Lost opportunities: Did India give up strategic advantage under foreign pressure?

Why did India opt for a ceasefire when it held the upper hand?

The latest bout of India-Pakistan conflict has left the country wondering about questions and seething with frustration. Official reports are tight-lipped, but unverified but widely shared reports suggest Pakistan took catastrophic losses, with as many as 15 warplanes being lost, including four top-of-the-line F-16 fighter planes.

On India’s side, with all its preponderant tactical and technological edge, speculation rumoured reported by international media, that Indian aircraft were lost, indicating the latest model Rafael jets among them, the crowning glory of the Indian Air Force. Denied by the Indian side in its defence briefing. While unofficial, these reports are not authenticated nor confirmed, and have stirred up furious arguments in military and diplomatic circles.

In the midst of the conflict just 2 days ago, USA Vice President J D Vance said the US would not interfere in the Indo-Pak conflict, but did a U-turn and further aggressively pursued and ensured a ceasefire. WHY? Did the Pakistan government press for the nuclear option?

This raises a critical and unnerving question: When India had the advantage, in the air and on the ground, why did it settle for an unexpected ceasefire? What drove the leadership to slam on the brakes at a time when the tide seemed to be turning in India’s direction?

Most of the fingers are pointing towards the United States. Former President Donald Trump was infamous for his assertive diplomatic approach, often using pressure tactics, behind-the-scenes deals, and economic blackmail to mold international affairs. It is believed that the Trump administration put huge pressure on both countries, promising dire international ramifications if the hostilities grew stronger.

But here was a glaring contradiction: a smaller, beleaguered country like Ukraine, dependent on massive amounts of Western assistance, refused to back down and reject such pressure. Ukraine stood up to protect its sovereignty, even when it meant confronting the very powers that fuelled its war machine. If a country as vulnerable as Ukraine, with a weak economy and scarce resources, was able to withstand foreign pressure, then why should India, an emerging superpower with a strong army, a resilient economy, and global ambitions, not have been able to?

Worse, India had the high moral ground. The country had every right and obligation to insist on the immediate extradition of the five Pakistan-based terrorists who perpetrated the heinous Pahalgam terror attack, which claimed the lives of 26 innocent Hindu tourists. This was an opportunity to demonstrate zero tolerance for cross-border terrorism. India could and should have taken a principled stand, demanded justice, and sent across a clear and strong message to both Pakistan and the world that we will neither trade our country’s national security nor the lifeblood of our innocent citizens.

Rather, by retreating when pressure was applied, India might have inadvertently sent the message that it was willing to be influenced, even when strong. Was the ceasefire a masterful tactical timeout, meant to maintain peace in a sensitive area? Or was it, as many now worry, a strategic concession, a chance to redefine South Asia’s balance of power, voluntarily surrendered under foreign pressure?

Skeptics also contend that this withdrawal signalled weakness, undermining the psychological high achieved by our military. The opportunity to break the enemy’s morale, reaffirm air superiority, and re-establish India’s regional primacy was within reach, but went unseized.

Enough is enough: Zero tolerance must mean zero compromise

India has long asserted that terrorism is not just a crime; it is an act of war. This position is not new, nor is it unclear. Our Parliament has spoken, our military has bled, and our citizens have paid the price time and again. Yet, despite this unambiguous position, our actions at crucial moments still betray caution rather than conviction.

Why are we still going on about settled facts? Proclaiming that terror is war does not amount to much if it is not accompanied by unyielding action. Zero tolerance has to mean zero compromise, in policy, in diplomacy, and on the field of battle.

Terror organizations flourishing on the other side of the border, shielded by the very state machinery we are instructed to “negate” with, are not merely threats; they are goads. The slaughter of 26 unarmed Hindu pilgrims in Pahalgam was not merely terrorism; it was an attack on Indian nationhood. Inaction in the face of such an outrage conveys the wrong message to the perpetrators, to the terror protectors, and to the international community.

India is not a soft state. But perceived dithering is turned into weakness. If indeed we want to stick to our doctrine of zero tolerance, then it has to be applied mercilessly, with diplomatic isolation, military surgery, and strategic will.

We owe it to our martyrs, to our future, and the very notion of India.

As we look back on this point in time, it is impossible not to feel a sense of national disillusionment. Did we get too timid when we should have acted boldly? Did we sacrifice global appearances over justice and deterrence? Did we allow the blood of our own citizens to cry in vain?

Time alone will tell if this was a strategic lull or a monumental mistake. But there is one thing that remains for sure: a country which yearns for greatness must never compromise its moral purpose, especially when it finds itself on the high moral and military ground.

As we look back at this historical moment, one cannot help but be filled with a sense of national regret. Were we too afraid to take daring action when courage was needed? Did we allow international perceptions to trump justice and deterrence? Did we permit the blood of our very own to cry out in vain?

India had the right to insist on accountability. The assassins of the 26 innocent Hindu pilgrims in Pahalgam could have been extradited unconditionally, without bargaining. This was not a matter of military action; this was a matter of national will. A time to stand tall, not step back.

Within hours of the ceasefire declaration, Pakistan has already violated it on the LOC border by heavy artillery firing. Further loud explosions were reported in Srinagar, a blackout with a drone attack alert in Jammu, and the Kutch region.

“Enforced ceasefire & farce?”

Time alone will know whether this was a prudent step backward or a lost moment of history!!!

Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.

The post Lost opportunities: Did India give up strategic advantage under foreign pressure? appeared first on PGurus.