Islamabad, Pakistan – A ceasefire on May 10, a few days after the rapid escalation of military tensions, four days after the ceasefire of full-scale war, a battle of narrative erupted, with countries claiming “winning” more than others.
The conflict broke out after killing 26 civilians in Pahargam in India-controlled Kashmir on April 22. Initially, the little-known armed group, the Resistance Front (TRF), accused Pakistan of supporting it. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has promised retaliation despite Pakistan’s denying its role in the attack.
Tensions exploded militarily after a series of neglect diplomatic measures among neighbors. In the early hours of May 7th, India launched missiles called “terrorist” bases located at four sites in Pakistan’s Punjab, as well as Kashmir, which are managed by Pakistan.
The next day, both sides fired killer drone strikes on each other’s territory and denounced each other for launching an attack.
Tensions peaked on Saturday when India and Pakistan launched missiles at each other’s military bases. India initially targeted three air force bases in Pakistan in Rawalpindi, a garrison city home to the headquarters of the Pakistani military. Pakistani missiles, along with India and India-controlled Kashmir, targeted military facilities across frontiers across the nation, attacking at least four facilities.
Later, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire as the world was preparing for a complete war between its nuclear-armed neighbours. Pakistan thanked the US despite claiming that India’s decision to stop the battle was made by two neighbors alone without the intervention of a third party.
Since its announcement, both countries have held newspaper conferences and have presented “evidence” of “results.” On Monday, senior Indian and Pakistani officials spoke over the phone and pledged to support the ceasefire in the coming days.
However, analysts say neither side can truly assert that it emerges from a clear advantage from the crisis that has since April 22nd. Instead, they say that both India and Pakistan can claim strategic interests, even if each suffers a loss.
Internationalized Kashmir: Pakistan’s profits
Last week’s military standoff, like three of the four wars between India and Pakistan, had roots in the conflict between the two countries over the Kashmir region.
Pakistan and India, along with China, which controls two narrow strips, manage different parts of Kashmir. India claims everything about Kashmir, while Pakistan claims part of India, but not controls Islamabad’s allies.
After the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, New Delhi and Islamabad, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, were caught up in the Shimla Agreement.
Since then, India has argued that other tensions between Kashmir’s conflict and neighbors can only be resolved bilaterally without third party intervention. However, Pakistan cites a UN resolution calling for the global community to play a role in driving solutions.
On Sunday, Trump said the US is ready to mediate a resolution in the Kashmir conflict. “I will work with you to see if a solution can be reached in a thousand years with regard to Kashmir,” the US President posted on his true social platform.
Walter Radwig, a senior lecturer at King’s College London, said the latest conflict gave Pakistan the opportunity to internationalize the Kashmir issue.
“Islamabad welcomed mediation from various countries, including the US, and framed the resulting ceasefire as evidence of the need for external involvement,” Radwig told Al Jazeera.
In contrast, he said, India had to accept an externally mediated ceasefire rather than ending the conflict on its own terms.
Sudha Ramachandran, South Asia editor of Diplomat Magazine, said that the government of India’s Modi may have strengthened its nationalist support base through military operations, but it could have lost the domestic political point in the ceasefire.
“We managed to score points within the nationalist Hawkish support base, but the ceasefire hasn’t worked out among the hardliners,” Ramachandran said.
Emphasis on “terrorism”: India’s interests
However, analysts also say they helped India and the trigger in the form of last week’s tension spiral and Pahargam attack.
“Diplomacy, India has successfully attracted international attention to extremist groups based in Pakistan, calling for Islamabad to take meaningful actions,” Radwig said.
He mentioned “reputation cost” [for Pakistan] Again associated with extremist groups working from the soil.”
“Islamabad has denied involvement and called for a neutral investigation, but the burden of proof of the International Forum is increasingly on Pakistan to demonstrate aggressive counterterrorism efforts,” Radwig added.
India has long been criticized for its funding, training and protection groups of armed groups that support the separation of Kashmir from India. Pakistan argues that it will only provide diplomatic and moral support to the Kashmir separatist movement.
