressure was building up on Pakistan to take action to curb JeM terrorist activities. The US stand was unambiguously in favour of India, with US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo describing the Indian air strike as “counter terrorism actions”. After speaking to the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan, he asked both countries to “exercise restraint, and avoid escalation at any cost”. Almost all UNSC members also appealed to both countries to exercise restraint. No country condemned India’s air strike inside Pakistan.

Hussain Haqqani, former Pakistan ambassador to Washington and currently with Hudson Institute, aptly summed up the situation in his tweet: “International community including China have advised both sides to ‘exercise restraint.’ So far, no country has supported Pakistan against ‘violation of sovereignty’ or ‘Indian aggression’.” Well-known scholar Christian Fair was more forthright. She tweeted: “Pakistan attacks India incessantly using terror proxies which the army, ISI and navy arm, resource, train, and launch on missions they design all over India outside Kashmir. So Pakistanis should literally shut up and take it as the punishment their state deserves.”

Pakistan must have been disappointed with China cautiously wording its comments after the situation worsened between India and Pakistan. China will be caught in an anomalous situation if confrontation breaks out into a full-fledged war. Though China and Pakistan enjoy a multifaceted relationship and have a strategic security agreement, the former’s relations with India are also growing, but on a different plane. China enjoys a trade surplus of over $73 billion with India; India had been clocking over seven percent growth on an average for the last five years and presents a huge, attractive market for Chinese goods. Moreover, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, the infrastructure development project in which China is investing over $40 billion, passes through PoK and any military confrontation will affect the progress of the project.

In addition, India has become an essential partner in China-sponsored multilateral forums such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. China is also strengthening trilateral cooperation with India and Russia. Chinese state councillor and foreign minister Wang Yi said the three countries had agreed to firmly uphold multilateralism and the international system with the UN as the core, as well as the basic norms of international relations, including the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries.

So it is not surprising to see Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lu Kang saying: “We are indeed worried about the current tension between Pakistan and India.” Wang Yi has repeatedly expressed China’s concerns in his talks with his counterparts in India and Pakistan. The spokesperson said: “We urge both Pakistan and India to exercise the utmost restraint and conduct dialogue as soon as possible. Control the situation and jointly safeguard peace and stability.”

According to Reuters, the US, UK and France have proposed that the UN Security Council blacklist Masood Azhar, the head of JeM. They asked the 15-member UN Security Council sanctions committee to subject him to an arms embargo, global travel ban and assets freeze. However, the proposal will only be finalised on March 13 after consensus. China as the lone supporter of Pakistan had delayed the action in the committee on “technical grounds”.

Last, but not least, is Pakistan’s precarious economic situation which makes going to war the least favourable option. Pakistan is beholden to China and Saudi Arabia for financial support to tide through the crisis as its foreign reserves are in single-digit.

Hemmed in by these constraints, Imran took everyone by surprise when he announced in parliament on February 28 that “in our desire for peace” and as a first step to open negotiations, Pakistan would be releasing the IAF officer. He added that Pakistan’s efforts for de-escalation should not be construed as “weakness”.

Imran’s move to release the prisoner has clearly put the ball in Modi’s court. Though the Indian PM has said that India will pursue its objective to eradicate the terrorist threat, on the eve of elections, public opinion could be divided over continuing with operations across the LoC, particularly after Imran’s goodwill gesture. This was evident from the welcome his announcement received from many leaders in India and abroad.

Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh said: “I’m very happy, I had demanded his (the pilot’s) release earlier too. This is going to be a step towards goodwill and I hope this will be lasting.” Former J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, too, complimented Imran, saying he had “exhibited real statesmanship today”. She hoped that “our leadership will reciprocate and try to de-escalate the situation”. She also hoped that Imran would act upon the evidence provided to Pakistan “so that tension between the two countries ends”.

In addition, India has become an essential partner in China-sponsored multilateral forums such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. China is also strengthening trilateral cooperation with India and Russia. Chinese state councillor and foreign minister Wang Yi said the three countries had agreed to firmly uphold multilateralism and the international system with the UN as the core, as well as the basic norms of international relations, including the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries.

So it is not surprising to see Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lu Kang saying: “We are indeed worried about the current tension between Pakistan and India.” Wang Yi has repeatedly expressed China’s concerns in his talks with his counterparts in India and Pakistan. The spokesperson said: “We urge both Pakistan and India to exercise the utmost restraint and conduct dialogue as soon as possible. Control the situation and jointly safeguard peace and stability.”

