logo
Book By Paul Kapur, Trump's South Asia Pick, Captures Pakistan's Jihad Strategy & India's Response

Book By Paul Kapur, Trump's South Asia Pick, Captures Pakistan's Jihad Strategy & India's Response

News1817-07-2025
Kapur's 2017 book 'Jihad as Grand Strategy' is more than an analysis of Pakistan's use of jihad as state policy. It anticipates much of what is unfolding today
In and around the Indian subcontinent, S Paul Kapur is going to become an important figure, working carefully behind the headlines. He will be the eyes, ears, and at times the hand of the world's most powerful nation in this region.
Kapur has been nominated as America's representative in India's neighbourhood. He will be the new Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs in the US State Department.
The extent of the power vested in him can be gauged from the legacy of his predecessor, Donald Lu. Lu is credited (or discredited) with engineering regime changes in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Kyrgyzstan; fomenting violent protests against the nationalist government in India; mishandling Afghanistan; keeping the Maldives and Nepal on the boil against India; and interfering in Central Asia's Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
So, who is Paul Kapur? What are his core geopolitical convictions? How closely do these align with India's vision and strategic approach?
Kapur is an academic born in New Delhi to an Indian father and an American mother. He rose through the ranks of the foreign service and enjoys enough of the Trump administration's trust to be entrusted with one of the most sensitive regions in the world.
His appointment becomes even more significant in light of the recent Pahalgam massacre of tourists by Pakistan-backed jihadis and India's response via Operation Sindoor.
Jihad as Grand Strategy. It is not just an analytical study of how Pakistan has used jihad as a central lever of its state policy— in many ways, the book anticipates what is unfolding today.
Kapur opens with a blunt statement of truth: 'Terrorism's ascendance as one of the world's leading strategic dangers has been a central development of the post–Cold War security environment… Scholars and analysts have generated a voluminous literature attempting to identify the demographic, economic, psychological, ideological, strategic and other patterns in terrorist violence. Although the nature and prevalence of such patterns are a matter of vigorous debate, one recurring theme concerning terrorism is strikingly clear: A disproportionate amount of it has been linked to Islamist terrorists based in Pakistan."
He backs this up with examples—how Al Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trained 9/11 terrorists in Karachi and later wired funds for their mission; how Osama bin Laden was found hiding in Pakistan's garrison town of Abbottabad; how the leader of the group that bombed London in 2005 received paramilitary training in Pakistan and got bomb-making instructions from a caller in Rawalpindi; and how the Pakistani terror group Lashkar-e-Toiba carried out the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.
The book primarily deals with the impact that Pakistan's support for terrorism has had on its strategic interests.
Kapur rightly argues that the Islamisation of Pakistan did not begin with General Zia-ul-Haq, as is widely believed. The so-called 'liberal' Zulfikar Ali Bhutto used Islamism for political ends and was ultimately consumed by it. He was the one who declared Ahmadis as non-Muslims and banned alcohol in Pakistan.
'A number of other factors underlay Pakistan's use of Islamist militants, such as the lack of a coherent national founding narrative and material weakness relative to India," Kapur explains. 'Finally, Pakistan did not adopt its militant strategy during the Zia era; the Pakistanis had been using Islamist militants as strategic tools since achieving independence, long before Zia's emergence. It is a deliberate, long-running policy as old as the Pakistani state. Indeed, supporting jihad has constituted nothing less than a central pillar of Pakistani grand strategy."
Pakistan's use of jihad as central state policy did not simply begin after independence; it was a driving force in the violent separation from India and the formation of the Pakistani state—on both its eastern and western fronts.
Grand strategy, Kapur explains, is a state's theory of shaping national security. Pakistan has three main grand strategic tools: nuclear weapons, conventional forces, and militant proxies.
Before 1971, Kapur notes, Pakistan believed it could defeat India in any conventional conflict—drawing from the centuries-old triumphant lore of Muslim invaders. India disabused it of that notion by vivisecting it and creating Bangladesh. A bloodied and humiliated Pakistan then ramped up its use of terror proxies.
Other nations have also used non-state actors: Iran backs Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis; the Soviet Union supported the Red Brigades and Black September; the US trained the Afghan mujahideen and ironically propped up Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who later turned on their mentor; China is believed to support Maoist insurgency in India and radical movements across western democracies. But for no other nation is terrorism as central to state policy as it is in Pakistan, Kapur argues.
