Shayan Hassan
The events of February 26 and 27, 2019, called Operation Swift Retort, between India and Pakistan, marked an important moment in the long-standing tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.
The striking down of an Indian MiG-21 fighter jet and the subsequent capture and return of its pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, by Pakistan, captured global attention.
The pilot’s return was widely covered, the underlying military and political dynamics at play showed deeper lessons about deterrence, limited warfare, and the unstable balance of power in South Asia.
These events underlined the complexities of managing conflict between the two nations armed with nuclear capabilities, where miscalculations could have catastrophic consequences.
In this scenario, India’s military action on February 26, which it described as a “preemptive non-military strike” against a terrorist training camp in Balakot, Pakistan, was framed as a response to the Pulwama attack on February 14, in which a suicide bomber killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel.
India falsely accused Pakistan-based militant groups of orchestrating the attack, a charge Pakistan denied.
The Balakot strike was seen as a departure from India’s traditional restraint, signaling a shift toward a more assertive military posture under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership.
However, Pakistan’s response the following day, which included aerial engagements and the capture of the Indian pilot, demonstrated its resolve to counter any aggression, even within a limited conflict framework.
Moreover, the exchange focused on the tolerant relevance of deterrence theory in the context of nuclear-armed adversaries.
India has long attempted to utilize its conventional military superiority to target Pakistan for perceived provocations.
This strategy, often referred to as the “Cold Start” doctrine, projects limited, rapid military strikes aimed at achieving specific objectives without triggering a full-scale war or crossing Pakistan’s nuclear threshold.
Read More: New Evidences about Pulwama Attack favors Pakistan
On February 14, 2019, a tragic incident happened in the Pulwama district of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, where a convoy of vehicles carrying Indian security personnel was targeted in a suicide bombing.
In this regard, India accused Pakistan-based militant groups of involvement, but it is important to note that the perpetrator of the attack was a resident of Indian-administered Kashmir.
Pakistan has consistently denied any involvement in the incident and has condemned acts of terrorism in all forms.
The Pakistani government has repeatedly called for dialogue and cooperation to address the root causes of such violence, focusing on the need for peaceful resolution of disputes, including the longstanding issue of Kashmir.
In response to the Pulwama attack, India conducted an airstrike on February 26, 2019, targeting what it claimed was a terrorist training camp in Balakot.
Read More: Ambassador Asif Durrani reveals India’s funding for TTP
However, independent investigations and open-source satellite imagery have since revealed that no significant targets were hit, raising questions about the validity of India’s claims.
The following day, Pakistan demonstrated its defensive capabilities by shooting down an Indian warplane that had violated Pakistani airspace.
The pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, was taken into custody but was later released as a gesture of peace and goodwill by Pakistan aimed at de-escalating tensions.
In these tragic events, Indian anti-aircraft fire mistakenly downed one of its helicopters, resulting in the deaths of six or seven Indian airmen.
This incident received minimal coverage in Indian media, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.
Additionally, India’s claim that a Pakistani F-16 fighter jet was shot down during the engagement has been refuted by credible international sources, further undermining the narrative put forward by Indian authorities.
Pakistan’s response to the crisis was measured and responsible, reflecting its commitment to regional stability and peace. Pakistan demonstrated its willingness to prioritize dialogue over conflict.
The Pakistani government has consistently advocated for peaceful resolution of disputes and has called for international mediation to address the root causes of tensions in the region, including the unresolved Kashmir issue.
Pakistan remains committed to combating terrorism and has taken significant steps to eliminate terrorist networks from its soil, as acknowledged by global stakeholders.
The events of February 2019 underscore the importance of avoiding unilateral actions and strengthening dialogue and cooperation to address shared challenges.
Pakistan’s stance remains clear: peace and stability in South Asia can only be achieved through mutual respect, in respect to international law, and a commitment to resolving disputes through diplomatic means.
The doctrine emerged in response to India’s frustrations during the 2001-2002 standoff with Pakistan, when its slow mobilization allowed Pakistan to prepare its defenses and international pressure to mount, ultimately preventing a decisive military outcome.
India, on the other hand, has tried to direct this complex landscape by developing limited war options that it believes can be executed without provoking a nuclear response.
The assumption underlying this approach is that Pakistan, as a rational actor, would be deterred from escalating to the nuclear level due to the potential for international condemnation and the catastrophic consequences of such a decision.
However, as the events of February 2019 demonstrated, this assumption is not without its flaws.
Pakistan’s ability to respond effectively to India’s military action, while exercising restraint highlighted the challenges of achieving escalation dominance in a limited conflict scenario.
The role of international actors in de-escalating tensions between India and Pakistan cannot be overstated.
The United States, China, and other global powers played a crucial role in urging both sides to exercise restraint and avoid further escalation.
This external pressure, combined with the inherent risks of a broader conflict, likely influenced Pakistan’s decision to return the captured pilot and de-escalate the situation.
The broader implications of these events for regional stability and deterrence theory are profound.
The fact that both India and Pakistan could engage in limited military action without escalating to a full-scale war suggests that deterrence, at least in this instance, held.
Furthermore, the risks of miscalculation and unintended escalation remain significant, particularly in a region marked by deep-seated mistrust, unresolved territorial disputes, and non-state actors capable of provoking crises.
The Pulwama attack, for instance, demonstrated how non-state actors can exploit the tensions between India and Pakistan to further their own agendas, potentially triggering a cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation.
The events of February 2019 also explained the importance of addressing the root causes of the India-Pakistan conflicts, particularly the unresolved issue of Kashmir.
The Pulwama attack, which triggered the crisis, was rooted in the longstanding grievances of the Kashmiri people and the failure of successive Indian and Pakistani governments to address their aspirations.
Additionally, military action may provide a temporary sense of satisfaction or retribution, but it does little to address the underlying political and social factors that fuel the conflict.
Therefore, the February 26 and 27, 2019, events between India and Pakistan offer important lessons for deterrence theory, limited warfare, and conflict management in a nuclearized environment. The risks of miscalculation and unintended escalation continue to grow, underscoring the need for both sides to adopt a more measured and pragmatic approach to managing their rivalry.
So far, achieving this goal will require political will, strategic foresight, and a commitment to dialogue and cooperation, even in the face of deep-seated mistrust and hostility.
*The writer is the Editor of The Diplomatic Insight*
A dedicated writer and avid observer of the evolving world of international relations. My passion for geopolitics was ignited during my academic journey, where I excelled in competitive exams, and it has since become the cornerstone of my writing career. I am driven by an insatiable curiosity about the complex interplay of global forces that shape our world.
