Indo-Pak dispute
'The Pakistan government has taken note of the remarks by the Prime Minister of India, delivered in Gujarat with the theatrical flourish of a campaign rally rather than the sobriety expected of the leader of a nuclear-armed state,' the Foreign Office of Pakistan said in a statement issued early this week. 'Such statements blatantly violate the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter, which obliges member states to resolve disputes peacefully and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty or political independence of other states,' it added.
The statement of Modi was undoubtedly meant for the appeasement of the Indian public. The downside of the statement is the message to the world that peace between the two neighbouring countries is far away. The statesmanship of a public leader demands management of public emotions and to provide the nation a meaningful way forward for dispute resolution.
Swayed by the euphoria of negativity and Pakistan bashing, India fell short to provide the world a realistic and transparent analysis on the cause, motive and to name the perpetrators of the Pahalgam incident. The worn-out script of finger-pointing at Pakistan, based on historical data, found no takers in the United Nations. Pakistan's offer for a joint investigation into the incident was rejected by India.
Disappointed with lack of world support for pinning down Pakistan for the incident, India last week sent a parliamentary delegation to 33 countries on a diplomatic mission to drum up support for Delhi in its narrative of countering Pakistan-behind recent cross-border attacks and that the Pakistan-based Lashker-e-Taiba (LeT) Islamist militant group was behind the attack. Reportedly, India has built up a case based on the historical data on the subject.
In parallel, Pakistan too has organised a parliamentary delegation on a diplomatic mission to these very countries to seek support against Indian involvement of terrorism in Pakistan. It has also prepared a dossier to present its case. In all probability, both sides would be sympathetically heard around the globe. But, nothing tangible is expected beyond this — as is evident from the outcome of some of the meetings Indian delegations already held.
India has placed its bet on the presumption that on the strength of its economic and geopolitical supremacy over Pakistan, and its far greater global outreach, its narrative would sail through with no question asked. This presumption may prove wrong.
The world is no longer the same as a year back. The geo-political landscape is undergoing a dramatic transformation with all countries, big or small, being in the midst of recalibrating their places in this change. There is a significant internal and external transformation on state governance, and new alliances are shaping up in the west. The geopolitical and economic priority of the US has moved to 'America first'.
China is now more assertive in world politics than ever before. Its support to Pakistan in the recent conflict with India is the beginning of a 'new normal' between Pakistan and China. The South Asia region is moving out of the orbit of India and is recalibrating a balance in its relations with India and the growing China's influence in the region. The recent neutral stance of the US towards the ongoing Indo-Pak conflict indicates Washington's enthusiasm in prompting India to challenge Beijing in the region is dwindling.
The evolving global economic and geopolitical dynamics lead to the conclusion that India and Pakistan have to resolve their issues by themselves and reset their relationship.
Political maturity would have been if the Indian delegations would have walked over from Wagah border into Pakistan or vice versa Pakistan delegation to India and sit together and work out the differences as best as possible. The results could have been far more rewarding and tangible than expected from aimlessly moving around the globe soliciting buyers of one's narrative. It is an exercise in futility with no takers.
