What Do They Want to Say About India? A Comment on Pakistan’s “Terrorist Strikes in the Ahmedpur East Mosque”

Inskeep: I want to sort through what you think India’s objective is. India believes that the terror attack was launched from Pakistan, and that it is responding to it. That’s the rationale for these strikes. But as they go on, day by day, you have to wonder, what’s the end state? What is they trying to achieve here?

Pakistani government called Wednesday’s strikes as “an act of war.” And according to The Associated Press, citing the Pakistani military, 31 people have been killed.

It was believed that the mosque in the southern town of Ahmedpur East was the worst hit. Those strikes killed 14 people, including members of the family of Masood Azhar, the chief of Jaish-e-Mohammed, a U.S.-designated terrorist group that has conducted deadly attacks in India in the past.

India suspends water treaty with Pakistan in wake of the U.N. terror attack on March 17, 2015: An update from the Oval Office

He said that the international community view of India and Pakistan as nuclear powers makes them a big risk.

Pakistan said one target was a hydropower dam on a river. India suspended its water treaty with Pakistan last month because of the attack, raising hackles. The suspension was part of a series of measures India announced following the militant attack in April. Pakistan’s representative to the U.N., Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, earlier said the treaty’s suspension posed “an existential threat to the people of Pakistan.”

The strikes were a shame and President Trump hoped the fighting would end quickly, he told reporters in the Oval Office this week. He added that the two had fought for decades and “centuries.” Pakistan was founded in 1947.

“The Bomb Bombas”: The Indian crisis group’s senior analyst for India says there’s more strikes, and the government should have intervened sooner

Indian authorities held many emergency drills across the country to prepare for conflict. Volunteers rappelled from the top of a building as sirens went off and firecrackers erupted — apparently to imitate shelling in one drill in the Indian port city of Mumbai. Several top government offices and the parliament were temporarily in darkness because of drills in New Delhi.

Praveen Donthi, senior analyst for India with International Crisis Group, said outside parties should have intervened more forcefully to prevent military strikes. “This should have been stopped before it escalated,” Donthi said.

Inskeep: I’m interested in listening to you because you told me that India may have struck partly because of public pressure to do something. And now Pakistan is under pressure to strike back in some dramatic way because of public pressure to do something.

A reporter from India, Betsy Joles, is in Pakistan. NPR producer Omkar Khandekar in Mumbai contributed reporting.

Praveen Donthi, a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group, told Morning Edition that U.S. intervention is needed in the conflict, but that the president’s statement makes it sound like it is a “benign war that’s been going on and [that] they’re bound to stop at one point.”

India struck earlier in the week according to NPR’s Diaa Hadid. It was apparent to us that it would be it. National security advisers talking, trying to work it out. But now there are more strikes today. What do you think about that?

Inskeep: “I think so.” India says it’s attacking Pakistan’s air defenses. Let’s assume that’s true for purposes of this question. When you strike air defenses, it is often to clear the way for hitting something else, to clear out the airspace. Is there an expectation that India could strike yet again?

Donthi: They said it’s an ongoing operation. They said they hit nine sites, which they termed “terror infrastructure.” There could be more strikes on the way. Pakistan will retaliate strongly because the public pressure they are under is greater than the last time.

Donthi is talking about when India revoked Kashmir’s special status in and intensified the state’s crackdown on residents.

The tit-for-tat war in India and the world: a case of two powers, one nuclear power and two powers

Donthi: That’s right. There have been tit-for-tat diplomatic moves followed by military strikes. And every time there seems to be a demand for a more forceful strike, we don’t know what’s going to come next. This time, it looks very serious. But the world seems to be not taking it seriously. President Trump talked about how this conflict has been going on for many decades. In fact, he said “centuries,” which might make it sound like it’s a benign war that’s been going on and they’re bound to stop at one point. Both of them are nuclear powers and all they need is a mistake or miscalculation to make a difference. The world seems to believe that both of these powers don’t have complete control over the dynamics.

Donthi: Yeah, exactly. President Trump claimed to be close to both the powers, which we know is true, though India and the U.S. have been growing closer in the past 10 years. But there are historic ties with Pakistan as well. The U.S. can bring both the parties to the table, and it’s the superpower who is able to do that.