Pakistan is caught in a time warp
{{#loggedIn}} {{/loggedIn}}
Next Story
Mint Editorial Board Voices from across the border make it clear that Pakistan's power establishment is stuck in the past. It must quit hoary obsessions and turn to the future. A stopwatch is ticking on this endeavour. Pakistan's power establishment has amped up its rhetoric, as evident in a speech by its army chief Asim Munir shortly before the terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir. Gift this article
It's a matter of deep dismay that Pakistan's power establishment has amped up its rhetoric on not just the hollow 'two-nation theory" but also on an equally flaky analogy of governance from the early days of Islamic history. This was evident in a speech by its army chief Asim Munir shortly before the terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir.
It's a matter of deep dismay that Pakistan's power establishment has amped up its rhetoric on not just the hollow 'two-nation theory" but also on an equally flaky analogy of governance from the early days of Islamic history. This was evident in a speech by its army chief Asim Munir shortly before the terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir. Also Read: Mint Quick Edit | India can gain Indus leverage over Pakistan
While India contemplates retaliatory action, with the Indus Waters Treaty already held in abeyance as a sort of Damocles guillotine over Pakistan's future water supply, the dynamics of the two neighbours' testy relationship inspire little hope that high-profile punitive measures alone will be able to make Islamabad abandon its delusions of religious purpose. Also Read: Kashmir simmers but Pakistan's game has no winners
To make headway, we need the rest of the world to nudge Pakistan's focus towards its failing economy. If Communist China could dump doctrinaire policies in its pursuit of prosperity, why can't India's western neighbour? Maybe it expects to fit into the geopolitical jigsaw of Beijing's grand plans for Asia, but even that would require it to pull its weight on the economic front.
Pakistan has been held hostage by its 'deep state" for much too long, India's patience has worn thin and a stopwatch is ticking for the former to exit its time warp. Topics You May Be Interested In Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
India's strategic pillars are crumbling. Complacency is not an option
The erosion of the post-Cold War construct has been gradual but unmistakable. The war in Ukraine, now in its fourth year, has exposed the limits of Western deterrence, the resilience of Russia, and its resolve to recover lost territory and status. Despite successive waves of sanctions, Moscow remains defiant, bolstered by Chinese dual-use exports and North Korean ammunition. The Gaza conflict, meanwhile, has become a humanitarian catastrophe, with ceasefire talks repeatedly collapsing due to mutual distrust and unreasonable expectations. These conflicts are not isolated but indicative of a broader unravelling of the rules-based order, where power is increasingly coercive, transactional, and the solidity of alliances suspect. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza rage on with no clear end in sight, each serving as a proxy battlefield for deeper geopolitical rivalries. Meanwhile, the US, the self-appointed global policeman, has turned inward and belligerent, unleashing a tariff war that has upended global trading norms and strained relations with erstwhile allies. India, caught squarely in the crosshairs of these upheavals, finds itself in a precarious position. Its principal adversary, China, has deepened its strategic partnership with Pakistan. The US, under the Trump administration, has grown openly hostile, with Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir even issuing nuclear threats from American soil. The global order is once again in a state of flux, overtaken by multiple crises that have shattered old convictions and exposed new vulnerabilities. In this altered landscape, India must urgently recalibrate its national security policy and defence architecture to meet the demands of a more volatile, multipolar world. Also Read: India sees the value of US defence ties, but MAGA-style tariffs threaten long-term stability India's strategic pillars under strain India's strategic calculus is based on a few pillars: a robust deterrent posture against China and Pakistan; a growing partnership with the United States; and a commitment to multilateralism through forums like the UN, SCO, and BRICS. But each of these pillars is now under strain. China's aggression along the Line of Actual Control, its naval assertiveness in the Indian Ocean, and its deepening ties with Pakistan—manifested in joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, and infrastructure projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor—pose a multi-dimensional threat. Pakistan, emboldened by