And Kapur believes jihad has, in some ways, worked for Pakistan.
It has delivered a number of significant domestic and international outcomes. The strategy has promoted internal political cohesion, offering Pakistan a raison d'être in the absence of a coherent founding narrative. By steadily attriting Indian military and financial resources, it has also helped address Pakistan's material weakness vis-à-vis India. Additionally, the strategy has enabled Pakistan to continue challenging Indian control over Kashmir and to ensure the region remains on the international agenda. It has also allowed Pakistan to shape the strategic environment in Afghanistan and install a favourable government on its western frontier.
However, these 'successes" are now backfiring. The terror organisations Pakistan nurtured are increasingly spinning out of control and severely undermining its interests.
Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) is no longer content with simply bleeding India—it harbours ambitions of conquering the entire country and spreading globally. The Tehreek-e-Taliban has seized large swathes of South Waziristan, launching attacks on Pakistani politicians and military personnel. The Baloch Liberation Army leads a fierce armed freedom movement to liberate Balochistan from Pakistani control.
Groups like LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammed often exceed the brief of their sponsors, conducting operations that drag Pakistan into dangerous confrontations.
Kapur also notes that Pakistan's military strategy has diverted crucial resources away from development, impeding its internal progress.
Perhaps the greatest blowback, Kapur writes, has been India's sweeping military modernisation in response.
Operation Sindoor has highlighted India's growing defence preparedness under PM Narendra Modi, if emerging expert accounts are anything to go by.
India reportedly executed remarkable acts of deception—most notably with the Rafale's X-Guard, an AI-powered towed decoy system that successfully fooled Pakistan's Chinese-made PL-15E missiles and J-10C fighters.
'It's the best spoofing and deception we've ever seen," former US Air Force F-15E and F-16 pilot Ryan Bodenheimer is quoted as saying by idrw.org. He added that the technology may have redefined the rules of electronic warfare.
'Driven by AI, the X-Guard constantly adjusts its signals to replicate Doppler shifts, creating the illusion of a jet roaring through the sky at Mach 1. For enemy radars and missile seekers, the decoy becomes indistinguishable from the real aircraft. Its fibre-optic tether ensures real-time communication with the cockpit, keeping pilots informed of missile locks and decoy status while staying immune to electronic jamming," the report said.
John Spencer, executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute, affirms Kapur's thesis on India's rapidly strengthening conventional bulwark against Pakistan's militant strategy.
Spencer writes: 'The operation demonstrated India's shift from a reactive posture to a proactive, precision-oriented doctrine. Seven of the nine terrorist targets were struck using long-range fires from the Army rather than airstrikes, including loitering munitions and rocket artillery. Counter-drone technology played a key role, with integrated use of radar, jammers, and both kinetic and soft-kill systems to neutralise incoming threats. Real-time battle damage assessments were enabled by persistent ISR from satellites and human intelligence. I was briefed on how even legacy systems, like L-70 guns, were effectively combined with modern platforms to create layered defences. The integration of kinetic force with narrative control was deliberate. What stood out was the clarity and firmness of India's red lines. Every terrorist attack will receive a military response. There will be no distinction between the attacker and those who support or harbour them."
S Paul Kapur's views in his book may occasionally collide with the murky realpolitik that shapes America's foreign policy. But one thing is certain: Kapur is no natural sympathiser of jihad, particularly the industrial-scale terrorism emanating from Pakistan.
top videos
View all
He sums up Pakistan's double-edged sword perfectly: 'Pakistan suffers from a jihad paradox. Political and material weakness originally made Pakistan's militant policy attractive and useful. Now, however, the same weakness makes Pakistan's support for militancy extremely dangerous."
Abhijit Majumder is a senior journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
tags :
Islamic Jihad Operation Sindoor Osama bin Laden
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 11, 2025, 08:22 IST
News opinion Book By Paul Kapur, Trump's South Asia Pick, Captures Pakistan's Jihad Strategy & India's Response
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Op Sindoor debate in Parl today, PM Modi says precision strikes a message for terrorists
Op Sindoor debate in Parl today, PM Modi says precision strikes a message for terrorists

