- 8 months ago
Join our analysts as they delve into the two nuclear-armed neighbours long standing rivalry and periodic escalations that may impact the regional stability on AWANI Global 9.00pm tonight.
Category
đź—ž
NewsTranscript
00:00This is Awani Global with me Nailah Huda and tonight on Awani Global we want to look at
00:11tensions rising again in India and Pakistan after deadly violence in Kashmir triggered
00:17cross-border airstrikes and military conflict. So tonight we want to unpack how serious could
00:23this crisis get. We've seen despite the ceasefire, clashes and diplomatic fallout are still
00:29continuing. So could things get worse before they get better? To help me unpack these questions we have
00:35Sadia Rahman, lecturer at Department of International and Strategic Studies, University Malaya. We also
00:41have Munira Mustafa, executive director at Chester Group. Thank you so much Sadia and Munira for
00:46joining us tonight. I want to start with Sadia. We want to just first understand the sort of bigger
00:51picture of what's happened in the past month or so. What actually triggered this latest wave of
00:58violence and what made it so deadly and I guess escalate so quickly?
01:04Thank you Nailah for having me. To answer your question we have to reflect back to the history
01:11and I would like you to take you to understand that since British India was partitioned in 1947
01:18the two independent countries were established. Post that the relationship between the two countries
01:25have always been hostile, seen with deep mistrust and recurring conflict. So you see this enduring
01:33rivalry which exists between India and Pakistan not only confronts conventional military engagement
01:40but they also have persistent cross border terrorism sponsored by Pakistan's support of non-state
01:48violence, right? So the region of Kashmir has always been the region of contestation and asymmetric
01:54warfare. Now India and Pakistan over the past decades have fought four wars, 1947-48, 1965, 1971 and 1999.
02:07In all these engagements, military engagements, you see Pakistan has received major setbacks,
02:14especially in 1971 when Bangladesh was created and 1999 when India retaliated and claimed back its
02:24territory in the Kargil conflict. Now fast forward, the nature of conflict not only just exists in the form of
02:34conventional military but in the form of Pakistan supporting insurgency and cross-border terrorism.
02:41And you see the cross-border terrorism comes from these militant or terrorist organizations
02:48which is known as Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Muhammad. So recently what happened on April 22nd was
02:56in Indian Kashmir, which is in the area of Pahlga, 26 Indian people were attacked and killed by the terrorists, which came from the Pakistan side.
03:10Now this attack was seen as a red line by the Indian government and it was actually expected that the
03:17Indian government would respond to these measures. The initial measures were the Indian government suspended
03:25diplomats. It also suspended the Indus Water Treaty. And after a few weeks, we saw that India responded with
03:34military engagement. And India labeled this engagement as Operation Sindhu, which was conducted in the
03:40night of May 6 and 7. And India regard this Operation Sindhu as a very precise military engagement targeting the
03:50terrorist infrastructure, terrorist air bases and other launch pads, which was used to actually
03:58amplify cross-border terrorism and attacks against India.
04:03Yeah. So these are the reasons which actually led to the escalation of this current conflict.
04:10Yeah. Thank you for that really, I guess, sufficient summary.
04:14Munira, there have been close calls in the past, but what made this round of conflict particularly dangerous?
04:22Well, I'd say that this was possibly the most serious confrontation in two decades. What really
04:27distinguished it was the expanded targeting scope. Like India conducted operations deep in Pakistan's
04:33Punjab province, while Pakistan struck military installations across multiple Indian states.
04:38Now, both countries employed advanced weapon systems, including drone technology, precision missiles,
04:44and fighter aircraft. And this went well beyond limited counterterrorism operations. Modi's statement
04:50regarding nuclear blackmail indicates a possible shift in India's approach to Pakistan's nuclear doctrine.
04:57The combination of expanded targeting, sophisticated weapons deployment, and questions around nuclear
05:02levels. While communication channels were limited, these created conditions where miscommunication could have led to further escalations.
05:13We've moved on to, you know, or we're moving on to this another phase, which is the ceasefire.
05:20That's what we're seeing this past week. And we want to look at what Prime Minister Modi says, or what he means when he says that India
05:29is only pausing its military action. What do you think he means by this, Sadia?
05:35Okay, so India's response
05:40was Operation Sindhu, and Pakistan also militarily responded with this operation known as Bunyan
05:46or Mursus, right? And after that, there was a ceasefire negotiation, which was actually
05:51announced on May 10th in the evening. And the Indian Prime Minister for the first time addressed as
06:00Indian citizens calling this as a ceasefire, as only in terms of pausing it, okay?
06:06Now, what does POS mean here is, India asserts its inherent right to resume military operation contingent
06:14upon if provoked by future acts of terrorism from the Pakistan, okay? It also means that ceasefire is a
06:22temporary de-escalation and not a long-lasting solution to this, which is lasting peace, okay?
