Latest news with #post-Kargil
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Diminish, deter, de-hyphenate: The 3D solution for India's Pakistan problem
Last week, National Interest teased a sequel: The perils of self-hyphenation. What does this mean? For three decades de-hyphenation from Pakistan has been the centre point of our grand strategy. But we can't move away from Pakistan physically or strategically. As Atal Bihari Vajpayee's immortal line goes: 'You cannot choose your neighbours.' India is particularly 'blessed' in that respect, with two big hostile nuclear-armed neighbours. They are in a tight strategic alliance, which is today perhaps the strongest in the world after America and Israel. Yet they're different countries, with shared interests but different priorities. You have to have the wherewithal to deal with them. Ideally, one at a time but be prepared in case they decide to collude, either indirectly as principal-and-proxy, as during Operation Sindoor, or, who knows, in active warfare. The first element of Indian grand strategy, therefore, has to be to prevent. Of the two, militarily and economically, India is much better equipped to deal with Pakistan. China is the really formidable challenge that we will need years to either match up to, or to create sufficient mutual vested interest in stable peace. That is where the idea of de-hyphenation with Pakistan comes from. It is wise, and has been pursued by every Prime Minister since Indira Gandhi's second coming in 1980. India has pushed back sharply at any suggestion of an Indo-Pak policy from Western powers (read the United States). Progress on this was slow, until the first Bill Clinton term, and then picked up. In the two decades since the nuclear deal, it has moved at a sprinting pace. India pushed it to the extent that it objected if a Western leader combined visits to India and Pakistan. The two-country rule was seen as an offence and another name of hyphenation, however convenient it might have been for visitors. The first sign it was working came during Mr Clinton's post-Kargil visit when he did touch down in Pakistan but left after a few hours at the airport, having delivered a finger-wagging 'maps in the subcontinent can no longer be redrawn in blood' warning to the Pakistanis. This principle is now so firmly established that we just saw how the Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto visiting India as our Republic Day chief guest was gently dissuaded from adding Pakistan to the itinerary. The Americans used a different description, saying that their view on the subcontinent is not a zero-sum game. That they could have ties with India and Pakistan independent of each other and unencumbered by the burdens of the Cold War. The Simla Agreement is rooted in this principle — that henceforth, India and Pakistan will both discuss all their issues bilaterally. It implied that no third party, no mediator had any further role to play, and that the old UN Security Council Resolutions were accordingly rendered obsolete. This is why India became so triggered by Donald Trump's repeated assertion (16 times so far) that he brought about the peace between India and Pakistan. The Congress latched on, accusing Narendra Modi of surrendering under Mr Trump's pressure ('Narender, surrender') and he responded. At this point, however, it looks like both sides have calmed down. Hopefully, what both sides call the most consequential strategic relationship of the 21st century will survive this turbulence. Let's be optimistic now and hope that Mr Trump takes a chill pill on the subcontinent, understanding that if he so needs a Nobel, this is the wrong geostrategic patch for him to find it. If India and Pakistan do really decide on a permanent peace, why would they give some outsider the credit? There are Nobel hopefuls here as well. Everybody can be aspirational, and in this case, in a good way. How will the picture look if and when Mr Trump does calm down? That's the question that takes us back to self-hyphenation. Check out the number of times Pakistan features in our, mostly the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's), political discourse, and not necessarily after Op Sindoor. It's a harsh reality, but must be stated, that over the years, this BJP government has pretty much built its domestic politics around a permanently hostile Pakistan. I don't know how you prefer to analyse these things. But if you simply did a word-cloud analysis of all speeches by the Prime Minister, you will find Pakistan featuring, compared to China, 100:1. In fact, maybe even more than that. How does one explain this, when we are also told that China is the real long-term threat to India? Pakistan doesn't matter so much. We've left it so far behind. It is a belief shared across the political and intellectual divide going back four decades. General Krishnaswamy Sundarji, in a famous 1986 interview with India Today, had said: 'China is the real challenge. Pakistan can be handled en passant.' Fun fact: That's the first time I read that expression. It means 'in passing' and is drawn from nonchalantly knocking off a pawn in chess. You