Designating TRF as a terrorist group is welcome, but US has a tendency to play both sides

Indian Express

21-07-2025

Asim Munir's recent visit to Washington reaffirmed Pakistan's alignment with US strategic interests. Publicly endorsed by CENTCOM chief General Kurilla as a 'phenomenal partner,' Pakistan continues to position itself as a counterterrorism ally, despite its longstanding use of militant groups as foreign policy tools. These developments underscore the transactional nature of the US-Pakistan relationship, where tactical alignment often overshadows long-term strategic divergence.
For India, this highlights the need for vigilance and independence in dealing with regional security issues, particularly as Washington continues to balance its ties with both Islamabad and New Delhi. India's approach must be practical, based on realism, and free from the historical baggage that hinders progress.
The recent designation of The Resistance Forum (TRF), a rebranded offshoot of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), as a global terror organisation by the US represents more than just a counter-terrorism action. It sends a strategic message that connects with broader regional dynamics and internal shifts within Pakistan. The US has long utilised terror designations, military aid, and economic pressure as tools of influence. The timing of the TRF's listing — during backchannel meetings, changing alliances, and defence cooperation talks — should not be seen as coincidental.
Pakistan, under the informal control of the powerful military establishment led by Munir, remains a central player in this situation. Reports that Munir may be preparing for a transition from military to civilian leadership — possibly as the country's next president — add a new layer of complexity. The Pakistani Army has always played a dual role, exerting de facto political power while maintaining the appearance of democratic governance. If Munir does become president, it would formalise what has long been an open secret: Pakistan is a state run by its generals, not its elected officials.
Munir's current influence, untethered by public accountability, distorts Pakistan's already fragile democratic structure. His management of both foreign and domestic policy blurs the line between governance and military strategy. Recent high-level meetings involving Munir and the Chief of Pakistan Air Force (PAF), coinciding with the TRF's terror designation, raise questions about the legitimacy and goals of these interactions.
The backdrop to these engagements is likely Pakistan's urgent military needs. Indian punitive strikes during Operation Sindoor caused significant damage to key Pakistani airbases at Nur Khan and Sargodha, amongst others, requiring repairs and replacements. The PAF is reportedly seeking spare parts for its F-16 fleet — a need that cannot be met without US cooperation. It appears that the Pakistani government is quietly collaborating with Washington to secure this support without resorting to IMF or World Bank funds, thereby avoiding scrutiny of military spending amid economic instability.
This implicit understanding between the US and Pakistan reflects an evolving relationship. Washington no longer views Islamabad solely through the lens of the Afghan conflict but instead as a flexible partner, willing to meet demands in exchange for support. The days of aid in exchange for loyalty are gone — now, cooperation is transactional, and Pakistan's leadership appears more than eager to cooperate.
For India, this situation presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The shifting alignment of US interests — sometimes favouring Pakistan, at other times leaning toward India — requires a clear and focused response. American support for Indian security remains strong, but it is not without conditions. Washington will prioritise its national interests above all, even if that means playing both sides in South Asia.
Whether it's counterterrorism cooperation, arms sales, or trade negotiations, New Delhi must assert its independence with Washington. American tariffs and weapons deals serve as tools of influence, often used to sway policy decisions or gain concessions. India's autonomy is crucial in these interactions, and it must remain focused on its national interests and avoid being manipulated into a state of dependency.
Meanwhile, new alignments are starting to form. Russia and China are showing renewed interest in strengthening the Russia-India-China (RIC) alliance. Although this trilateral framework lacks the strength of NATO or QUAD, it serves as an essential counterbalance to Western influence. India should explore this space, not out of unquestioning loyalty, but to prevent undue pressure from any single power bloc.
The re-emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, three decades after being ousted, and the US's ongoing operational presence in the region (including leasing airbases and printing Afghan currency) indicate a long-term American interest in Central and South Asia. These actions are not driven by altruism — they are part of a calculated strategy to maintain influence in one of the world's most volatile regions.
India must recognise that it is being watched, evaluated, and targeted by global powers who see it as both a partner and a pawn. In this environment, the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) gain renewed relevance. Not the NAM of the Cold War era, but a reimagined model — one that is pragmatic, flexible, and focused on issue-based cooperation rather than ideological loyalty.
To navigate this complexity, India must also look inward. There is an urgent need to engage its neighbours, not as subordinates, but as equal stakeholders. The Subcontinent cannot afford to be shackled by its past. While historical wrongs and unresolved disputes persist, they must not define the future. The policy of strategic patience must be replaced with a strategic approach to problem-solving, one that values and promotes regional cooperation.
This means reevaluating relationships with nations such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and even Pakistan. It involves restarting stalled dialogues, not to compromise sovereignty or national security, but to build a regional consensus that benefits India. Assertiveness must be balanced with diplomacy, and power must be tempered by responsibility.
India's path forward should be neither isolationist nor interventionist — it should be independent. We must assert our narrative, unfiltered by Western media, unpressured by superpower coercion, and unfazed by regional provocations. The TRF listing, the whispers of a presidential coup in Pakistan, and the transactional nature of US foreign policy are all reminders that the game is on. We must shed the weight of the past. We cannot undo Partition. We cannot undo wars. But we can choose how we move forward. Let history be a lesson, not a leash. Let us walk forward — eyes open, feet grounded, and purpose clear.
The writer is a lieutenant colonel, former Armoured Corps officer, defence analyst and strategic thinker