
Pakistan's Nuclear Threat To India Is Real
By Nantoo Banerjee
It may be good that the latest armed conflict between India and Pakistan ended quickly before it could blow up into a full-scale war leading to massive destruction of life and property and economic disaster in both the countries – maybe more so in Pakistan than in India. However, the abrupt end of the conflict, which seriously damaged Pakistan's military infrastructure, seemingly due to Pakistan's possible nuclear threat is a matter of major concern. Of all the nine nuclear armed states, Pakistan is probably the world's biggest terrorist state that had secretly sheltered the world's most notorious, violent and wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden in an army cantonment area.
Pakistan's ways are equally unpredictable. Formerly a close ally of the United States, Pakistan is now heavily dependent on China, militarily and economically. Reports suggest that a bewildered Pakistan, cornered by a barrage of Indian missile attacks on its military assets, was considering a nuclear response to teach India a lesson. Pakistan is the world's seventh largest nuclear-armed power with some 170 nuclear warheads — all targeted at its single major enemy, India. Nuclear arms are Pakistan's key weapon of mass destruction. Thankfully, Pakistan is yet to develop substantially other three weapons for the purpose – biological, chemical and radiological.
Unlike India, Pakistan pays little attention to the so-called nuclear doctrine. In the case of war with India, Pakistan will not even blink before using its nuclear warheads with the 'first strike' option if it finds an Indian military aggression deeply penetrating through its defences causing a major setback that can't be reversed by conventional means. The 'first nuclear strike' option could be lethal as it can defeat the other belligerent nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war. The Pakistan armed forces and government were clearly bamboozled by the extremely swift moves by the Indian defence forces that nearly rattled its war machinery.
In the early hours of May 10, Indian missiles hit Pakistan's Nur Khan air base in Rawalpindi, where the headquarters of the nuclear-armed country's military is located. A thoroughly confused Pakistan probably considered the nuclear option. It is possible that the US had a tip-off about Pakistan's intention. India may deny but the White House had promptly responded by asking the two belligerent nations to go for immediate ceasefire. And, both sides agreed and the fight stopped abruptly. In fact, US President Donald Trump upstaged both New Delhi and Islamabad to announce a 'full and immediate' India-Pakistan ceasefire hours before the Indian government and Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif confirmed the development.
Within days after the ceasefire, Prime Minister Narendra Modi served a strong message amid tensions with Pakistan, declaring that 'India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail.' In his first address to the nation after 'Operation Sindoor', Prime Minister Modi said, 'No nuclear blackmail will be tolerated anymore. Terrorist attacks on India will have to face a befitting reply, and the response will be on our terms.' He said India will not be intimidated by nuclear threats. 'Any terrorist safe haven operating under this pretext will face precise and decisive strikes,' the prime minister added. However, it may be difficult to entirely ignore the Pakistani 'nuclear blackmail' factor until the country is able to neutralise Pakistan's nuclear war capability which is singularly directed towards India. Tiny Pakistan, only 25 percent of India's geographical size, has as many as 170 nuclear warheads – 10 less than India's, according to the think-tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). As of January 2024, SIPRI estimated there were 12,121 nuclear warheads worldwide. Of these, about 9,585 were held in military stockpiles, with 3,904 actively deployed – 60 more than the previous year. The US and Russia together account for more than 8,000 nuclear weapons.
Pakistan's nuclear warheads can be delivered from the land and air. Pakistan is yet to have the sea delivery capability for its nuclear arsenal. Today, a single nuclear warhead can kill hundreds of thousands of people, with lasting and devastating humanitarian and environmental consequences. Jihadist Pakistan's 'nuclear blackmail' can't be taken lightly as the country had spent billions of dollars to build the nuclear arsenal and deployment system marking India as its sole target. It has developed long-range ballistic missiles which can deliver nuclear warheads even beyond 3,500 kilometres.
