India threatening South Asia's stability
EDITORIAL: As part of Pakistan's diplomatic outreach to the international community in the aftermath of last month's four-day military standoff with India, PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari visiting London at the head of a delegation gave a briefing to a meeting of cross-party British parliamentarians.
There he highlighted India's attack on civilian population, violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and holding in abeyance of the Indus Water Treaty in contravention of international law and modern rules-based system.
Bilawal also explained that 'India had levelled serious accusations [of backing the Pahalgam terrorist attack] without any credible investigation or verifiable evidence,' and that these actions are not just irresponsible, but pose serious risks to peace and stability in South Asia and beyond. Pakistan has rightly been arguing that if India has evidence of its involvement in the Pahalgam atrocity, it should allow an independent investigation so as to establish the truth.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a habit of using accusation of cross-border terrorism as a political tool during times of internal pressure or upcoming elections — in Behar come October. Assaults on Pakistan, rhetorical or real, are projected by him as demonstrations of strength for rallying his Hindutva support base.
Extremely troubling, however, is what followed last month's incident: missile and drone attacks on alleged 'terrorist sanctuaries' inside Pakistan in blatant violation of this country's sovereignty and international law. With hubris getting the better of them, PM Modi declared the strikes as the 'New Normal', i.e., a right to fire missiles into Pakistan in the event of any act of terrorism; meanwhile, his External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar stated that Pakistan was informed about the strikes before the start of 'Operation Sindoor', arrogantly assuming there would be no reaction. Pakistan's quick retaliatory response delivered extensive military losses, acknowledged by many independent defence analysts. The two nuclear-armed neighbours were on the brink of a full-fledged war when US President Donald Trump helped mediate a ceasefire. According to Modi, though, it is only a 'pause'. Escalatory rhetoric and actions benefit no one. Consequences of any miscalculation between the two nuclear states are unthinkable.
India's attempts to unilaterally alter regional dynamics through unsubstantiated accusations and aggressive military posturing should be a matter of concern to the international community. What is needed is normalisation of dialogue rather than normalisation of aggression, and a commitment to peaceful coexistence. Pakistan, for its part, has consistently expressed willingness to engage in dialogue and address all outstanding issues of dispute, including terrorism, water, and of course Kashmir — the root cause of three of the four wars between them. The cycle of provocation and retaliation must give way to dialogue and conflict resolution in the greater interest of peace and stability in South Asia.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
President meet splits PPP's Pindi chapter
Internal divisions within the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Rawalpindi chapter have intensified, with growing factionalism and deepening rifts among party workers and groups after a select-group of activists managed to meet President Asif Ali Zardari. The already simmering tensions among PPP loyalists have been further aggravated by a recent meeting at Aiwan-e-Sadr, where only select party activists were invited to meet the President of Pakistan. Many sidelined party officials and workers have expressed strong dissatisfaction and anger over being excluded from the meeting. The gathering, arranged on the occasion of Eidul Azha, was authorised by the Aiwan-e-Sadr and organised by former presidential spokesperson and ex-Managing Director of Baitul Mal, Aamir Fida Paracha. According to local PPP workers, the Eid meeting was kept entirely under wraps, with no prior notice or communication to the wider party leadership. Only a small number of individualsbelonging to a specific factionwere granted access to the President, while many senior party workers, long-time office bearers, and elected local representatives were completely overlooked.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Optical delusions
Listen to article Within the past thirty days, we have witnessed two wars waged to consolidate power and for optics. India tried to invade Pakistan for all the worst reasons imaginable. Shortly after the Pahalgam incident, when India failed to produce a smoking gun — some serious evidence to implicate Pakistan or even apprehend the actual perpetrators who still remain at large -—Indian client analysts in international think tanks, or those appearing on international news channels, tried to present war or strikes deep inside Pakistan as a political imperative. Modi had to maintain this image of strength, you know. That's why they had to attack Pakistan. And India was confident that, through back-channel pressures, it could compel Pakistan not to retaliate. That plan did not go well, and the overconfident Indian spin masters ended up presenting India as a state that can risk nuclear escalation for one man's image management. But look at the fallout. Since the early 1990s, India had somehow convinced the West that its cooperation was critical in containing China. As this image grew, it asked for Pakistan's head on a platter. While the West could not do that, it did the next best thing: wealth and unprecedented influence. India used both to isolate Pakistan. But with one irrational act, it ended up exposing its chinks in the armour. With one strategic blowback, the world now knew India was nowhere near there. It wasn't the West that needed India; it was India that needed the West. Who wants that kind of liability? Everyone will only look at the main asset the country has