According to Reuters, the US, UK and France have proposed that the UN Security Council blacklist Masood Azhar, the head of JeM. They asked the 15-member UN Security Council sanctions committee to subject him to an arms embargo, global travel ban and assets freeze. However, the proposal will only be finalised on March 13 after consensus. China as the lone supporter of Pakistan had delayed the action in the committee on “technical grounds”.

Last, but not least, is Pakistan’s precarious economic situation which makes going to war the least favourable option. Pakistan is beholden to China and Saudi Arabia for financial support to tide through the crisis as its foreign reserves are in single-digit.

Hemmed in by these constraints, Imran took everyone by surprise when he announced in parliament on February 28 that “in our desire for peace” and as a first step to open negotiations, Pakistan would be releasing the IAF officer. He added that Pakistan’s efforts for de-escalation should not be construed as “weakness”.

Imran’s move to release the prisoner has clearly put the ball in Modi’s court. Though the Indian PM has said that India will pursue its objective to eradicate the terrorist threat, on the eve of elections, public opinion could be divided over continuing with operations across the LoC, particularly after Imran’s goodwill gesture. This was evident from the welcome his announcement received from many leaders in India and abroad.

Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh said: “I’m very happy, I had demanded his (the pilot’s) release earlier too. This is going to be a step towards goodwill and I hope this will be lasting.” Former J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, too, complimented Imran, saying he had “exhibited real statesmanship today”. She hoped that “our leadership will reciprocate and try to de-escalate the situation”. She also hoped that Imran would act upon the evidence provided to Pakistan “so that tension between the two countries ends”.

Apparently, Imran has used his bowling skills to bowl a googly to use the confrontation from the core issue of bleeding India using terrorists. In this mind-game, Imran has the advantage of not having the Damocles’ sword of elections hanging over him like Modi. Moreover, Imran has Gen Bajwa behind him in decision-making as he himself has acknowledged.

Imran’s dramatic and “generous” gesture in releasing the pilot  and inviting Modi for talks meets the immediate needs of international powers. Some of them, friendly to both countries, would appreciate such a gesture as it saves them from an embarrassing situation. We can expect China to persuade India to reciprocate Pakistan’s gesture by de-escalating the military situation.

But Imran would probably not bargain for Modi digging his heels in and fighting for his beliefs. So to lend credibility, it’s not only India, but Imran too who has to de-escalate the situation by taking substantive action by dismantling terrorist camps and deny the fidayeen the freedom to operate against India from Pakistan’s soil.  Can he do it? Will the army allow it? Only time can tell.

Modi faces a more complex task as he has to balance his strategic response to take it to the logical conclusion and at the same time, gain the approval of his people so that they will vote him back to power. We can expect him to continue with his holistic narrative internally in J&K and continue the pressure game on Pakistan. But it could be muted to accommodate international partners.

India must factor in all these questions before responding to Pakistan.

—The writer is a military intelligence specialist on South Asia, associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the International Law and Strategic Studies Institute

India-Pakistan relations entered  potential conflict zone following the rapid developments after  a dozen IAF Mirage2000 aircraft carried out a carefully crafted mission to destroy the largest  Jaish e Mohammed (JeM)  training centre in Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkwa province in Pakistan, apart from camps in Muzaffarabad and Chakothi in POK on February 26. India’s muscular response was to avenge JeM’s suicide car bomb attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama in J&K, killing 40 jawans 12 days earlier.

Though India’s response came 12 days after Pulwama attack, it was well planned to cover political, diplomatic and military aspects. This was evident in the way the air force had planned meticulously planned to ensure total surprise. IAF Mirage2000 strike was supported by airborne early warning and control aircraft (AEW&C) radar systems designed to detect and track aircraft, missiles and ships and air defence cover by Sukhoi 30MkI aircraft, while Heron drone conducted realtime surveillance of the LOC. In order to achieve total surprise Mirage fighters were inducted directly into operation from Gwalior base with  Ilyushin 78 aircraft providing mid air fuelling facility. It was a demonstration of IAF’s capability to operate a complex air operation in the modern C3S and I command and control system in place. Both Pakistan and China would have taken note of IAF’s demonstrated capability to factor it in their strategic matrix.

India made it clear that the operation was not against Pakistan military or people. Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale in an official statement called the operation “an intelligence led operation” carried out in the early hours of the day. He said “India struck the biggest training camp of JeM in Balakot. In this operation, a very large number of JeM terrorists, trainers, senior commanders and groups of Jihadis who were being trained for fedayeen action were eliminated.” He also mentioned that the Balakot facility was headed by Maulana Yousuf Azhar (aliasUstad Ghouri).