Chinese backing and the militarisation of its polity, has escalated both its rhetoric and capabilities. Munir's recent threats to target Indian economic assets such as the Jamnagar refinery and other intemperate remarks on nuclear retaliation while on US soil mark a dangerous new phase in Pakistan's strategic signalling. Compounding these challenges is the deterioration in US-India relations. President Trump's tariff blitzkrieg of imposing duties of up to 50 per cent on Indian goods, has been vaguely justified on the grounds of India's continued trade with Russia, particularly in oil and defence. The irony is that the same administration which once hailed India as a counterweight to China now penalises it for pursuing strategic autonomy. The optics of Munir being hosted at the White House and issuing threats from Florida have not gone unnoticed by the strategic community in India, driving home a stark message that we can no longer rely on the US as a consistent strategic partner. Overhauling national security doctrine In light of these developments, India must undertake a comprehensive overhaul of its national security doctrine. In light of these developments, India must undertake a comprehensive overhaul of its national security doctrine. First, it must embrace the reality of a multipolar world and diversify its strategic partnerships. While the Quad remains important, India must also deepen ties with middle powers like France, Japan, and Australia, and explore new alignments with ASEAN, Africa, and Latin America. A new 'Quad', comprising Australia, Japan, and India, and including other countries of the South China Sea littoral—most notably the Philippines, which has shown the gumption to stand up to Chinese bullying in the region—must be explored. In this period of uncertainty, it is very unlikely that the Quad summit scheduled to be held in India later this year will materialise. Attempts should also be made to resuscitate SAARC, a fitting platform to engage our immediate neighbours. The aim should be to build a web of relationships that reduces dependence on any single power and enhances India's leverage in global and regional forums. Second, India must accelerate its defence modernisation. The recent success of the S-400 air defence system in intercepting Pakistani aircraft during Operation Sindoor underscores the importance of technological superiority. India's nuclear triad, bolstered by MIRV-capable Agni-V missiles, provides credible deterrence, but conventional capabilities must also be upgraded. Investments in cyber warfare, space-based surveillance, and unmanned systems are no longer optional but inescapable operational imperatives. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) must be restructured to incentivise innovation, concentrating solely on R&D and moving away from production. Reduction in procurement timelines remains a constant priority. Third, India must rethink its internal security architecture. The threat from cross-border terrorism remains acute, especially with Pakistan's military increasingly aligned with extremist groups. The menace from Left Wing Extremism, though reduced, retains the potential to destabilise the country internally. Intelligence coordination between central and state agencies must be streamlined, and counterterrorism capabilities enhanced. The Paramilitary Forces (PMF), which play a crucial role in border management and internal security, must receive sounder training, modern equipment, and be better integrated with the armed forces. Attachment of PMF officers with army units would go a long way in achieving the dual aim of training and integration. The absorption of released Agniveers into the PMF will also be a positive step. Fourth, India must recalibrate its nuclear posture. While maintaining a no-first-use policy, it must signal readiness to respond decisively to any nuclear blackmail. This includes developing second-strike capabilities, securing command and control systems, and conducting periodic strategic reviews. The rhetoric from Pakistan's leadership, threatening to 'take half the world down,' must be met not with escalation but with clarity and resolve. Re-articulating our nuclear policy, especially with regard to 'launch on warning', will discourage any nuclear adventurism. Strategic maturity lies in enunciating red lines and indicating the will to respond should these be in danger of being breached. Fifth, India must leverage its economic position as the world's fourth-largest economy as a strategic tool. The asymmetry between India and Pakistan is most pronounced in economic terms. Every percentage point of GDP growth widens the gap, reducing Pakistan's relevance in global forums. India must continue to liberalise its economy, attract foreign investment, and build infrastructure corridors that enhance connectivity and resilience. Initiatives like the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) need