06:29So Modi's statement from this perspective can be seen as a shift or a doctrinal shift, paradigm shift,
06:36that India does not tolerate any more cross-border terrorism. This also means that India's
06:41long-standing position, which is terror and talks cannot go together, which means negotiation,
06:47diplomacy talks cannot go hand in hand, and it is only contingent upon Pakistan acting on curbing
06:53down its terrorist activities, okay? On the other hand, you would also see by causing, calling this as
07:00some kind of pauses, this means that India wants to send a kind of a strategic message to Pakistan
07:07and also the international community, demonstrating that India has a clear willingness to use its military
07:14engagement to fight counter-terrorism. This means the idea is to eradicate terrorism, restore deterrence,
07:22which India feels that has actually waned in the South Asian region. So the approach, the terminology,
07:29pause or ceasefire here means some kind of a disciplined restraint, achieving a strategic clarity.
07:37This should not be seen as a weakness, but rather as a calculated move to maintain control over
07:43the escalating dynamics in the region. Yeah, this is what I read. Munira, you have a different
07:50perspective on this. What do you think he means by pausing its military action? And what do you
07:58think is being meant by, you know, balancing or trying to achieve this balancing act between diplomacy
08:05and at the same time trying to stop terrorist acts? It's, I'm assuming, very difficult to actually achieve this.
08:11You know, things are moving very fast and diplomacy is very difficult in a very tricky situation like this.
08:18I'm inclined to agree with Dr. Sadia. I think Modi is characterizing the ceasefire as India's
08:23independent decision rather than a negotiated outcome. So this suggests that India retains the option to
08:29resume operations if deemed necessary. I think his statement that India won't differentiate between
08:36terrorists and the sponsors represents a significant policy development. This effectively reduces the
08:42distinction between non-state actors and Pakistani state institutions, broadening what India may
08:47consider as legitimate targets. If so, then this position creates complex security dynamics. If Pakistan
08:55faces military responses, regardless of whether it's directly involved with specific groups, it may affect
09:02incentive structures for controlling these organizations. So Modi appears to be establishing a new
09:08security approach with a lower threshold for interstate operations using counterterrorism as the
09:14framework for broader military engagement. Now, despite the ceasefire, we're still seeing reports of
09:20violence continuing along the line of control or the LOC. Is this perhaps a fragile truce or is this just
09:29business as usual? Is this the status quo? Sadia, what do you think?
09:36Yes, you're right that on the night on May 10th when ceasefire was announced, we see violations
09:43immediately after that and both countries accusing each other of violating the ceasefire.
09:49India accused Pakistan of drone incrusions and also attacking military bases. Vice versa, you see
09:56Pakistan also claiming similar accusations. I see the ceasefire very fragile, of course. Why? Because
10:06you see, the ceasefire does not address the core issue, which is some kind of a comprehensive
10:13counterterrorism measure saying that okay,
10:17these steps have to be taken by Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism. On the other hand, I have
10:24skepticism regarding its durability. Why? Because given the track record of cross-border terrorism,
10:31and time and again, India has seen attacks by the non-state actors from Pakistan, which is the 2003
10:40India-Pakistan ceasefire agreement was there. Then also, I think that was actually broken multiple times,
10:47okay, the 2003 ceasefire agreement. Then in 2021, also, we see some kind of a reaffirmation.
10:54And then 2025, post Sindur operation, we see this current ceasefire. So, this ceasefire, although does
11:01exist, but it does not address the core issue, which I mentioned, and it does not transform the conflict
11:07dynamics, right? So, according to me, the ceasefire is like a temporary pressure valve, and underlying issues
11:14such as territorial disputes, and see, I mean, something like not supporting cross-border terrorism,
11:22that could only keep this ceasefire long-lasting. Other than that, I would also like to tell you that
11:30there has been a kind of a doctrinal shift. Why? Because, you see, India has talked about,
11:37by Operation Sindur, it has given a message that it is deterrence by punishment, whereas Pakistan gives a
11:44signal that it is full-spectrum deterrence, and perhaps the potential signal of tactical nuclear
11:54threats, okay? So, I see the ceasefire might have periods of calmness, but this will be punctuated by
12:02violence. That remains the dominant reality, unfortunately.
12:20You mentioned or you described this ceasefire as being a temporary de-escalation or a pressure valve. How long do you see this
12:28in place for now? And at the same time, we're also seeing some analysts talking about the old
12:34red lines in the India-Pakistan relations that are now perhaps erased for good. Do you see this happening?
12:42What are these old red lines, actually?
