India's War On Terror: New Doctrine Established, Ceasefire Opens Path To Strategic Recalibration

India’s response to the Pahalgam terrorist attack was carefully calibrated, measured, precisely targeted and intended to not escalate or spin out. The main objective that was achieved was the establishment of a new doctrine: that terrorist attacks by any Pakistan-based actors would now be treated as an act of war.

This doctrine seems to have received tacit approval from the global community, since India did not receive any censure for its military strikes at multiple sites within Pakistan. What happened after the bombing of those nine sites could not have been fully anticipated.

Would the military establishment in Pakistan use this excuse to touch the “hair trigger” and go nuclear? Would it resort to an irrational and disproportionate response since its conventional counterattack did not work? And who would win the war of narratives? All of this got lost in the rapidly developing “fog of war”, although this conflict cannot really be called a full-scale war by any means.

The “fog of war” was made foggier by much of the media, especially social media. Some media even reported preposterous developments without fact-checking or veri-fication. Social media is indeed like a tiger that policy makers and military strategists must reluctantly ride. It is impossible to control this tiger.

But the halt of hostilities, whether due to behind-the-scenes third-party intervention or not, is welcome. It has ended in four days, and India’s objective of laying down a new doctrine has been achieved. Other collateral success has been the quality of briefings by the military spokespersons, including women.

These briefings were to the point and frank in ad-mitting the possibility of civilian casualties. They were as transparent and open as could be in the circumstances, without letting out the extent of casualties or costs suffered, being mindful of the impact on security and morale.

What are the main takeaways from all this and what lies ahead? Firstly, it proved that the world is more supportive of military retaliatory action against terrorist attacks launched from the other country. Secondly, the stoppage in four days showed the possibility of keeping the conflict contained and controlled, even if under pressure from third parties.

Thirdly, it showcased military hardware made in the United States, China, Russia and France, and possibly other countries, and, also, made in India. It was a test of sophistication and effectiveness of modern weaponry, aircraft, anti-missile tech, and drones.

There are lessons to be learnt here. Was the S-400 anti-missile system more successful than the fighter aircraft? Fourth was the success of coordination between the three branches of the military. The longstanding demand for theatre-based planning and response was perhaps partly implemented.

Fifth is the demonstration of the importance of narratives, perceptions, and quality of presentations. A case in point was the presentation made by India’s High Commis-sioner to the United Kingdom, clearly connecting the dots between the Pakistan es-tablishment and support for terrorists and India’s justified response.

It was matter-of-fact, cold and crisp in logic, and compelling. When India is clearly the more power-ful state and adversary, there is no need to be loud and jingoistic. Understated is a more effective style.

Sixth was the unanimous support across political parties shown to the government’s strategy and decisions. Hopefully, this show of not converting this war-like conflict on the border for domestic electoral advantage will sustain and become more accepted practice.

Looking ahead, some points need to be kept in mind. Firstly, the current ceasefire may not last long. Another terrorist attack can unleash another cycle. Indeed, random rogue actors might take advantage to provoke another military attack as retaliation for a terrorist incident. Hence, there is no room for complacency.

Secondly, India has much more at stake in economic and utilitarian terms when it comes to evaluating the cost and benefit of escalation. We need to invite and welcome 2 per cent of the GDP as foreign capital to be invested in manufacturing and services. That needs a stable, conflict-free climate, which requires peace at the border.

Pakistan’s stakes are different. It applied for emergency financial relief for the twenty-fifth time to the In-ternational Monetary Fund. And the loan has got approved, presumably conditional on good behaviour and on “not going nuclear”. But the military in Pakistan has deep connections in all sectors of the economy, and, hence, the financial aid indirectly helps strengthen the stranglehold of the military on the economy and polity.

Pakistan may not be able to depend on the US under President Donald Trump as their benefactor, but China is their replacement benefactor in a big way. So, in that sense, this four-day conflict has clearly shown that the big hostile factor has been China, which will continue to provide sophisticated weaponry to Pakistan.

It is in In-dia’s interest to continue the trade and commerce dialogue with China and support the thaw in border talks, five years after Galwan. China’s own economy is weakening, made worse by the Trump tariffs. The success of India’s free trade agreement with the UK and a possible strong deal with America will surely arouse Chinese discomfort. So, there is some leverage.

Clearly, the situation with Pakistan and China cannot be only seen through an eco-nomic lens, in purely utilitarian terms or merely in terms of costs and benefits. Not showing military strength, even if it is economically costly for us, has adverse implica-tions for us in terms of geopolitics. Our adversaries can be very irrational, which, in turn, puts certain constraints on how we respond to future border and terror-caused conflicts.

Economic reasoning might not be a sufficient guide to understanding or predicting their behaviour. So, high military spending is inevitable. But it is clear that peace is not possible without economic prosperity at home. It is also clear that pro-jecting power abroad is not possible without high, sustained and inclusive economic growth.

It is clear that a conflict-free, relatively peaceful India will attract the maxi-mum foreign capital in the world. For this to happen, we have to invest in building peace and reiterate to the world that this is not an era of war.

Dr Ajit Ranade is a noted Pune-based economist. Syndicate: The Billion Press (email: editor@thebillionpress.org)