Airplanes may be in Pakistan’s profits
India claimed that the strike killed more than 100 “terrorists” on May 7th. Pakistan said Indian missiles collided with a mosque and residential area, killing 40 civilians, including children, except for 11 military personnel.
Islamabad also claimed it had scrambled fighter planes to respond and defeated multiple Indian jets.
India has not confirmed or denied these claims, but Pakistani military has publicly shared details that it says it will identify the planes that were shot down. French and US officials have confirmed that at least one Lafale and one Russian-made jet has been lost by India.
Indian officials also confirmed with Al Jazeera that at least two planes had crashed on Indian-controlled territory, but did not clarify which country they belong to.
The presence of shards from crashed planes in Indian-controlled territory suggests that they are likely Indians, as both India and Pakistan agree that jets on either side did not cross their frontier.
The following ceasefire told Al Jazeera that it suggested the benefits of Pakistan’s Asfandia Mir, a senior fellow at the Stimson Centre in Washington, DC. “In particular, downs of aircraft confirmed by various independent sources. [Pakistan] A ceasefire may be viewed as a good fit for consolidating its dividends. ”
Muhammad Shoaib, an academic and security analyst at Quaid-I-Azam University in Islamabad, called India’s strike against Pakistan a strategic miscalculation. “It was flawed to read their ability to deal Pakistan’s blows,” he said.
However, Radwig said it was wrong to exaggerate the importance of Pakistan’s success, including the possibility of a collapse of Indian jets. “These are symbolic victories at best. They do not represent clear or clear military interests,” he said.
It is India’s interest to reach further across the border.
In many respects, analysts say the more meat military achievements were in India.
In addition to Pakistan-controlled Kashmir Kotri and Muzafarabad, Indian missiles also targeted four sites in Pakistan’s most populous state and the country’s economic neurological center.
Over the next two days, India fired drones that reached deep within Pakistan’s territory, including major Pakistani population centres such as Lahore and Karachi.
And on May 10, Indian missiles struck three Pakistan airbases deep in Pakistan’s Punjab. That day an Indian base on Indian territory was hit.
Simply put, India has shown a greater range than Pakistan. It was the first time India had been able to hit Punjab since the war in 1971.
Ramchandran said it will launch a military response beyond the boundaries of control, which was India’s main goal deep in Pakistan, as well as the de facto border of both Kashmir. And India achieved that.
Radwig also said India’s success in targeting Punjab was a serious violation of Pakistan’s defensive stance.
Will the ceasefire be retained?
Speaking Monday, military officials from both countries agreed to hold a ceasefire and agreed to take immediate steps to reduce the presence of troops along the border. A second lecture is expected within 48 hours.
However, later that day, Indian Prime Minister Modi said the battle was simply “suspended.”
Still, Mir at Stimson Center believes that a ceasefire can be held.
“Both sides face the constraints and opportunities that emerged during the last week, and will balance out the ceasefire to better result for them,” he said.
Ladwig reflected on his view, saying that the truce reflects mutual interest in de-escalation, even if it did not resolve the tension that led to the crisis.
“India has changed the rules of the game significantly in this episode. It appears that the Indian government has completely abandoned the game that allows Islamabad and Rawalpindi to assert plausible negativity regarding anti-Indian terrorist groups,” he said.
“What the Pakistani government and military do with groups on its soil seems like an important factor in determining how robust the ceasefire will be.”
Shoaib of Quaid-I-Azam University, a researcher at George Mason University in the United States, emphasized the importance of ongoing dialogue.
He warned that maintaining peace will depend on the security dynamics of both India-controlled Kashmir and Pakistan’s Balochistan province.
Just as India accused Pakistan of supporting transnational separatism, Islamabad has argued that New Delhi is in support of separatist rebellion in Balochistan, India has denial.
“The subsequent bouts of violence could be bloody and more widespread,” Shoaib said. “Both sides could do great damage to urban people in order to engage in a war of attrition without gaining anything from the conflict.”
Source link