might translate it into Hindi as 'chalte chalte'. As in, Pakistan ko hum chalte chalte sambhal sakte hain. How has what we thought we could handle en passant in 1986 returned to centre stage? The short answer: We've reinstalled it there. The Modi government has done it by making Pakistan an essential feature of its domestic politics. This political formulation isn't at all twisted. It is quite linear. Pakistan equals terrorism, which means Islamist terrorism, and suffice it to say, makes the core of the politics of Hindu-Muslim polarisation. India's larger strategic plan of these three decades is sound and pragmatic. Stabilise the situation with China and respond only to the gravest provocation. Create the time to build India's economy and reposition it favourably in the post-Cold War era as its comprehensive national power (CNP) rises. Meanwhile, keep advising the world not to hyphenate you with Pakistan, as you've moved into a different orbit, and are poised to jump higher still. But, are we following that advice ourselves? The evidence of the past decade isn't reassuring — especially since 2019, after Pulwama won the Modi government its biggest election victory yet. Since then, Pakistan has become central to the Modi-BJP politics. This is our self-hyphenation. It has now reached a stage where even the Pakistanis would think they can game our responses. They will end up suffering more in the end, as we saw again in their battered airbases. But if they were so rational, they won't be trapped in this permanent enmity with India. This also guarantees Pakistan army its pre-eminence there. See how Op Sindoor has pulled Asim Munir from the public opinion doghouse to national adulation. This underlines the perils of self-hyphenation. By making Pakistan central to its politics, the BJP has now created an unexpected predicament for itself, and for India — where its domestic political interests are clashing with India's geopolitical priorities. Indian strategists are smart and need space to deal with this Trumpian world of many simultaneous wars. They will be strengthened by a reboot in our domestic politics. On Pakistan, our diplomats should use their skills to keep diminishing the threat, as focused military spending builds deterrence. Meanwhile, the BJP's politics should drop this re-hyphenation. Diminish, deter, de-hyphenate. That's the 3D solution to our Pakistan problem.
The Print
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Print
India is re-hyphenating itself with Pakistan all over again. It needs a new 3D strategy
They are in a tight strategic alliance which is today, perhaps the strongest in the world after America and Israel. Yet they're different countries, with shared interests but different priorities. For three decades de-hyphenation from Pakistan has been the centre-point of our grand strategy. But we can't move away from Pakistan physically or strategically. As Atal Bihari Vajpayee's immortal line goes, 'you cannot choose your neighbours'. India is particularly 'blessed' in that respect, with two big hostile nuclear-armed neighbours. You have to have the wherewithal to deal with them. Ideally, one at a time but be prepared in case they decide to collude, either indirectly as principal-and-proxy as during Operation Sindoor or, who knows, in active warfare. The first element of Indian grand strategy, therefore, has to be to prevent. Of the two, militarily and economically, India is much better equipped to deal with Pakistan. China is the really formidable challenge that we will need years to either match up to, or to create sufficient mutual vested interest in stable peace. That is where the idea of de-hyphenation with Pakistan comes from. It is wise, and has been pursued by every Prime Minister since Indira Gandhi's second coming in 1980. India has pushed back sharply at any suggestion of an Indo-Pak policy from western powers (read the US). Progress on this was slow, until the first Clinton term and then picked up. Over two decades since the nuclear deal, it has moved at a sprinting pace. India pushed it to the extent that it objected if a western leader combined a visit to India and Pakistan. The two-country rule was seen as an offence and another name of hyphenation, however convenient it might have been for visitors. The first sign it was working came during Clinton's post-Kargil visit when he did touch down in Pakistan but left after a few hours at the airport, having delivered a finger-wagging 'maps in the Subcontinent can no longer be redrawn in blood' warning to the Pakistanis. This principle is now so firmly established that we just saw how the Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto visiting India as our Republic Day chief guest was gently dissuaded from adding Pakistan to the itinerary. Also Read: India-Pakistan terms of engagement: H-word, M-word & the Trump hyphenation The Americans used a different description by saying that their view on the Subcontinent is not a zero-sum game. That they could have ties with India and Pakistan independent of each other and unencumbered by the burdens of the Cold War. The Simla Agreement is rooted in this principle. That