He added that Pakistan had taken no concrete actions to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism, though India had been repeatedly urging Pakistan to take action against the JeM to prevent training and arming of terrorists. Justifying the action, he said “credible intelligence was received that JeM was attempting another suicide terror attack in various parts of the country. Describing the action as a “non-military preemptive action,”  he said it was specifically targeted at the JeM camp. He emphasized “the selection of target was also conditioned by our desire to avoid civilian casualties. The facility is located in thick forest on a hilltop far away from any civilian presence.”

Pakistan was on a tizzy after the Indian air strike. It closed the air space for civilian air traffic. Provincial governments were put on security alert. According to IAF spokesman, in the next two days Pakistan air craft had violated Indian air space in J&K 32 times.  Pakistan’s retaliatory strike came a day after Balakot attack, when three PAF fighters, out of a formation of ten PAF war planes including F16s, JF 17s and Mirage 5s, crossed the LOC and intruded seven km into Indian airspace in Nowshera area to strike at three Indian military targets.

According to media reports Pak targets included a brigade headquarters in Krishnaghati (Poonch),   a battalion headquarters (near Nangi Tehri) and a supply dump and ammunition point in Nyari. However, two MiG-21 interceptors scrambled to drive away the Pak aircraft, which dumped their bombs in open ground.

In the dogfight that followed a MiG 21 (Bison) of 80s vintage piloted by Wing Commander Abinandan fired a missile to bring down the F16 plane in classical World War II style. It is learnt thatt  the MiG21 was hit by a splinter from the F16 after it was hit and not by air defence fire as reported in the media. Wing Commander Abhinandan parachuted to safety in POK and taken prisoner. It is a tribute to the Indian officer’s skill that he came out on top using an obsolete fighter in combat with F!6 of a far superior class. At the same time, it is also an example of the human cost the services have continued to pay for decades of indifference of successive governments to equip the armed forces with modern weaponry though security environment has become more dynamic and networked.

PM Imran Khan initially put up a brave face when he addressed the joint session of parliament on Thursday when it met to discuss the increasing tension after the Pulwama attack and subsequent air strikes by both sides. He said that despite his multiple overtures for peace, the response from New Delhi had not been encouraging. He said “we realized that it was because of upcoming elections in India.” So the government decided to wait until the polls in India were over before making another offer for talks. However, he “feared they would do something”.

He said he had a meeting with the Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa after the Indian air craft violated Pakistan air space. At this meeting it was decided that Pakistan will not respond straightaway. “We realized that Pakistani people might get upset that we did not respond, but  we decided that since we did not know if there were any casualties, in case of an immediate response there will be escalation.”

The PM’s explanation that the “only purpose of our strike was to demonstrate our capability and will. We did not want to inflict any casualty on India as we wanted to act in a responsible manner” is not believable as it is doubtful whether any country would use its valuable air assets mere to demonstrate its capability, particularly in operationally critical situation.

 Capture of the air force pilot skewed India’s priorities for a while as the Indian air strike against JeM centre in Balakot and in POK was carried out to fulfil PM Narendra Modi’s promise to avenge Pulwama killings and put a stop to JeM terrorist activity in J&K. This had been India’s long standing demand to Pakistan to put a stop to terrorists operating from its soil against India have been ignored. However after Pulwama attack, Pak PM Imran Khan had promised to take action if India produced evidence for the alleged involvement of Pak based JeM terrorists. Usually, this had been Pakisan’s standard ploy of Pakistan to delay action on Indian complaints; after 26/11 Mumbai this exercise was gone through in all sincerity India produced dossiers of evidence.

However, after carrying out the air strike on Balakot, India produced the dossier on the evidence it had collected to Pakistan. Earlier, India had also given the dossier to the US, China and other powers. was earlier given to a of Modi’s action was in tune with the public opinion in India, which applauded the IAF’s successful strike. But a day later, public opinion rallied to demand the release of Indian pilot turning it into the first priority.

The capture of Indian pilot gave a breather to Pakistan PM Imran Khan as tremendous international pressure was building up on Pakistan to take action to curb JeM terrorist activities.  The US stand was unambiguously in favour of India, with the US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo describing India air strike as “counter terrorism actions.” After speaking to the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan after the Indian air strike, he said he “expressed to both ministers we encourage India and Pakistan to exercise restraint, and avoid escalation at any cost.” Almost all UNSC members appealed to both countries to exercise restraint and no country condemned Indian air strike  carried out inside Pakistan.

