Latest news with #AsifMunir
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
After Operation Sindoor, calculate
Writing a postscript to a military engagement that is barely four weeks old may seem premature, more so since Prime Minister Narendra Modi has declared that Operation Sindoor has only been paused. It may, therefore, erupt again. Picking through the smoke-and-mirrors accounts of the four-day clash of arms, one may still reach tentative conclusions and derive some lessons for the future. The aftermath of the four-day 'war' should be read together with the observations I made post-Pahalgam on the strategic calculus driving Pakistani actions, especially the intent of the remarks made by Pakistan Army Chief Asif Munir ('Desperate steps in desperate times', IE, April 24). Irrespective of which side caused more losses to the other, Pakistan has succeeded, at least temporarily, in 're-hyphenating' itself with India in the international arena, the great leveller being its nuclear status. There were heightened external concerns following the Indian attack on Pakistan's Nur Khan base, which is reportedly located near a nuclear command and control centre. Nuclear brinkmanship, implicit or explicit, will always be present in any India-Pakistan war or threat of war. One should also be cautious in claiming to have found 'space' for conventional retaliation under the nuclear overhang. No two military events are the same. The danger of nuclear war will persist as long as atomic weapons are deployed by both sides. The so-called 'space' is notional. In a different war scenario, it may evaporate without warning. A robust Indian response to a cross-border terrorist attack, which India wants to keep limited and non-escalatory, may be interpreted (though not intended) as India acknowledging Pakistan's capacity to hit back and raise the ante. India being committed to 'non-escalatory' action suits Pakistan fine. Is it necessary to make such a declaration? Perhaps India needs to adopt its own version of 'strategic ambiguity' in relation to Pakistan on the lines of the US posture in relation to Taiwan. We should also stop making repeated assertions that the next terrorist attack will invite Indian military retaliation. We should reserve the right to choose whatever may be the most appropriate response. Why tie our hands in advance? Creating a public expectation of a military response limits the options available to a leadership. There should be a whole suite of possible options to choose from — coercive, diplomatic, economic and financial, and combinations thereof. The pursuit of deterrence may be better served by keeping the other side guessing. Operation Sindoor has made it amply clear that China will keep upgrading Pakistan's military capabilities to serve as an effective proxy against India. China was instrumental in enabling Pakistan to acquire a nuclear deterrent even before India and Pakistan became declared nuclear weapon states. But it had been coy about this. With its enhanced military and economic capabilities, it is no longer defensive about its military alliance with Pakistan. The two-front challenge, which India has always been concerned about, is already here. Our strategic calculations and defence preparedness must reflect this reality. Operation Sindoor has provided valuable insights into the technological capabilities of Chinese weapons, the effectiveness of Indian weaponry in outsmarting some Chinese systems deployed by Pakistan and the battle tactics that Pakistan has learnt from its 'iron brother'. These lessons must be internalised in our military strategy and tactics. Credibility is the indispensable asset in handling the diplomatic and domestic fallout from any such crisis. Credibility, in turn, is a function of transparency. What the CDS very sensibly said recently about losses suffered by India in the military exchanges could have been conveyed in the earlier briefings by the Ministry of External Affairs and the armed forces. The'appropriate' time for such information to be released is before the inevitable deluge of misinformation takes hold. The question also arises: Did the all-party delegations sent out to various countries to present India's case have the same brief as the CDS? India still has a lot to learn about information management. One's own learning from several years of diplomatic work is that credibility is indispensable to good diplomacy. This applies to friend and adversary alike. There are some other points to consider. US President Donald Trump's unpredictability is a reality, as is his narcissist penchant for self-adulation. There is no need to rise to the bait and keep denying his role in brokering a ceasefire. A polite refutation having been made, one should move on. The partnership with the US remains important for India's economic and technological capacity building. Indications are that this partnership remains largely intact. One may have views about the efficacy of sending all-party delegations to various countries to present India's case, but it is a surprise that no such demarche was thought necessary for our immediate subcontinental neighbours. This contradicts the Neighbourhood First Policy. Engagement and a structured dialogue must be part of India's Pakistan policy. If nothing else, such dialogue may provide useful insights into the thinking of its rulers. Reliance on coercive instruments alone has not worked so far and is unlikely to in the future. Cross-border terrorism and the status