How far will nuclear-armed India, Pakistan escalate conflict over Kashmir? | The World | ABC NEWS

Key Concepts

• Surgical strikes by India inside Pakistani territory
• Escalating tensions between India and Pakistan
• Allegations of terrorist camps and training facilities
• International concern and calls for restraint
• Nuclear deterrence and the risk of escalation
• Proxy war and state-sponsored terrorism
• The Indus Waters Treaty
• Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terrorist groups
• Operation Synindu

India's Surgical Strikes and Pakistan's Response

• Main Event: India launched surgical strikes inside Pakistani territory, claiming to target terrorist camps and training facilities linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) in retaliation for an attack on Indian tourists in Pahalgam on April 22nd, where 26 people were killed.
• Pakistan's Response: Pakistan reported at least 26 deaths due to Indian air strikes and artillery exchanges, claiming India struck six locations, including two mosques. Pakistan claims to have shot down five Indian fighter jets and a drone, calling the strikes a "cowardly and blatant act of war" and vowing to respond.
• India's Justification: India stated the strikes were "measured, non-escalatory, proportionate, and responsible," focused on dismantling terrorist infrastructure and disabling terrorists likely to be sent across to India.
• Casualties: Pakistan reported approximately 30 deaths, while India reported around 10 deaths, including children, due to skirmishes and artillery fire along the Line of Control (LoC).

International Reaction and Calls for De-escalation

• China's Stance: China called on both countries to exercise restraint, expressing concern and emphasizing that India and Pakistan are neighbors. China opposes all forms of terrorism.
• US Response: US President Donald Trump expressed hope for a quick end to the conflict.
• UN's Position: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged de-escalation and maximum military restraint, offering UN support for peace initiatives. He condemned the Pahalgam attack and emphasized that targeting civilians is unacceptable.

Analysis and Perspectives

• Brahma Chellaney's Analysis:
  • India's patience has worn thin due to Pakistan's proxy war using terrorism.
  • There is a national consensus in India demanding tangible costs for Pakistan's actions.
  • China provides diplomatic, strategic, and military cover for Pakistan, including blocking UN sanctions against Pakistani terrorists.
  • India has called Pakistan's nuclear bluff in the past, as seen in the 2019 air strike.
  • The conflict is unlikely to become nuclear due to Pakistan's lack of strategic depth and India's "no first use" policy.
  • India placed the Indus Waters Treaty "in obeyance," retaining strategic ambiguity and warning Pakistan to reform its conduct.
  • Providing evidence to Pakistan regarding terrorist activities has not changed Pakistan's behavior.
• Magna Bali's Report:
  • The situation is dangerous, with escalating skirmishes and artillery fire on the LoC.
  • India defended its actions, stating it targeted terror camps, not civilians or military infrastructure.
  • Pakistan considers the strikes an act of terror and reserves the right to respond.
  • The Indian public supports the strikes, viewing them as a response to the Pahalgam attack.
• Malika Lodhi's Perspective:
  • Pakistan aims to re-establish deterrence against India's actions.
  • Pakistan will not target civilians in its response but will focus on military targets.
  • The US has historically played a role in diffusing crises between India and Pakistan.
  • The unresolved Kashmir dispute is a central issue, requiring a diplomatic solution.
  • Nuclear deterrence has worked in preventing an all-out war since 1971, but dialogue is necessary to address the root causes of the conflict.
• Shashi Tharoor's View:
  • India was justified in launching the strikes due to Pakistan-based terrorists killing innocent civilians.
  • Pakistan has a pattern of denying responsibility for terrorist activities.
  • The strikes were a sensibly calibrated response, avoiding collateral damage and not attacking Pakistani government or military installations.
• Dr. Ajay Sahni's Assessment:
  • There is visual evidence of substantial damage to terrorist facilities.
  • Lashkar-e-Taiba is the stronger of the two targeted groups, with thousands of members in Pakistan.
  • These groups are instrumentalities of the Pakistani army and ISI.
  • Zero risk of terrorism is impossible, especially with a neighbor actively sponsoring it.
  • The security situation in Kashmir has improved due to the security forces' efficiency.
  • Vulnerabilities remain as long as Pakistan continues to support terrorism.

Historical Context

• The 1947 partition of India and Pakistan created lasting resentment and conflict, particularly in Kashmir.
• The 1999 Kargil conflict brought both countries to the brink of full-scale war.
• Paramilitary violence in 2014 sparked outrage and accusations across the border.
• India launched an air strike on an alleged militant camp in Pakistan in 2019, similar to the current aggression.

Operation Synindu and Targeted Terrorist Groups

• Operation Synindu: The Indian military offensive was named "Operation Synindu," referencing women widowed after militants killed 26 people in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
• Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT): A Sunni extremist group based in Pakistan, aiming to unite Indian-administered Kashmir with Pakistan under Islamic law and establish an Islamic caliphate across the Indian subcontinent.
• Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM): A smaller Sunni Islamist extremist outfit with similar objectives, including the use of violence to force Indian troops to withdraw from Kashmir and control the entire Jammu and Kashmir region.

Conclusion

The surgical strikes by India and the subsequent reactions from Pakistan and the international community highlight the complex and volatile relationship between the two nuclear-armed nations. The core issues of terrorism, the Kashmir dispute, and regional power dynamics continue to fuel tensions. While international actors urge restraint and de-escalation, the risk of further escalation remains significant. A long-term solution requires addressing the root causes of the conflict through sustained dialogue and diplomatic engagement.