First Post

time24 minutes ago

  • First Post

Op Sindoor debate in Parl today, PM Modi says precision strikes a message for terrorists

PM Modi set the tone of the government as the Parliament prepares for a fiery debate on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. The Prime Minister warned that there will be no safe havens for terrorists read more As the Indian parliament gears up to debate the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Sunday that the precision strikes of Pakistani terror camps in May were India's message that there are no safe havens for terrorists and their masters. While speaking at an event in Tamil Nadu's Gangaikonda Cholapuram, the prime minister said that India places the highest priority on its national security. He emphasised that Operation Sindoor has created a new awakening and a new self-confidence across the country. PM Modi was attending the event to honour Chola emperor Rajendra Chola when he made his stance on the matter clear. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The world witnessed India's firm and decisive response to the threat against its sovereignty during Operation Sindoor, and it has sent a clear message: there is no haven for terrorists and enemies of the nation,' the prime minister said in his address. PM Modi sets the tone of the government ahead of the debate Many believe that with this address, the prime minister has set the tone for the government's response to the debate in parliament, which will take place in the Lok Sabha on Monday. Meanwhile, the Opposition is planning to open the front by talking about the big terror attacks under 'PM Modi's watch'. The debate in Lok Sabha is coming after a first week of disruption of Parliament's Monsoon session and is expected to be a fiery one. The two sides have agreed to a marathon 16-hour debate in each House, which invariably stretches longer in practice. Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is likely to initiate the debate immediately after the question hour in the Lok Sabha. Sources close to the matter told The Times of India that Home Minister Amit Shah, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar will be speaking on the issues amid indications that the PM may intervene to convey his government's 'robust' stand against terrorism. Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition in LS and RS - Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge - would lead the charge against the government along with Samajwadi Party's Akhilesh Yadav. It is believed that Congress is planning to attack the government and particularly PM Modi over national security. The Opposition is most likely to point toward the repeated big terror attacks under PM Modi's watch. Since the Pahalgam terror attack, Congress and the opposition have been pointing out that the terrorists singled out the tourists by religion to execute them. Ahead of the debate, Congress also raised the issue of US President Donald Trump's claims of halting Operation Sindoor and calling for a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. On Sunday, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh pointed out that since May 10, Trump has claimed '26 times' that he stopped the operation by 'threatening to cut off trade with India, and claimed that five fighter jets may have been shot down'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Even though Congress had been demanding a special two-day session of Parliament immediately after Operation Sindoor was abruptly halted, that demand was ignored. Nevertheless, better late than never,' he wrote in a post on X.

Operation Sindoor: Narendra Modi's Image Versus National Interest
Operation Sindoor: Narendra Modi's Image Versus National Interest

The Wire

time24 minutes ago

  • The Wire

Operation Sindoor: Narendra Modi's Image Versus National Interest

Prime minister Narendra Modi should know that seeking the cooperation of opposition parties to project India's case abroad after Operation Sindoor must necessarily be accompanied by showing some respect for the opposition in domestic politics. You cannot seek opposition cooperation to present a unified foreign policy position abroad and continue to treat opposition parties as "enemies" in domestic politics. After all, it was the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat who had advised the Bharatiya Janata Party not to treat the opposition as enemies and also constructive engagement after the BJP's disappointing performance at the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. In this regard has Modi learnt any lessons from the 2024 Lok Sabha results? The basic attitude and approach doesn't seem to have changed. Modi still believes that he can cynically manipulate the opposition through coercive politics without showing any sincerity of purpose. It is common knowledge now that Operation Sindoor, though a limited success, was badly bungled at several levels and mistakes were made which could have been avoided. This is something the government is yet to admit buy responsible Indian military officers have dropped adequate hints in public fora. When an honest military officer cited " restraint from political leadership" as a reason for some Indian fighter planes going down, he was serving the interest of truth. The Modi government's initial silence on the other hand was meant to protect the prime minister's image. Modi was clearly on the backfoot after operation Sindoor and was unable to fully convince his own constituency (including the RSS) that it was an unqualified success. He therefore swallowed his ego for the first time and approached the opposition parties to take part in a joint delegation to present India's case abroad as no country had explicitly condemned Pakistan's role in the Pahalgam terror attack. The Congress party led by Rahul Gandhi has been been raising tough questions around Operation Sindoor and sought a special session of parliament to discuss everything threadbare. Other opposition parties wanted the same. But then the cynical, coercive and manipulative template of politics is embedded in the regime's DNA. The opening of the parliament session was marked by the unprecedented resignation of vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar. This was the distraction the BJP needed to create chaos and disrupt what might have been a relatively more orderly parliament session with the citizens eager to learn more about the critical issues of national interest such as Operation Sindoor and the stupendous claims by US president Donald Trump on India-Pakistan ceasefire linked to trade talks. The reality is that the president of the world's biggest military power has repeated 25 times that he stopped the India-Pakistan military exchange which was about to spillover to the nuclear domain with the threat of trade. Whether Modi likes it or not, this issue will have to be discussed in parliament. The people of this country cannot be kept in the dark simply because Modi's personal image is to be kept intact. This, in fact, is the nub of the issue. Operation Sindoor and the multiple issues it has thrown up demands an open discussion in parliament to further national interests. But the regime's ecosystem is bent upon creating distractions and confusion to protect Modi's image. So national interest and the ruling ecosystem's attempt to save Modi's image are totally at odds with each other today. This was apparent even during Operation Sindoor. The BJP's media ecosystem projected Modi as a warrior who will not spare Pakistan but the moment the ceasefire happened, Modi's picture was withdrawn and replaced with that of government spokesperson Vikram Misri who announced the ceasefire. This was undisguised manipulation. Similarly, people noticed how Modi used the opposition's cooperation to burnish his own image with his domestic constituency. Even before the opposition delegation had returned, external affairs minister S. Jaishankar was boasting at a public forum that Modi had achieved with the opposition parties what even Indira Gandhi couldn't have done in the 1970s. Thus everything is a personal image building exercise for Modi first, and then something else. One only hopes that Shashi Tharoor and Manish Tiwari have internalised this aspect of Modi's narcissism when they lend unqualified support to Operation Sindoor in "national interest." Don't they see how "national interest" seamlessly converts to Modi's interest in domestic politics? Don't they see how the hyphenation of India with Pakistan, which they speak against in global fora, is paradoxically a key component of Modi's image building politics in the cow belt? They might see more of it in the current parliament session as the ruling party cynically manages everything as it has done in the past. Indeed how Modi treats the opposition parties in domestic politics, as aptly articulated by Mohan Bhagwat himself, is fundamentally the bane of Indian politics and the primary cause of democratic backsliding today. If this is not fixed nothing is fixed.

