The Hindu Editorial Vocabulary– Sep 13, 2022; Day 355

Three to tangle (Something jumbled or confused): On U.S. refitting Pakistan F-16s

The Pakistan factor should not undermine India’s close security ties with the U.S.

India is understandably upset with the U.S.’s decision to refurbish the F-16 fighter fleet (A group of warships organized as a tactical unit) of Pakistan. The fleet has been the backbone of the Pakistan Air Force since the early 1980s, upgraded, and replenished (Fill something that had previously been emptied) periodically. As the partnership between the two countries grew over the years, including and particularly in the defence sector, India continuously raised its concerns on this account with U.S. interlocutors (A person who takes part in a conversation). Successive U.S. administrations have maintained that the defence partnership with Pakistan, which is a major non-NATO ally (A friendly nation), is a critical component of its global war on terror — a point contested by India. In 2016, the U.S. Congress stalled (Deliberately delay an event or action) the Obama administration’s move to give more F-16 fighters to Pakistan. New Delhi’s apprehensions (Fearful expectation or anticipation) came true in February 2019, a day after the Balakot air strike by the Indian Air Force, when Pakistan deployed its F-16s to target Indian military bases close to the Line of Control. The Indian Army recovered debris (The remains of something that has been destroyed or broken up) of the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile fired by the F-16s. On September 7, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified a possible Foreign Military Sales worth $450 million for engine, electronic warfare and other hardware and software upgrades and spares for Pakistan’s F-16s. Though it said that the proposed sale does not include any new capabilities, weapons, or munitions (Weapons considered collectively), the move clearly marks a thaw (A relaxation or slackening of tensions or reserve; becoming less hostile) in the U.S.’s attitude towards Pakistan.

The External Affairs Ministry has chosen to maintain its silence on the issue, unlike its public expression of summoning (Call in an official matter) the U.S. Ambassador in 2016. The U.S. move strains (Test the limits of) its relationship with India which has been making great strides (to make very quick progress), though it is not without obstacles. New Delhi and Washington have been skilfully managing their differences over Afghanistan, the crisis in Ukraine, and the lingering (To hang about in a place beyond the proper or usual time) threat of U.S. sanctions under its Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. Washington’s new warmth with Islamabad also comes amid a flurry (A rapid active commotion) of India-U.S. diplomatic and military engagements. India and the U.S. have committed to deepening defence and security cooperation, but the indulgence (The act of indulging or gratifying a desire) of Pakistan dampens (Lessen in force or effect) that spirit. The Trump administration had tried to hold Pakistan accountable for duplicity in its approach towards terrorist groups operating from its territory, which amounts to running with the hare and hunting with the hounds (trying to support or go with two opposing views, causes or factions at the same time). To stay in Afghanistan, the U.S. needed Pakistan; now to stay away from Afghanistan it needs Pakistan even more. While the U.S. may have its reasons to keep Pakistan humoured and incentivised, India’s concerns are immediate and real. Terrorism against India has been Pakistan’s state policy for decades. Far from seeking accountability, the U.S. is rewarding Pakistan, and more on the same lines may in the offing (likely to appear or happen soon). India and the U.S. need to work to ensure that the spectacular gains made in bilateral ties are preserved and nourished.

Want to improve your vocabulary further? Download the Lists of Word-Meanings of Previous Months here.