In the past few days, a definitive conclusion can be drawn: India's path to industrialization has been irrevocably severed by the recent India-Pakistan conflict, and it is unlikely to recover.
Let's start with a recent incident that has been widely circulated by Indian media and social media: claims that India shot down a Pakistani F-16 fighter jet over the Patankot region within Indian territory. This claim is rather amusing when examined closely. As we know, the top three global arms exporters are France, Russia, and the United States. On May 7th, Pakistan announced that it had shot down three Rafale fighter jets, one MiG-29, and one Su-30. This immediately placed France and Russia, two of the major arms suppliers, in an awkward position. France, in particular, had been touting the Rafale as a formidable aircraft, even claiming it could go toe-to-toe with fifth-generation fighters. The price tag was also exorbitant—each Rafale sold to India cost around $244 million, nearly four times the price of a J-10C. Yet, it was easily neutralized in combat, without any chance to fight back.
The United States had previously sold F-16s to Pakistan, but during this conflict, Pakistan did not deploy them. Why? It's rather ironic: the U.S. was concerned that if their F-16s were shot down, it would damage their reputation for selling the aircraft globally. Additionally, they were wary of upsetting India, so they forbade Pakistan from using them. As a result, it was France and Russia that ended up looking bad. However, it seems that India, in its frustration, decided to take aim at the United States as well. In an attempt to regain some face, Indian media and individuals began spreading rumors that a Pakistani F-16 had been shot down. Pakistan, of course, denied this, with its information minister quickly debunking the claim, stating that the Pakistani Air Force had suffered no losses and that the reports were false.
So, why would India, after its defeat, harbor such resentment towards the United States? To understand this, we need to look at the origins of the India-Pakistan conflict. Many might recall that recently, U.S. Vice President Vance played a rather unfortunate role on the international stage. On April 20th, Vance met with Pope Francis in the Vatican to discuss immigration policy for less than 20 minutes. The next day, Pope Francis passed away. On April 21st, Vance arrived in India, and on April 22nd, a gun attack targeting tourists in Kashmir occurred, leaving 26 people dead.
Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated rapidly thereafter. While the first incident could be considered a coincidence, the second one might not be.
For a long time, India has maintained the belief that by keeping good relations with both the U.S. and Russia, it could easily handle Pakistan, which it never really considered a serious threat. India saw Pakistan as a minor annoyance that could be dealt with at any time, while focusing primarily on China as its main rival. But did Vance share this mindset? It's possible. Recall the recent "leak scandal" involving the Houthi conflict, where Vance was described as the most senior official in a group chat that excluded President Trump. Trump, a businessman by nature, dislikes war, but Vance might not. It's plausible that Vance encouraged Modi to take action against Pakistan. Trump might have realized this and recently announced that he would not run for president in 2028. Instead, two potential candidates emerged: Vice President Vance and Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Rubio. Originally, there was only one "heir apparent," but now there are two. Moreover, Rubio's position as National Security Advisor was taken from Waltz, who was more aligned with Vance in advocating for aggressive foreign military actions. Trump reassigned Waltz to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, stripping him of real power, while giving Rubio a more influential role to "balance" Vance.
Subsequently, Vance, who was eager to engage with the Houthi forces, was part of a group chat that excluded Trump. Recently, Trump declared that the U.S. would not attack the Houthis, even if they continued to target Israel. Israel, which had been bombing the Houthis with U.S. support, was left feeling abandoned and furious. Then, on May 7th, India attacked Pakistan. One might think that Trump would be pleased, but he was not. Instead, he condemned the action as "shameful" and called for an immediate ceasefire between India and Pakistan. This reaction seems odd at first glance, but when viewed in the context of recent events, it reveals a complex web of motivations and consequences.
Given this background, it's understandable why India would spread rumors about shooting down a U.S.-made F-16. Their mentality seems to be: "You encouraged us to fight, and now that we've suffered losses, you turn on us and scold us. You're heartless and unreasonable!" This conflict has had far-reaching implications for India. Before the conflict, India enjoyed a favorable geopolitical environment: it had good relations with both the U.S. and Russia, and it seemed to have no serious rivals in South Asia. With the U.S. focusing on containing China, India had an opportunity to attract some of the international industrial transfers. What should India have done? It should have focused on improving its business environment to fully capitalize on this opportunity. But India's greed got the better of it. Instead of focusing on its own development, it chose to please the U.S. by attacking Pakistan, thinking it would be an easy victory. Instead, it kicked a hornet's nest.
The defeat in this conflict means two things for India:
First, it has effectively gambled away its national fortune. From now on, Pakistan will not let this go, and India has created a situation where it must constantly face the threat of war. Second, for decades, India has acted as the bully in South Asia, oppressing its neighbors. Many countries in the region have long suffered under India's dominance. After this defeat, they will see an opportunity to break free from India's control, even if it means engaging in armed conflict. In such a volatile environment, how many multinational corporations would be willing to invest in India on a large scale?
In conclusion, this minor India-Pakistan conflict has effectively ended India's path to industrialization. It's similar to how the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894-1895 ended the Qing Dynasty's industrialization prospects. Neither India nor some Americans likely anticipated this outcome. The wheels of the great geopolitical upheaval are already turning at an accelerated pace.
评论
发表评论