Govt reacts to Asim Munir's nuclear threat against India: ‘Whenever US supports Pakistan military…'
In a statement on Monday, 11 August, the ministry said, 'Our attention has been drawn to remarks reportedly made by the Pakistani Chief of Army Staff while on a visit to the United States.'
'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,' the external affairs ministry said.
The ministry expressed regret 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 continue to take all steps necessary to safeguard our national security,' the ministry said.
Meanwhile, sources in the government told news agency PTI, 'There is real danger of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of non-state actors in Pakistan.'
Sources said that Asim Munir's nuclear threat from US soil showed that Pakistan is an 'irresponsible' state with such weapons.
They added that his statement 'is part of a pattern'. 'Whenever the US supports the Pakistan military, they always show their true colours.'
'It is a symptom that democracy does not exist in Pakistan and it is their military which controls the country,' they said.
'Emboldened by reception and welcome by the US, the next step could possibly be a silent or open coup in Pakistan so that the Field Marshal becomes the President,' the sources said.
The comments came after Pakistani military chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir said that Islamabad would take down 'half the world' with it, if his country faces an existential threat in future with India.
'We are a nuclear nation; if we think we are going down, we'll take half the world down with us,' media reports quoted Munir as saying.
He said that Islamabad will defend its water rights 'at all costs' if India proceeds with dam construction on the Indus River.
'We will wait for India to build a dam, and when they do so, we will destroy it,' Munir told members of the Pakistani-American community in Tampa, Florida, according to a report published today in The Dawn.
Munir's nuclear threat came on the day the world marked the 80th anniversary of the US dropping an atomic bomb on Nagasaki in 1945.
Asim Munir recently visited two US cities over the weekend and flew to Brussels on Sunday after completing his second high-profile trip to the United States in less than two months. Like his previous visit, he engaged with political and military leadership in the host country, Dawn reported.
In Tampa, the Pakistan army chief attended the US Central Command Centcom change of command ceremony. According to the Inter-Services Public Relations ISPR, his engagements included the retirement ceremony of General Michael E Kurilla, Commander of CENTCOM, and the change of command where Admiral Brad Cooper assumed charge.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Behind US-China trade truce
United States President Donald Trump on Monday extended his trade truce with China for another three months until November 10, pausing the triple-digit import duties that the two countries would have levied on each other's goods. Trump's move — 'to continue the suspension' of the prohibitive 145% tariff on Chinese goods and keep it at 30% following an earlier executive order dated May 12 — comes in the wake of Beijing's strong response with retaliatory measures of its own. That included not just imposing a 125% tariff on US shipments (since lowered to 10%), but also curbing exports of rare-earth metals and magnets, impacting American auto, aerospace, defence, and semiconductor manufacturers. However, it isn't just the choking of the supply of critical minerals that China has used as a leveraging tool to bring Trump to the negotiating table. In its ongoing, albeit temporarily halted, trade war with the US, China has also employed a 'trump card' in the form of agricultural imports. The accompanying table shows that the exports of US farm produce to China have more than halved, from $13.1 billion during January-June 2024 to $6.4 billion in the first six months of 2025. It comes on top of declines in the last two years, and is a far cry from the peak of $40.7 billion scaled in 2022. The fall in agricultural imports has been led by soyabean, with China importing hardly $2.5 billion worth of the leguminous oilseed from the US in January-June 2025, as against over $17.9 billion in 2022. That explains why Trump, in a post on his Truth Social platform on Monday, urged China to 'quickly quadruple' its soyabean imports from the US. He wrote, 'Our great farmers produce the most robust soybeans…Rapid service will be provided. Thank you President Xi [Jinping]'. Soyabean apart, China has massively reduced its purchases of US corn (maize), coarse grains (mainly sorghum and barley), cotton, beef, pork, poultry meat, and even forest products and tree nuts such as almonds, pistachios and walnuts. China is a huge importer of agri-commodities. Till two years ago, it was the world's biggest buyer of soyabean, rapeseed, wheat, barley, sorghum, oats and cotton, and No. 2 for corn (after Mexico) and palm oil (after India). A lot of these imports — 105 million tonnes (mt) of soyabean, 14.2 mt of barley, 13.8 mt of corn, 11.2 mt of wheat and 8.7 mt of sorghum in 2024 — catered to the protein and energy requirements of its massive swine herd and poultry flock. China houses roughly half of the world's pig population, and a fifth of its chickens. In 2024, China imported 74.7 mt of soyabean from Brazil and only 22.1 mt from the US. By sourcing more from Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Paraguay and other countries, it is hurting the interest of farmers in the US 'corn belt' states stretching from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Missouri to North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas. In addition, there are the beef farmers in Texas and Oklahoma, and the tree nut growers in California, Oregon, New Mexico, and Georgia, who stand to lose from a trade war with China. Simply put, China is not only leveraging its control over the global rare-earth elements market — from mining and refining to exports — but also its power as an agri-commodities importer to push Trump to continue 'productive discussions' with Beijing 'to resolve trade disputes and strengthen economic ties'. While US exports of farm produce to China have plunged by 51.3% in January-June 2025 over January-June 2024, that to India have soared 49.1% for the same period. As reported in this newspaper, agricultural trade between India and the US has actually been booming. Based on shipment value trends so far, both exports from the US to India and that from India to the US are set to top $3.5 billion and $7.5 billion respectively. India has, in fact, overtaken China to emerge as the biggest market for US tree nuts, with exports at more than $1.1 billion in 2024 and growing by 42.8% year-on-year to $759.6 million in January-June 2025. The US, likewise, has a 35% share in India's seafood exports. In frozen shrimps and prawns, more than $1.9 billion out of the $4.5 billion of Indian exports during 2024-25 (April-March) went to the US. It's another thing that despite this robust two-way trade engagement — more so in a sector that has become a sticking point in the ongoing bilateral trade talks — the Trump administration has doubled the tariff on Indian imports to 50%, effective from August 27. That includes a 25% 'penalty' for the purchase of Russian oil, which China has also been doing without inviting any such coercive duty.