Pakistan's longest-range missile system is the Shaheen-III, which was first tested in 2015 and had an estimated range of 2,750 kilometres. Pakistan is even ahead of Israel and North Korea in nuclear warhead stocks. Pakistan is reportedly one of the four countries yet to deploy nuclear warheads. The other three are: India, Israel and North Korea. However, deployment of nuclear warheads is not a big deal. They can be done within hours depending on the delivery system and the specific requirement. Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) launched from land can be deployed within minutes. The same is the case of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
Despite the massive production of nuclear weapons by the 'Enabled Nine' year after year, none of them has shown the courage to use them against their adversaries in a war since the first and the last nuclear strikes were made by the US, dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki towards the end of the 2nd World War in August, 1945. The US was the first country to produce atomic bombs during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project, testing the first nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945. Today, the nuclear weapons produced by China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the US are several times more powerful than the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are capable of decimating the entire world.
In this context, the two pertinent questions are: Will Jihadist Pakistan ever stop its frequent state-sponsored dangerous terrorist attacks on innocent Indians on Indian soil and 'nuclear blackmail'? Probably not. A Jihadist nation, which can secretly shelter Osama bin Laden, the world's most dreaded terrorist and mass murderer, and kidnap and butcher a young 'The Wall Street Journal' scribe, Daniel Pearl, near Karachi just because he was a Jew, can hardly be trusted. Pakistan's nuclear threat against India may be real. (IPA Service)

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Gulf Today
2 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Modi opens ambitious rail project connecting Kashmir to rest of India
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday inaugurated one of the most ambitious railway projects ever built in India, which will connect the Kashmir Valley to the vast Indian plains by train for the first time. Dubbed by government-operated Indian Railways as one of the most challenging tracks in the world, the 272-kilometre line begins in the garrison city of Udhampur in Jammu region and runs through Jammu and Kashmir's main city of Srinagar. The line ends in Baramulla, a town near the highly militarised Line of Control. The line travels through 36 tunnels and over 943 bridges. The Indian government pegged the total project cost at around $5 billion. One of the project's highlights is a 1,315-metre-long (4,314-foot) steel and concrete bridge above the Chenab River connecting two mountains with an arch 359 metres (1,177 feet) above the water. Indian Railways compared the height to the Eiffel Tower in Paris, which stands 330 metres (1,082 feet), and said the bridge is built to last 120 years and endure extreme weather, including wind speeds up to 260kph (161 mph). Narendra Modi (C), with other dignitaries, after the inauguration ceremony of the Chenab Rail Bridge in Kashmir. AFP Modi visited the Chenab bridge with tight security, waving an Indian tri-colour flag before boarding a test train that passed through picturesque mountains and tunnels to reach an inauguration ceremony for another high-elevation bridge named Anji. After opening the unprecedented projects for the public, PM Modi addressed the large gathering and described them as the ones reflecting the new strength and power of Jammu and Kashmir. "Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla railway line projects, these are not just names, these are the identity of the new power of Jammu and Kashmir. It is a proclamation of the new power of India," Modi said. A Kashmiri schoolboy along with his teacher travel in Vande Bharat Express train from Srinagar after it was inaugurated by Narendra Modi on Friday. AP Modi highlighted the umpteen challenges that the engineers and workers faced in bringing this project to life and also spoke about the government's resolve and commitment in bringing prosperity to Kashmir. "This project was immensely challenging, given the difficult terrain. But, our government chose to challenge the challenges," he said. The prime minister also helped launch a pair of new trains called "Vande Bharat" that will halve the travel time between Srinagar and the town of Katra in Jammu to about three hours from the usual six to seven hours by road. Narendra Modi visits Chenab Rail Bridge during the inauguration of the Kashmir rail link. AFP Modi travelled to Kashmir on Friday for the first time since a military conflict between India and Pakistan brought the nuclear-armed neighbours to the brink of their third war over the region last month, when the countries fired missiles and drones at each other. The conflict began with a gun massacre in late April that left 26 people, mostly Hindu tourists, dead in Jammu and Kashmir. India blamed Pakistan for supporting the attackers, a charge Islamabad denied. "This is a symbol and celebration of rising India," Modi said of the Chenab Bridge which connects two mountains. A decorated Vande Bharat Express train which will run between Katra and Srinagar is parked at a station in Sangaldan after it was inaugurated by Narendra Modi. AP Modi called it "an extraordinary feat of architecture" that "will improve connectivity" by providing the first rail link from the Indian plains up to mountainous Kashmir. It is expected to halve the travel time between the town of Katra in the Hindu-majority Jammu region and Srinagar, the main city in Kashmir, to around three hours. The new route will facilitate the movement of people and goods, as well as troops, that was previously possible only via treacherous mountain roads and by air. 