There are no big issues which cannot be resolved between India and Pakistan. They are historically driven issues left unresolved for decades. Many times, Pakistan and India came close to resolving the Kashmir issue, but only to be aborted at the last minute. If Pakistan and India could sit together in 1960 to work out the complicated Indus Water Treaty, why cannot they sit together today to review the treaty in the best interest of both the countries. Solutions can only be worked out in a bilateral dialogue between Pakistan and India. The process can immediately roll out once India starts considering Pakistan as its equal partner and the self-inflicted animosity, meant for public appeasement, is put aside by both the neighbouring countries.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
5 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Pakistanis under rubble: here and there
Pakistan, born against many odds, has survived despite incomprehensible antagonisms over seventy-eight years of independence — no trifling triumph. Those who enabled this survival were mostly gumnam sipahi (unsung soldiers) or people who faced frightful fates. Although the country has changed, with East Pakistan no longer hers and Karachi no longer her capital, Pakistan continues to make strides in many fields, from fashion and entertainment to nuclear capability. Marka-e-Haq (battle of truth) heightens the joy of this year's 14th August. Pakistanis' ability to create memes in the middle of a war is admirable, but as a medical doctor I get concerned too. TV channels have convinced us that all of us are equal, and even the masses who continue to suffer (perhaps without realisation) from the impact of social injustices, erased histories and moral bankruptcy, celebrate jashn. Sadly, Nature has its own laws. The criminal silence of the elite segment of civil society, who cannot go beyond fancy titles and slogans and apple-polishing those in power to secure a slot in foreign trips, and the criminal negligence of successive governments in responding to the impact of climate change, are taking their toll. While I write these lines, Buner is facing catastrophe, and so are many other areas of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, while the flood affectees of Sindh have been reduced to passive recipients of a housing scheme that should have been their right in the first place. I am deliberately avoiding statistics related to the human face of such crises, because apparently millions of out-of-school children, people living below the poverty line, and the scale of bureaucratic complacency have rarely made anybody feel guilty. The nation is being fed with certain narratives and good ones are rewarded accordingly. From the Nobel Peace Prize to civil awards in our country, there are rarely any undisputed recipients — and this piece is not about the latest ironic awards. I am infuriated that mainstream media largely continues business as usual. There is no emergency telethon, no dashboards, and no actions required in emergencies of this extent. While a large population lies under the real rubble in present-day Pakistan, another group is buried under the rubble of erased history. If anyone is in reflective mode yet once again, they must notice the omission of those 250,000-300,000 shunned Pakistanis still stranded in Bangladesh from any official statement or ceremony. There are inequalities everywhere in Pakistan — from Gilgit-Baltistan to Islamabad Capital Territory, from Turbat to Thar, from Bajaur to Burewala — and no human misery must be trivialised. Yet with a heavy heart I am mentioning this particular issue, as it is the most despised and deserted one. Others at least make it into headlines, hashtags, or academic arguments. The stranded Pakistanis? They are excluded and erased. And here I stand, a lone advocate, raising what no media giant, no human rights darling, no "hero/shero" journalist dares to raise. Nobody is interested in the fate of the inhabitants of "Geneva Camp" in Dhaka, who are facing another calamity created by land mafias and will eventually be evicted. They were never counted, so nobody will notice their disappearance. My claim can be dismissed. But contemplate who gets attention, and what content gets published — certainly not the one I have been conveying for the last 15 years or so. The dominant narrative in our media and academia has been consistent: talk of 1971 is permitted and endorsed only as a one-sided "Bengali genocide" story — a story that too often becomes a suitable style to slander Pakistan. Sympathy flows only in one direction. But where is the truth and reconciliation? Where is the recognition of the Biharis and other non-Bengalis who stood by Pakistan, only to have their lives, properties and heritage destroyed in the liberation war of anti-Pakistan Bengali Mukti Bahnis? A new political bloc, China-Pakistan-Bangladesh, is in the making. Sustainable friendship between Pakistan and Bangladesh is not possible without reconciliation, and the latter means admitting inconvenient truths and taking actions. The reconciliation measures involve both governments, as I have written many times before. Bangladesh must show remorse for the genocide of pro-Pakistanis and for rendering them stateless. Pakistan must complete the unfinished repatriation of those still stranded, as it did for about 170,000 people between 1974 and 1982. And yes, their return can and must be carried out without threatening Sindh's demography through a fair, federated resettlement approach. But here is where my helpless anger sharpens: MQM. Every version of this party has been part of governments in Sindh or at the Federal level. And yet they never made the repatriation of these Pakistanis a priority. They never sought a grand dialogue with Sindhi nationalists for harmony. They never pressured other provincial governments to share resettlement responsibility. Empty slogans, no action. And then the duplicity of our celebrated media and human rights champions! They boost their voices for Balochistan (and yes, Balochistan deserves justice) but why? Because it gives them international appreciation, invitation to global conferences, foreign fellowships. Yet for the stranded Pakistanis, they remain muted. Not one prime-time debate, not one award-winning documentary. Hush. Hush. Hush. So here I am, in monologue. A lone rebel, perhaps, shouting into the void. With no audience, no trending hashtag, no solidarity march. I thank The Express Tribune for occasionally publishing my agony but I know I am looking for justice in an unfair world. After all, even the live-streamed genocide in Gaza has refused to move the hearts and heads of those who matter. And yet, I remind myself: this is my role. As a peace activist. As an advocate for the forgotten. To speak, even when no one listens. To demand, even when no one cares. Remember, even if the nation forgets. Because silence is support. And I will not be complicit.