henceforth, India and Pakistan will both discuss all their issues bilaterally. It implied that no third party, no mediator had any further role to play, and that the old UN Security Council resolutions were accordingly rendered obsolete. This is why India became so triggered by Donald Trump's repeated assertion (16 times so far) that he brought about the peace between India and Pakistan. The Congress latched on, accusing Narendra Modi of surrendering under Trump's pressure ('Narender, surrender') and he responded. At this point, however, it looks like both sides have calmed down. Hopefully what both sides call the most consequential strategic relationship of the 21st Century will survive this turbulence. Let's be optimistic now and hope that Trump takes a chill pill on the Subcontinent, understanding that if he so needs a Nobel, this is the wrong geostrategic patch for him to find it. If India and Pakistan do really decide on a permanent peace, why would they give some outsider the credit? There are Nobel hopefuls here as well. Everybody can be aspirational, and in this case, in a good way. How will the picture look if and when Trump does calm down? That's the question that takes us back to self-hyphenation. Check out the number of times Pakistan features in our, mostly the BJP's, political discourse and not necessarily after Operation Sindoor. It's a harsh reality, but must be stated, that over the years, this BJP government has pretty much built its domestic politics around a permanently hostile Pakistan. I don't know how you prefer to analyse these things. But if you simply did a word-cloud analysis of all speeches by the Prime Minister, you will find Pakistan featuring compared to China 100:1. In fact, maybe even more than that. How does one explain this, when we are also told that China is the real long-term threat to India? Pakistan doesn't matter so much. We've left it so far behind. It is a belief shared across the political and intellectual divide going back four decades. General Krishnaswamy Sundarji, in a famous 1986 interview with India Today, had said: 'China is the real challenge. Pakistan can be handled en passant.' Fun fact: that's the first time I read that expression. It means 'in passing' and is drawn from nonchalantly knocking off a pawn in chess. You might translate it into Hindi as 'chalte chalte'. As in, Pakistan ko hum chalte chalte sambhal sakte hain. How has what we thought we could handle en passant in 1986 returned to centre stage? The short answer: we've reinstalled it there. The Modi government has done it by making Pakistan an essential feature of its domestic politics. This political formulation isn't at all twisted. It is quite linear. Pakistan equals terrorism, which means Islamist terrorism, and suffice it to say, makes the core of the politics of Hindu-Muslim polarisation. Also Read: Op Sindoor is the first battle in India's two-front war. A vicious pawn in a King's Gambit India's larger strategic plan of these three decades has been sound and pragmatic. Stabilise the situation with China and respond only to the gravest provocation. Create the time to build India's economy and reposition it favourably in the post-Cold War era as its comprehensive national power (CNP) rises. Meanwhile, keep advising the world not to hyphenate you with Pakistan as you've moved into a different orbit, and poised to jump higher still. But, are we following that advice ourselves? The evidence of the past decade isn't reassuring. Especially since 2019 after Pulwama won the Modi government its biggest election victory yet. Since then, Pakistan has become central to the Modi-BJP politics. This is our self-hyphenation. It has now reached a stage that even the Pakistanis would think they can game our responses. They will end up suffering more in the end, as we saw again in their battered airbases. But if they were so rational, they won't be trapped in this permanent enmity with India. This also guarantees Pakistan Army its pre-eminence there. See how Operation Sindoor has pulled Asim Munir from the public opinion doghouse to national adulation. This underlines the perils of self-hyphenation. By making Pakistan central to its politics, the BJP has now created an unexpected predicament for itself, and for India—when its domestic political interests are clashing with India's geopolitical priorities. Indian strategists are smart and need space to deal with this Trumpian world of many simultaneous wars. They will be strengthened by a reboot in our domestic politics. On Pakistan, our diplomats should use their skills to keep diminishing the threat as focused military spending builds deterrence. Meanwhile, the BJP's politics should drop this re-hyphenation. Diminish, deter, de-hyphenate. That's the 3D solution to our Pakistan problem. Also Read: Asim Munir just stole his 5th star & has nothing to show for it. It'll make him desperate, dangerous
Time of India
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Who pressured India into ceasefire?: Congress demands answers on Operation Sindoor, terms of peace with Pakistan
