Today, I'll keep it brief and focus on a review of the recent India-Pakistan conflict. I want to reiterate my point from yesterday: It's almost certain that India's long-cherished industrialization dream, which it has been dreaming about for years, has been shattered by this conflict. Why do I say that? Let's review the entire conflict, and everything will become clear.
It all started in Pahalgam, a picturesque town in Indian-controlled Kashmir, known as "Little Switzerland" and a popular tourist destination, with many Bollywood movies filmed there. On the afternoon of April 22, around 3 p.m., three gunmen suddenly emerged from the woods and opened fire at close range on a crowd of tourists, specifically targeting men. The tourists were having a picnic at the time. When the gunfire erupted, they scattered in all directions, seeking cover. However, the open and vast terrain offered no place to hide, resulting in heavy casualties. The final tally was 26 dead and at least 17 injured.
Interestingly, just the day before, U.S. Vice President Vance, who is married to an Indian woman, happened to be visiting India. In a rather unusual move, Prime Minister Modi, who is known for his frugality, gave three peacock feathers to Vance's children during their meeting.
Modi's reaction to the Pahalgam attack was also quite peculiar. Despite the frequent attacks in the conflict-ridden region of Kashmir, Modi seemed to pay special attention to this one and responded within hours. No wonder some Indian media later speculated that Modi might have orchestrated the attack himself. However, the media outlet that made this claim was quickly silenced.
The United States also played its part by fanning the flames. President Trump issued a statement on social media, saying that the U.S. stands with India in the fight against terrorism. With U.S. support, Modi wasted no time and, on April 23, without any investigation or evidence, convened a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security, demanding that the Indian military remain on high alert. Essentially, he was preparing to strike at Pakistan.
Pakistan, sensing the danger, denied any involvement in the Pahalgam attack and called for an impartial international investigation while also preparing for potential conflict. India, however, remained adamant and, on April 25, sporadic skirmishes began near Kashmir, escalating over time.
At that point, most countries around the world believed that if India were to launch a full-scale attack, it would easily overpower Pakistan. However, on May 1, something unexpected happened. Four Indian Rafale fighter jets approached Pakistani airspace, but when two Pakistani J-10C fighters were scrambled to intercept them, the Indian jets, sensing they were at a disadvantage, quickly turned tail and fled.
On May 2, it was reported that Modi was furious with the Indian Air Force's apparent cowardice and promptly relieved its Deputy Chief of Air Staff, Sujit Pushpakar Dahakar, of his duties. The position of Deputy Chief of Air Staff in India is akin to that of a Vice Commander, a high-ranking position. It's worth noting that Dahakar, a 40-year veteran of the Indian Air Force, likely knew when to fight and when not to. His decision to retreat indicated that he believed the battle was unwinnable.
This incident also revealed that Pakistan was not confident either. If the Indian jets had truly had the upper hand, they would not have retreated. Similarly, if Pakistan had felt confident about its own capabilities, it would not have let the Indian jets go after locking them on radar. Instead, Pakistan chose to let them escape, fearing that the conflict would escalate further.
On May 7, after a flurry of last-minute changes in command, India finally launched an attack on Pakistan, codenamed "Sindoor" (meaning "vermilion," a symbol of married Indian women). The first wave involved missile strikes on several Pakistani locations, which India claimed were terrorist strongholds but resulted in civilian casualties. The second wave saw the Indian Air Force preparing for an airstrike. As we have already detailed, the subsequent large-scale air battle was unexpected in its outcome: India lost five fighter jets, including three Rafales, suffering a 5:0 defeat.
This news sent shockwaves across the internet. Before the battle, people had imagined various scenarios of an India-Pakistan conflict, but few had anticipated such a one-sided outcome. The air battle involved over 100 fighter jets and lasted for more than an hour, making it the largest and longest air battle since World War II. One would expect mutual casualties in such a large-scale engagement. However, the result was a complete and utter defeat for India.
