Strike I. Strike II. Strike III. And Then What? There is No Substitute to Diplomacy for Peace in the Indian Subcontinent

The credit goes to the Indian armed forces. Their PSYOP paid dividends. They retained the benefit of surprise as they unleashed two dozen missiles in as many minutes on nine locations in Pakistan and PoK. After the attack, the BJP-led government came up with matter-of-fact messaging about the purpose of the retaliation, to the killing of 26 Indians in Kashmir by terrorists allegedly from Pakistan or acting under that country’s direction. 

And then, things returned to the usual in political India. Social media shifted gears as it churned out narratives ranging from silly to the outlandish. The BJP’s narratives were topping them all, pandering to its constituency of voters. It was all in the form of unofficial leaks and interpretations. Chance posts on X, saying the operation was called Sindoor to avenge the widowhood of 26 Indian men and empower ‘streeshakti’ and respect 5,000-year-old traditions and culture. 

The country’s home minister signed off a post on X using Bharat. The army briefing on the operation was handed over to two officers of the Indian Army, whom, the ultranationalist social media and regular media described as a Hindu Woman Officer and a Muslim Hindu Officer. That was supposed to mean a lot of things. They quietly forgot that some of the ruling party leaders had openly stated that they would never give tickets to a Muslim; yet there they were, singing paeans to Colonel Sofia. Her identity was to serve their political purpose today. 

Just so we do not get caught in this messy mire, let us remind ourselves that the purported military action was not to avenge Pahalgam. We are a responsible country, and if we start avenging every killing, the armed forces would be on a permanent standby. The action had the larger purpose to send a strong message to Pakistan that it can no longer get away with sponsoring cross-border terrorism from its soil. 

The overall purpose of the action was to signal India’s continued commitment to end terrorism. Such messaging cannot, and should not, be bogged down in questionable optics which cynics might think are aimed at reinforcing the ultranationalist spirit among right-wing cadres and garnering votes in the coming rounds of Assembly elections. 

While the country’s attention remained diverted toward silly things, even the media, caught in the moment, forgot to ask specific questions of the Prime Minister. 

There is only one question: In the last nine years, Modi government made three “first moves” on the bilateral chessboard. In 2016, Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorists attacked an Army base in Uri and killed 19 soldiers, injuring 30 others. It was the deadliest attack on security forces in Kashmir in two decades, as the media reported. Nine days later, the army crossed the LoC and “pre-empted” terrorists planning another attack.

In 2019, came the Balakot strike after over 40 CRPF jawans were killed in a suicide-bomber attack in Pulwama. Thirteen days after the killings, Indian Air Force jets streaked into Pakistan’s territory and bombed a Jaish-e-Mohammed terror camp.

In 2025, after the Pahalgam killings of 26 civilians, Operation Sindoor happened, involving calibrated strikes at nine terror camps in Pakistan and PoK. 

These are the three “first moves.” The first two never led to the second move on the chessboard. The world only saw them as yet another skirmish between two ever-fighting nations. Will the third “first move” also meet the same fate and have no “second move” following? A “second move,” let me clarify, is not retaliation by Pakistan leading to escalation of hostilities. It means the second step that can lead to eventual de-escalation and bring both parties to the table.

Even enemies talk and offer biryani. However, in the India-Pakistan matter, that is not the case. It is a unique situation. Both countries are not on speaking terms. They see no reason to talk to each other. Pakistan uses non-state actors to provoke India. India’s armed forces enter Pakistan to attack those non-state actors. What is expected to be achieved by regular recurrence of such events?

There is no way out of this mess unless both sides blink. Together. But then, that is a truly magnificent dawn we are waiting for. The international community will not help either side. Various governments exploit the bilateral mess to their ends. That is true of the United States, China, Russia, and even India’s neighbors. Each has a vested interest in the bilateral cauldron remaining hot. 

Several books and journal articles have been written on Indian prime ministers and their neighborhood foreign policies. They all say nearly the same thing. Nehru loved the neighbors. He liked to keep Bhutan and Nepal close. 

On the face of it, shorn of jargon and theories, it takes a blink of an eye to weed out terror. But which terror? That is the question. India is bothered about the terror that affects it, so the primary concern is Pakistani camps where a bunch of terrorist leaders, under Pakistani patronage, conduct their business of exporting terror across the border to India. If India and Pakistan agreed, they would be dust in a second. What is the situation that would make both countries reach an agreement?

At the risk of being simplistic, it is time we went back to the basics and reviewed India’s policy towards its neighbors. It takes two to clap—remember that. So, an introspection is necessary.

Where to begin? Nehru is the favorite whipping boy of the current establishment narrative. Several books and journal articles have been written on Indian prime ministers and their neighborhood foreign policies. They all say nearly the same thing. Nehru loved the neighbors. He liked to keep Bhutan and Nepal close. He signed treaties of friendship with them and later, Sikkim. They were to be a buffer to stop China’s march towards India. China’s anxiety increased as Nehru brought these small countries closer to India. We all know what happened in 1962, because Nehru focused more on the security aspect of India’s relationship with the small countries than on the economic aspect. He died, a dejected man, doubted by his neighbors. 

His daughter, Indira Gandhi, was a decisive leader. During her tenure, Sikkim merged with India, and East Pakistan separated from West Pakistan and became Bangladesh. She loved making India central to its neighborhood and would brook no external interference. She wanted bilateralism to resolve disputes within South Asia and keep any superpower interference at bay. 

She was the only prime minister to decisively “resolve” a bilateral dispute with Pakistan through the Simla Agreement after the 1971 war. Her regional bilateralism formed the basis for the formation of SAARC. The Americans finally realized she was the pivot for South Asia. 

After a gap, Prime Minister I.K. Gujral came up with his Gujral Doctrine — India would not seek reciprocity with its neighbors but accommodate them. The neighbors will not use their territories against one another or interfere in one another’s affairs and gave primacy to bilateral dialogue. His doctrine is claimed to have reduced tensions between India and Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh, but failed to achieve anything with Pakistan. 

The first BJP prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, promoted reciprocity with the neighbors, in a sense, reversing the Gujral doctrine. He did not have much time to review the neighborhood policy because India’s nuclear test in 1998 shifted the foreign policy focus to dealing with the West. And of course, there was Kargil, which put paid to the bus-service diplomacy. 

The Modi era began with a reorientation of the neighborhood first policy. He even invited the neighboring heads of state and governments for his swearing-in. He thought he would settle the neighborhood first before exploring the outside world. Modi also started looking east and even far east.

However, not much came out of this. Because of the terror issue and Pakistan’s belligerence, SAARC became the first victim in the neighborhood. Ultimately, it hibernated as Modi turned his attention to sub-groups in the neighborhood like BIMSTEC and BBIN. Both were exclude-Pakistan exercises. 

Whether owing to Modi’s peculiar political ideology or his personal ambition to make India emerge as an influencer in Asia, India’s relations gradually came under strain with Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. External analysts blamed India for the big-brother attitude which, they insisted, pushed the small neighbors into China’s arms, opening up a whole new aspect of neighborhood policy. 

Ultimately, a neighborhood policy is what it is. It is about neighbors. Giving them space, not ignoring their expectations. Or trying to be a big brother. All prime ministers have to date tried their hands at detaching Kashmir from Pakistan, to no avail. Set the neighborhood right first. Keep at bay superpower ambitions till then.

If not, we will continue to nurture a situation in which military engagement takes primacy over diplomacy. That will lead to an entirely dubious path that democracy will fear to tread.

---

V.V.P. Sharma is a Delhi-based senior journalist and commentator.