From Florida with folly: How Munir's nuclear threat to India is both reckless and unprecedented

First Post

5 days ago

Pakistan Army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir is being actively courted by Washington. On June 18, US President Donald Trump, in a stunning and unprecedented gesture, received Munir at the White House for a meeting that went on for two hours over lunch. Within two months, Munir again visited the US to attend the change of guard of the US Central Command, which is based in Florida. The Central Command's remit extends to West Asia, North Africa, and Central Asia and also includes Pakistan. The US has always ensured that India and Pakistan are not covered by the same Command. Thus, India falls within the responsibility of the Hawaii-based Indo-Pacific Command, while Pakistan is under the Central Command.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
General Michael Erik Kurilla, who had led the Command since 2022, handed over charge, on retirement, to Admiral Brad Cooper on August 10. Appearing before the US House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee in June, Kurilla praised Pakistan's 'phenomenal' cooperation with the US in efforts to combat the terrorist group ISIS-Khorasan. He also underlined that the US could separately maintain good ties with both India and Pakistan. Munir was invited, along with some senior officers of foreign countries, to the handover ceremony held on August 10. During his visit, Munir also met the senior-most US military officer, General Dan Caine, who is
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.A prominent Indian journalist reported on August 10 that Munir attended a dinner hosted in his honour by the Pakistani Honorary Consul, Adnan Asad, while he was in Florida. Around 120 members of the Pakistani expatriate community were invited to the event. Munir spoke on the occasion; no copy of his speech was released, nor were guests allowed to take any recording devices. He did, however, have a prepared text. It is obvious from the aggressive and controversial remarks that he made that Munir not only knew but wanted them to become public despite the guests being prevented from taking in recording devices, which would naturally have included smartphones. Nowadays, it is simply impossible to ensure that no electronic record is made of a speech during a dinner such as the one hosted by Asad.
In his address, Munir launched into a tirade against India. He warned that if India constructed a dam over the Indus river, Pakistani missiles could destroy it. This was clearly in the context of Pakistan's repeated assertion that Indian attempts to stop the flow of waters, assigned to it under the Indus Waters Treaty, would be an act of war. He went on to say that if Pakistan faced any existential threat—and hinted that if the Pakistani people were deprived of water, it would be just that—then, if it goes down, it would take half the world with it.
This was an indirect but unmistakable reference to a nuclear war. He also said that Pakistan would act against India beginning with the east—where it kept most of its 'valuable resources'—and move to the west. He also referred to a tweet which he had commissioned. The tweet had the Quranic verse Surah Fil with a picture of Mukesh Ambani. The implication of such a tweet was to warn Indian industrialists that their assets could be destroyed by Pakistan. Munir also gave ugly analogies of how Pakistan could damage India. And, to crown it all, he said that India should show 'sportsman spirit' and own the losses it had suffered in the recent fighting—a reference to Operation Sindoor. He said that Pakistan would do the same. This was a means of reinforcing the claim that Pakistan had got the better of India in Operation Sindoor.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Significantly, as Munir's hostile remarks against India were made in the US, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) issued only an anodyne account of his interaction with the Pakistani expatriate community. It did not want Munir to be criticized by the US military for misusing its hospitality. The ISPR noted: 'During an interactive session with the Pakistani diaspora, COAS urged them to remain confident in Pakistan's bright future and to actively contribute to attracting investments. The diaspora reaffirmed their commitment to supporting Pakistan's progress and development.'
It is noteworthy that the ISPR did not refer at all to Munir's anti-India rant. However, an account in the Pakistani media, which bears the hallmark of an official leak, did mention that Pakistan could destroy any dam India constructed over the Indus river. Thus, Pakistan's respected daily Dawn quoted Munir as saying: 'We will wait for India to build a dam, and when they do so, we will destroy it. The Indus river is not the Indians' family property. We have no shortage of resources to undo the Indian designs to stop the river.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
No Pakistani Army chief has ever made such a statement. It is foolish for two reasons. If Pakistan destroys a future dam built on the Indus river or any river flowing into Pakistan, not only India but Pakistan will be inundated by the waters released from the destroyed dam. And, what if India responds by targeting the Tarbela Dam on the Indus river and the Mangla Dam on the Jhelum? Both are in Pakistan and contain large bodies of water. Their sudden release would cause enormous floods that would damage large areas of Pakistan.
On July 11, the official spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement on reports of Munir's utterly irresponsible remarks in Florida. The statement noted: 'Our attention has been drawn to remarks reportedly made by the Pakistani Chief of Army Staff while on a visit to the United States. Nuclear sabre-rattling is Pakistan's stock-in-trade. The international community can draw its own conclusions on the irresponsibility inherent in such remarks, which also reinforce the well-held doubts about the integrity of nuclear command and control in a state where the military is hand-in-glove with terrorist groups. It is also regrettable that these remarks should have been made from the soil of a friendly third country. India has already made it clear that it will not give in to nuclear blackmail. We will take all steps necessary to safeguard our own security.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In a response issued also on August 11, the Pakistan Foreign Ministry stated: 'Pakistan strongly rejects the immature remarks made by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs earlier today, which is yet another demonstration of their chronic tendency to distort facts and twist statements out of context. The Indian narrative of an alleged 'nuclear blackmail' is a misleading and self-serving construct. Pakistan remains firmly opposed to the use or threat of use of force. India's sabre-rattling and war-mongering whenever confronted invite unfounded allegations bereft of rationality. Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon state with an elaborate command and control structure under full civilian control. It has always exercised discipline and restraint while dealing with issues of such importance.'
It continued, 'Pakistan's sustained and credible counterterrorism efforts are internationally acknowledged. Our security forces remain the bulwark against terrorism. The Indian MEA's spurious insinuations are irresponsible and without a shred of evidence. We also note with concern a pointless reference to third countries in a bid to exert pressure on Pakistan. This not only reflects India's lack of diplomatic confidence but also constitutes a futile attempt to unnecessarily involve other countries. Contrary to India's belligerent and jingoistic approach, Pakistan shall continue to act as a responsible member of the comity of nations. However, any act of Indian aggression or violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity will be met with an immediate and matching response. The onus of any ensuing escalation will rest squarely with the Indian leadership.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
This writer has deliberately quoted the statements of both countries in full to point out that the Pakistani statement does not mention Munir's comments at all. Indeed, the starting point of the Indian statement is Munir's comments and their implications. In order to refute India's statement, all that Pakistan had to do was to give a full account of what Munir had said at the dinner. From that, it could have proceeded to assert that nothing in what he had said could be construed as India had claimed. However, it chose not to follow this logical and diplomatic approach. The only inference which can be drawn is that the Indian journalist's account of Munir's threats is correct. It also follows that the Indian statement is valid.
In addition to the MEA statement, India should lodge a strong protest with the State Department in Washington against Munir making such anti-India comments in the US. This is clearly contrary to diplomatic practice. India should demand that the State Department deplore the fact that Munir had used US territory to indulge in issuing what were nuclear threats. Naturally, the State Department may be reluctant to do so because of the current warmth in US-Pakistan ties and the role America wants it to play as a conduit to Iran. It may also be chary of pulling up Munir because he has obviously made a good impression on Trump—after all, he has been a prime mover in Pakistan nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
India must carefully monitor developments between the US military and the Pakistan armed forces. They were very close in the past, and Kurilla's positive remarks indicate that the US military wants them to become close again. Its anger against the Pakistani military's duplicity in Afghanistan, which contributed to the US's strategic defeat in the 'forever' war, seems to be a matter of the past for the US military.
The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India's Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.