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
C Raja Mohan writes: When Trump meets Putin, hurdles crossed and yet to come
That Vladimir Putin is being hosted on American soil this week — after a decade of deep tensions —marks a significant moment in the shifting relations between the United States, Russia, Europe, and China. The Alaska peace talks on Ukraine, alongside broader discussions on US-Russia ties between President Donald Trump and Putin, could have far-reaching consequences for Eurasian security and the global order. India, now facing a 25 per cent additional tariff on exports to the US because of its Russian oil imports, has a direct stake in the summit's outcome. PM Narendra Modi called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reaffirm India's support for the peace process. Putin's last visit to the US was in 2015 for a UN summit, when he met President Obama on the margins. Subsequent meetings with US presidents took place in third countries — Helsinki in 2018 and Geneva in 2021. His last formal White House summit was in 2005. Since the late 2000s, US-Russia relations have steadily worsened, fuelled by NATO's eastward expansion, Moscow's annexation of Crimea in 2014, and its invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2022. Given two decades of political hostility toward Russia in the US, suspicions within the American 'deep state' that Trump is a Russian asset, and Democratic attempts to impeach him in his first term, the decision to host Putin is a bold political move. That, in turn, is rooted in Trump's worldview. Three elements stand out. First, Trump has consistently signalled a desire to break from Washington's entrenched antagonism to Russia and bear the political cost. Constrained in his first term, he now appears determined to explore a different relationship. Second is Trump's claim to be the 'peace president'. In 2024, he claimed the invasion would not have occurred if he were president and that he could end it 'on day one.' In his January 2025 inaugural address, he declared: 'We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end — and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' This aligns with the MAGA movement's rejection of 'endless wars' and focus on rebuilding the homeland. Third is Trump's instinct to link peace with profit. His ideas — turning Gaza into a resort, securing mineral rights in Ukraine, exploring business with Russia or selling Pakistani oil to India — reflect a 'peace-for-profit' logic. If the Alaska summit produces a deal, expect significant commercial components. Trump's Ukraine envoy Steve Witkoff and Putin aide Kirill Dmitriev have been developing 'peace-for-business' proposals. These centre on de-escalation in exchange for commercial openings between the US and Russia. Core areas involve structured oil and LNG flows, protections for energy infrastructure, and penalties if hostilities resume. Arctic cooperation is also on the table. Another track explores controlled trade in critical minerals and rare earths. Significant hurdles remain in the pursuit of peace for profit: Political resistance in Congress and Europe, and Kyiv's opposition to arrangements that reward aggression. More challenging are the structural problems in the complex negotiations over ending the war. The summit's format excludes Ukraine and sidelines Europe, raising doubts about legitimacy and durability. Efforts are being made to engage the Europeans and include Zelenskyy in some form, but the essential dilemma remains — whether to pursue a rapid ceasefire that freezes current lines or a slower process that secures broader legitimacy. Meanwhile, Putin's emphasis is on direct talks with Trump. Five intertwined issues are at the heart of the peace talks: First is the question of a ceasefire — an immediate, verifiable halt to hostilities, with clearly agreed lines of control. Next comes territory and sovereignty: Russia seeks recognition, or at least de facto acceptance, of its control over Crimea and the occupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, while Ukraine firmly rejects any land-for-peace arrangement. The third issue is security architecture, with Moscow demanding binding limits on Ukraine's NATO membership, Western bases, and arms supplies, and Kyiv insisting on its sovereign right to choose its alignments. Fourth is sanctions relief: Russia wants rapid easing, but the West insists that meaningful concessions must come first. Finally, there is enforcement — credible monitoring mechanisms, withdrawal schedules, buffer zones, and dispute-resolution arrangements to prevent any agreement from collapsing. Each of these issues is difficult to resolve to the satisfaction of all parties. Any one can derail the peace talks. To complicate matters, the stakeholders of peace have divergent positions. Trump wants a quick and big 'win', but some in the administration and many in Washington insist on caution. Moscow is seeking a durable settlement in which the Russian role in European security is secured. It wants to block NATO