Pakistan's morale soared, especially since its J-10C fighter jets, which were previously considered inferior to the Rafale by many international observers, had proven their worth. However, Pakistan's later statements revealed its initial lack of confidence. It claimed that during the air battle, it had locked onto 15 Indian jets but chose to shoot down only five to avoid escalating the conflict further.
On the Indian side, despite initial plans to follow up the air battle with a ground offensive, the lack of air support forced them to halt their operations. Without air cover, a ground attack would have been suicidal. India's subsequent actions were even more puzzling. Instead of launching a second wave of combined air and ground attacks, they began deploying Israeli drones, seemingly to buy time while Modi frantically called for international support. The response was underwhelming: The U.S., which had previously expressed support, quickly distanced itself, with Trump calling India's attack on Pakistan "disgraceful." Vice President Vance, who had just visited India, stated that the U.S. would not intervene. European countries, which had previously shown support for India, remained silent. Only France quietly advised India not to deploy the Rafale jets in frontline combat anymore, citing concerns over its sales and reputation.
Russia, too, had already made it clear that it would not support India in this conflict. Suddenly, India realized that what it had thought would be an easy victory over Pakistan had turned into a disaster. Not only had it failed to gain any advantage, but it had also suffered significant setbacks. Domestically, however, the situation was different.
After years of Modi's rhetoric about India's strength, the public had been led to believe that a victory over Pakistan was a foregone conclusion. Admitting defeat was out of the question. So, India continued to control the domestic narrative, claiming victory while using whatever means it had at its disposal.
The results were disastrous: The few ground-to-ground missiles India launched either fell on its own territory or were intercepted. The Israeli kamikaze drones it deployed were shot down one after another, with the only notable "achievement" being the destruction of a food cart and a few bags of flour. India's S-400 air defense system, which was supposed to intercept Pakistani drones, ended up being intercepted by Pakistan's HQ-9 missiles. This rare sight in the history of warfare—surface-to-air missiles being intercepted by other surface-to-air missiles—was just one of the many humiliations India faced.
There were also unconfirmed reports of Indian missile depots being hit by Pakistani forces, causing massive explosions; several Indian air bases being attacked; 70% of India's power grid being knocked out; and frontline Indian troops being shelled. In just a single day, the Indian military, which had initially been on the offensive, found itself on the defensive, suffering attacks. Meanwhile, Pakistan launched its "Great Wall" operation, vowing to counterattack India's aggression.
At this point, the U.S., which had previously declared it would not intervene, could no longer sit idly by. If Pakistan continued its offensive, the U.S.'s long-term strategic layout in South Asia would be in jeopardy. So, the U.S. sent Secretary of State Rubio to negotiate with Pakistan, urging it to cease fire and even offering "aid" if Pakistan was willing to talk. The U.S. also pressured India to stop the conflict. The U.S.'s sudden change of stance was quite obvious: It was trying to play favorites, but in a rather clumsy and hasty manner.
However, whether Pakistan will immediately comply with the U.S.'s request for a ceasefire is still uncertain. Modi, who had been so aggressive and confident, was now left with a humiliating defeat. The domestic political fallout in India would be significant. Even if the conflict were to end, the opposition Congress Party would not let Modi off the hook.
So, let's delve deeper into why this seemingly small-scale conflict signifies the end of India's industrialization dream. A closer look reveals that Modi and India's strategic direction over the years have been quite muddled. If India wants to develop its manufacturing sector and replace China, it should maintain a peaceful environment in its neighborhood and manage internal religious relations to ensure decades of stable development. In the early days of China's reform and opening up, even though there were tensions with the Soviet Union, efforts were made to ease those relations for the sake of development.
However, India has been doing the opposite. It has been provoking conflicts with its neighbors, both with us and with Pakistan. If India wants to create its own version of the "Spice Route" to replace China's Belt and Road Initiative and establish a trade route from India to Iran, Israel, and Europe, it needs to maintain good relations with Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East. Instead, India has been suppressing Muslims domestically and supporting Israel internationally.
If India wants to attract foreign investment to boost its
评论
发表评论