got: its wealth. All relationships will be transactional from now on. As for Pakistan, three decades of Indian blackmail against the country have ended, and the world is ready to work with Pakistan. Domestically, Modi's image has been badly shaken. The deep state and the hardliners see him as a liability and are counting the days till they get rid of him. To save face, Modi got the help of Niti Aayog (the body that replaced the Planning Commission), and through some numerical voodoo, the body declared that India's economy had beaten Japan to become the world's fourth-largest economy. Japan has been India's main benefactor. Imagine how these reports played out within the country. The world now knows that the Indian deep state knows that Modi has no value to contribute. Some optics. The second case is that of Israel's Netanyahu, who has been using political radicalism to offset three major corruption cases against him. As a result, the Israeli polity has constantly radicalised. In the aftermath of October 7's ghastly attacks, instead of prioritising the rescue of the hostages, he declared a forever war, which has exposed the sheer brutality of the regime. Meanwhile, he has used all elements to regularly manipulate political outcomes in the US and other Western democracies. This policy has been the law of diminishing returns. Only a day ago, Israel carried out a massive attack on Iran. Purpose? Optics again. The global outrage against Israel's genocide in Gaza is growing. In any case, the blood of the Gazans is not enough to indefinitely feed the tiger of political hate he rides. So, why not expand the war? I hold no brief for Iran, but this is too transparent to go unnoticed. Israel called these attacks 'pre-emptive strikes', and the US called them a unilateral action. Remember the days when the US used to carry out "pre-emptive strikes" on Israel's behalf? The law of diminishing returns, indeed. Meanwhile, the cases against Netanyahu are where they were. As Ta-Nehisi Coates once said: Your oppression will not save you. History has some lessons for these politicians. Four days after Pearl Harbour, Adolf Hitler made perhaps the most catastrophic decision in modern warfare - declaring war on the United States purely to maintain his image as a loyal ally to Japan. Despite having no treaty obligation and every strategic reason to avoid a two-front war, Hitler couldn't bear appearing weak or unreliable to his Axis partners. The declaration was born entirely from ego and optics, not strategy. In one impulsive moment, driven by his need to project strength, Hitler handed Roosevelt the perfect gift - a declaration that galvanised American support for the very strategy planners had envisioned: an enormous two-front commitment that would treat Germany as the principal threat. You know what happened next. Jimmy Carter was drowning in the polls when Iranian revolutionaries seized American hostages, and the pressure to look presidential became unbearable. Despite military advisers warning about the mission's complexity, Carter greenlit Operation Eagle Claw — not primarily to save the hostages, but to save his presidency. The mission was always more about optics than operations, a desperate attempt to project strength in an election year. When helicopters collided in the Iranian desert, killing eight servicemen and leaving classified documents behind, the rescue attempt became a symbol of American impotence. Carter, seeking to appear decisive and strong, instead looked more helpless than ever. The failed mission sealed his electoral fate, and Ronald Reagan rode the backlash all the way to the White House. Douglas MacArthur was a genuine American hero, a brilliant tactician who had saved countless lives through his strategic genius in the Pacific. But even great men can fall victim to the siren call of complete victory. After his masterful Inchon landing, MacArthur faced a choice that would define his legacy: stop at the 38th parallel or push for total triumph in North Korea. The general, having tasted success and facing pressure from Washington not to settle for half-measures, chose to cross the line. It was an understandable decision from a commander who had delivered miracle after miracle. Yet history had one more lesson to teach: China entered the war, forcing the longest retreat in American military history. The general who had never known defeat watched his forces flee south, and President Truman ultimately relieved him of command. MacArthur's pursuit of total victory cost him everything he had built. General Leopoldo Galtieri was a desperate man leading a desperate government when he ordered the invasion of the Falkland Islands. With Argentina's economy collapsing and massive protests filling the streets, the military junta needed a patriotic victory to survive. The Falklands seemed perfect — a beloved national cause that would unite the country behind its leaders. "We need this," Galtieri reportedly told his cabinet, and for a brief moment, it worked. Massive crowds celebrated in Buenos Aires as Argentine flags flew over Port Stanley. But history cared nothing for Galtieri's political survival. Margaret Thatcher dispatched a task force 8,000 miles across the Atlantic, and within weeks, Argentina's military was in shambles. From Delhi to Tel Aviv, from Berlin to Buenos Aires, history keeps repeating its lesson: optics may win headlines, but strategy decides legacies.
Business Recorder
19 hours ago
- Business Recorder
British PM Starmer calls for ‘return to diplomacy' after Israel strikes on Iran
LONDON: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called Friday on all parties to take a step back and de-escalate, after Israel launched a wave of strikes on Iran's military and nuclear sites. 'The reports of these strikes are concerning and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no one in the region,' he said in a statement. Israel strikes Iran nuclear facilities, missile factories 'Stability in the Middle East must be the priority and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy.'
