Balakot, a town in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, was destroyed during the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. After the earthquake, the town was rebuilt with the help of Pakistan’s government and the Saudi Public Assistance for Pakistan Earthquake Victims. Since then, the town has reestablished itself as a center for manufacturing and education.
Balakot Pakistan airstrike
Indian Air Force carried out an airstrike on a Pakistani airfield on February 26 claiming to have killed at least 300 Pakistani troops and civilians. The attack has sparked new tensions between the two countries. The next major terrorist attack could trigger a further escalation.
After a suicide bombing on a Central Reserve Police Force convoy in Kashmir, the Indian Air Force responded by airstriking a militant training camp in Pakistan. Indian officials said the raid had destroyed the Jaish-e-Mohammed group’s training camp. However, villagers in the area said only one person was injured.
The airstrike raised questions about India’s credibility and its communications strategy. Yet, the Indian government has refused to accept that it had failed to intimidate Pakistan. The airstrike on Balakot has left a precedent and set the stage for future action. It is also an indication that India will use air power against terror camps in Pakistan’s mainland. Tomorrow, it could be Bahawalpur. This is a significant point that should be considered by US policymakers.
The Airstrike on Balakot has also dispelled the myth that air power is always escalatory. It has also proven that stand-off weapons are effective for escalation control and precise targeting. The Pakistan Army is probably not going to change its tack after the Balakot attack. The Pakistan Army will likely stick to its current policy regardless of who is in power in the country.
The Modi Government has defended its actions by claiming it was an “intelligence-led” operation, which is an accurate description of the circumstances. It also clarified that the attack was an act of self-defence. It should be noted, however, that there are no reports of civilian casualties.
While India has not officially confirmed how many militants were killed by the airstrike, unnamed sources have cited the death toll as 200 or 300. However, the airstrike on Balakot Pakistan has shown India’s political and military determination to change Pakistan. By provoking fear and punishment, it can ensure that Pakistan never carries out another terror attack in India.
Despite the fact that Indian air force did hit a militant camp, some western diplomats have denied it. The camp was not there for the past few years, and it may have been moved. In order to carry out the airstrike, the Indian military used a 12-flight formation of fighter jets, an airborne early warning and control aircraft, drones for surveillance, and Israeli-developed air-to-surface missiles and smart bombs.
It is unclear how the Israeli missile could have hit the IAF chopper, as a short-range surface-to-air missile can engage targets up to 20 kilometers away. The missile was launched into the air without visual identification. However, two critical omissions led to its being fired.
Impact on India’s election campaign
After the attack on Indian paramilitary forces in Pulwama, Kashmir, a suicide bomber from Pakistan claimed responsibility. India condemned the attack and responded by carrying out airstrikes in Pakistan’s Balakot terrorist camp. The airstrikes were the first use of conventional air power by a nuclear-armed state in the territory of another country. The Indian government claimed that the airstrikes were preemptive and the choice of targets was based on credible intelligence. However, Pakistan released one of its pilots, as a gesture of goodwill.
The attack on Indian paramilitary forces in Pakistan is likely to feature prominently in the upcoming Indian election campaign. The attack will also raise issues such as national security and the fight against terror. There is a risk that the Balakot Pakistan airstrike will trigger a polarization of voters and swing votes in favor of one or the other party.
The Indian government has denied that missiles were fired at Pakistan following the Balakot airstrike, but the Hindustan Times and Reuters have reported that India had sent missiles to the area. Even if there were no missiles launched from India, the BJP has endorsed the threat, and has used the incident to rally support for its candidates.
Modi’s use of the Balakot airstrike and Pakistan in his election campaign has been a recurring theme. The prime minister’s use of the incident, framed it as an action against terrorism and the destruction of civilian life. It also mobilized anti-Pakistan sentiment.
The Balakot Pakistan attack is part of India’s wider strategy to reshape the international environment. Jaishankar said in November that India is undergoing a new phase in foreign policy under Modi. The new policy aims to prevent Pakistan’s support of terrorism and cultivate traditional Pakistani supporters like Saudi Arabia.
This episode has spurred international diplomatic and military action to isolate Pakistan and punish Pakistan for its actions. During the subsequent election campaign, the government’s focus on terrorists as its foremost external foes has been diminished. The results of the national elections, meanwhile, have been unexpected.
The BJP has used an Islamophobic rhetoric to gain electoral support by accusing its opponents of siding with Pakistan and the terrorists. The government is using this issue as a way to signal toughness while also satisfying its Hindu majority supporters, who believe that India needs to assert itself more strongly. However, the opposition has largely avoided the issue in the election campaign.
The Indian election is being watched closely by the world, and policymakers in Washington are eager to find out who will lead the country. The election results will have a profound impact on the future of India, which is the West’s most important partner in Asia. With relations between Beijing and Washington deteriorating, the relationship between the two countries has never been more important.
The attack on India’s paramilitary forces in the disputed region of Kashmir also raised questions about India’s security policy. Despite Pakistan’s claims that the strike killed dozens of terrorists, India was unable to prove that it had actually shot down an F-16. As a result, Pakistan was under pressure from world leaders to act against terrorists.
Implications for nuclear war between India and Pakistan
Although the attack in Balakot, Pakistan was a response to a terror attack, it is not entirely clear whether it is an indication of a shift in thinking by either country. The Indian response was largely limited by the fear of escalation to nuclear war. This fear was especially acute following the open nuclear war between India and Pakistan in 1998. But the airstrike against the Jaish-e-Muhammad group, which killed 40 Indian soldiers, could signal a change in Indian thinking.
Although the incident has a number of important implications for India, it is crucial to note that India needs to continue to improve its deterrence. Its dwindling defense budget and capacity deficit may lead to unfavorable results in the initial stages of escalation. While the Balakot airstrike may have helped the BJP’s nationalist agenda, it also hurt India’s credibility and image abroad.
Clearly, India would not have wanted this war, but the sharp emotional rhetoric and unintentional escalation of the conflict could have led to an eventual nuclear war. However, both nations have their own reasons for wanting to avoid war, and the presence of nuclear weapons in their arsenals may have prevented it.
The latest escalation in the conflict began with a suicide bombing by a Kashmiri militant. The bombing was carried out near an Indian paramilitary convoy. The terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility. India’s prime minister Narendra Modi warned of a “crushing response” to the attack. As a result, India responded with air strikes in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. In response, both sides exchanged artillery fire, which further intensified the heightened tensions.
Although the nuclear arsenals of both countries are small compared to other nuclear powers, they are capable of unleashing massive amounts of destruction on civilian targets. An unconstrained nuclear exchange between the two nations would be one of the worst ever. Not only would there be a devastating radioactive fallout, but it would also have long-term effects on the environment.
The recent nuclear crisis in Kashmir showed the risks of escalation and reinforced Pakistan’s deterrent. The full spectrum deterrent strategy plugs the gaps in the nuclear environment and strengthens deterrence on all tiers. It also brings the international community into South Asia, which is essential to preventing further escalation.
The Mirage III and Mirage V fighter-bombers of Pakistan’s Air Force are most likely to carry nuclear weapons. These planes are concentrated at two military bases. One of the bases is Masroor Air Base, which houses the 32nd Wing with three Mirage squadrons. It is located five kilometers northwest of Karachi and features unique underground facilities and weapons-handling capability.
As India asserts its right to attack inside Pakistan, it risks establishing a new normal in South Asia. This would be disastrous for peace, security, and stability in the region. India claims that it only wants a limited conflict but the recent crises are embarrassing for its foreign policy.
