When Imran Khan was elected Pakistan’s prime minister last year, the former cricketer was seen internationally as a political novice whose pledge to build an Islamic social welfare state belied the reality of an economy in deep crisis.
Yet last week, the erstwhile cricketing all-rounder demonstrated he was as deft and steely nerved a player on the political stage as on the sports pitch, coolly navigating Islamabad’s most serious crisis in relations with India in decades.
After India launched a “pre-emptive” missile strike inside Pakistani territory last week, sparking a Pakistani response and raising fears the conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours could spiral out of control, Mr Khan declared that he would repatriate an Indian air force pilot captured in the skirmishes as a “peace gesture” to India.
The move seems to have defused the immediate crisis. The decision also earned Mr Khan plaudits internationally and at home for appearing statesmanlike, and suggested he was sincere in his stated desire to improve relations with Pakistan’s longtime rival.
“What Pakistan needed to do is deflate the general view of [the country] as an irresponsible state, and he did that quite well,” said Ashley Tellis, a former senior US diplomat in India and now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think-tank. “He recognised from the onset of the crisis that an escalation was not in Pakistan’s interest.”
But Mr Khan still faces big challenges. Wrestling with a severe financial crisis and seeking a $12bn IMF bailout, Pakistan is under heavy international pressure to rein in the Islamist terror groups long used by its military as a proxy to target India in the disputed Kashmir province and beyond.
What is unclear is how far Mr Khan is willing or able to confront the powerful military — which traditionally dictates Pakistani security policy and which the prime minister’s opponents believe tacitly backed his election — over the issue, or whether the generals are willing to abandon groups they are widely believed to see as valuable strategic assets.
“At that highest level of abstraction, Imran realises these groups are not in Pakistan’s interest,” said Mr Tellis. “But the practical problem is that he doesn’t control the policy with respect to [them].”
Mr Tellis added: “He has to do enough to show the international community that he is cognisant of their concerns, but he cannot make the army so irate by confronting their core national security policies.”
Tensions ratcheted up quickly after a February 14 suicide bomber killed more than 40 Indian paramilitary police in Kashmir. The attack was claimed by Jaish-e-Mohammad, the Pakistan-based militant group, with New Delhi accusing Islamabad of giving “full freedom” to JeM to operate and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi vowing to retaliate.
Islamabad denied any role, with Mr Khan insisting he led a “new Pakistan” that understood harbouring terrorists was not in its interests. He promised to crack down on terror groups if India shared “actionable intelligence”.
But Mr Khan also warned Islamabad would not hesitate to retaliate against India for any military aggression, a point reiterated by General Javed Bajwa, Pakistan’s army chief, on a visit to troops on the frontline in Kashmir.
“We will not be intimidated or coerced,” Gen Bajwa warned. “Any aggression or misadventure will be paid back in the same coin.”
Nonetheless, India carried out a “pre-emptive” missile strike on a JeM terror training camp on February 28, jolting Islamabad by targeting a site in Pakistani territory that was outside the disputed region of Kashmir.
“An attack beyond Kashmir falls outside an unwritten understanding,” said a Pakistani cabinet minister, who was on Mr Khan’s crisis management team. “Outside Kashmir is a red line that means all-out war.”
Islamabad officials say Mr Khan had no choice but to respond. Pakistani planes tried to strike Indian military sites along the line of control dividing Kashmir and in the ensuing dogfights an Indian MiG was shot down and the pilot captured.
“He had to preserve and protect the sanctity of Pakistan’s own nuclear deterrence, to restore the red line India had broken,” said a foreign ministry official.
Even so, according to Mr Tellis, Pakistan’s military action was carefully calibrated. Mr Khan “was looking for ways to deliver the appropriate response that would signal Pakistan is not a pushover and would protect its interests, but would not be escalatory”, he said.
International diplomacy also went into overdrive, with the US, UK and EU putting intense pressure on Islamabad to calm the immediate tensions and take action over the terror groups on its soil.
It was at that point that Mr Khan announced he would free the captured Indian pilot. “Imran Khan’s response made him look statesmanlike. He remained firm but conciliatory without adding to India’s provocation,” said Hasan Askari Rizvi, an analyst on defence and security affairs.
Mr Khan’s approach also boosted his standing domestically. “The prime minister instantly became one of our most popular leaders in a very long time,” said Huma Baqai, a professor at the University of Karachi.
“The opposition which had clamoured against [him] on other issues was suddenly forced to become docile. Opposing the prime minister at this difficult time against India was just not acceptable.”
But acute financial pressures remain, and Pakistan has been threatened with being blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force for failing to take stringent action against terror financing.
Mr Khan is “not going to stand by and watch his country go to pieces”, said Najmuddin Shaikh, Pakistan’s former foreign secretary, who believed the prime minister would act against the Islamist groups. “Unless you curb their money trail you’re going to have a problem.”
The cabinet minister said Pakistan was at a turning point in its relationship with the extremists. “The army and the prime minister are together on this issue,” he said. “Inaction is not an option any longer.”