Express Tribune
5 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
US and India — strategic autonomy or alliance partnership
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam This piece attempts to deconstruct the imperatives of Sino-India bilateralism in the backdrop of US-China competition. In my piece, "War of Humiliation" in the South Asia magazine (November 2020), discussing the Sino-Indian escalation in Ladakh, I had concluded that expecting India to stand up to China as a bulwark, that the US continues to prop it, is too far-fetched. That China and India would never — willingly or unwillingly — walk into a full-blown war, that is in nobody's interest. If anyone expects India to stand upto to China — doing the US bidding — in a resurrected Great Game 2.0; then it is not knowing India of Chanakya Kautilya (375-283 BC). The wizard, also called Vishnugupta or the Indian Machiavelli, said: "Do not reveal what you have thought of doing... keep it secret being determined to carry it into execution." Fast forward to 2025, there is a lot of debate nudging India to be in a 'partnership alliance' with the US to counter China; as most analysts in the US/European camp, think India cannot do it alone. Some emphasise that 'strengthening Quad' (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising Australia, India, Japan and America) would be a good starting point for New Delhi. Realising that India is a 'hedging' middle power, eager to play both if not all sides, the US think-tanks deduce that transfer of more sophisticated and advanced technology to India would depend upon India's overt anti-Beijing credentials. The basic premise of such thinking is that a shooting Sino-Indian war is inevitable, and that militarily embroiling China through India is cost effective and makes strategic sense. This is a faulty presumption, just like encouraging Ukraine, a militarily weaker side, to go on the offensive against a militarily stronger Russia that was on the defensive, in the much-touted Ukrainian counter offensive in 2023, that failed. The recent chasm in the US-India relations emanate from India profiting from the Russian oil imports, debunking sanctions; Indian protectionism in trade against US agricultural products; Modi's refusal to acknowledge President Trump's role in the May 2025 Pakistan-India ceasefire; and the less than expected tenacity by India in the cited conflict. However, these are transient factors originating from the 'Trump Factor', who is in his last presidential term. There are compelling reasons for Washington to keep India in its orbit and repair the damaged relations, even if New Delhi is not very forthcoming. First, in the US strategic construct China, Iran, North Korea and Russia make a substantial 'authoritative scale (mass of alliance power)' presenting a unified challenge, needing a unified response. Moreover, China under President Xi has moved away from its confrontational 'wolf warrior' diplomacy, with emerging profile in the Global South, Africa in particular. Its BRI networks 126 countries through highways, railways, pipelines, power plants, grids, IT, social welfare and poverty-alleviation projects. BRI's staggering investment of over $1.3 trillion will ultimately cover 60% of the world population and 40% of its GDP, providing a viable economic alternative, catapulting the present US-led predatory economic system. Second, America's inability to compete with both China and Russia, requires 'strategic diplomacy', some US analysts emphasise. Its core purpose being 'cultivating favourable balances of power in critical regions' to project power far beyond material means. Strategic diplomacy aims to limit rival's options, without seeking to remove the sources of conflict. The US is moving past the age of 'globalized utopia', of being the single-most powerful hegemon, enjoying comprehensive security enabled by techno-military capabilities. It gravitates towards alliance partnerships and strategic diplomacy. And under its 'pivot to Asia' strategy, building the largest anti-China coalition, India stands out to bridge the gap between Washington's rhetoric and capabilities. US analysts feel Biden Administration was unable to properly cultivate New Delhi against Beijing. They feel Trump should nudge India