Zia-Musharraf-Munir: Why the US needs Pakistan's dictators
India's access to Afghanistan and Central Asia was severed when a British sleight of hand saw Gilgit-Baltistan, part of the kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, go over to Pakistan in 1948. The occupation of Gilgit-Baltistan led to the creation of a 596 km border with China.advertisementWhen the 1947 assessment was prepared in the afterglow of World War 2, the US had already displaced Great Britain as the head of the informal Anglosphere — white majority Anglo-Saxon-ruled countries, the 'Five Eyes'.It also inherited British global interests, including those that created Pakistan. In 2025, US President Donald Trump, the head of his informal alliance, sits down for lunch with the most powerful man in Pakistan, Field Marshal Asim Munir. Pakistan's strategic location matters more than ever. The Israel-Iran war has been on for nearly five days now with Israeli jets overflying Iran with impunity, bombing targets including its nuclear facilities.Meanwhile, US bombers, carrier strike groups and fighter jets are moving in for what many believe will be decisive action to destroy Iran's underground nuclear enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow. The Trump-Munir lunch menu is not known, but the main course will undoubtedly be a long list of demands by both sides-assistance for the US-Israel war, the use of airfields and bases and most importantly, steering clear of a fellow Muslim country, Iran.Munir in return could ask for advanced weapons and for US intervention in mediating Jammu & Kashmir.THE BELOVED DICTATORSThe US is the world's oldest democracy, but it loves doing business with dictators. 'He's a b*****d, but he's our b*****d,' President Franklin D Roosevelt is believed to have said of Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo.advertisementIt was the military factor in Pakistan that brought it closer to the US. India and the US were in opposite camps during the Cold War. But Pakistan has been a willing accomplice ever since Field Marshal Ayub Khan's 1958 coup.Since then, the Army, Allah and America are the three As which it is said that have guided the destiny of a rentier state which has historically rented itself out to the US. What transpires over the Munir-Trump lunch could help answer the puzzle of how bankrupt Pakistan bounced back into favour in the White House in the first six months of the Trump administration.What followed was assistance from the western-dominated IMF and World Bank and the de-listing of the FATF. For New Delhi, the US's pro-Pakistan tilt possibly explains the West's reluctance to condemn Pakistan's state-sponsored terror, the direct cause of the May 22 massacre of Indian tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir.New Delhi will recall how Pakistani dictators have always leveraged global crises to their advantage. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan's dictator, General Zia ul Haq, turned his country into a frontline state in the West's proxy war against the Soviets. When Al-Qaeda struck the US on September 11, 2001, General Musharraf speedily became a major non-NATO ally against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, ironically, organisations his army actively created and supported.advertisementHamas's murderous attack on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023 has now culminated with Israel's direct attack on Iran. This is where Field Marshal Munir and his rentier state enter the picture. The past two engagements resulted in short-term gains for the Pakistan Army but long-term devastation for their country. General Headquarters Rawalpindi, which runs Pakistan, sees these as acceptable risks because they help in their long war against India.In 1979, the West turned a blind eye to Zia's nuclear weapons programme because of the dictator's strategic utility. Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons in the mid-1980s when it was a Western ally. When the US withdrew after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan, the Pakistan Army redirected the massive weapons stockpiles from the CIA's Operation Cyclone into Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir.Under Musharraf, it welded terrorists and strategic weapons to craft a unique strategy of nuclear blackmail — bleeding India through terror attacks and threatening nuclear weapons use if India retaliated militarily. When Pakistan's dictators are mollycoddled by the White House, they begin to develop an over-inflated view of themselves, just like the Aesop's Fable where a frog, deeply envious of an ox, begins to fill himself with air.advertisementThis could explain the startling turnaround in Gen Munir's behaviour this year, beginning with his infamous and blatantly communal 'Two Nations' speech on April 16, which led to the slaughter of Indian tourists in Pahalgam six days later, on April 22. Aesop's fable ends with the frog exploding. Munir reached that point when India unleashed a storm of missiles shattering Pakistani military bases on May 12. India put the 65-year-old Indus water treaty in abeyance, with Prime Minister Modi calling out Pakistan's nuclear blackmail and ending the distinction between state and non-state actors.The Pakistan Army called for a ceasefire on May 12, which India acceded to. Munir's salve was a Lazarus-like resurrection, anointing himself Field Marshal and declaring victory. Now in Washington, the Field Marshal is preparing himself for his big day with Trump, the star of another fairy tale — the Grimm's story of a nasty frog that turns into a handsome Prince after being kissed by a princess. Will President Trump play ball?advertisement(Sandeep Unnithan is an author and senior journalist. He is the Editor-in-Chief of Chakra Newz, a digital media platform)(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
7 minutes ago
- India Today
Modi's farmer firewall: The subtext of India's trade standoff with US
