Pahalgam attack: Why India can't count on the US in this conflict

As he clocked 100 days in office, United States President Donald Trump was and at war with pollsters. Only 38 per cent of Americans endorsed his handling of the economy, even fewer felt he was addressing inflation and tariffs right. He is agitated, and the flare-up in the Indian subcontinent is likely low priority at this point.

In any case, it is hard to gauge what Trump makes of the latest India–Pakistan confrontation over the Pahalgam attack of 22 April. He has turned American foreign policy on its head by befriending foes and unfriending friends.

Trump’s initial response was that the US “stands strong with India against terrorism”. Then, on the flight to attend Pope Francis’s funeral mass at the Vatican on 27 April, he told reporters, “I’m very close to India and I’m very close to Pakistan, as you know, and they’ve had that fight for a thousand years in Kashmir (sic). They’re going to figure it out one way or the other. I know both leaders (Narendra Modi and Shahbaz Sharif).”

A US state department spokesman told Reuters: “This is an evolving situation, and we are monitoring developments closely. We have been in touch with the governments of India and Pakistan at multiple levels. The United States encourages all parties to work together towards a responsible resolution.” Those remarks indicate advocacy of restraint.

In contrast, Chinese news agency Xinhua quoted its foreign minister, Wang Yi, as saying that China “supports Pakistan in safeguarding its sovereignty and security interests”. The speed with which—as per Eurasian Times—China has delivered PL-15 air-to-air missiles from its PLA (People’s Liberation Army) air force stock to Pakistan illustrates Beijing’s determination to deter India.

China has delivered PL-15 air-to-air missiles to Pakistan (Getty Images)

Turkish C-130 military transport aircraft, carrying undisclosed combat equipment, have also landed in Pakistan, suggesting Ankara, too, has closed ranks with Islamabad.

In contrast, Russia, by far the largest supplier of weapons to India, is and has been lagging in its deliveries to the Indian armed forces. Besides, Russia is currently closer to China than ever before, whereas the Moscow–New Delhi equation, unlike in the Indo–Soviet days, has become more transactional than based on trust.

Defence analyst Pravin Sawhney thinks China’s PLA ‘will support Pakistan military with its massive non-kinetic capabilities and regular supply of spares, ammunition, missiles and so on… Indian military will not have this war-winning advantage… PLA will help Pakistan military maintain superiority in the electromagnetic spectrum’.

The Western powers are drawn to India not by love but economic interests. France may sell Rafale combat jets to India but will not lend the kind of logistical underpinning China is extending to Pakistan. Britain may endorse India’s membership of the UN Security Council but will not countenance Indian aggression against Pakistan, even in self-defence.

The ambush of a Quetta-to-Peshawar train by Baloch nationalists on 11 March sparked speculation in Pakistan that the powers that be in that country were not going to take it lying down—for they believe India is underwriting the separatists.

Pakistan army chief General Asim Munir’s speech on 15 April reflected this fury. Indian agencies either did not decipher the Pakistani mood or ignored it. There is no doubt that in 1989, Pakistan began fomenting insurrection in the Muslim-majority Indian Kashmir, in retaliation for losing its eastern wing— which became independent Bangladesh— in a humiliating defeat to India in 1971.

India started returning the compliment from the 1990s.

The cycle of violent tit-for-tat continued with Pakistani terrorists killing around 165 people, including a Briton, in . After Modi came to power, attacks on Indian military installations—Uri, Pathankot and others—became a feature of the conflict.

International observers feel Modi’s reply to Pahalgam should be targeted at the staging post of the outrage. But if this is in Pakistan, Munir—desperate to regain his army’s standing in the face of ousted prime minister Imran Khan’s undiminished popularity—may find it hard to overlook the territorial violation. And therein lies the danger of escalation.

Many experts believe India has an edge in conventional warfare. Yet, India lost more soldiers than Pakistan in the Kargil battle of 1999.

Satellite imagery revealed that Modi’s 2019 reprisal failed to hit any target of consequence. In the ensuing dogfight between the two air forces, Pakistan got the better of India by knocking down an Indian fighter plane and capturing its pilot, who bailed out in Pakistan-occupied territory.

Washington did not uphold India’s contention that it had downed a US-made Pakistan Air Force F-16 fighter plane. So, the Indian armed forces will have to improve on their recent performance, to match the levels of 1965, 1967 (at Nathu La) and 1971.