NEW DELHI: As the fog surrounding Operation Sindoor begins to lift, the Congress on Saturday launched a direct attack on the Modi government, demanding clarity on the terms of the ceasefire with Pakistan following India's retaliatory strikes for the Pahalgam terror attack. Senior leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Pawan Khera accused the government of 'misleading the nation' and questioned whether it had demanded the extradition of most-wanted terrorists from Islamabad. What were the conditions of peace with Pakistan? At a press conference in Delhi, Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera raised sharp questions: 'When will the terrorists behind the Pahalgam attack be caught? Who procured the RDX for Pulwama? Under what pressure was the ceasefire with Pakistan finalised?' Khera asked if India had used the moment to demand the extradition of Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar, and Dawood Ibrahim. 'We want strong answers to strong questions,' he said, adding, 'Was justice served to the women who lost their husbands in Pahalgam?' India had launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and PoJK in response to the attack in Pahalgam. The strikes were followed by Pakistani retaliation, which was successfully repelled by India, including airbase assaults. Kharge: 'Trump's claim contradicts Shimla Agreement' Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge added weight to the criticism, alleging that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was using the military operation for electoral gain. Referring to an interview given by India's Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) in Singapore, Kharge said, 'Important questions must be asked now that the fog of war is clearing.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik IC Markets Mendaftar Undo He cited the CDS's remarks acknowledging that Indian Air Force jets were briefly grounded, recalibrated, and then redeployed within two days. 'We salute their courage. But a strategic review is urgently needed,' Kharge said. He reiterated Congress's demand for a comprehensive review of India's defence preparedness by an independent expert committee, similar to the post-Kargil assessment. Kharge also flagged former US President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that he helped broker the ceasefire. 'This is a direct affront to the Shimla Agreement. Instead of clarifying Trump's claims, PM Modi is on a campaign spree, taking credit for the bravery of our armed forces while remaining silent on the terms of the ceasefire.' Congress demands special Parliament session Calling the matter too serious to ignore, Kharge demanded that the government immediately convene a special session of Parliament to discuss Operation Sindoor and its aftermath. 'Are India and Pakistan being hyphenated again? What were the real terms behind the ceasefire announced by our Foreign Secretary on the 10th, just hours after Trump's tweet?' he asked. '140 crore patriotic Indians deserve to know this,' Kharge concluded.
Time of India
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Ceasefire means a tight-rope walk
Dr Jagdish Batra is a senior academic, currently working as Professor of English at O.P. Jindal Global University, India. He has nearly four decades of teaching and research experience. His area of specialization is Indian English Fiction on which he has presented papers at many international conferences in Europe and South East Asia. A Rotary Study Exchange Scholar to USA, Dr Batra has published eight books besides some sixty research papers and a number of general articles/blogs etc. LESS ... MORE It is the general feeling that the ceasefire announcement made by the government has dampened the spirit, not only of the army men, but also of people at large in the country. It does not fully address the issues which impelled the launch of the Sindoor operation. Midway, the campaign has been forced to stop without fully achieving our objectives, which reminds one of how Nehru did in 1948 when a successful operation was on in Kashmir against the Pakistan intruders camouflaged as tribals. However, the situation is not that simple and many aspects need attention. So far as mediation is concerned, going to the negotiating table now would be akin to the Tashkent talks mediated by Russia or post-Kargil negotiations mediated by America. So, if talks of mediation are true it will not be the first time that India would agree to such a proposal. But we must remember that in both these situations, India was the loser. It seems our government did not want to offend President Donald Trump who is sought to be on the same page as India in the face of threat from China. But one can't really trust America, which has failed to supply essential arms during previous wars, while Russia has been a consistent ally. Placating Trump may mean creating wedge with Russia whose S400 missile system has been so effective this time in thwarting the volley of drones shot by Pakistan. Also worrying is Trump's reported claim of American mediation in solving the long-standing Kashmir issue? That will indeed be going back on public proclamations at home and at