Hussain Haqqani,  former Pakistan ambassador to Washington and currently  with Hudson Institute, aptly summed up the situation in his tweet: International community including China have advised  both sides to ‘exercise restraint.’ So far, no country has supported Pakistan against ‘violation of sovereignty’ or ‘Indian aggression.’  Well known scholar Christian Fair was more forthright; she tweeted: Pakistan attacks India incessantly using terror proxies which the army, ISI and navy arm, resource, train, and launch on missions they design all over India outside Kashmir. So Pakistanis should literally shut up and take it as the punishment their state deserves.

Pakistan must have been disappointed with China cautiously wording its comments after the situation worsened between India and Pakistan ever since Pulwama attack was carried out. China will be caught in an anomalous situation if  Indo-Pak confrontation broke out into a full-fledged war. Though China and Pakistan enjoy multifaceted relationship and have a strategic security agreement, China’s relations with India are also growing on a different plane. China enjoys a trade surplus of over $73 billion with India; India had been clocking over 7 per cent growth on an average for the last five years and presents a huge, attractive market for Chinese goods. Moreover the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the infrastructure development project in which China is investing over $40 billion passes through POK area and any military confrontation in the region would affect the progress of the project. 

India has become an essential partner in China-sponsored multilateral forums like the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.  China is also strengthening the trilateral cooperation with India and Russia. Only last month, foreign ministers of China, Russia, India met in Wuzhen, Zhejiang province and agreed to strengthen trilateral coordination and cooperation to bring more stability and positive energy to the volatile international landscape. State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the three countries had agreed to firmly uphold multilateralism and the international system with the UN as the core, as well as the basic norms of international relations including the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. Significantly, Wang added that in terms of regional and international hot issues, the three countries agreed that inclusive dialogue should be the approach to resolving problems.

So it is not surprising to see Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang saying “We are indeed worried about the current tension between Pakistan and India. China’s foreign minister Wang Yi has repeatedly expressed China’s concerns in his talks with the Indian foreign minister and Pakisani foreign minister. The spokesperson said “we urge both Pakistan and India to exercise the utmost restraint and conduct dialogue as soon as possible. Control the situation and jointly safeguard peace and stability.” He added that China had been maintaining close communication with Pakistan and Inda on current state of affairs and has been involved in consultations while promoting talks. “China was willing to continue to play a constructive role in this regared” he added.  At the same time, he said that State Councillor Wang Yi clearly emphasized that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be earnestly respected.

UN pressure

According to the Reuters which accessed the United States, Britain and France proposal that the UN Security Council  blacklist the head of outlawed group JeM, which claimed the attack on CRPF convoy in Pulwama. They asked the 15-member UN Security Council sanctions committee to subject Masood Azhar to an arms embargo, global travel ban and asset freeze. However, as the proposal will only be finalised on March 13 as the UNSC committee operates on consensus and the members have time to raise objections till then.  China as the lone on supporter of Pakistan had delayed the action in the committee on “technical grounds.” 

Last, but not least, is Pakistan’s precarious economic situation, which makes going to war the least favourable option. And Pakistan is beholden to China and Saudi Arabia for financial support to tide through the crisis as its foreign reserves are in single digit.

Hemmed in by these constraints, PM Imran Khan took everyone by surprise when he announced in the joint session of parliament on February 28 that “in our desire for peace” and as a first step to open negotiations, Pakistan will be releasing the Indian Air Force officer in our custody.” He added that Pakistan’s efforts for de-escalation should not be construed as a “weakness.”

What next?

 

PM Imran Khan’s move to release the prisoner  has clearly put the ball in Modi’s court. Though he has spoken that India would pursue its objective to eradicate terrorist threat, on the eve of elections public opinion could be divided over continuing with Indian operations across the LOC, particularly after Imran Khan’s good will gesture. This was evident from the welcome the Pak PM’s announcement has received in India.  Indian His announcement has been welcomed by many leaders in India and abroad.

Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh said: "I'm very happy, I had demanded his release earlier too. This is going to be a step towards goodwill and I hope this will be lasting." Former J&K chief minister Mehbooba Mufti, too, complimented the prime minister, saying he has "exhibited real statesmanship today". She hoped “our leadership will reciprocate and try to deescalate the situation. She also hoped that PM Khan would act upon the evidence provided to Pakistan “so that tension between the two countries end.”

That is the key dilemma for India. Will Pakistan okeep up its promise to take action against Masood Azhar and JeM? That is the million dollar question. Does PM Imran Khan has the ability to influence the Deep State to dismantle its strategic assets that bleed India? India will have to factor these questions in responding to Pakistan.