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi stood on stage at the National Conference on Agriculture in New Delhi on August 7, the political atmosphere was already thick with tension. Only a day earlier, US president Donald Trump had stunned observers by announcing a fresh 25 per cent tariff on a range of Indian exports—pharmaceuticals, auto components, steel—hours after US representative Ricky Gill left the capital following the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) meeting. It was an unmistakable escalation in a relationship that has seen friction bubble beneath the surface for in his response, didn't mince words. 'India will never compromise on the wellbeing of its farmers, dairy workers and fishermen,' he declared, adding pointedly, 'Even if I have to pay a personal price, I'm ready for it.' For domestic audiences, it was a reaffirmation of a longstanding nationalist plank. For Washington, it was a warning shot—one that underscored just how far apart the two democracies remain on a comprehensive trade agreement, especially on Modi government has long positioned rural India at the heart of its political and economic strategy. This isn't just about votes—it's about livelihoods, cultural values and the perceived threat of foreign encroachment on food sovereignty. And no sector illustrates this divergence with the US more acutely than over a decade, US trade negotiators have pushed for deeper market access into India's massive but highly protected farm economy. The most contentious demands have revolved around dairy, poultry and genetically modified (GM) crops. American agribusiness giants see India—a country of over 1.4 billion people—as a high-potential growth market for surplus US farm produce. But India has resisted what it sees as a backdoor entry for products that violate religious norms and food safety standards or could destabilise millions of small farmers. The dairy dispute is a classic example. India mandates that any imported dairy must come from cattle not fed bovine-derived blood meal—a restriction rooted in Hindu dietary beliefs. US dairy producers view this as an unscientific non-tariff barrier. Likewise, India maintains high tariffs on poultry imports, particularly frozen chicken legs—a commodity where the US is globally competitive. Though India lost a WTO (World Trade Organization) dispute over its earlier ban on US poultry (citing avian flu risks) in 2015, its domestic poultry industry and small-scale producers continue to oppose any significant market opening, fearing a flood of cheap imports that could devastate local GM crops, the fault lines are even deeper. India has approved GM cotton but consistently resisted introducing GM food crops into the consumer market, citing bio-safety and farmer dependence on proprietary seed technology. US-based lobby groups had been pushing India to open up for GM variants of mustard, brinjal, rice, etc. Incidentally, most of these are indigenous crops and face resistance from farmer lobbies in India. Trade lobbyists also argue that the acceptance of GM variants in human consumption crops would mean shutting the doors of importers in matter is tangled in legal complexities, with Supreme Court judges Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, in July last year, pronouncing a split verdict on the validity of the Centre's 2022 decision granting conditional approval for environmental release of GM mustard crops. The matter is now listed to be heard by a bigger US is one of the world's largest GM crop exporters and sees India's caution as a form of protectionism. Washington has demanded streamlined regulatory approval processes and wider acceptance of agricultural biotechnology—demands that remain political landmines in India's polarised discourse around food, science and sovereignty. 'The resistance to GM crops is linked to the food security of the country, retaining the rights and control of the crop for the farmers. This should not be lost at any cost,' says Ashwani Mahajan, national co-convenor, Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), an RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) affiliate working in the economic groups such as the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, along with Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, anchored by SJM, have been vehemently opposing the opening up of the farm sector, including for GM crops. Layered onto these specific disputes are broader philosophical differences on the nature of farm support US frequently challenges India's minimum support price (MSP) mechanism—particularly its generous procurement and stockholding policies—as trade-distorting under WTO norms. But for India, the MSP regime is a non-negotiable pillar of its food security architecture. It guarantees a floor price to farmers and ensures buffer stocks for the government's massive food distribution schemes, which benefit hundreds of millions of low-income the BTA (bilateral trade agreement) discussions, India's red lines on agriculture were being pushed in return for no significant concessions by the US,' says Pradeep Mehta, founder secretary general of CUTS, a leading think-tank focused on trade negotiations. 'It is all 'take' and no 'give'—and that is not the template for a balanced negotiation.'After the massive farmers' protests of 2020-21, which forced the Narendra Modi government to repeal three controversial farm laws, any move seen as undermining MSPs would be political suicide. As Modi himself hinted in his speech, the 'personal price' of protecting farmers is one he is prepared to pay—a statement that may resonate with rural voters but effectively freezes any room for agricultural concessions in Indo-US trade the Trump administration, this hard line is frustrating. His return to office has revived the 'America First' playbook, and India's tight controls on agri-trade are once again being framed as 'unfair'. Trump views trade not as a long-term strategic alignment but as a scoreboard of economic wins and losses. His doctrine of 'reciprocity' demands that if American goods face high tariffs or non-tariff barriers, equivalent measures should be imposed in return. Under this rubric, India's continued duties on US wine, almonds, apples and processed foods are now back under