of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir should be part of the agenda, but there should be a deliberate effort to reach out to other constituencies in Pakistan beyond the military and the political and bureaucratic elites. Pakistan is not a monolithic entity and one should not paint its people with the same brush as its entrenched elites. Domestic politics will influence foreign policy but foreign policy should not become a tool to be used in domestic politics. Diplomacy is outward-oriented. Its audience is the international community, including friends and adversaries alike. Inward-oriented diplomacy, seeking validation from a domestic audience, will undermine the pursuit of national interests. Pakistan has become an issue not just in, but of, domestic politics. It has become entangled with the politics of communalism. Pakistan should be dealt with as just another state that poses a foreign policy and security challenge to India. Its identity as an Islamic state should be irrelevant. Finally, while punishing Pakistan over cross-border terrorism, should there not be accountability for the security lapses that made ordinary Indian citizens vulnerable to the violent outrage in Pahalgam? Retaliation against Pakistan must not deflect attention away from the urgent need to plug the gaps that give our adversaries the opportunity to deliver such humiliating blows against us. The writer is a former foreign secretary
Mint
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Pakistan Army Chief Gen Asim Munir elevated to Field Marshal rank for ‘successful' leadership in conflict with India
Days after Pakistan failed in breaching the Indian defence system, Pakistan Army Chief Asif Munir was elevated to the rank of Field Marshal for 'successfully' leading the armed forces in the conflict with India, as per a report by Geo TV. This is a developing story, more details are being added
Indian Express
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
For peace with India — and its own future — Pakistan needs moderate rulers
As I wrote nearly a decade ago, and as the Subcontinent moves on from another round of bloodshed and brinkmanship, it is time to confront a hard truth: Lasting peace with Pakistan's military establishment was always a mirage. Last week's escalations were not an aberration, but the logical outcome of two ideologies at odds with each other. In the language of international relations, countries are often described as 'status quo' or 'revisionist' powers. A status quo power is content with its borders and seeks stability and growth, not territorial expansion. India fits this description. We have no desire for anyone else's land or resources. Our ambition is simple: To build a prosperous, modern nation and to be a force for good in the world (vishwaguru). If we could trust that peace with Pakistan was genuine, we would gladly embrace it and move forward. But Pakistan, since its inception, has been a revisionist power — one that seeks to alter its region. The military and religious elite in Islamabad have long pursued two goals: First, to 'liberate' parts of India and create an Islamic state for India's Muslims (regardless of whether they want it or not); and second, to block India's rise, clinging to the parity that existed in 1947. For them, a secular, thriving India is a threat that cannot be tolerated as it calls into question the very reason for Pakistan's creation. This was very clear in Army Chief Asif Munir's incendiary speech a week before the Pahalgam Attacks where he parroted the defunct Two-Nation Theory and insisted that Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist (can you imagine the furore if any other world leader said that?). Let's be clear. When I say 'Pakistan', I mean the entrenched military leadership and the highly fundamentalist Deobandi religious establishment. This alliance has ruled Pakistan since independence, keeping it both religiously extreme and militarily aggressive. This suits the military by giving it a reason to stay in power and enrich itself and this suits the clerics as they get to espouse their hateful creed. Many ordinary Pakistanis — business leaders, intellectuals, moderate Muslim denominations — would welcome a lasting peace and the prosperity it could bring. But they do not hold power. The military-mullah axis does, and it has crushed every challenge to its authority with a mix of religious propaganda or brute force. So where does that leave us? If India is to fulfil its destiny, we must either neutralise the threat next door or live in a state of constant vigilance. The dilemma is real: How do we deal with a neighbour that believes its god-ordained duty is to undermine us? The long-term answer is not endless confrontation but transformation. Pakistan must become a status quo power. That will only happen when moderates, not militarists and extremists, hold sway in Islamabad. This shift could come through a popular uprising or, more likely, an internal coup by those who see peace and prosperity as Pakistan's true path forward. But for such a change to occur, the current establishment must suffer a defeat so decisive that the rest of Pakistan recognises the futility of their old ambitions. To do this, India now has the opportunity. The old Pakistani establishment is tottering. The gamble at Pahalgam was the act of an army desperate to keep itself relevant. Imran Khan's ouster has turned popular opinion against the military. Balochistan's insurgency has made almost half the landmass of