The ‘ramp-off’: Will Munir let India and Pakistan step back from the brink?

medium nocaption121005890In my last column I warned of the dangers of the “Jihadi General”, Asim Munir. Not only to India, but, even worse, to his own people. After the Pahalgam terrorist strike of April 22, India’s “Operation Sindoor” on May 6, Pakistan’s failed retaliation on the night of May 7, and India’s subsequent response that people are calling “Sindoor 2.0,” those who want the hostilities to end are talking of a “ramp off.”In plain language, how both India and Pakistan can veer off from the brink of an all-out war.I agree. War, as I said earlier, is the option of last resort. We want peace not only inside our borders, but also, for the sake of ordinary people who war hurts the most, peace on the other side too. But to ensure peace, Pakistan must give up supporting and abetting Islamist terrorists and militia. Religion is a private matter, between human beings and their chosen deities or modes of worship. When it turns into a state ideology, it is usually at the expense of the common man or woman who must toil for their daily bread.A ramp-offThe concept of a “ramp-off” is rooted in pragmatism. For Pakistan, it is about finding a face-saving exit from a confrontation it cannot sustain. For India, it is about securing guarantees against future cross-border terrorism while maintaining its strategic and moral high ground. The challenge lies in reconciling these divergent objectives in an environment poisoned by mistrust, historical grievances, and the ambitions of powerful actors—most notably Pakistan’s army chief, General Asim Munir.Advocates of a “ramp off” for Pakistan talk of giving our enemy a face-saving opportunity. Why not? As long as the ramp-off is not only to save Asim Munir’s skin. He needs to step, or at least stand, down. In addition, his India-hating posture should be thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the world and of Pakistanis themselves.This will save Pakistan a lot of trouble in the future. It will also stand their civilian leadership, tattered and divided as it is, in good stead when they have to stand up against their parasitic and oppressive army. The now jailed former cricketer and prime minister, Imran Khan, was the only politician in Pakistan’s recent history who had the guts and the gall to push back against the army. The last one to do so, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, also a former prime minister, was not only deposed, but hanged by another military dictator and Islamist, Zia-ul-Haq.Such is the history of this unfortunate and now clearly failed state. Is Pakistan on the verge of another splintering? With the unrest in Baluchistan, this is not impossible to conceive, especially with some support from the Pathans and Afghans, who make up a sizeable section of the populace in Quetta.But to return to the present face-off, Pakistan may put whatever spin it likes to pretend that it has given India a bloody nose. After which we could return, not to cross-border terrorism as usual, but to normal, civilized neighbourly relations. Given the narrative war already accompanying the ground offensive, Pakistan could highlight its alleged resilience in the face of India’s military operation or amplify the costs India incurred during Operation Sindoor.Such posturing would allow the Pakistani military establishment to appease domestic audiences and maintain its grip on power. For India, the terms are clear—de-escalation is acceptable only if Pakistan commits to dismantling the infrastructure of cross-border terrorism. New Delhi has repeatedly signalled that it is willing to look the other way if Pakistan reins in its proxies, but any recurrence of attacks like Pahalgam will invite an even harsher response. medium nocaption121000090The obstacleWhat, then, is the hurdle? In two words, it is Asim Munir.Yes, the path to de-escalation is obstructed by a singular figure: the Jihadi General. It is Munir who has reinvigorated the divisive rhetoric of the two-nation theory, framing Pakistan’s identity in opposition to India’s existence. It is Munir who, in the wake of Pahalgam, issued belligerent statements promising to teach India a lesson. His rhetoric is not merely posturing; it reflects a deeper strategic calculus within Pakistan’s military establishment, which thrives on perpetuating the Indo-Pak rivalry to justify its outsized influence over the state.It is Pakistan’s army chief who raised the Islamist bogey of the two-nation theory. Therefore, it behoves him to back down if not backtrack. If, instead of teaching India a lesson, he has learned the lesson that India has taught him, he will turn tail or at least keep quiet.If that is too much to expect, then, from what the indications are thus far, India only gains by climbing up the escalatory ladder in this conflict. We already have the higher moral and material ground; let us also, as the hawks on our side suggest, gain an insurmountable strategic higher ground too.If, on the other hand, Munir tries some other atrocious and adventurous gambit, he will only bring suffering to his own people. I hope that the military-political-economic Pakistan establishment, and their foreign handler, succeed in reining him in.Pakistanis already on edge, judging from their panic-stricken responses to Indian attacks, cannot withstand the fallout of a broader conflict. International pressure, coupled with India’s overwhelming conventional military superiority, would inflict disproportionate suffering on them.Pakistan’s military has long used the spectre of India as a unifying force to suppress internal dissent and maintain its dominance. Breaking this cycle requires courage from within Pakistan’s power structure. I suspect they lack the courage or integrity to prioritize the welfare of its citizens over their own selfish, even parasitical exploitation of the Pakistani people. If the rogue state and its reckless generalissimo do not bend, what should India do? Let us take our cue from Munir’s own choice of words: go for the jugular.The time to show magnanimity is over.