UN fora refusing third-party mediation on the Kashmir issue. That would also be against the Shimla Agreement between India and Pakistan. Trusting America as a fair arbiter is fraught with risks. Trump's role in trying to mediate in Arab-Israel or Russia-Ukraine wars does not evoke any optimism. That apart, one feels baffled because the PM had talked of the final settlement (aar-paar ki ladai) and teaching lesson to the terrorists' patrons (aakaas). All defence experts and generals were unanimous in claiming a positive scenario for effecting the break-up of Pakistan and consequently final relief from terrorism for India. Surely, the Balochis and the Pashtuns as also Afghans were waiting for it. Several leaders of the ruling dispensation assured that it was a pause, and not a full stop to the Operation Sindoor, which meant that the operation had been suspended for time being, and may start again. How far this will prove to be true – only time will tell. Indian public at large is confused about the so called distinction between fighting Pakistan and fighting terrorists. It seems more of hair-splitting since the government has always been blaming Pakistan as the progenitor and disseminator of terrorism throughout the world. How can it now separate the two? While effecting the 'pause' in the operation, the government must ponder over the Hamas strategy of war adopted by Pakistan when it sent out barrages of drones across the border – whether to wreck destruction or to monitor army presence in India. Pakistan's acceptance of ceasefire, if seen through the Hamas lens, means seeking time to replenish military supplies, repairing the defunct air attack shield and airfields, etc. in order to launch fresh offensive later. Experience tells us that Pakistan has never cared for making good its promises, much less observing the ceasefire norms over the last seven decades. The leopard will not change its spots now. There is no doubt that the situation is very complex with the other two neighbours – China and Bangladesh being hostile to India. At best, the government's intention is to present the image of a country that believes in fair dealings, so that the 'pause' will give the world the idea that India has tried its best to thwart a full-fledged war. It is indeed a tight-rope walk and one wishes the country comes out of this predicament victorious. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
09-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Continued border tensions may dent housing and commercial realty: Anarock
Continued escalating tensions at the border are likely to impact residential housing and commercial real estate, with prices of cement and steel remaining elevated and absorption expected to dip in the short term across both segments, according to real estate consultancy Anarock. 'Wars also stall construction and dampen end-user and investor confidence, with aspiring homebuyers putting decisions on hold. Retailers put a brake on their expansion plans, and tourists postpone their travel plans. Real estate markets adapt, pause, and then bounce back,' Prashant Thakur, regional director and head of research at Anarock Group, said in a note. He added that residential absorption in Delhi-NCR and other parts of northern India could fall between 5 to 10 per cent in the short term, if the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan broadens. Luxury homebuyers are likely to defer purchase decisions, while demand for mid-income housing will be the first to recover once normalcy is restored. Similarly, commercial real estate could be affected, with several multinational corporations (MNCs) putting their entry or expansion plans on hold. 'This would impact absorption numbers, but long-term demand—most notably from the GCC, BFSI, and IT sectors—will return and strengthen within 12 months or less,' Thakur said. The report noted that retail may see a dip in footfall and a postponement of store launches. However, it added that larger malls would be less affected than high-street retail due to long-term leases and rent-waiver clauses. 'Nevertheless, India's consumption will overcome these odds quickly, and Indian retailers have perfected the art of nimbleness during Covid-19. Expect highly imaginative promotions to draw the crowds back in,' Thakur added. For the hospitality sector, Anarock predicted occupancies could drop by 10 to 15 per cent in major northern tourist hubs such as Delhi and Kashmir. However, the report said domestic leisure travel—accounting for nearly 90 per cent of room-nights—may remain resilient, with a potential surge in 'victory tourism' once hostilities cease, similar to the post-Kargil trend. Thakur said he does not foresee any significant drop in housing capital values unless hostilities extend beyond one financial year. 'Today's market is dominated by large, listed and financially robust developers who do not carry excessive leverage. This gives them prolonged holding power, and major banks are also well capitalised,' he said. He added that while price hikes may be paused in the short term, a sharp increase could follow next year due to higher construction costs.