to be fast-tracked. Pending trade agreements, especially with ASEAN, should be pursued and, where existing, implemented without further ado. A multipolar export strategy must be adopted to mitigate the impact of US tariffs. The US may be our largest trading partner, but it is certainly not the only one, with the rest of the world still accounting for around 70 per cent of our trade. Also Read: What India can learn from Israel about atmanirbharta in defence Taking control of the narrative Finally, India must invest in strategic communication. In an age of information warfare, perception shapes policy. India must counter hostile narratives and, by engaging with global media, think tanks, and diaspora communities, actively project its role as a net-security provider for a stable and inclusive Indo-Pacific. The goal should be to build a narrative of India as a responsible power that's firm in its resolve, mature in its conduct, and committed to resolving disputes through dialogue. The world is not what it was, and India cannot afford to be complacent. The threats are real and evolving, alliances uncertain and dynamic, and the risks higher than ever. But within this churn—a modern-day Samudra Manthan—lies the opportunity for India to rise and redefine its role on the world stage by building a security architecture that is robust and adaptive. India must chart its own course, guided not by fear but by foresight. The recalibration must begin now, sans rhetoric, but demonstrating firm resolve. General Manoj Mukund Naravane PVSM AVSM SM VSM is a retired Indian Army General who served as the 28th Chief of the Army Staff. Views are personal. (Edited by Asavari Singh)
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Laura Loomer attacks Mehdi Hasan over his stance on Gaza, ‘Never seen anything more soulless than a Muslim calling for…'
A war of words has broken out between Laura Loomer and ex-MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan after the latter accused Loomer of being 'soulless' and 'sociopathic.' Hasan shared a Rolling Stone report about Donald Trump's administration stopping all visitor visas from Gaza, including those for humanitarian and medical aid, after Loomer posted about Palestinian children being allowed into the United States for medical care. Laura Loomer attacks Mehdi Hasan over his stance on Gaza (AP Photo/Chris Szagola, File, @mehdirhasan/X) The Department of State wrote on X, 'All visitor visas for individuals from Gaza are being stopped while we conduct a full and thorough review of the process and procedures used to issue a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas in recent days.' 'It's amazing how fast we can get results from the Trump administration,' Loomer wrote on X, adding an applause emoji. The post appears to have been deleted now. Read More | Laura Loomer vs. Marjorie Taylor Greene: Shocking MAGA war breaks out over 2023 purchase Loomer previously shared a video showing children from Gaza arriving in San Francisco for treatment. 'Why are any Islamic invaders coming into the US under the Trump admin?' she wrote. Loomer added, 'This is a national security threat. We didn't vote for more Islamic immigration into the United States.' Mehdi Hasan and Laura Loomer's feud Hasan shared the Rolling Stone article which says, 'Trump cuts off medical visas from Gaza after Laura Loomer freaked out over a video showing several children being permitted to come to the U.S. for medical care.' He captioned the post, 'Imagine how soulless and sociopathic you have to be to see children getting healthcare and going out of your way to prevent them from getting it. The modern pro-Israel, Trumpist conservative movement'. Loomer quickly attacked Hasan over an old, deleted X post where he had written, ' Make American Planes Crash Again.' Hasan had shared the post earlier after two people died in a plane crash at Georgia's Covington Airport east of Atlanta. The post sparked outrage, and Hasan deleted it, calling it 'poorly worded.' Loomer shared a screenshot of Hasan's now-deleted post, and wrote, 'You are an Islamic immigrant. If you don't like the policies of the US, you can go back to the shit hole you came from. Please leave. Nobody likes you. I've never seen anything more soulless than a Muslim calling for more Plane Crashes in AMERICA. GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY PARASITE!' Hasan had, however, previously acknowledged that the post was not in good taste. He said after deleting the post, 'I deleted this sarcastic quote-tweet because MAGA and Islamophobic folks are clipping it out of context and trying to ridiculously suggest I'm inciting violence.' 'But this tweet was in poor taste, poorly worded, and has allowed people in bad faith to call me a terrorist, with one New York Post reporter cc-ing the FBI. So I deleted it. Meanwhile, the right wants to silence all journalists while crying 'a show free speech!'' he added.
