Following the attack in the Kashmir region under Indian control on April 22, tensions between India and Pakistan escalated, ultimately culminating in fierce military clashes on May 7. The Indian "Operation Vermilion" led to civilian casualties in Pakistan, while facing a tough "counterattack" from Pakistan. Pakistan announced that it had shot down six Indian military aircraft (including one drone). Does India's repeated justification of "striking terrorism" hold water? While the defeated Indian army conducted border exercises, Pakistan also hinted that "retaliation would certainly take place." Will the recent situation deteriorate further? Observer Network discussed this issue with several South Asia experts.
The wreckage of India's "Rafale" aircraft on Indian social media
Does India's attempt to seize the moral high ground work?
India claimed that the targets of the "Operation Vermilion" were nine bases of the so-called "terrorist organizations" recognized by India unilaterally within Pakistan and the Pakistani-controlled area, namely "Lashkar-e-Taiba" (LeT) and "Jaish-e-Mohammad" (JeM). At the Indian government press conference, it was also accused that Pakistan had not taken effective actions against these two so-called "terrorist organizations." Including previous evidence submitted by India through the United Nations Sanctions Committee, India believed that this constituted a negative response to UN Security Council Resolution 1373, considering that Pakistan had not fulfilled its international counter-terrorism obligations.
India seemed to have done a lot of "homework" to seize the moral high ground, but Hu Shisheng, Deputy Secretary-General of the Academic Committee of the China Institute of International Relations, stated: "We cannot conduct military strikes on another country just because it is a terrorist incident. For anti-terrorism actions involving other countries, they must be resolved through anti-terrorism cooperation, anti-terrorism dialogue and other diplomatic political means, rather than simply using the suspicion of involvement in terrorist attacks as an excuse to infringe upon the sovereignty of another country."
Hu Shisheng believed that if the anti-terrorism issue and national military conflicts are equated, it will make any anti-terrorism event, or even any unexpected event, easily escalate into war behavior between nations.
Two weeks after the attack occurred, India finally chose to go all out for another reason, which was the "right of self-defense." Vikram Misri, India's Foreign Secretary, claimed at the press conference that India had assessed new intelligence indicating that the aforementioned organization was planning a "terrorist attack" against India. India believed that it was necessary to take "preemptive military action" to destroy the combat capability of the "terrorist organization," which was exercising the "right of self-defense."
Regarding this, Rong Ying, a guest professor at the School of International Relations of Sichuan University, said that no matter how India tried to justify itself, such unilateral military actions targeting sovereign states clearly involved serious issues of international law. From the perspective of international law and international relations principles, India's reasons were illogical and could not provide sufficient basis for the rationalization and legalization of India's military actions.
Moreover, in today's highly advanced technological world, evidence collection itself is complex. Wang Shida, Executive Director of the South Asia Institute of the China Institute of International Relations, reminded of this fact: the "Kashmir Resistance Front" organization once claimed responsibility, but days later issued a statement denying its previous stance, claiming that its website had been hacked and the previous statement of responsibility was forged. This reversal made the nature of the incident more complicated.
Wanting to use water resources as a weapon, India set a very bad precedent
In this round of India-Pakistan conflict, India's operation on the water resources issue also attracted widespread attention from the international community. Previously, Indian officials announced that the cabinet meeting decided to "temporarily suspend" the Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960.
"According to the Indus Waters Treaty signed between India and Pakistan in 1960, the allocation of water resources of the six rivers in the Indus River has been clearly stipulated. Although India has partial usage rights, it shall not change the amount of water or the direction of the water flow," Wang Shida said. From a legal perspective, the treaty does not have a provision for unilateral modification and can only be changed with the consent of both parties. Therefore, India has no right to unilaterally suspend or modify the contents of the treaty in terms of law.
"India currently lacks the ability to effectively use Indus River water resources as a weapon," Hu Shisheng said. Although India controls the eastern three tributaries of the upstream Indus River, its water resource control capacity is limited, accounting for only about 20% of the total water volume of the Indus River system. Pakistan controls the western three tributaries, which account for 80% of the main water volume. Even the 20% of the water volume, India does not have sufficient engineering facilities to effectively control it; it only has some small reservoirs upstream, which can control less than 4% of the total water flow of the Indus River. Therefore, India's statement about "restricting cross-border river water supply" is more symbolic retaliatory rhetoric.
Rong Ying, however, believed that despite the limited actual water distribution ratio, "India can still affect the water resource regulation and distribution in Pakistan's provinces by implementing interception and storage during the dry season and artificially creating flood disasters during the rainy season." He said that the Punjab Province and the Sindh Province of Pakistan have long had disputes over the distribution of the "Tarbela-Mangla" reservoir, and India might even attempt to use this method to exacerbate internal contradictions within the two provinces, thereby dividing them.
Rong Ying also mentioned that from the perspective of transboundary water resources, India is both an upstream and downstream country, which should naturally give it a stronger regional sense of responsibility. No matter what reasons India uses to manipulate water resources, it will inevitably exacerbate water disputes among South Asian countries. Transboundary water resource issues in South Asia are already very prominent, so India has set a very bad precedent, violating its international obligations and commitments.
