Four days after India conducted “surgical” military strikes on terrorist launch pads inside Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), and inflicted “double-digit” casualties, the Line of Control (LoC) has been witnessing hours-long artillery and gun-fire exchanges each night. On Sunday, Oct 2 evening, an Indian army camp in Baramulla (Kashmir Valley) came under terrorist attack; one soldier was killed and another injured.
India has repeatedly held Pakistan responsible for terrorist acts on its soil, most recently for the September 18 attack on the Uri military base.
In anticipation of a possible Pakistani army counter-strike, Indian authorities have ordered the evacuation of people living near the border with Pakistan in the states of Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir. On Oc1, the Army Chief General Dalbir Singh visited its Northern Command headquarters.
The Sept 28-29 night’s punitive raids were the first military action that India has carried out inside Pakistan in more than four decades. Observers say with this action, India has successfully neutered Pakistani “nuclear blackmail,” and has shaken off years of “strategic restraint.”
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said, “The surgical strikes gave our forces an idea of what they were capable of doing.” Pakistan, he claimed, had been left “bewildered,” “not quite knowing how to react.”
India has made it clear that it has no immediate plans for further military action. But, referring to the Uri attack, Parrikar said, “If Pakistan continues with such conspiracies, we will give them a befitting reply again.”
From reports from Washington, it is clear that the Barrack White House has signalled its support for the Indian attacks. Obama administration spokesmen have studiously avoided criticizing the strikes and have invariably linked their calls for New Delhi and Islamabad to dampen down tensions to demands Pakistan take urgent action to prevent its territory being used as a “safe haven” by terrorists.
Speaking Friday, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter emphasized that the Indian-US military relationship is the “closest it has been ever.”
Pakistan continues to publicly deny that Indian Special Forces penetrated beyond the LoC, claiming instead that two of its soldiers were killed and nine injured by Indian cross-border shelling. This stance is belied by the hurried series of high-level military and government meetings and the shrill statements being made by Pakistani military and political leaders.
Pakistan Chief of Armed Services General Sharif has vowed, “Any misadventure by our adversary will meet the most befitting response from Pakistan.”
Bellicose statements have also been made by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif. In recent weeks as tensions with India mounted, Asif repeatedly warned that Pakistan will use its recently deployed “battlefield” or tactical nuclear weapons should India launch a large-scale attack. Just hours before last Wednesday’s Indian strikes, he declared in a television interview, “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us … We have not made [an] atomic device to display in a showcase. If such a situation arises we will use it [a nuclear weapon] and eliminate India.”
On Friday, Pakistan was forced to cancel the summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) which was due to be held in November in Islamabad, after Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Bhutan and Sri Lanka joined India in announcing they were going to boycott it.
Bangladesh and Afghanistan have also supported India’s military raid on Pakistan, with Kabul, which, like India, has been a victim off cross border terrorism, terming it an act of self-defence.
Beijing has been very cautious in the face of the escalating crisis, repeatedly urging both India and Pakistan to draw back from confrontation.
In an editorial, the Pakistan Express Tribune expressed alarm about Islamabad’s isolation. “Of immediate concern,” it wrote, “is that there has been a ringing silence in terms of the rest of the world, which has failed to condemn what India is admitting it has done which if true is a violation of sovereignty at least.”