Shownotes Transcript
You want work to be less hard work. You hear an ad for MHR, so you reach out. We connect your department systems, which leads to real-time data sharing that uncovers new insights, which empower your decision makers and triple monthly sales, which leads to high fives and awkward hugs. You say a big thank you. We say you're welcome.
M-H-R. The science behind HR, payroll, and finance. The science behind a new world of work. Discover more at mhrglobal.com. Work management platforms. Ugh. Endless onboarding, IT bottlenecks, admin requests. But what if things were different? We found love.
Monday.com is different. No lengthy onboarding. Beautiful reports in minutes. Custom workflows you can build on your own. Easy to use, prompt-free AI. Huh. Turns out you can love a work management platform. Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.
Welcome to The World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. Today with me, Alex Dibble and Toby Gillis. India and Pakistan, two neighbouring nuclear nations whose relationship has long been delicate. Yet tensions reached boiling point when a terror attack in the disputed region of Kashmir killed 26 people last month.
India has accused Pakistan of supporting the militants behind it, which Pakistan denies. India's response has been unequivocal. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Tuesday that he had given his armed forces freedom to decide how to respond. A day later, a Pakistani minister claimed they had credible evidence of an imminent strike.
Our guest today is a Washington-based South Asia analyst, Michael Kugelman. Michael, what, in your view, is the likelihood of a hot war between Pakistan and India?
I mean, the good news is that I think a hot war, an all-out war is quite unlikely. I mean, yes, they have fought multiple wars with each other, several of them over the Kashmir issue, but those all happened before they became former nuclear states. And so what we've seen in more recent years are some limited exchanges that don't last very long. And I think that that's likely what will happen in this case.
Of course, though, one can never be complacent when you're talking about two nuclear neighboring nemeses. It's a very unusual situation to have two countries that have nuclear weapons and have fought multiple wars in the past. I think that it's important to assume that things will not escalate to a worst case scenario, but
You know, the longer the two countries engage in military action against each other, the more you have to worry about escalation risks getting to a nuclear level. And, you know, this is not something you'd have to worry about if these were not two countries with nuclear weapons. As you mentioned, there have been escalations before. Mostly these have been pulled back from the brink. Does this time feel any different?
I mean, it's hard to say because the level of anger in India is particularly high. And, you know, that's because of the nature of the attack that precipitated this crisis. You know, Kashmir, of course, does have a legacy of violence and militancy, but rarely are civilians hit. I think for that reason, the level of anger is particularly high in India, certainly within the government, but also within the public. And I would also note that based on my conversations with friends and contacts in India, I
It's a sense that India feels that this time they need to do things a bit differently in the sense that they haven't properly restored deterrence in that there have been other attacks in India, minister Kashmir and India more broadly in recent years that.
And India has responded with airstrikes meant to target terrorist infrastructure, but that these attacks continue to periodically happen, including the one that happened most recently. And so I'm getting a sense that the government feels that this time it needs to restore deterrence once and for all. And that suggests, if you think that through, that one airstrike or a series of airstrikes on terrorist infrastructure might not be enough from an Indian perspective. And that
then raises the likelihood of, you know, Pakistani retaliations and, you know, back and forth. And that suggests that things could be different. I really do think that at the end of the day, both countries will not want to go beyond, you know, an initial strike and a retaliation. But given the sentiments in New Delhi, we can't rule out something different. Michael, J.D. Vance was in India when the Kashmir attack happened. How do you anticipate the Trump administration handles this?
The fact that Vance was there when this attack happened is, I think, quite significant and suggests that those behind the attack wanted to get the U.S.'s attention, to get it to focus its attention on Kashmir, which is something that the U.S. government tends to not pay much attention to, quite frankly. It views it
And this is what India wants as a bilateral dispute for the U.S. or any other external player not to get involved with. But in terms of what we could expect for the U.S. role, I mean, of course, it's very hard to make predictions about the Trump administration because it's unpredictable by definition.
And we've seen some inconsistent messaging. Initially, there was a lot of strong message of support and solidarity with India after the attack happened. But then you had President Trump in recent days essentially say that, you know, India and Pakistan will figure this out eventually. But then in more recent days, we've had the State Department indicate that it planned to engage with both India and Pakistan, saying,
If you look at the history, there is a precedent of U.S. governments intervening during India-Pakistan crises, including the most recent one in 2019. You know, Mike Pompeo published a memoir a few years ago, and he basically said that the U.S. played a very significant mediating role and prevented the situation from escalating to a nuclear risk. So there is that precedent.