Wang Shida reminded that although India currently has limited control over water resources, it does not mean that India will never possess such capabilities in the future. Hu Shisheng analyzed that if India wants to make the "water weapon" effective, it must build more large dams upstream. It is said that India is currently building more water conservancy projects on some rivers upstream, but it will take at least until 2032 to complete them.
Possible new arms race cycle between India and Pakistan
According to official announcements from Pakistan, it used Chinese-made J-10C fighters to counter and shoot down Indian Air Force aircraft, including three French-made "Rafale" fighters.
"India indeed suffered significant losses in the air force during this conflict, including Su-30, MiG-29, and French-made 'Rafale' aircraft," Hu Shisheng said. The Chinese-made J-10C fighters equipped by the Pakistan Air Force, combined with PL-15 long-range air-to-air missiles and early warning command systems provided by China, demonstrated significant combat effectiveness in this confrontation.
He pointed out that this situation may prompt India to accelerate its fighter procurement plans, including seeking to introduce the U.S. F-35 fighter jets and strengthen cooperation with countries like the UK and Japan in the development of sixth-generation fighters.
In Rong Ying's view, due to India's unilateral suspension of the execution of the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan, as a countermeasure, suspended multiple bilateral peace dialogue mechanisms including the Simla Agreement. If the tense situation continues to escalate, the only form of confrontation left between India and Pakistan will be military confrontation, which is not only very dangerous but also prone to trigger subsequent arms races.
Low possibility of situation spiraling out of control
After more than 100 aircraft engaged in intense battles, the Indian army suffered heavy losses but continued to conduct exercises at the border, while Pakistan also hinted that "retaliation would certainly take place." Meanwhile, the international community generally called for restraint. How will this round of tense situation evolve?
Experts generally believe that both India and Pakistan face pressure to demonstrate a tough stance. However, the possibility of the situation escalating into full-scale war is extremely low. "As two nuclear-armed countries, India and Pakistan are well aware of the catastrophic consequences of a full-scale conflict, especially the risk of nuclear war," Wang Shida said. Although short-term friction and localized conflicts are difficult to avoid, both sides have strong motivation to keep the conflict within a limited scope. This strategic restraint is based on considerations of practical interests and also reflects a commitment to regional and global security.
According to Wang Shida's observation, compared to historical precedents in 2016 and 2019, although both sides showed tough stances this time, they maintained a certain level of restraint. Notably, after India announced the attack on targets in Pakistan and the Pakistan-controlled Kashmir region, it specifically issued a statement emphasizing the restraint of its actions.
Hu Shisheng also mentioned that under the appeals of major powers and the United Nations, both sides should gradually cool down. For Pakistan, given its significantly weaker overall strength compared to India, this time it actually falls under passive defense. After being attacked, India must prove to its people that its government is capable of defending security, so it must vent its frustration. However, India's cross-border attacks were precise and limited in scope, precisely to prevent the escalation of military conflicts.
In the statements of major powers, as an important neighbor of India and Pakistan, China's position obviously carries special weight.
"Since the outbreak of this tension, China has actually played a significant role in diplomacy," Rong Ying pointed out. After multiple communications with Pakistan, China supported Pakistan's reasonable request for an open and fair international investigation into the terrorist attack incident. Given the complexity of this incident, Pakistan showed a positive attitude, willing to participate in the investigation together with Russia and India. However, unfortunately, India not only rejected this proposal but also took military actions based on its own alleged evidence to further escalate the tense situation.
"India is our largest neighboring country, and Pakistan is our all-weather strategic partner. We particularly do not want the conflict between India and Pakistan to occur," Hu Shisheng said. Once the situation escalates, it will not only threaten the peace and stability of the South Asian subcontinent but may also have a significant impact on the security environment of our Xinjiang and Tibet border regions.
On the other hand, since the October 2023 Brics Summit in Kazan, there have been signs of improvement in Sino-Indian relations. Recently, direct flights between the two countries are about to open, and China has approved Indian pilgrims to visit the sacred mountains and lakes of Tibet. These pragmatic measures reflect the improvement in bilateral relations. Analyzing various factors, the military conflict between India and Pakistan remains controllable, and Sino-Indian relations are unlikely to be significantly impacted at present.
Rong Ying believed that the tension in Sino-Pakistani relations has regressed to a certain extent, but it should also be noted that the two sides have also reached partial consensus on the Kashmir dispute through negotiations in the past. One of the examples is the Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960. In the 21st century, the two sides also held multiple rounds of talks and achieved good results, especially regarding nuclear weapons experiments and nuclear facility safety. The current fluctuations also reflect the complex historical context of the Kashmir issue since the partition of India and Pakistan.
China still hopes for peace, hopes for stability, and hopes to solve this problem through dialogue between the two sides because military means cannot resolve it. Rong Ying pointed out that India and Pakistan also understand that years of conflict have taught them that bullets cannot bring answers.
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7502077020592849420/
Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.