India is constructing a rationale for military intervention against Pakistan: NYT

The New York Times reported on Sunday that India “seems to be constructing a rationale for military action” against Pakistan following the armed assault in Indian-occupied Kashmir, according to four diplomatic officials familiar with the briefings provided at the foreign ministry.

A report from New Delhi indicated that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has communicated with over a dozen global leaders since April 22; nevertheless, this initiative is “primarily not aimed at garnering assistance to mitigate India’s perilous confrontation with Pakistan.”

In a speech on Thursday, Modi vowed to impose stringent penalties and dismantle sanctuaries for terrorism, without explicitly mentioning Pakistan.

The report indicated that the situation in the region remained “volatile,” highlighting that Indian forces in Kashmir have initiated a comprehensive crackdown, apprehending hundreds while pursuing the criminals.

India had announced its plan to impede the water supply to Pakistan as stipulated in the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. The Pakistani irrigation system is predominantly reliant on upstream rivers. It also mandated the immediate withdrawal of some personnel from Pakistan’s diplomatic representation and Pakistani residents currently in India.

Pakistan has announced its intention to suspend participation in bilateral accords, notably the Simla Agreement, which pertains to the “line of control” in the contested Kashmir area.

Anti-Muslim sentiment in India is escalating, particularly affecting Kashmiri students in other Indian cities, who are experiencing pervasive harassment and many feel pressured to return home, according to Times Correspondent Mujib Mashal’s report.

Pointing out that even five days after the assault, in which gunmen killed 26 civilians, the report said India has not officially identified any group as having carried it out, nor has New Delhi publicly presented any evidence to support its claim that Pakistan was behind the incident. The Pakistani government has refuted any connection.

During briefings to ambassadors at the foreign ministry, Indian authorities articulated Pakistan’s historical patterns of support for terrorist organizations that attack India, as reported by diplomatic sources. Indian officials have stated that their investigation is ongoing and have made succinct allusions to technical intelligence linking the assailants of last week’s attack to Pakistan, including facial recognition data.

Analysts and diplomats, as reported by the Times, indicated a deficiency of robust evidence, suggesting two possibilities: either India requires additional time to collect information regarding the terrorist attack prior to retaliating against Pakistan, or, amid global turmoil, it perceives minimal obligation to justify its intended actions to any party.

A military confrontation between India and Pakistan, both armed with nuclear weapons, runs the risk of rapid escalation that could be difficult to contain, the Times said. “But India is largely unrestrained by any global pressure to limit its response, and it has become quicker to flex its muscles in recent years as its diplomatic and economic power has grown.”

The governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia have spoken to the two sides, and Iran’s foreign minister has publicly offered to mediate. The United Nations and the European Union have called for restraint and dialogue. But major powers, including the United States, are distracted by other crises, and the Times said India is interpreting the expressions of support by many countries for its pursuit of justice as a green light for any measures it takes.

Trump administration officials have voiced strong backing of India’s fight against terrorism. President Trump has said he is friendly with both India and Pakistan, while noting that they have long been at odds.

But it is unclear how involved Washington will get in the current clash. Three months into his term, Trump has still not named an ambassador to India, a sign of where South Asia ranks in his list of priorities.

Even if the United States or other powers did try to insert themselves into the conflict, they may have limited influence, it was pointed out.

The initial response from Washington has been similar to how the first Trump administration dealt with the last major flare-up over Kashmir, in 2019, Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, was quoted as saying in the dispatch.

That confrontation was spurred by an attack that killed dozens of Indian security forces. The affiliation of the attackers — a group called Jaish-e-Muhammad — was more clear, it said.

At that time, the Trump White House signaled support for India. The administration increased its diplomatic pressure for restraint only after India had gotten a punch in on Pakistan, with a cross-border airstrike.

The strike’s damage was disputed, the Times said. Afterward, as Pakistan moved to retaliate, it got into a dogfight and shot down an Indian jet. The pilot was taken prisoner.

To make up for that fumbled response, all signs this time indicate a desire by India to do “something spectacular,” Mr. Markey said. Pakistan has vowed to match and exceed any strike by India.

“The tit-for-tat cycle could move rapidly, and the Indians and Pakistanis have inflated assessments of their own ability to manage escalation,” Markey said.

Unlike with the 2019 terrorist attack, the claims of responsibility for last week’s slaughter have been murky, with information even on the exact number of attackers less than concrete. A little-known group calling itself the Resistance Front emerged on social media to say it was behind the massacre, according to Indian news outlets. Indian officials, in private, say the group is a proxy for Lashkar-e-Taiba.

“The lack of clarity may help explain why India has pointed largely to Pakistan’s past support of terrorism in Kashmir to make its case for a military reprisal now,” the report said. “But that approach, before India has laid out its evidence even in private diplomatic discussions, has raised some eyebrows considering the gravity of the escalation.

“One diplomat privately wondered: Do you want to go to war with a nuclear-armed neighbour based just on past patterns?”

Shiv Shankar Menon, a former national security adviser in India, was quoted as saying that Modi had little choice but to take military action after responding with strikes against Pakistan both in 2019 and in 2016, after another attack in Kashmir. The Indian government is under pressure to respond to a major security lapse in a troubled area that it was projecting as transformed in recent years and where it has been encouraging tourism, according to the report.

But Menon said the tit-for-tat between the two adversaries was unlikely to get out of hand.

“I’m not hugely worried,” he said, “because they’re both quite happy in a state of managed hostility.”