We all know that President Trump himself, he views himself as a negotiator, as a peace broker. He's been trying to do that in Gaza and Ukraine. So one would think that he and his administration would welcome this opportunity to play that role. The U.S. has warm relations with India, but it also has pretty workable relations with Pakistan. This administration has indicated a desire to cooperate with Pakistan in particular areas, including Afghanistan.
counterterrorism. So that suggests that the US might be seen as a viable mediator by both India and Pakistan. Of course, that would only happen if Trump wants to get involved. Are there any other interested parties?
I think if we're talking about external involvement, external mediation, we should talk about the U.S., but also talk about other countries. In particular, I would emphasize the Arab Gulf states, the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Qataris, just because they have very deep relations with both India and Pakistan, and they have a lot of leverage. They supply significant amounts of energy, and there's also a precedent. The UAE, for example, actually helped mediate Pakistan
a truce between India and Pakistan in early 2021 along their disputed border. So I think that mediation, obviously, the more this crisis escalates, if there actually is a conflict, the more likelihood you would have mediation attempts. I'm sure the U.S. would be a part of it, but I do think that other players would be a part of the story, too.
Michael, something that to me was a bit of a surprise was when Narendra Modi declared that India will pursue every terrorist and their backers to the ends of the earth. He switched from Hindi into using English. Was that significant, do you think? Absolutely. I mean, this is a very striking development about this particular crisis that I think is different from what we've seen in some of the more recent previous crises.
not just the Indian side, but also the Pakistani side are trying to appeal to global audiences. They're essentially trying to get buy-in for their position from the international community. And for India, it essentially wants the world to rally behind India and see it as a victim of terrorism and embrace India's position that it's repeatedly been victimized by Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and that India deserves support.
and a free hand to deal with that problem, including staging kinetic actions. Whereas with Pakistan, you know, its position is that it's been wrongly blamed for an attack that it had nothing to do with. And that it wants to paint India as the aggressor because India, according to Pakistan's position, has sponsored terrorist attacks in Pakistan. At the end of the day, they both view the importance of
of global narratives, particularly, you know, global media coverage. This is very important for these two countries. And that helps explain why interseeing these appeals and these speeches made in English. I would also note that both India and Pakistan have held briefings for foreign diplomats to, you know, again, get their side of the story to convey to these diplomats and hope that they'll take that back to their bosses back home.
Michael, using your knowledge of the history of this relationship, can you think of anything that might patch up India and Pakistan's differences?
Yeah, I mean, it's interesting that the last few years have actually been fairly stable for India-Pakistan relations. You know, they signed a truce along their disputed border in 2021. Things have been relatively calm. And, you know, I remember a few years back, an Indian ballistic missile, pardon me, an Indian supersonic missile suddenly flew across the air into Pakistan and
And, you know, that was that was huge. And India said that it was a mistake that happened during a training exercise. Pakistan was thought that India might have done it on purpose to test Pakistan's response. If relations had been worse, that could have led to a conflict. So I think that both sides in recent years have actually had an interest in a relationship that is relatively workable. I think that neither side wanted to have to be distracted or burdened by another crisis.
But, you know, even when things are going relatively well with the relationship, it could only take one triggering act for all that progress to be lost. And that's exactly what happened in terms of what needs to be done now to avoid.
military conflict, I think that the space in the immediate term, there's not much space to avoid that. I think that mediation can work in due course, but not until we get to a point where there already has been some Indian military action taken and Pakistani responses. 2000.
2008, there was a peace deal underway and they made a lot of progress. But then Pakistani terrorists carried out this horrific terrorist attack in Mumbai. And that essentially ended all hopes of a peace process. So that's why I say that even if things look like they can be going well, it just takes one spoiler, one triggering act to set back all the progress.
OK, Michael, thank you. That is Michael Kugelman, a Washington-based South Asia analyst. The Kashmir attack isn't the first time in recent weeks that a US official has been on the ground as a politically motivated attack has occurred. Last Friday, on April the 25th, we analysed how the timing of a car bomb in Moscow, where Donald Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff was, might signal a shift to a new guerrilla campaign by Ukraine. Do scroll back and listen.
For now, though, thank you for taking 10 minutes to stay on top of the world with the help of The Times. We'll see you tomorrow. You want work to be less hard work. You hear an ad for MHR, so you reach out. We connect your department systems, which leads to real-time data sharing that uncovers new insights, which empower your decision makers and triple monthly sales, which leads to high fives and awkward hugs. You say a big thank you. We say you're welcome.
If I come off of the GLP-1, it's not going to automatically make my weight yo-yo back.
$149 GLP-1s? Now that's Noom smart. Get started at Noom.com. Real Noom users are compensated to provide their story. Individual results may vary. Not all customers will medically qualify for prescription medications. Compounded medications are not reviewed by the FDA for safety, efficacy, or quality.