'VERY SPECIAL MOMENT' It was a moment of immense pride and excitement for a group of students who had an opportunity to meet PM Modi onboard the inaugural run of the Vande Bharat Express connecting Katra to Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir. Narendra Modi interactsg with school children inside the Vande Bharat train during its inauguration. AFP These students, selected through various competitions, were among the first passengers of the high-speed train flagged off by the PM, and shared their overwhelming experiences. One student remarked, "He interacted with us and asked what we did to get the chance to come here. There were many competitions, like poem recitation and drawing, from which we were selected. I felt very proud after meeting our Prime Minister. He is such a famous personality, and it is very rare to meet someone like him." "It felt very special and made me feel extremely proud because he is the Prime Minister of the was in front of everyone gets the opportunity to meet him," she added. Another student from Delhi Public School (DPS) Katra said, "I never thought of meeting PM Modi in my lifetime. He is my idol, and I felt very nice and fortunate to meet him. He asked us what competitions we participated in, and we told him how we got selected. After winning these competitions, we got the opportunity to enter the train and meet the PM." Agencies


Arabian Post
a day ago
- Arabian Post
How Post Operation Sindoor Modi Doctrine Stifling India's Diplomatic Outreach?
By Nitya Chakraborty 26 days have passed since the temporary truce in the limited four day war between India and Pakistan taking effect on May 10 this year. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been talking of his three point doctrine since then, the most important of which is no dialogue with Pakistan unless the ruling regime of Islamabad shuns terrorism. Pakistan Prime Minister on the other hand is claiming as usual that his government had no role in the Pahalgam massacre of April 22, Pakistan strongly believes in fight against terrorism. Pakistan is ready for bilateral talks to discuss all the pending issues including terror. In this backdrop, fierce campaign has been launched by both India and Pakistan to influence the views of the foreign countries including the permanent and non-permanent members of the United Nations. Seven parliamentary delegations from India are on a visit to 33 nations in their diplomatic outreach. Two delegations have already returned. Congress Lok Sabha member Shashi Tharoor is still staying in the US at the head of the delegation to apprise both the U.S. government officials and the UN members the Indian viewpoint why Pakistan is the fountainhead of terrorist actions on Indian soil and why it is not possible to have any bilateral dialogue with Pakistan. Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has himself visited four countries so far as a part of his government's global outreach. Simultaneously a high powered delegation led by former Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is in USA talking to the Washington administration and the UN members. The South Asian diaspora in USA is betting for a Bilawal-Tharoor debate on the current India Pak tensions. Bilawal in his press meet has talked of a bilateral meet between India and Pakistan to discuss the issues on the lines of Pakistan PM's position. Tharoor has to focus only on terror and Pak links to terror. He can not touch the issue of any bilateral dialogue at the moment as per post Operation Sindoor Modi doctrine. Herein lies India's dilemma of positive global diplomatic outreach. So far, the feedback from the Parliamentary delegations talks abroad and the Indian embassies own efforts for outreach is this – all foreign leaders and the diplomats in the course of discussions are mentioning two things. First they are all with India in its fight against terror. They all favour India's fight against terrorists based in Pakistan. But they do not like any war between the two nuclear powers on this issue. They want bilateral talks if India does not agree for a mediator. Even Russian foreign minister has mentioned this, though Russia's statement was strongest in support of India's actions. Thus in the perception battle or more specifically in information war, Pakistan is getting some advantage as of now vis a vis India. Left to the external affairs ministry officials, they could have done much better job than the visiting Parliamentary delegations but their hands are tied. Modi's doctrine has stifled their flexibility. The Washington based Indian officials are seeing how the wavelength they established with the White House in the last few years, are crumbling before their own eyes due to the intervention of the PMO, the Modi doctrine and the interference by the Overseas Friends of BJP in USA and the Hindu organisations close to Narendra Modi. These officers are engaged in fire fighting operations. Now let us look at some upcoming events which show how challenging