It's never over till it's over. The downing of the Pakistani reconnaissance plane over Sir Creek on 10 August was a swift and troubling reminder that the fallout of Kargil will be felt much farther afield and for much longer than the hostilities themselves. India-Pakistan relations were in a stall after Kargil, and the downing of the Atlantique aircraft helped send relations into a tailspin.
Pakistan's intrusion into Indian airspace appears to have been fairly well-substantiated notwithstanding Islamabad's denials, and that was the original sin. Even Washington, which criticised India for over-reacting, does not take issue with the claim that the plane strayed into Indian territory. Pakistan must therefore be held responsible for a rather foolish act. Foolish, for several reasons. For one thing, the Kargil war (and it must be reckoned as the fourth India-Pakistan war, given the intensity and length of hostilities) had just ended. Feelings were, and are, running high on both sides. Indian forces were, and remain, on a razor's edge in terms of their alert status: nobody wants a Kargil on their watch. Moreover, the Indian elections are just around the corner. Any security lapse at this moment could change the course of the elections.
But for all that, the Indian authorities would do well to re-examine their reaction. The reference here is not so much to the shooting itself, although a review of interception procedures would be helpful. Given the tensions and the significance of Sir Creek/Rann of Kutch, the downing of the plane was not particularly surprising. The Indian government says that Pakistan had violated Indian airspace over 50 times in the past year or so. It also claims that the Pakistani air force had intruded into the Sir Creek/ Rann of Kutch area eight times before the Atlantique was shot down. The question then is: why did New Delhi not promptly protest and demand an investigation by the Pakistani authorities as implied in the 1991 agreement on the prevention and handling of airspace violations? If India had made a public issue of the violations as and when they happened, the entire incident could well have been avoided.
The Sir Creek misadventure indicates that the 1991 agreement on airspace violations probably needs amendment. The agreement expressly forbids both sides from flying combat aircraft —including reconnaissance planes and from operating in a no-fly zone within 10 kilometres of the international boundary. But the latest act suggests that both sides have been fairly routinely violating the agreement.