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
IWT Was Signed Without Parliament Nod: Congress, Vajpayee Accused Nehru Of Sell-Out
Last Updated: Jawaharlal Nehru, faced with severe opposition in Parliament during debate on IWT in 1960, said rejecting the treaty would have turned West Punjab (Pakistan) into a wilderness Speaking from the Red Fort on August 15, Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the ' Indus Waters Treaty ' (IWT) signed by Jawaharlal Nehru with Pakistan in 1960 as unjust and one-sided. He said the treaty had caused unimaginable loss to India's farmers. But do you know what happened when this issue was debated in Parliament in 1960? Most MPs, even Congressmen, criticised the treaty. But their words fell on deaf ears. CNN-News18 dug into Parliament archives to read records of this debate. On November 30, 1960, the Lok Sabha took up the Indus Waters Treaty for discussion. It was short but very intense. It revealed a deep divide between Jawaharlal Nehru's government, which defended the treaty as pragmatic statesmanship, and a wide spectrum of MPs across parties, including Congressmen, who felt India had sacrificed too much to Pakistan. The treaty had been signed without taking the Parliament or opposition leaders into confidence. By the time Parliament discussed the treaty, it was already ratified. The treaty had already been signed in Karachi by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan's military ruler President Ayub Khan on September 19, 1960, with the World Bank as guarantor. Ten members moved the motion. Just two hours were allotted. It was clear from the very beginning that Parliament had been given no role in shaping the treaty—only in reacting to a fait accompli. First, the context. After more than a decade of wrangling, the Indus Water Treaty was signed in 1960 with the World Bank as a player. The three eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, Sutlej — would go to India. The three western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, Chenab — would go to Pakistan. But India would contribute Rs 83 crore (in sterling) towards replacement works in Pakistan. On paper, Nehru hailed it as a model of cooperation. But MPs across the spectrum reacted with dismay. The debate started with Surendra Mohanty, the MP from Dhenkanal (All India Ganatantra Parishad), insisting the Prime Minister himself must be present: 'He was the signatory, he alone can explain why this agreement was made." Braj Raj Singh, an Independent MP from Firozabad, said the treaty had created 'considerable concern in the country". Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim, the irrigation minister, tried to reassure the House: 'The Prime Minister will speak." The stage was set. Then began the wave of criticism. Congressmen slammed Nehru Harish Chandra Mathur, a Congressman, spoke like a member of the Opposition. His anger reflected the feeling in Rajasthan, which relied heavily on Indus waters. Mathur called the treaty all to the disadvantage of India, all to the advantage of Pakistan. He said India was yielding too much: 'Over-generosity at the cost of our own people is not statesmanship." Mathur read out headlines of newspapers across India that had condemned the treaty. He warned of perpetual annual losses of Rs 70-80 crore for his home state Rajasthan due to five million acre-feet of lost water. 'Rajasthan has been very badly let down in this treaty," he said. Mathur did not stop here. He argued that India had surrendered step by step since 1948, and while Pakistan kept raising its demands, India yielded under pressure. The Congress MP went on to criticise Nehru for not linking the water settlement to Kashmir: 'If they are assured of water, Kashmir should cease to be a problem. Has Kashmir ceased to be a problem," he asked. His words resonated strongly with the House with more Congressmen standing up to counter Nehru. Asoka Mehta, a respected intellectual in the Congress, delivered one of the sharpest speeches by comparing the treaty to a 'second partition", saying, 'We are reopening all the wounds of 1947…this is being done again with the signature of our Prime Minister". He added that after 12 years of talks, India had settled on terms 'which cannot be justified as fair". Mehta made a sharp observation — that the treaty gave 80% of waters to Pakistan, only 20% to India — worse than the earlier 75:25 proposal. Criticising Nehru's haste, Mehta said, 'No government has the right to make mistakes twice. That is why the country is deeply and profoundly agitated". He said after the distribution of waters under this treaty Pakistan will permit very valuable water to flow into the seas. As Mehta said the debate itself was being rushed and termed just two hours as too little for a matter that has agitated the entire country, another Congressman from Bengal, A.C. Guha, joined cause with him. Guha focused on the economic and financial imbalance — saying India had 26 million acres in the Indus basin, but only 19% irrigated, while Pakistan's 39 million acres were 54% irrigated. 