will be India's task in the coming two months in the arena of global diplomacy. First, India has not been invited to the G-7 summit at Alberta in Canada scheduled from June 15 to June 17. In the last five years, our Prime Minister made every effort to make himself visible among the World's top leaders. Last year at the G-7 summit in Italy, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni praised the Indian PM belonging to their own far right clan. PM was expecting an invitation till a week back, but it has not been sent and all indications are that it will not be sent by the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The reason might be related to the possibility of pro- Khalistani demonstrations, but if the new Liberal Party PM wanted, he could have invited the Indian PM by making adequate arrangements for maintaining law and order. In such summits, always some kind of threat is there from the dissidents, but the summits take place after arranging full security preparations. More importantly, though Canada is the host country, other member countries did not bother to request the PM Mark Carney to invite India as India has been a long standing participant, The G-7 members are USA, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and Canada. The other non members invited are Australia, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Ukraine. Narendra Modi enjoyed all the summits he attended giving the impression as if he belonged to one of those rich nations. But alas — in 2025 after India's unambiguous victory claimed by Modi against Pakistan in four day conflict, Indian Prime Minister has been shunned out of a crucial global summit. More trouble for Narendra Modi awaits in the month of July. This month Pakistan will take over as the President of the UN Security Council as per the rotation. The UNSC has five permanent members — USA, Russia, China, France and UK. There are ten non-permanent members now — Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and Somalia. Pakistan will take over as the UNSC President in July as per norms. The UNSC President has powers to set agenda. Naturally, it is expected that Pakistan will take full advantage of its presidency to include discussion on Kashmir in the UNSC agenda. Once it is proposed by the President, this will have to be discussed in the context of India- Pakistan relations. This is a big challenge to India. Indian foreign ministry will have to make all preparations to meet Pakistan's proposed salvo. The UNSC members, both permanent and non-permanent have to be properly briefed. Pakistan is sure to make full use of July presidency of UNSC to further its cause of inernationalising the Kashmir situation again. Indian foreign ministry has to come out of the purview of Modi doctrine if it wants to effectively meet the Pak onslaught. Apart in July itself, BRICS summit is scheduled in Brazil on July 6 and 7 this year. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been invited as one of the founding members. He is expected to attend it. The BRICS members are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — the initial members. Now the expanded BRICS includes another five countries Indonesia, Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Chinese President Xi Jinping is sure to attend it. It is to be seen whether President Putin attends since there is a warrant of International Criminal Court, so Putin is avoiding visits to the ICC member countries. This year, if Narendra Modi attends the BRICS summit, he will be attending with a demoted stature. His image as a defender of global South has got damaged due to India's identification with the US strategy in Asia Pacific and India's distancing itself from the geo political positions of BRICS. The USA does not like India's pro-active position in BRICS. In fact, President Trump is in a running battle with the Presidents of South Africa and Brazil. So what stand Narendra Modi will be taking at the BRICS summit, that assumes significance. The hard reality is that Prime Minister may go on campaigning in favour of his doctrine and making efforts to rouse nationalist passions against Pakistan in public meetings, but global diplomacy is a hard ball. Indian officials have to defend the government's position every single day. That has been a tough task with limited flexibility. Prime Minister's present new doctrine towards Pakistan needs some finetuning to adapt to the political mood of the global community. The battle against Pakistan and terror is long drawn. It needs holistic strategy and not one time solution. (IPA Service)


Arabian Post
2 days ago
- Arabian Post
Renewed Race For Gulf-India Aviation Sector Trophy As Stakes Increase Further
By K Raveendran Strong signs of undercurrents are emerging in the aviation space between India and the Gulf. There is renewed tussle over landing rights — the coveted permissions that determine which airlines get to fly where, how often, and with how many seats. For years, this battleground has been tilted in favour of Gulf-based giants, particularly Emirates and later Etihad, both of which have entrenched themselves so deeply in the India-Gulf sector that they dominate passenger volumes, especially among the vast Indian expatriate population in the Gulf. But recent movements suggest that the terrain may be shifting again, albeit not necessarily in India's favour, raising concerns about whether past missteps are being repeated or even institutionalized. The first wave of this dominance came during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) years, a