expansion and seeks a say in Ukraine's internal order. Kyiv demands full sovereignty and the freedom to choose its security partners. Europe is split on tactics: Some urge 'ceasefire first', others insist on Ukraine's place at the table and reject unilateral concessions. European leaders fear Trump and Putin could cut a 'Yalta-style' bargain over their heads, but they have limited leverage in persuading Trump. Beijing is also wary that a US-Russia rapprochement might free Washington to concentrate pressure on China in Asia. For India, reconciliation between Washington and Moscow is welcome. The Russia-West conflict has historically strengthened China and Pakistan, constraining India's regional policies. Delhi hoped Trump's pursuit of peace with Russia would align with its interests. But India has now become collateral damage in Trump's bid to pressure Moscow into a deal. Failure in Alaska would be bad news for India; success, however, would not guarantee tariff relief. Trump has embraced tariffs as a diplomatic and political weapon and may continue to use them against India. It would be ironic if Delhi's long-standing bet on Moscow left it in a position where US-Russia ties improve while its own troubles with Washington persist. This would not be unprecedented. During the detente of the 1970s, the USSR's focus was on managing the global order in partnership with the US. After the Cold War, Russia ignored its old friends in favour of building partnerships with the US and Europe. It took more than a decade to restore India's close ties to Moscow. The lesson for Delhi is clear: It cannot take any great power for granted, but must strive to develop independent relations with all of them. Ukraine is a stark reminder that India should not get drawn into great power conflict, despite the transient opportunities that may present themselves. The writer is distinguished fellow at the Council on Strategic and Defence Research and contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Asim Munir's anti-India statement: He is is only as big a problem as Delhi let's him be
Issuing nuclear threats seems to be an easy way to grab global headlines. A former Russian president did it twice in recent weeks. Joining him now is Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, the newly promoted Field Marshal, Asim Munir. Addressing the Pakistani diaspora in the United States, on his second visit in under two months, he reportedly declared: 'We are a nuclear nation. If we think we are going down, we'll take half the world down with us.' Incidentally, Munir's remark came on the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki during the World War II — the last time nuclear weapons were used in warfare. For now, though, for all his undisguised bombast, Munir appears to be enjoying a moment in the sun, having lunch with the US President, theatrically threatening India. New Delhi's official reaction to what it has described as his 'nuclear sabre-rattling' was to reaffirm its refusal to yield to nuclear blackmail and assert that India would take all measures necessary to safeguard national security. Yet, given the clearly staged nature of Munir's provocations — he also repeated the 'jugular vein' remark on Kashmir that he had made ahead of the Pahalgam attack — delivered on the soil of a nation friendly to India despite the recent trade-related turbulence, New Delhi would do well to not take them too seriously. Munir's tirade does offer a window to understanding the Pakistani military's inclination towards economic warfare. He reportedly vowed to target Reliance Industries' Jamnagar refinery in Gujarat, the largest single-site refining complex in the world, in the event of a future conflict. He invoked the Indus Waters Treaty, which New Delhi placed in abeyance after the Pahalgam attack, threatening missile strikes should India proceed with dam construction. Far from projecting strength, these remarks present a sorry picture of a Field Marshal straining to cast Pakistan as a viable rival to India. The reality is different: India's GDP is roughly 10 times Pakistan's, and the gap is widening, not just economically but also in terms of the two countries' global standing. Munir's own analogy likening India to a Mercedes and Pakistan to a dump truck is telling of the military establishment's mindset: That, in a conflict, India has far more to lose. Yet, much like three decades ago, when Rawalpindi invested significant time and effort in nefarious cross-border activities aimed at destabilisation, India should continue to press ahead with diplomatic partnerships, accelerate economic reforms, strengthen technological capabilities, and foster internal unity. Ultimately, Field Marshal Asim Munir can only become as big for India as India allows him to be. Pakistan is far more than the folie de grandeur of one man bent on forcing India-Pakistan hyphenation on the international stage — unsuccessfully. India must keep its eye on the big picture, and focus on partnerships with nations pivotal to its rise as an economic power.
