Who has gained and lost so much in the India-Pakistan conflict
After four days of bloody clashes, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on May 10. Analysts say it is difficult to say whether anyone has completely won this fight. However, both sides have claimed their ‘victory’ in the conflict.
India-Pakistan relations became quite heated after 26 civilians were killed in a gun attack in Pahalgam, Indian-controlled Kashmir, on April 22. A little-known armed group, ‘The Resistance Front’ (TRF), claimed responsibility for the attack. However, India claimed that the group was Pakistan-backed. However, Pakistan denied the allegations, but Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi threatened revenge.
After that, the two neighboring countries started taking various diplomatic steps against each other. After that, the tension turned into a military conflict. On the morning of May 7, India launched missile strikes on four “terrorist bases” in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Pakistan’s Punjab province.
In the days that followed, both countries launched drone strikes on each other’s territory and blamed each other for the attacks. Tensions reached a peak after both countries launched missile strikes on each other’s military bases on May 10.
India initially targeted three Pakistani air bases, one of which was Rawalpindi. The city is considered a garrison city because it is home to the main headquarters of the Pakistani army. India then launched missiles at several other Pakistani bases.
On the other hand, Pakistan launched missile strikes on military installations in the border areas of India and in Indian-controlled Kashmir, hitting at least four Indian military installations.
As the situation was heading towards full-scale war, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire and claimed that the ceasefire was brokered by the US. Pakistan praised the initiative, but India said the ceasefire decision was made between the two countries without any outside interference.
After the ceasefire, both countries held press conferences to claim their “victory” and presented various “evidence”. On Monday, senior military officers from India and Pakistan spoke on the phone and pledged to abide by the ceasefire in the coming days.
However, analysts say that after the April 22 incident, neither side can fully claim to be the true winner. On the contrary, both countries have gained something, but they have also suffered losses.
Pakistan’s gain: Kashmir at the international level
Three of the previous four wars between India and Pakistan were over the Kashmir issue. Last week’s military conflict also stemmed from the long-standing dispute between the two countries over the Kashmir region.
Pakistan and India control different parts of Kashmir. China also controls two narrow strips. India claims the entire Kashmir as its part. On the other hand, Pakistan also claims the part controlled by India. However, Pakistan does not say anything about the part controlled by Pakistan’s ally China.
On the other hand, India has long claimed that the Kashmir issue can only be resolved through bilateral talks and that third-party intervention is unacceptable. But this time India has had to accept outside mediation, which is a matter of pressure for them.
Analyst Sudha Ramachandran says that while the Modi government’s nationalist supporters inside India are excited by the conflict with Pakistan, the ceasefire has created a negative reaction among hardliners.
Bangladesh’s Liberation War took place in 1971. At that time, India and Pakistan were also involved in the war. At that time, New Delhi and Islamabad signed an agreement, known as the Shimla Agreement. In this agreement, they agreed that their mutual disputes would be resolved peacefully and bilaterally through negotiations.
Since then, India has always said that the Kashmir issue and other disputes between the two countries can only be resolved bilaterally. No third-party intervention will be allowed here.
However, Pakistan has been demanding the intervention of the international community, citing the UN resolution, so that they can play a role in resolving the Kashmir crisis.
On Sunday, US President Donald Trump announced that the United States was ready to mediate on the Kashmir issue. He wrote on his Truth social platform, “I am ready to work with both sides to reach a resolution to the millennia-old dispute over Kashmir.”
Walter Ladwig, a senior professor at King’s College London, said the latest conflict had given Pakistan an opportunity to raise the Kashmir issue internationally, which had been a long-standing strategic goal.
Walter Ladwig told Al Jazeera that Islamabad had welcomed the mediation by various countries, including the United States, and presented the ceasefire as evidence of the need for outside intervention.
Walter said that India, on the other hand, had to accept the ceasefire established by an external power. That is, it could not end the conflict on its own terms.
Sudha Ramachandran, South Asia editor of The Diplomat magazine, said that the Modi government may have strengthened its nationalist and hardline supporters with this military operation. However, the ceasefire may also lead to a loss of some domestic political support.
Ramachandran added that the move has boosted the government’s popularity among nationalist hardliners. But the hardliners have not taken the ceasefire well.
India’s Gains: Bringing Terrorism to the Fore
According to analysts, India has also achieved something strategically in this conflict. After the Pahalgam attack, India has once again brought the issue of ‘militants’ operating on Pakistani soil to the center of discussion in the international arena.
However, Pakistan has denied this allegation and demanded an impartial investigation. However, now the pressure on Pakistan to take anti-terrorism measures has increased in the international arena.
Walter Ladwig said that diplomatically, India has succeeded in turning international attention back to Pakistan-based ‘militants’ and has been able to re-strengthen the demand for effective action against Islamabad.
This UK analyst said that this is a reputational situation for Pakistan. Because the attack has been accused of involving ‘militants’ operating from their soil.
