There is an age old adage that “Everything is fair in love and war”. In response to Pakistan sponsored Uri terror attack on 18th September, 2016, reviewing and reconsidering Indus Water Treaty (IWT) by India as one of the soft and bloodless options that make a great sense. Water has always been a weapon of war since ancient times. Many wars have been fought for water and water has been used as weapon in many wars throughout the history. Water is an important resource for meeting basic needs of human survival and other economic activities. Moreover, by controlling flowing water it can be use as weapon. Therefore, in trans-national water system, countries at up-stream always have an strategic advantage in regulating and controlling flow of water. Even the way water is released by country at up-stream can work like ammunition. Even under ambit of treaty, arms of down-stream country can be twisted by regulating water skilfully. Moreover, only one treaty between two countries does not work in isolation, but, both the countries must respect and follow other treaty also. If one country does not follow Shimla Agreement, then why other country should follow IWT. Therefore, reviewing IWT by India make a good sense to mend the ways of Pakistan make use of terrorist against India.
In media there are some voices that PM Modi is taking hard line stand against Pakistan. Right since his inauguration as PM in May, 2014, PM Modi took initiative to improve and maintain better relations with its neighbouring countries, especially with all the members of SAARC countries including Pakistan. He called head of state/government of all members of SAARC countries at his inauguration and he always talked about development of entire SAARC region. He offered to launch satellites for benefits of members of SAARC countries for better communication and education among SAARC member countries. He also emphasized the need for enhanced trade among member countries for mutual benefits. Most of the SAARC member countries responded positively to initiatives of PM Modi except Pakistan. PM Modi has shown enough good gesture by proposing to help people in Pak occupied Kashmir during recent flood. Pakistan does not want to respond to good gesture and progressive diplomacy. PM Modi invited Pakistan for bilateral talks at Secretary level, but Pakistan spoiled the same by meeting separatist leaders in Kashmir before talk despite India’s advice not to do so. After cancellation of talk, Pakistan started unprovoked firing across the border for which India had no other option except to respond in similar manner. And India responded in very clear and unambiguous terms and India dealt the matter with iron hands. India and Pakistan fought four wars since 1948 to 1999, and all with heavy cost to Pakistan. Failing miserably in conventional warfare against India, Pakistan pursued the path of cross border terrorism. Though all the previous governments in India have acted tough during conventional warfare, but they did not respond adequately against Pakistan sponsored cross border terrorism. So, Modi has rightly taken a tough stand against Pakistan on cross border terrorist infiltration. PM Modi and the then Defence Minister Jaitely were right in their approach that Pakistan should bear the adequate cost of its misadventure in order to create a credible deterrence to its recurring misadventure. The meaningful talk can take place only if effective deterrence is created. Though sometimes tough action against Pakistan by India goes in favour of Pakistan by uniting various factions in Pakistan, but this should not be a prohibitive condition for pre-emptive action. However, unnecessary display of jingoism and machismo in electronic media is not warranted and sometimes it goes in favour of adversary.
Pakistan and some sympathiser of Pakistan argue that non state actors in Pakistan are waging war against India. This arguments were given in 1948 and 1999 war also from Pakistan side. There is nothing like non state actors in Pakistan that wage proxy war against India. They are fostered by military, political and religious establishment in Pakistan to be used mainly against India. Basically Pakistan is born out of anti India sentiments and nurtured on the same sentiments since its coming into existence. Moreover, Pakistan even after having same/similar ethnicity, language , history and culture it became puppet and religious laboratory in hands of some of the rich Islamic countries of West Asia. It is ridiculous that they don't introspect the reason for loosing Bangladesh and not serious about consolidating Balochistan, rather continuously they waste their energy on continuously harping on Kashmir issue. So, Indo-Pak relation must be seen in that perspective.
There is also some opinion in media that India can not attain its goal of attaining the status of regional/global power without having good relations with Pakistan. As far as India becoming a regional power or super power is concerned, Pakistan can not come in the way, as this path goes through economic development. Once economic power is achieved , it can achieve both hard and soft power to be in comity of powerful nations. And Modi is pursuing the same vigorously. So Modi's approach was absolutely appropriate in dealing with Pakistan.
There is a perception in some sections of political commentators on international relations in South Asia that dangerous trend in nuclear South Asia will emerge once Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) led by Mr Narendra Modi comes to power in India after 2014 Parliamentary elections. Many such arguments made is based on any unfounded logic. First BJP and Modi have been painted as Hindu hard liner that is not true as during 12 years of Modi's rule in Gujarat no communal riots have taken place and economic development of minority community is phenomenally high compared to many other states inIndia. Modi will prove to be a statesman not playing in hands other nations and that is also a sure sign to establish peace with neighbours. He is pro -development politician and knows very well that development and peace go hand in hand. And for achieving this, good relation with neighbours is essential.
However, in South Asia, there are two nuclear armed countries i.e. India and Pakistan who have major territorial disputes since creation of Pakistan in 1947 and that led to series of war between India and Pakistan. As of now India is committed to no first use of Nuclear weapon as per its nuclear doctrine, but there is no such commitment from Pakistan. The collaborative relations between ISI of Pakistan and jihadi militants and helplessness of political establishment in Pakistan are well known to the world. If militants lay a hand on nuclear weapon in Pakistan, its consequences may be disastrous not only for India, but for Pakistan also. In this situation India has to calibrate its nuclear doctrine if nuclear weapon is passed on in hands of non state actor such as jihadi militants and Taliban. In such situation, a statesman like Modi will not tolerate any non sense activity and if required will give befitting replies. Now the action of Pakistan will decide that what type of response they want