the Trump administration has already started reviewing India's access to the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)—a duty-free benefits programme India lost during Trump's earlier term. India has quietly lobbied for its reinstatement, arguing that its removal hurt small and medium exporters. But Trump's current team appears even more combative, signalling that no such restoration will come unless India makes concrete concessions on agricultural market access, digital trade and tariff impasse is not limited to bilateral channels. The divide also plays out at the multilateral level, especially at the WTO, where India often leads the Global South resistance to reforms pushed by the US and EU. The most prominent of these disagreements is over food subsidies. The US wants tighter rules, more transparency, and stricter caps on what it sees as trade-distorting backed by countries like Indonesia and South Africa, argues that food security concerns in developing nations must take precedence. Modi's government, in particular, has projected India as a champion of Global South concerns—something that puts it on a collision course with US trade orthodoxy.'I am absolutely confident that PM Modi will not compromise on issues related to farmers, dairy and agriculture,' says Suresh Prabhu, former Union commerce minister. 'As commerce and industry minister in the first Modi government, taking care of these was our guiding principle while dealing with all countries, WTO and trade negotiations. We deployed several tools to protect these critical, vital national interests.'During Prabhu's time, New Delhi had resisted US pressure on reaching the deal at WTO's controversial Agreement on Agriculture, which would have pushed India to phase out the MSP mechanism and limit buffer stocks. India had used this stalemate to resist other conversations, such as building rules of e-commerce, thus further frustrating Washington. It all added to the friction, which has now come to a head. Trump's tariff escalation announcement is widely viewed in New Delhi as a retaliatory strike—not just against the stalemate in trade talks but also against India's growing strategic independence. Ironically, this escalation came just after India had hosted the IMEC convening, which included representatives from the US, EU, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. For India, IMEC is perhaps its most ambitious diplomatic balancing act yet—linking the country to western infrastructure partnerships while maintaining its non-aligned voice in BRICS and the Global South. That balancing act now appears under unpredictability only sharpens this tension. While Modi has built a working relationship with multiple US presidents—from Barack Obama to Joe Biden—Trump's transactional style and tendency to announce major policy moves via press statements or social media make quiet diplomacy increasingly difficult. Indian negotiators are wary of investing political capital in deals that could be upended result is a chilling effect. Even as India and the US continue to engage in high-level dialogues on defence, semiconductors, AI and space collaboration, the trade portfolio remains conspicuously frozen. While the US commerce secretary and India's trade minister have reiterated their commitment to resolving differences, there is no roadmap or timeline for a free trade agreement (FTA)—a deal once seen as the crown jewel of Indo-US ties.'There is first a need to build domestic consensus on agricultural reforms and create buy-in at home. Domestic ownership of agri reforms needs to be the foundation for any potential agricultural trade liberalisation. No other path is politically viable,' recommends the Modi government, this freeze may be a calculated choice. Instead of conceding to Washington, India is looking elsewhere. Trade agreements with the EU and Australia have moved forward, and bilateral investments with the UAE and Saudi Arabia are on the rise. India is also spearheading alternative payment systems, like Unified Payments Interface (UPI) linkages and rupee-dirham trade, to insulate itself from currency weaponisation and future economic the bigger message lies in Modi's August 7 speech. It was not just about agricultural policy. It was a declaration that India will chart its economic future on its own terms—even if that means losing trade benefits or enduring tariff pressure. The personal tone he adopted—acknowledging the political cost—signals that India's strategic autonomy is no longer a theoretical concept. It is the guiding principle of its economic US may still be India's most important partner in defence and technology, but on trade, the fault lines are growing too visible to ignore. Whether those lines can be bridged through backchannel diplomacy or will become permanent fractures will define the next phase of this complex, high-stakes relationship. For now, the signal from New Delhi is clear: India's farmers, and the politics they anchor, will not be sacrificed at the altar of a fast-tracked trade to India Today Magazine- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
37 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Daniella Weiss: Settler godmother
In July, British journalist Piers Morgan asked Daniella Weiss, an Israeli settler leader appearing on his show, how she felt about the killing of 20,000 Palestinian children in Gaza since October 7, 2023. Ms. Weiss, dressed in a crisp white button-down shirt and a blue-and-white patterned headscarf, responded with a grin, 'Arabs around should stop attacking Israel.' Mr. Morgan repeated the question six more times, before pressing her: 'I will give you one last chance to offer some sympathy, or empathy or sorrow about the deaths of 20,000 children in Gaza. Are you capable of doing that?' Ms. Weiss's initial response was a laugh, followed by repeated claims that Arab children are taught 'to hate Jews'. 