Walter also said that of course, Islamabad has denied the allegations of involvement in the attack and demanded an impartial investigation. But in the international arena, the onus is increasingly on Pakistan to present evidence of its own non-involvement. Pakistan is now under increasing pressure to take an active role in the fight against terrorism.
India has long accused Pakistan of funding, training and sheltering armed groups trying to separate Kashmir from India. Pakistan, on the other hand, claims that it only provides diplomatic and moral support to the separatist movement in Kashmir.
Pakistan’s success: Indian fighter jets shot down
Pakistan claims that its defense systems have shot down several Indian fighter jets. Although India has not confirmed or denied this, French and American sources have confirmed the loss of at least two fighter jets. Some wreckage was found on Indian-controlled territory, which suggests that they were Indian.
India claims that more than 100 “terrorists” were killed in its May 7 strike. However, Pakistan says that the Indian missile strikes hit mosques and residential areas, killing 40 civilians, including children. In addition, 11 soldiers were killed.
Pakistan has also claimed that it has sent fighter jets as a deterrent. It has shot down several Indian fighter jets.
India has neither confirmed nor denied Pakistan’s claims. However, the Pakistani military has publicly released information that it claims has identified the downed fighter jets.
French and US officials have also confirmed that at least one Indian Rafale fighter jet and a Russian-made jet were shot down.
Indian officials confirmed to Al Jazeera that at least two fighter jets were shot down in Indian-controlled Kashmir. However, they did not specify which country they belonged to.
Analysts say that both India and Pakistan have said that no fighter jets crossed their border. In that context, analysts believe that the wreckage of the crashed aircraft in Indian-controlled territory is likely to be Indian aircraft.
Mir Asfandiar, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington, told Al Jazeera that the ceasefire followed the incident, which could be seen as a kind of achievement for Pakistan.
Pakistan could see the ceasefire as an opportunity to consolidate its success, especially since the downing of the plane was independently confirmed, Asfandiar said.
Muhammad Shoaib, a professor and security analyst at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, sees the Indian attack as a strategic mistake. He says India’s assessment of Pakistan’s ability to respond was wrong.
However, Walter Ladwig cautioned that it would be wrong to overstate the potential success of Pakistan in downing an Indian fighter jet. He said such a success could at best be described as a “symbolic victory”. It does not represent a clear or absolute military success.
India’s success: Attack deep inside Pakistan
According to analysts, the most significant military achievement was India’s.
On May 7, Indian missiles hit four locations in Pakistan’s Punjab province, the most populous and economic hub of Pakistan, in addition to Kotli and Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.
Over the next two days, India also carried out drone strikes that reached much deeper inside Pakistan, even near major cities like Lahore and Karachi.
On May 10, India launched missile strikes targeting three Pakistani airbases, which were located deep inside Pakistan’s Punjab. At such a depth, Pakistan could not hit any of its bases on that day.
To put it bluntly, India has been able to penetrate much deeper than Pakistan. This is the first time since the 1971 war that India has been able to attack Pakistan’s Punjab.
Ramachandran said that India’s main goal was not just to cross the Line of Control (LoC), but to strike deep inside Pakistan. And India has achieved that.
Walter Ludwig also said that India’s attack on Pakistan’s Punjab has created a big gap in the country’s defense structure.
Will the ceasefire last?
Military officials from the two countries spoke last Monday. At that time, they agreed to maintain the ceasefire. At the same time, they promised to take immediate steps to reduce the number of troops deployed on the border. The second round of talks is scheduled to be held within the next 48 hours. However, there was no further news in the media about whether the second round of talks took place.
Stimson Center researcher Asfandyar Mir still believes that the ceasefire can last.
Asfandyar said that considering the obstacles and opportunities that have arisen for both sides in the past week, a ceasefire is the best way forward for them now.
Walter Ludwig also agrees. He said that the ceasefire highlights the interest of the two countries to de-escalate tensions. However, the ceasefire could not resolve the root causes of the crisis.
Walter also said that India has practically changed the ‘rules of the game’ in this phase. The Indian government is no longer following the strategy by which Islamabad and Rawalpindi could deny responsibility for anti-India ‘terrorist groups’ in the past.
Walter said that how the Pakistani government and army deal with the ‘armed groups’ on their soil will determine how durable the ceasefire will be.
Muhammad Shoaib, a professor at Quaid-e-Azam University and a researcher at George Mason University in the US, stressed the importance of continuous dialogue to sustain the ceasefire.
Shoaib warned that maintaining peace will depend on the security situation in Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan’s Balochistan province.
Just as India accuses Pakistan of supporting cross-border separatism, Islamabad also accuses India of supporting separatist insurgency in Balochistan. However, both India and Pakistan have been denying these allegations against each other.
Shoaib said that any subsequent conflict could be more bloody and widespread. If the two sides go down the path of protracted conflict, both sides could suffer major losses in densely populated urban areas, with neither side benefiting in real terms.