Whose truce is this anyway?

The Anglo-Zanzibar war of 1896 which lasted for about 40 minutes is considered the shortest war in history. Another short war, the six-day war of 1967 between Israel and its Arab neighbours, began with a series of air strikes by Israel on Egypt’s airfields, taking Cairo by total surprise. A determined battle plan by Israel, total disarray and lack of coordination among the Arab armies, and destruction of the enemies’ air capabilities decided the war in favour of Israel. At the end of the war, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. When the hostilities ended, an estimated one million Arabs were placed under Israel’s control in the captured territories. The war expanded Israel’s influence along territories of significant strategic importance. Following this, Israel agreed on a ceasefire. The India-Pakistan War of 1971 which lasted for 14 days was another one of the shortest wars. The US Navy carrier Task Force 74 (TF 74) of the 7th Fleet entered the Bay of Bengal in December 1971, ostensibly to intimidate the Indian forces to stop the war. India ended its military action with 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, liberating Bangladesh, and burying the two-nation theory deep.

The military action India launched against Pakistan as a response to the heinous terror attack on tourists in Pahalgam and the conflict that ensued for four days join the list of short wars. However, the offensive has not yet fully achieved its objectives. India launched a series of precision attacks on some of Pakistan’s airfields and infrastructure providing logistic support to non-state actors. In the background of the successful strikes on terror camps, it is very unlikely that New Delhi would seek a ceasefire. Incidentally, Pakistan too has not overtly claimed that it had sought a ceasefire or mediation, although, reeling under the Indian attack, it could have sent feelers to the White House to restrain India.

It is intriguing, therefore, that the two countries should accept a mediation for a ceasefire by a third party. US President Donald Trump has claimed credit for mediating between India and Pakistan to broker a ceasefire and end the hostilities. Ceasefires are usually arrived at after a series of negotiations, talks, assessment of the objectives of the war, and/or domestic pressure over the casualties and economic damages caused by the war. Trump’s announcement on social media that India and Pakistan, after four tense days of cross-border clashes, had agreed to a “full and immediate ceasefire” brokered by the US and that he is ready to “work with (you) both to see if, after a thousand years, a solution can be arrived at, concerning Kashmir,” is laughable. He should know that advice uncalled for is interference, to say the least.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made it clear that India has achieved the objectives of the military action against Pakistan-sponsored terror and that the present stoppage of punitive action is only a pause, not a ceasefire. India’s ultimate objectives should be to get back the areas that are illegally occupied by Pakistan and ceded to China and cripple the terror infrastructure backed by the Pakistani establishment to such an extent that it will be a ‘war on terrorism’ of a different kind, a fight to finish, and not the kind fought by America. It is worth noting here that over the past five years, China has supplied about 81% of Pakistan’s imported weapons, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

While Pakistan has welcomed Trump’s statement of mediation in resolving the Kashmir issue, India has strongly objected to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statement announcing the ceasefire and suggesting that the two countries have agreed “to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site”.

There are no ‘issues’ between India and Pakistan; India is a victim of cross-border terrorism backed by Pakistan. As for Kashmir, the brief but effective military action by India is a strong statement of intent on the matter. India will neither accept third-party mediation on any issue that concerns Pakistan nor talk to Pakistan as long as it supports terrorism, continues its proxy war against India, and upholds the two-nation theory and anti-India narrative as its raison d’être.

(Seshadri Charireads between the lines on big national and international developments from his vantage point in the BJP and the RSS. @seshadrichari)