closer 'as an ally on the level of Japan or NATO partners'. Will India do the US bidding willingly, under coercion or under inducements? The straight answer is no, under any conditions. Way back in a meeting with the US officials, when asked to analyse the US-India potential relationship, my answer was to 'go ahead and find out'. However, much that India will drag its feet on becoming involved in bloc politics, alliance partnership with the US, and ignore its 'strategic autonomy', Washington will persistently deploy the pressure-inducement combo to rope in New Delhi against China. Even if that means making India, as some suggest, a regional policeman and hegemon in South Asia, deferring to its advice and actions concerning other countries like Pakistan. The other touted US 'deputy sheriffs' to include Australia in Pacific Islands, Vietnam in continental Southeast Asia and Nigeria in Africa. Expecting India to go against one of its largest trading partners (despite an otherwise obscure border conflict), is not understanding geo-economics and history. First, Sino-India annual trade is over $100 for the third consecutive year. It was $124 billion for FY2024. Second, India has historically conceded against formidable adversaries, from Afghans to Moghuls to Portuguese to the British. That historic constant has not changed, Modi or no Modi. Third, militarily, Indian discussions concede China's conventional and nuclear advantage. India responds to this "conventional asymmetry" through infrastructural build-up, force modernisation and new raisings, compared to Beijing's better military infrastructure, capabilities, and logistics. The Indian security establishment remains concerned about greater survivability of Indian forces on the battlefield, in an environment of uncontrolled escalation, instead of investing in new weapon platforms especially the nuclear ones. However, paradoxically, the cited asymmetry also serves as a strong catalyst for peaceful co-existence. It is, therefore, no surprise that India gravitates towards better relations with Beijing under its 'Look East Policy', burnished by the recent chasm with Washington. When China's Foreign Minister, Wang Yi on August 18, 2025, during his two-day visit to New Delhi emphasised both nations to view each other as 'partners' and not 'adversaries or threats'; his Indian counterpart Jaishankar acknowledged the Chinese overtures, saying both countries were seeking to 'move ahead from a difficult period in our relations'. Wang met Premier Modi on Tuesday, reaffirming 'positive trend' in the bilateral ties. In sum, India it too smart to fall for the US trap.
Express Tribune
5 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
India test-fires nuclear-capable Agni-5 missile amid US tariff tensions
India on Wednesday test-fired an intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads, a government statement said, in an apparent show of strength ahead of a threatened US tariff increase. The Agni-5 missile was successfully launched in India's eastern Odisha state, with authorities saying it "validated all operational and technical parameters." The test-fire came a week before US tariffs are set to double from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, unless India meets President Donald Trump's demand that it stop buying Russian oil. India last tested the Agni-5 missile in March 2024. Also Read: 78 killed in Afghanistan bus crash Prime Minister Narendra Modi said this month that, in the face of US tariffs, India was seeking self-reliance with energy independence and the development of its own defence systems. New Delhi has deepened defence cooperation with Western countries in recent years, including in the Quad alliance with the United States, Japan and Australia as an apparent counter to rival China. But India's relations with China have warmed recently with several bilateral visits, and Modi is scheduled to visit Tianjin later this month in his first visit to the country since 2018. Agni, meaning "fire" in Sanskrit, is the name given to a series of rockets India developed as part of a guided missile development project launched in 1983. The Agni-5 employs technology that enables it to carry several nuclear warheads, so they can split up and hit different targets.