12:46Okay, so when I was telling you in the context of doctrinal shift from both sides, you have to
12:53understand that the strategic rail guards, which existed before, was something about that the
13:00escalation should not go to that point that it becomes an uncontrolled escalation, okay? So, the old
13:07red lines or the strategic rail guards, in the previous conflicts, it worked something as
13:14it is an unsaid way to keep themselves restrained from not getting the matter to be escalated. I'll
13:21give you an example here. So, previously, when there were military engagements, you see
13:26that the strides which happened did not happen in the context of attacking each other's, going inside
13:33each other's territory. You know, they never crossed LOC before. So, India-Pakistan rarely targeted each
13:41other's deep inside sovereign territory. Presently, in this Operation Sindur and the Pakistan Operation Bunyan,
13:49you see, both sides have entered deep inside territory right now. And the second thing is,
13:55initially, there was no direct attack on their military headquarters, installations, or other
14:02terrorist organization infrastructure. But in this operation, you see, both sides have attacked each
14:08other's installations as well, okay? So, Operation Sindur talks about airstrikes in the context of
14:16Pakistani territory, integrating into that and targeting their military installations and air bases.
14:24And India particularly selected those sites, which has a record of sponsoring terrorism against India.
14:33On the other hand, Pakistan has sent, crossing the LOC, drone incursions, and other missile attacks as well.
14:43So, according to me, these both countries have not only used advanced weaponry, they have used precise
14:50guided munitions, drones, and also has shown some kind of a readiness to be ready to face the situation
15:01and to retaliate, okay? So, this has a repercussion of amplifying or escalating the conflict to a dangerous level.
15:09Yeah. Munira, your thoughts on this? Has this gone beyond repair?
15:13Well, I would say that several significant security parameters have indeed changed during this conflict.
15:19I mean, geographic constraints have evolved considerably. Previously, operations typically
15:24remained within Kashmir and immediate border regions. But this confrontation involves strikes
15:29into Pakistan's Punjab province and across multiple Indian states. Frankly, the distinction between targeting
15:36military facilities versus military assets has become less defined. While India stated that it was targeting
15:43terrorist infrastructure, Pakistan directly engaged Indian military installations, indicating a shift
15:49in operational parameters. I mean, Modi's statements regarding nuclear deterrence suggest
15:55potential reconsiderations of India's approach to established thresholds. And additionally,
16:00the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty introduces resource security into the broader conflict framework. And this agreement
16:08had remained intact through three previous wars since 1960. So, these developments create uncertainty in a
16:17security environment where predictability is essential for stability between nuclear powers. The altered parameters
16:25potentially increase the complexity of crisis management in future incidents.
16:31You mentioned this shift in operational parameters. We want to see if there's also a shift
16:37potentially in the tones of the messaging, the sentiments between the two nations. In
16:44Prime Minister Modi's first national address since the ceasefire, he did also warn that
16:50India would strike terrorist hideouts, as you mentioned, across the border if provoked again. Whereas, at the same time,
16:57Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs described these remarks as provocative and inflammatory. Are we seeing a shift in tone
17:08in the tone of these both governments? And how could this help or perhaps worsen the situation, Sadia?
17:14Okay, so if there is a doctrinal shift, of course, the tonality will change. So, definitely, we are seeing a shift in tone.
17:25Both sides appear to be very assertive in their posture. Okay, India's stance, when Prime Minister Modi came
17:32and addressed the Indian people, his stance was very clear. He talked about India's unwavering stance
17:39against terrorism. Also, he talked about that India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail, which hints
17:47a signal that there might be some kind of threats coming from the other side. As we discussed already,
17:55India has mentioned the ceasefire as a temporary pause, which means India can strike back militarily if
18:03contingent upon if it faces any future terrorist attack. On the other hand, as you rightly mentioned,
18:09Pakistan framed this or sees this as very provocative, and Pakistan has also warned of
18:16kind of an aggressive response or future aggression. If they face, they will also respond to that assertively.
18:23So, definitely, we see some kind of assertive posture, which will act as a hindrance in diplomatic efforts.
18:32And this can also result in some kind of further military engagements as well,
18:38making the ceasefire, again, very fragile. Furthermore, you see, both countries have taken
18:46efforts to expel their diplomats from both nations, right? So, there is, you see, there's some kind of
18:53absence of sustained dialogue mechanism. And you see, this reduces further that they want to, I mean,
19:02open any backchannel negotiations or diplomatic negotiations as well. So, this environment of
19:08assertive posturing, the change of tonality may lead to a cycle of provocation or retaliation that can
19:16further complicate the de-escalation efforts. Yeah. Munira, what do you think about sort of the
19:24messaging, the kind of sentiment? What would be an appropriate kind of response in this phase of
19:30de-escalation? I think both governments have adopted increasingly definitive rhetoric that
19:35constrains diplomatic flexibility. I mean, Modi's statements connecting militant groups with Pakistani
19:41state institutions reduce the strategic ambiguity that previously facilitated diplomatic options.
