Diplomatic initiatives have, on more than one occasion in the past, successfully pulled back India and Pakistan from the brink of war. Another bout of hectic parleys are currently on among key international players to find a viable non-military solution to the crisis in the subcontinent sparked off by Pakistan-based terror group Jaish-e-Mohammed바카라s murderous attack on an Indian security convoy in Kashmir.
The attempt is to force Pakistan to take 바카라visible, credible and prompt바카라 actÂion against JeM and other terror groups operating from Pakistani soil. But the question remains if the mounting international pressure on the Pakistani establishment, including a French-initiated UN Security Council move to proscribe JeM founder MasÂood Azhar, will have the desired effect.
The prevailing uncertainty has led policy-makers in South Asia and in different world capitals to contemplate the possibility of an armed engagement between India and Pakistan and analyse its consequences if that happens.
Diplomacy is seen as an extension of a country바카라s domestic politics. The reaction to the Pulwama terror attack is perhaps a prime example. Not only was it another provocative attack in Kashmir but, significantly, it comes three months before the Lok Sabha polls. A prime minister who draws much of his domestic influence from his image as a 바카라tough바카라 leader and is seeking a fresh mandate, can barely be seen to shy away from the challenge it poses. What PM Modi바카라s demonstrative toughness means is a matter of interpretation but there is rising expectation in India for strong action against JeM and their backers in Pakistan.
The prime minister has publicly stated that those behind the Pulwama attack will have to pay a heavy price, and that the security forces have been given a 바카라free hand바카라 to deal with the situation. Major political parties, including the Congress, have rallied around to put up a united political front. All this have whetted people바카라s expectations for some strong punitive action바카라most likely in the form of a military respÂonse바카라against terror outfits in Pakistan. The Indian leadership, on its part, is busy assessing how it could diplomatically defend the fallout of a hard political decision in the next few days.
Key international players바카라the UniÂted States, China, Russia and the EuroÂpean Union바카라have all come out with the oblÂigatory strong statements condemning the Pulwama attack and their resolve to unite against global terrorism. Despite the statements바카라 unflinching wording, the mood seems more on finding a resolution to the rising tension, not for an armed conflict that may soon end up in an all-out conflagration.
President Donald Trump tweeted: 바카라#Pulwama attack: I바카라ve seen it, I바카라ve got a lot of reports on it. It would be wonderful if they [India-Pakistan] got along. It seems like that was a terrible situation바카라Š.바카라 For all its concern, the demands of geo-politics makes the US dependent on Pakistan for ensuring the success of the US-Taliban talks and an easy withdrawal of American troops from the quagmire of Afghanistan. Therefore, it may have to take a hard look at how to avoid a war in South Asia without putting Pakistan in a corner.
Russia, too, seemed to be in a mood for a non-military solution. 바카라As a fellow member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Russia needs to reach out to both parties with a view of making sure they avoid a military clash which would destabilise the subcontinent,바카라 says Dmitri Trenin, director at the Moscow Carnegie Centre. But Trenin adds that Russia also needs to talk to the political and military leadership of Pakistan about the threat terrorism poses to national and intÂÂerÂÂnational stability. The UN also indÂicated that it would like India and Pakistan to take immediate steps to de-escalate the rising tension in the wake of the attack.
Independent observers argue that if India were to go for a military option in the coming days, Pakistan was bound to retaliate. Therein lies the danger of a full-fledged conflict. The PM and other senior ministers have been reiterating that Pakistan will have to pay a 바카라heavy price바카라 for the Kashmir attack. What this could mean is being speculated.
바카라If India acts then Pakistan will surely react,바카라 says PakiÂstani strategic affairs expert Ayesha Siddiqua, pointing out that it may not be a post-Uri like situation where the IndÂian surgical strike gave PakÂistan a scope for denying it. 바카라If an attack is the only option left then India would have to calculate the reaction. If this strike is visible, Pakistan will hit back,바카라 she adds.
For now, India has opted for the diplomatic route. It has launched a multi-pronged campaign to isolate Pakistan internationally. Indian diplomats have briefed foreign ambassadors and heads of missions, expressing India바카라s outrage at Pakistan바카라s continuing use of terror as a state policy against India. It also briefed a gathering of leading European countries and experts at the Munich Security Meet. In addition, it made a renewed attempt to name Pakistan for its failure to take action against proscribed terror outfits and their leaders like Masood Azhar at the Financial Action Task Force meeting that began in Paris on February 17.
Pakistan, on its part, launched a counter diplomatic offensive to tell the world about its innocence and commitment to fight global terror. Pakistani PM Imran Khan made a public appeal to India, asking it to provide 바카라actionable evidence바카라 for him to act against any person responsible for the Pulwama attack. India rejected the offer, describing it as the same old lame excuse of IslamaÂbad that allows it not to act on its terror groups.
Moreover, realists in Delhi suggest caution because of US President Trump바카라s 바카라unpredictability바카라 on key issÂues. Though he has been harshly critical of Pakistan바카라s duplicitous support of terrorist outfits in the past, it may not come as a surprise if he is appreciative of Islamabad바카라s support to steer the US-Taliban talks in the right direction.
Then there is the question of China, a sworn ally of Pakistan which would stall any move that humiliates IslamÂabad in public. Convincing China to join the international move to isolate Pakistan will be a tough ask for Indian negotiators.
Indian leaders had faced similar situations in the past. Atal Behari Vajpayee had mobilised Indian troops along the India-Pakistan border to send out a tough message in 2002 after the Parliament attack. His successor, Manmohan Singh, opted for restraint and used diplomacy to put pressure on Pakistan to act after the Mumbai terror attack in 2008.
For all the serious intent in New Delhi, there are doubts to the extent Pakistan can be isolated at this juncture. Despite, Indian efforts, the leadership in Islamabad appears to be upbeat, especially after the Saudi Crown Prince바카라s declaration of a $20 billion aid package and his endorsement of Pakistan바카라s 바카라commitment to fight global terrorism바카라.
Though miffed with the Crown Prince, Modi accorded a warm welcome to the Saudi guest when he arrived in New Delhi on Tuesday night and won promise of investments worth $100 billion and cooperation on fighting terror. The two sides agreed on a 바카라conducive바카라 atmosphere for resumption of India-Pakistan dialogue. This suits India, as it argues that it is for peace with Pakistan but not unless cross-border terror comes to a complete halt and the terror infrastructure is dismantled. Modi has always argued that since 2014 his extension of friendship on several occasions towards Pakistan have been repaid with terrorist acts.
An interesting development, however, came from Iran. Tehran had threatened to take action against Islamabad for the recent terrorist attack within Iran along the Pakistan border. Maj Gen Mohammed Hossain Baqeri, the Iranian Army바카라s chief of staff said on Monday that Pakistan has started operations against terrorist hideouts since February 17. This could now well encourage PM Modi to keep up the pressure on Pakistan, especially through threats of a military strike.
As Michael Kugelman of the Woodrow Wilson Centre, was quoted in The New York Times, 바카라How exactly India responds will depend on how much risk it바카라s willing to take on if it chooses to escalate.바카라
But the rising crescendo of sound and fury around the attack means a climb-down on Modi바카라s part without any discernible action on Pakistan against the JeM and other terror groups on its soil is politically unfeasible. Will it then be only India바카라s call to make?