period that aviation experts and political observers often recall with unease. During this time, India's aviation rights — especially in the high-demand Gulf sector — were offered up with a generosity that baffled many. The most glaring beneficiary was Emirates, which capitalised on India's fragmented aviation policy and the aggressive diplomacy of Dubai government. The role of Praful Patel, then Union Civil Aviation Minister, and N. Chandrababu Naidu, then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, has often come under scrutiny for facilitating deals that disproportionately benefited Gulf carriers. The underlying implication, often whispered but never proven in courts, was that kickbacks were exchanged for each seat Emirates filled on its India routes — a suggestion that continues to fester in the collective memory of Indian aviation policy circles. At that time, Emirates enjoyed a distinct monopoly, owing largely to the fact that it was the sole UAE-based carrier of international standing. With Dubai's rise as a global aviation hub and Emirates' unmatched marketing muscle, the airline quickly scaled up its footprint in India, locking in prime time slots and lucrative routes with little resistance. In effect, Emirates became the default choice for millions of Indians flying to the Gulf and beyond, eclipsing the capacity and visibility of Indian carriers like Air India. This asymmetry didn't just result in a business setback for Indian aviation — it triggered a slow bleeding of India's aviation sovereignty. The profits, the passenger data, the traffic, and the global prestige of being a gateway carrier all accrued to Emirates, while Indian airlines floundered under the weight of policy paralysis and state apathy. Things became even more complicated when Etihad entered the fray. As Abu Dhabi's flagship carrier, Etihad's arrival introduced a new axis of influence in the India-Gulf aviation theatre. Where earlier it was just Emirates leveraging its ties with Indian authorities to expand its rights, now both Emirates and Etihad were competing not just with each other but also for the same slice of the Indian aviation pie. The diplomatic equation thus had to be recalibrated. No longer could Dubai's interests automatically translate into Emirates' gain. Abu Dhabi, backed by the UAE federal structure, began asserting its claim, demanding equitable treatment for Etihad. India, in turn, found itself in a quagmire. Granting more rights to one Gulf emirate risked offending the other. But instead of revisiting its entire bilateral framework or strengthening Indian carriers to hold their ground, Indian policymakers chose the path of least resistance: acquiescing to more requests from both sides. The result was that foreign carriers ended up with the lion's share of rights, while Indian carriers, with limited international ambitions and fleet capacity at the time, were left watching from the sidelines. Fast forward to today, and the script seems eerily familiar. Both Emirates and Etihad are once again lobbying for increased landing rights and additional seat allocations. This comes at a time when the dynamics of the aviation industry have evolved significantly. There is renewed focus on strategic aviation corridors, a post-pandemic surge in travel, and a stronger realisation globally that aviation is not just commerce — it is a soft power instrument. Yet despite all this, India appears to be on the verge of conceding even more ground. That this is happening without a thorough review of how previous concessions impacted national interests is particularly disheartening. A disturbing undertone to this situation is the re-emergence — or rather, the persistence — of the very individuals who were instrumental in the original giveaways. These actors, once thought to have exited the stage after presiding over what some call the 'Great Indian Aviation Surrender,' are now reappearing in various roles, emboldened by their earlier success and perhaps by the lack of accountability. The risk here is not just the erosion of market share but the institutionalization of a defeatist approach to aviation diplomacy, where India negotiates from a position of weakness rather than asserting its growing economic and geopolitical clout. However, the new player that adds an unexpected twist to this ongoing narrative is IndiGo. As India's largest airline by a considerable margin, IndiGo is no longer content with its domestic dominance. It wants in on the Gulf bonanza, and it is using its size, efficiency, and growing international aspirations to demand a bigger seat at the table. This changes the calculus considerably. For the first time in years, there's an Indian private player with both the appetite and the capacity to challenge Gulf airlines on their turf. IndiGo's entry into the fray has the potential to reshape the competitive landscape — provided, of course, the government aligns national policy with corporate ambition. To avoid repeating past mistakes, India must initiate a root-and-branch review of its bilateral air service agreements. The country needs a clear aviation doctrine — one that articulates when, how, and under what conditions foreign airlines may operate in India. This doctrine must prioritize Indian interests, encourage domestic capacity building, and align with broader national objectives. It must also be shielded from short-term political compulsions and the influence of lobbying networks that have historically undermined strategic policymaking. (IPA Service)