'By land share, India should have received 40% of waters. Instead, it got only 20%. Pakistan received Rs 400+ crore in grants, India just Rs 27 crore in loans," Guha said. He added that 'the more regrettable thing is that waters which India would need badly would be allowed to flow into the sea unutilised and yet we shall be denied the opportunity of developing our own land with that water". The Congressman also criticised paying Rs 83 crore in sterling to Pakistan when India faced a foreign exchange crisis. He termed it 'the height of folly". He castigated Nehru further, saying whenever we negotiate with Pakistan, our interests are sacrificed to placate them. Vajpayee led the charge A young Vajpayee, still in his early 30s, gave a sharp, pointed intervention, highlighting how government had earlier announced stoppage of water to Pakistan by 1962, yet now it was conceding permanent rights. 'Either that announcement was wrong, or this treaty is wrong," Vajpayee said. He quoted Pakistan President Ayub Khan claiming India had conceded joint control of rivers: 'Joint control comprehends joint possession," Vajpayee warned. 'Parliament is not taken into confidence when such agreements were done," he said. He also questioned Nehru's motives: 'Why did Nehru go so far? This is not the way to build harmony." Vajpayee said good relations can only be built on justice, not appeasement and criticised the government for bypassing Parliament on issues of security and economy. Vajpayee concluded that the treaty was 'not in the interest of India", and that it would not bring lasting friendship. He was backed by an Independent MP, Brajraj Singh who accused the government of selling India's pride. Singh also quoted Ayub Khan's provocative statement after the treaty — that Pakistan should control the upper reaches of rivers. He lamented that Parliament was not even informed that ratification of the treaty had been completed. K.T.K. Tangamani, the Communist party MP, also zeroed in on lack of consultation. He said Parliament had been in session until 9 September; the treaty signed on 19 September, so 'surely the House could have been taken into confidence?" He also called the treaty as a one-sided give, not give-and-take. Nehru's reply: A lonely defence Finally, Nehru rose to speak. His tone was weary, almost depressed, but firm as he called it a 'good treaty for India". Nehru rejected the 'second partition" claim of his fellow Congressmen as 'loose, meaningless language" and asked: 'Partition of what? A pailful of water?" Nehru also insisted that such international treaties could not be managed by constant parliamentary approval. 'There were mountains of papers, a dozen approaches, ten years of struggle. We had to take a call," Nehru argued. He also justified that India had to pay Pakistan to replace lost waters. 'We purchased a settlement, we purchased peace," Nehru said, admitting Pakistan had initially demanded Rs 300 crore, but India had settled for Rs 83 crore. Nehru also warned that rejecting the treaty would have turned West Punjab into a wilderness, destabilising the subcontinent. He appealed for a broader vision: 'When we deal with mighty things like relations between nations, let us not adopt a narrow approach." Closing his case, Nehru said India had made substantial and profitable gains, even if critics only saw losses. But he was pressed for time—he left the chamber to meet the visiting Crown Prince of Japan, leaving behind an unsatisfied House. Even after Nehru's defence, MPs were unconvinced. Vajpayee remarked that most members 'still could not understand why India signed such a treaty". The result The debate ended without a vote, the treaty already ratified. But the debate showed rare unity across opposition and ruling benches in criticising Nehru. Nehru appeared isolated, defending the treaty on moral and internationalist grounds, while the House spoke in the language of national interest and suspicion of Pakistan. top videos View all For young leaders like Vajpayee, this was an early stage to craft the narrative that Nehru was too soft, too idealistic, and too ready to sacrifice Indian interests. Most MPs warned that the treaty was a sell-out, a 'second partition", and an appeasement. But Nehru said the treaty was pragmatic, necessary, and good for India in the long run. Finally, after 65 years, Narendra Modi decided to put the treaty into abeyance after the Pahalgam terror attack. About the Author Aman Sharma Aman Sharma, Executive Editor - National Affairs at CNN-News18, and Bureau Chief at News18 in Delhi, has over two decades of experience in covering the wide spectrum of politics and the Prime Minister's More Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Homework Column Indus Waters Treaty Jawaharlal Nehru Narendra Modi news18 specials view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 18, 2025, 08:34 IST News politics IWT Was Signed Without Parliament Nod: Congress, Vajpayee Accused Nehru Of Sell-Out | Exclusive Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