'You know what, you couldn't give a damn, could you? You don't care and all you want is all the Palestinians gone,' said a visibly irritated Mr. Morgan before wrapping up the session, with a smiling Ms. Weiss remarking, 'The audience will judge'. Ms. Weiss, a prominent figure in the settler movement since the 1970s, which has promoted illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, returned to the spotlight in recent years after Hamas's October 7 attack. After the war began, Ms. Weiss stepped up her campaign to resume Jewish settlements in Gaza, while settlers went on rampages in the West Bank against the local Palestinian communities. Born in 1945 in Bnei Brak, an Orthodox Jewish suburb of Tel Aviv, then part of the British-ruled Palestine, Daniella Weiss grew up attending a religious school in Ramat Gan before studying English literature and philosophy at Bar-Ilan University. Her father, born in the U.S., and mother, born in Poland, were members of Lehi(the Fighters of the Freedom of Israel), a Zionist paramilitary group founded in 1940, in Palestine. The 'miracle' of 1967 After the 1967 war, in which Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, Gaza and Sinai from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria, a new wave of Zionist activism pushed for settlements in the occupied territories. Ms. Weiss, who described the outcome of the war as 'a miracle... in the dimensions of a Biblical scene', joined Gush Emunim, a right-wing extremist settler movement. 'I felt that I wanted to be an active part in this miraculous happening,' she later said about her association with the settler movement. Ms. Weiss and her family settled in the West Bank settlement of Kedumim, where she served as the Mayor from 1996 to 2007. Since the 1970s, settlements have flourished in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Today, roughly 4,50,000 Jewish settlers live in the West Bank and 2,50,000 in East Jerusalem. In 2005, more than 10,000 settlers in Gaza were pulled back by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, following five years of violent Hamas resistance during the Second Intifada — a decision Ms. Weiss calls 'a mistake'. She claims hundreds of Jews are today ready to move into Gaza immediately if they get government permission. A close ally of Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's far-right Finance Minister who advocates the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza and its resettlement with Jews, Ms. Weiss is currently affiliated with the Nachala Settlement Movement, which works to expand Jewish settlements in disputed areas. Nachala, which calls for 'conquest, immigration and settlement in Gaza', says it has already registered 500 families for future settlement in the enclave. The group wants the war to continue 'until the enemy is destroyed'. Its main slogan: 'Twenty years later, we are returning to the Gaza Strip.' In November 2024, Ms. Weiss went to northern Gaza in an IDF-sanctioned trip to survey locations for Jewish resettlements. Since the October 7 attacks, violence by Jewish settlers against the local Palestinian population has surged. Sixteen Palestinian communities have been driven from their land and 175 Palestinians killed. The escalating attacks prompted the Canadian and British governments to impose sanctions on Jewish settler leaders, including Ms. Weiss. But Ms. Weiss does not seem to care. For her, the borders of the Jewish nation stretch from 'the Euphrates in the east to the Nile in the southwest' (this would include a host of modern states in West Asia and Africa such as Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and part of Egypt). As for Gaza, she is unequivocal. 'Gaza Arabs will not stay in the Gaza Strip. Who will stay? Jews,' she said recently. 'The world is wide. Africa is big. Canada is big. The world will absorb the people of Gaza. How do we do it? We encourage it.'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Vladimir Putin dials Brazil's Lula a day after speaking to PM Narendra Modi amid Donald Trump's tariff war
A day after talking to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin called his Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to discuss cooperation among the BRICS countries amid US President Donald Trump slapping tariffs on both New Delhi and Brasilia. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's office said that Vladimir Putin initiated the call, which included a discussion of his talks with the US on Ukraine and Brazil-Russia cooperation.(Reuters photos) According to a Kremlin statement, Putin and Lula reaffirmed their determination to further strengthen their countries' strategic partnership and coordination within BRICS. The Brazilian presidential office said that Putin initiated the call, and it included a discussion of his talks with the US on Ukraine and Brazil-Russia cooperation. Earlier on Thursday, President Lula called Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and both reinforced the goal of expanding bilateral trade to more than $20 billion by 2030, among other pressing matters. The BRICS nations, especially Brazil and India, have become targets of Donald Trump's tariffs. While Trump justified a 50 percent tariff on imports from India by linking it to New Delhi's purchase of Russian oil, Brazil has also seen high tariffs on its exports to the US in the Republican's efforts to end the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro on charges that he attempted a coup. Brazil expanding trade with India, China to offset Donald Trump's tariffs Brazil has responded to the 50 percent tariff imposed by Donald Trump by seeking to expand trade with other partners, including China, India and Southeast Asia. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has said Brazil will not target the US with reciprocal tariffs in response to the 50% trade levy Trump placed on its goods, but will gauge interest for a joint response among its BRICS partners. He has already spoken to Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi, and the US tariffs were also among the topics discussed, although the details are still not clear. While Brazil's oil producers gained relief from the tariffs, concern has emerged over the country's dependence on Russian diesel after Trump slapped an extra tariff on India for buying Russian energy.