19:47Pakistan's leadership has expressed equally firm positions.
19:52Prime Minister Sharif has, I'm trying to remember, has described the exchanges as a historic victory
19:58and he claimed significant impact on Indian facilities' assertions that India has categorically rejected.
20:05And this rhetorical environment essentially creates what can be termed as commitment dynamics,
20:10positions that become politically difficult to modify. When leaders make definitive public
20:15statements about their positions and achievements, diplomatic compromise becomes politically challenging,
20:20potentially appearing as capitalization. So, the hardened rhetoric affects essential,
20:26it affects the essential security communications. So, previous prices maintained some limited channels
20:33despite public tensions, and the current rhetoric complicates these mechanisms. This reduced
20:39communication benefits, this reduced communication that benefits groups seeking to prevent normalization
20:45between the countries. So, I mean, there has to be a way to dial down.
20:52I don't know if this helps or if it doesn't, but the United States, specifically President Trump,
20:57claims to have helped broker the ceasefire. What role do you think external powers play in this sort of
21:05situation, Munira? Munira? Good question. External actors have concentrated
21:13primarily on immediate crisis resolution rather than underlying security dynamics. The U.S. approach has
21:20evolved considerably from Vice President Vance initially describing the conflict as outside America's
21:26concern to active diplomatic engagement as escalation intensified. And then we have President Trump,
21:33who announced the ceasefire through social media before either India or Pakistan issued formal statements.
21:40This followed direct communication by Vance with Modi and the discussions between Secretary Rubio and
21:50officials from both countries. So, the responses to this intervention revealed distinct diplomatic approaches.
21:58Pakistan acknowledged and thanked external mediators, including the U.S., Saudi Arabia and China,
22:04which is consistent with its approach of addressing Kashmir through multilateral frameworks. And then India's
22:11response was more measured without explicit acknowledgement of Trump's role, which reflects its position since the 1972
22:18Simla agreement, which favors bilateral resolution. And then China's involvement reflects its economic
22:26economic investments in Pakistan through the China-Pakistan economic corridor. And then Saudi Arabia,
22:33they maintained established relationships with Pakistan's security establishment. While this intervention achieved
22:40immediate de-escalation, it primarily addressed immediate tension rather than underlying causes. So,
22:46the intervention hasn't substantively addressed the security dynamics that contribute to a recurring crisis,
22:53crisis. And it's just going to be cyclical.
22:55Now, we're coming almost towards the end now. But, Sadia, I do want to talk a little bit about what
23:01sort of the effects or the impact this has had on, you know, the daily lives of nationals, of civilians.
23:07Obviously, we cannot ignore as well civilian loss of lives. But when we're seeing some of the
23:14retaliatory or economic diplomatic measures being taken and still in place, things like suspending
23:21visa services, unilaterally suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, banning visas, closing airspace to
23:29Indian aircraft on the Pakistani side, we're seeing this temporary pause in violence, in military action.
23:36But what are some of the effects of these, I guess, less visible measures, this retaliation,
23:42on the daily lives of nationals and civilians in both countries, Sadia?
23:48Right. So, both countries have retaliated.
23:52And you see, India has suspended visa services for Pakistani nationals.
23:57It has announced the unilateral decision to suspend the Indus Water Treaty.
24:05And Pakistan also closed its airspace, banned visas, which in a way, of course, affect,
24:12such measures are not welcomed and it affects the daily life people.
24:16Because you see, people-to-people connection is still strong.
24:21And the suspending of visas, which means another separation of families, suspending of visas,
24:28which means that you curb and curtail the cultural and educational exchanges as well.
24:34And then closing of airspace means that it is a kind of a drawback to the aviation industry,
24:43which means that you are rerouting the flights that increases the operational cost of both countries,
24:49airlines. Then this also means that it increases the flight times, causing some kind of problems to the passengers.
24:59And then disruption in cargo and trade logistics will also affect businesses as well.
25:04So, these are some impacts which the both countries citizens are facing.
25:10More than that, I feel that the separation of families will create a longer impact
25:18in this in this present scenario.
25:22Yeah. Obviously, a lot more that we like to unpack from there.
25:26But unfortunately, that's all the time that we have on Awani Global tonight.
25:29Thank you once again, Sadia Rahman from University Malaya and Munira Mustafa from Shasa Group,
25:34sharing your thoughts on the India-Pakistan tensions and obviously a lot to monitor for the next few weeks,
25:40what could develop from what's happened in the past month or so.
25:46Definitely something to look out for.
25:49Thank you so much, Sadia and Munira.
25:50That's all for today on Awani Global.
25:52With me, Nailah Huda, we'll catch you another time.
Be the first to comment