India's unease at the sale of F-16s to Pakistan by USA is understandable but a failing Pakistani state with nukes is everybody's nightmare
In 1981, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi explicitly objected to the US proposal to sell 40 F16 fighter planes to Pakistan under the $3.2 billion package. She didn't trust either Islamabad or Washington DC. Both Pakistan and the US were knowingly pursuing doublespeak to placate India on its apparent usage, even as this deal followed the unconstitutional takeover of the democratic government in a Military coup by Gen Zia-ul-Haq. Indira's suspicion of Zia-ul-Haq was prove right with his devious misadventures with the Khalistan movement, covert operations in Afghanistan (Operation Cyclone with CIA), fanning Islamic extremism, and accelerating the atomic bomb program. Throughout, the US was complicit with either funding Zia-ul-Haq's nefarious designs or overlooking the same. Almost immediately, Indira Gandhi had to sign a $3.3 billion deal for Mirage-2000 fighter bombers on the rebound. The centrality of India as the foremost target of Pakistan's machinations was institutionalised and heightened in the Zia days.
Over 40 years later, the same F16s are back as the proverbial bone of contention as the US has yet again approved a $450 million sustainment program for the upkeep of the same Pakistani F16s that had hacked the Indian government in 1981. Like then, when the rationale of Pakistan's territorial security was bandied as the ostensible reason for supplying the same, today's supposed logic of 'current and future counterterrorism threats' is not making sense either, this side of the Line-of-Control (LOC). The External Affairs Minister of India rightfully slammed the move by stating, 'you are not fooling anybody by saying these things. The US above all would know the puerility of its statement with its experience with counterterrorism in neighbouring Afghanistan and the Middle Eastern theatre. The US stand is further exacerbated by the meaningless exercise in semantics that insists that the US action is a 'sale' and 'not assistance' - as this move reneges on the explicit stand of denialism in security sale or aid, taken by former US President Donald Trump, in 2018. Trump had done some plain speak about Pakistan's patented 'lies and deceit', and of Islamabad giving, 'safe haves to agents of chaos, violence, and terror'.
Ironically, the latest U-turn in US policies comes on the heels of the humiliating withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, barely a year ago. Is the US government naively mistaken or deliberately upping the ante against India, as alluded to by Indian politicians? More likely than not, neither is true - irrespective of the convoluted stated language, the US would surely know the inefficacy of F16 fighter planes in counterterrorism, as also have clarity on the higher importance of India as a regional and strategic 'pivot', as opposed to Pakistan.
So, what explains the counterintuitive accommodation of Pakistani aspirations by the US? The answer lies in the complex interplay of entities that compose and run the Pakistani narrative i.e., the military, politicians, clergy, etc. With taints of 'foreign conspiracy' (read, US interference) surrounding the political discourse, the US must drown the accusations of the principal opposition party i.e., the vehemently anti-US, Imran Khan, with visibilised accommodation. Secondly, the incumbent coalition government is reeling under severe governance pressures and desperately needs to demonstrate some diplomatic 'wins', even if the same were to accrue in the space of optics. Thirdly, besides the incumbent coalition government, the US would also be punting on the Pakistani Military to retain a semblance of relevance and legitimacy in the wary eyes of Pakistani citizenry - as the Pakistani Military remains an essential ally to countenance the continuing threats from Afghanistan, and to strike therein, just like it did recently by 'taking out' terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul.
While the Indian External Affairs minister stated the obvious when he reflected on the US-Pakistan equation, 'it's a relationship that had neither ended up serving Pakistan well nor serving American interests well' - what was left unsaid was the cost of complete abandonment of Pakistan which would potentially lead the struggling nation to the status of an Afghanistan, Yemen or Somalia and completely destabilize the region. Anarchy in a state with nuclear arms would have unimaginable consequences, so to that extent, the US cannot allow the Pakistani nation to 'fail', completely. Therefore, the US plea that the current 'sale' does not entail any new capabilities, weapons, or munitions towards the Pakistani preparedness is frankly true, albeit, done with a larger purpose that must remain unstated.
Whereas India continues to enjoy unprecedented waiver under CAATSA sanctions (imposed after India bought S-400 missile defense systems from Russia) to purchase cutting-edge weaponry and technological access from the US. With China emerging as the primary enemy of the US, the role and relevance of India in the US calculus can never be overemphasized. India has expectedly called the bluff of the US language in a calibrated manner to demonstrate its diplomatic muscularity without jeopardizing its strategic and growing relationship with the US.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. The views expressed are personal.)