Pakistan: Protest against counter-terror ops turns deadly in KPK as 3 killed in firing by gunmen
Pakistan: Protest against counter-terror ops turns deadly in KPK as 3 killed in firing by gunmen

First Post

time24 minutes ago

  • First Post

Pakistan: Protest against counter-terror ops turns deadly in KPK as 3 killed in firing by gunmen

Three people were killed and several injured after gunmen opened fire on a protest in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Locals were demonstrating against counter-terror operations following a girl's death in a mortar strike. read more Unknown gunmen opened fire on a protest in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province on Sunday, killing three people and injuring several others, news agency PTI reported, citing officials. The demonstrations were staged against ongoing counter-terrorism operations in the region. The protest erupted in the Tirah Valley after a young girl was killed a day earlier in a mortar attack in Zakha Khel, located in Khyber District. In response, angry locals gathered and placed the girl's body outside the Momand Ghuz security checkpoint to demand accountability. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Suhail Afridi, special assistant to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief minister, confirmed that the protesters were fired upon by terrorists, leaving three people dead and eight injured. Pak's deep-rooted security challenge Terrorism remains a major security threat in Pakistan, particularly in the provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Ironically, while Pakistan presents itself internationally as a victim of terrorism, it has long been accused of supporting extremist groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, especially in their operations against India. Military operations and human rights concerns Inside its borders, Pakistan has waged several large-scale military operations—such as Zarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad—to dismantle militant networks. Yet groups like Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Islamic State (IS) affiliates, and Baloch separatist outfits remain active, frequently targeting civilians, security forces, and critical infrastructure. The state's heavy-handed counter-terror tactics have led to serious human rights abuses, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and unlawful detentions. These actions have deepened mistrust among citizens and eroded confidence in the rule of law. Persistent militancy and regional hotspots The tribal belt near the Afghan border continues to be a hub of militant activity. Meanwhile, Balochistan has witnessed an uptick in violence, often directed at Chinese projects tied to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Though urban centers like Karachi and Lahore have seen a relative decline in attacks, the threat of sleeper cells and lone-wolf actors remains. Worsening rights crisis in Balochistan In Balochistan, the security situation is compounded by long-standing grievances over political marginalisation and economic exploitation. The region has become a focal point of allegations regarding systemic human rights violations, particularly targeting students, activists, and political dissenters. Human rights watchdogs, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have documented repeated cases of torture, arbitrary arrests, and extrajudicial killings—often attributed to state agencies operating without accountability. Enforced disappearances and public outrage Families of the disappeared frequently organise sit-ins and protests, displaying photographs of their missing loved ones and demanding justice. Thousands of cases have been reported to Pakistan's Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, with Balochistan accounting for a disproportionate share. However, few have been resolved, and the perpetrators rarely face consequences. Suppressing dissent through fear Activists argue that these disappearances are part of a broader strategy to suppress the Baloch nationalist movement and silence dissent against controversial state-led projects like CPEC. The lack of judicial oversight, transparency, and accountability has only widened the trust deficit between the Baloch people and the federal government—fuelling further instability in an already volatile region.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store