India Pakistan: Rhetoric Does Not Win Wars

Representative Image by Wix AI

Despite the age of the narrative, wars are won by the side which can wield the big stick and not lofty words.

Theodore Roosevelt the 26^th President of the United States, from 1901 to 1909 famously said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." Colloquially known as Big Stick Diplomacy, the quote signifies importance of mediation backed by military readiness to achieve national objectives where force is a deterrent.

In the age of information and proliferation of media platforms such as Twitter now known as X or the current US President Donald Trump’s, Truth Social, “speak softly,” may sound anachronistic.

“Peace through Power,” is mantra of the day where power includes military capability and rhetoric.

In this context, recent statements by India and Pakistan’s defence and military leadership is possibly taking a cue from Mr. Trump’s bombast.

Thus, five months post Operation Sindoor jingoism and rhetoric by both sides is ongoing and, in fact has escalated.

In some measure the punitive expressions reflect tense relations between the two states, primarily driven by the anger in India generated by Pakistan based terrorist group The Resistance Front’s attack which led to the dastardly killing of 26 innocents in Pahalgam in April this year.

The manner in which the attackers selectively singled out men based on their religious identity has only added to the sense of anger and anguish in India.

The operation of retributive strikes by Indian Armed Forces on Pakistan’s terrorist hubs named – Sindoor – reflected the element of revenge for the women who lost their husbands in the terrorist attack.

Pakistan’s absolving itself of accountability despite clear evidence of role in sponsoring TRF an acolyte of the banned Lashkar E Tayyaba has added to the ire in India.

It is apparent that five months on this anger has not subsided and was also evident during the recent India Pakistan cricket contest for the Asia Cup. Ironically the two teams clashed thrice in the same championship thus regurgitating Operation Sindoor in public memory.

While these sentiments are natural and will not subside for some time, recent rhetoric by the top political and military leadership on both sides borders on the inexplicable when coming from those whose have a deep sense of implications for their words in professional terms.

The aggressive tone and statements denote an intent to warn the adversary of exceptional consequences in the case of a confrontation ahead.

While the intention of the strong message was to act as a deterrence, unless the same is seen as credible by the other, the reaction could be that of ridicule rather than anxiety of defeat.

Deterrence by denial is more effective than deterrence by threat of punishment as this will ensure that the enemy does not dare to exercise the option of aggression.

In the context of Pak threat of terrorism in J & K or other parts of India, there is no option but ensuring a well-knit counter infiltration and counter terrorism grid to prevent a terrorist attack or deterrence by denial.

While the option of retribution has to be not just a threat but a possibility in being, this will have to be demonstrated through sound military capability and capacity building promoting credibility.

Importance of “nuclear,” in the Indo Pakisan conflict dynamic cannot be ignored and thus rhetoric restrained.

The statements will only invite ridicule in professional circles especially where nuclear weapons states as India and Pakistan are involved.

Clearly the reasons for this heightened rhetoric by India are unclear for now. For Pakistan it may be a force of habit.

In case the Indian leadership is seeking to gain political weightage from the same, there is in fact no requirement of convincing the public of the strong resolve and commitment to peace through strength of the government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Moreover, circumstances globally and regionally have changed.

With US President Donald Trump on a high of stopping wars and Pakistan Saudi Arabia Strategic Defence Agreement, the overall security environment does not support an all-out military war of destruction which may trigger a nuclear exchange.

What the people in India want is prevention of a terrorist attack killing more innocent lives, a retribution may be emotionally satisfying but provides little relief to families of victims.

Focusing on deterrence by denial may prove more productive than waging a war for India particularly in the India Pakistan context given the nuclear overhang and the fact both sides do not have the potential for sustaining a conflict beyond limited period of perhaps 4 to 14 days.

Let the rhetoric be left to the amateurs in the media – mainstream and social while Indian military professionals adopt a measured approach that demonstrates their resolve to defend innocents to their counterparts – who will be convinced by actions not words.