India-Pakistan head towards strategic standoff

Al Jazeera :

Pakistan threatened to suspend all bilateral agreements with India, including the 1972 Simla Agreement, on Thursday in a retaliatory move after India said it would suspend the Indus Water Treaty and close the land border the day before.
The Simla Agreement was a peace accord signed by the two countries a few months after Bangladesh became independent from Pakistan.
Pakistan’s government said on Thursday it would consider any attempt by India to stop the supply of water from the Indus River an “act of war”.
“Any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan as per the Indus Waters Treaty… will be considered as an act of war and responded with full force across the complete spectrum of national power,” a statement from Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s office said after a rare national security committee meeting.
The NSC meeting, which took place on Thursday in Islamabad, was led by Pakistani prime minister Shehbaz Sharif, alongside other government officials and chiefs of its military forces.
The NSC statement mirrored actions announced by India on Wednesday, and included the closure of the Wagah Border Post with “immediate effect”, the suspension and cancellation of SAARC visas for Indian nationals (excluding Sikh pilgrims), the designation of Indian defence advisors as personae non grata in Pakistan, a reduction in the staff of the Indian High Commission, the closure of Pakistani airspace to Indian airlines, and the suspension of all trade with India.
The moves follow India’s response to Tuesday’s attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, which resulted in the deaths of at least 26 people.
Following a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, chaired by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Indian government announced a series of measures, including the suspension of the 65-year-old Indus Waters Treaty, a pact that allows both countries to irrigate their agricultural lands.
In a media conference, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri also announced the closure of the border with Pakistan, slashed the number of Indian diplomatic staff in Pakistan, ordered Pakistani citizens under the SAARC scheme to leave the country within 48 hours, and expelled Pakistani military attaches posted in India. This response has been soundly interpreted as India blaming Pakistan for the attack in Kashmir.
The Himalayan territory of Kashmir has been a flashpoint between the two countries since they gained independence from British rule in 1947, with each country controlling parts of Kashmir but claiming it in full. Since independence, the nuclear-armed neighbours have fought four wars, three of them over Kashmir.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, who also serves as deputy prime minister, called the Indian steps “immature and hasty” in a television interview on Wednesday night, .
“India has not given any evidence [of Pakistani involvement in the attack].” They have not shown any maturity in their response. This is not a serious approach. They started creating hype immediately after the incident,” said Dar, who also serves as deputy prime minister.
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif also rejected India’s implication of Pakistani involvement in the attack.
“India’s allegation against Pakistan for the Pahalgam incident is inappropriate. There should be no ambiguity that we strongly condemn terrorism,” Asif said.
Interactive_Kashmir_Territorial Control_April23_2025’Ready for Indian misadventure’
Following the Pahalgam attack, commentary in Indian media and talk among the political leadership has leaned towards launching a military strike on Pakistan, drawing parallels with the 2019 Balakot strikes.
In February 2019, following an attack in Pulwama, Indian-administered Kashmir, in which more than 40 Indian soldiers were killed, India launched air strikes in Balakot, northern Pakistan, targeting what it called “militant hideouts”.
Pakistan said the strikes only hit an uninhabited forest and responded with its own air strikes near Indian military targets, causing no casualties.
Both sides also deployed fighter jets and, in an aerial dogfight, an Indian aircraft was shot down. Its pilot, Abhinandan Varthaman, was captured but released two days afterwards.
Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh also hinted at a “strong response”, reiterating India’s “zero tolerance” policy on terrorism.
“We will not only reach out to those who have carried out this incident. We will also reach out to those who, sitting behind the scenes, have conspired to commit such nefarious acts on the soil of India,” he said, at the Marshal of the Air Force Arjan Singh Memorial Lecture in New Delhi on April 23.
Analysts and security officials in Pakistan say they believe that Indian military action could now be possible, but said the country was “ready for any Indian misadventure”.
“We are maintaining a high level of alertness and vigilance, but unlike India, we don’t want to create any unnecessary hype by talking about our readiness,” a security source told Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity, as he has not been authorised to speak on the matter.
“India is wrong if it thinks there isn’t going to be any tit for tat. However, we are both nuclear-armed countries, and Indian aggression could lead to an irresponsible situation. Both of us should act carefully,” he added.
The official further questioned India’s allegation of Pakistani involvement, noting that the attack took place nearly 200km (124 miles) from the Line of Control, the de facto border between the two countries, and highlighted the presence of more than 500,000 Indian security personnel in the Kashmir valley.
He also pointed to the recent visit to India by United States Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in the country on Monday with his wife and two children for a four-day visit, taking in a meeting with Prime Minister Modi.
“How do you think this attack will serve Pakistan, especially with JD Vance being there?” he asked. “Could this attack lead to the liberation of Indian Kashmir? Why won’t Indian authorities take time to look inward and introspect? Will they ever accept their own security shortcomings?”
Past skirmishes have previously raised the spectre of war between the two countries, which together have a population exceeding 1.5 billion.
Asfandyar Mir, a security analyst specialising in South Asia, said Pakistan is likely to reserve its military response for a contingency in case of Indian action while monitoring how the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty unfolds.
The Indus Basin is a lifeline for the populations of Pakistan and India, who rely on the river water flowing from the Himalayas for irrigation and agriculture.
However, Mir added that military action increasingly appears to be a likely option for India, similar to 2019, but “potentially more visible”.
Referring to the outrage over Tuesday’s attack and calls for a strong response in the Indian media, he said: “The domestic mood in India is strongly trending toward a response. That said, India faces a more acute China challenge than in 2019, so it has to carefully factor that into its response and how an escalation may play out,” he told Al Jazeera.
China, India’s northern neighbour, is also one of Pakistan’s closest allies. China and India engaged in a minor conflict on their border in June 2020.
On the other hand, Salman Bashir, former Pakistani envoy to New Delhi, told Al Jazeera he believes the decisions made by India’s Cabinet Committee on Security have been based on a “mistaken assumption” about Pakistan’s weakness.
“These connote a fight-to-the-finish syndrome, which is based on naivete and wishful thinking. But I expect a response from Pakistan which is mature and commensurate to the challenge posited by India,” he added.
Bashir, who also served as Pakistan’s foreign secretary from 2008 to 2012, said the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Indian government may have considered military action, but the scale of such moves, given the history between the two countries, presents a dilemma.
“In any case, Pakistan will not assume that this is it. We should be prepared for more to come. Options for diplomacy are rather slim. A back-channel contact may work, but I am not sure there is one,” the former diplomat said.
Mir, the Washington DC-based security analyst, said Pakistan is more stable than in previous years and that he believes the country is therefore likely to respond forcefully under army chief Asim Munir, who has accused India of conducting “proxy operations” in Pakistan.
Pakistan has blamed India for violence on its soil, most recently accusing it of masterminding the March attack on the Jaffar Express, a passenger train targeted by Baloch separatists.
The 36-hour standoff, in which at least 26 passengers were killed, was Pakistan’s first-ever train hijacking.
However, Mir said both sides have failed to draw constructive lessons from the 2019 crisis.
“The relative calm we saw after 2019 was largely a function of bold conciliation by former Pakistani Army chief General Bajwa and India choosing to focus on its border with China and its ambition to become a global power. But careful observers knew the relationship was only deteriorating,” he said.
Bashir, the former envoy, said Pakistan could make a grand gesture if Prime Minister Sharif announces a visit to India.
“In Pakistan-India situations, gestures like Shehbaz Sharif announcing a visit to New Delhi are doable. The pendulum has swung too far. We need to do whatever is necessary to bring things under control,” he said.