Pakistan ungovernable, the Pashtuns are in open revolt aided by Afghanistan. Today's India has a technological, military, and economic advantage that is overwhelming, as was clearly displayed last week. And, most importantly, the old apologists for Pakistan in the West, and its patron China are fed up and quiet. We must use this to deliver the blows that show regular Pakistanis the self-harm their leaders cause and end the grip the current regime has on Pakistan's levers of power. The battle for Pakistan's soul is not one we sought, but it is one we cannot ignore. Our government and security establishment know it cannot afford to wait for goodwill gestures, hollow promises, mediation, or such half measures. It knows we have to leverage our strengths and force a reckoning in Islamabad. We must make it clear that there is no reward for revisionism, only isolation and decline. The choice for Pakistan's rulers must be made simple: Change course, or be left behind as India strides confidently into the future. Last week's actions were a strong step in the right direction. But we must be under no illusions that while an important battle was won, the larger war goes on. We must continue to stand united, bear any pain we need to, ignore any 'liberal' Western criticism and be ready for this kind of decisive action again and again until Pakistan changes. We owe this to the innocent victims of terror, from 26/11 till today. We owe it to our brave armed forces, and most of all, we owe it to our children. The writer is an educator, political commentator, philanthropist and businessman with degrees from the Wharton School of Business, INSEAD, and Johns Hopkins University
Scroll.in
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Operation Sindoor: Both Hindutva backers and leftists are wrong in claiming India-Israel parallels
The escalation of hostilities between India and Pakistan and the ceasefire announced on Saturday have hurled the countries into the global news cycle. As India sought revenge for the terrorist attacks in Pahalgam on April 22, some Hindutva supporters called for it to emulate Israel-style attacks on Gaza. Mirroring these calls are allegations by Islamists and misguided Leftists that draw parallels between India and Israel. These parallels are erroneous and must be corrected. Products of Partition The subcontinental version of Israel is Pakistan, not India. Both were created by partitioning existing countries on the basis of religion. Pakistan was the product of the Two Nation Theory which, as Pakistani Army Chief Asif Munir reminded us in April, postulated that Hindus and Muslims could not live together within the same nation-state owing to their vast cultural differences and antagonistic worldviews. Pakistan was established in 1947 as the homeland of Indian Muslims, even as a third of the subcontinent's Muslim population rejected its foundational worldview. Israel was the product of Zionism, a movement that claimed a homeland for Jews in historic Palestine, even as over half the world's Jews live outside it. These parallels led the historian Faisal Devji to call Pakistan a 'Muslim Zion'. India and Palestine neither claimed nor intended themselves to be mono-religious, mono-cultural entities – although majoritarian movements in both countries seek to change that historical reality. Pakistan and Israel represent the parting gift of the British as decolonisation commenced in Asia. Both emerged as satellite states of the West as the Cold War progressed, allowing the US to use them as springboards to extend its presence across Asia. By contrast, India and Palestine remained steadfastly committed to non-alignment. Having opposed Palestine's partition, India maintained ties with the Palestinian Authority and became the first non-Arab nation to recognise the State of Palestine state and the Palestine National Authority as its legitimate government. The personal friendship of Gandhi and Yasser Arafat was legendary. National identity Both Pakistan and Israel define themselves in religious terms. Pakistan's Objectives Resolution define itself as an 'Islamic Republic' in which sovereignty rests with Allah. The Basic Laws of Israel define Israel as a 'Jewish state'. Pakistan's constitution prohibits non-Muslims from the office of Prime Minister and President of the republic. In its Middle Eastern equivalent, only those political parties that accept Israel as the state of the Jewish people are allowed to participate in elections. A clear hierarchy between Jews and non-Jews is established in exactly the same way that a clear hierarchy between Muslims and non-Muslims is consecrated in Pakistan. Pakistan and Israel are both ethnocracies that establish the supremacy of one religious group over others living in their territories. Both display the formal trappings of democracy and hold regular elections. Minorities are accorded formal protections in both countries, but – as we have seen above – excluded from the national identity of their countries. Minorities in India and Palestine also suffer discrimination but these are not institutionally inscribed and ideationally legitimised as they are in Pakistan and Israel. To be sure, there are vocal demands to reconstitute the national identities of both India and Palestine in religious and ethnocratic terms, but these have so far not come to fruition – and there remains stout resistance to these ambitions. Allegations of occupation A particularly misguided notion that claims parallels between India and Israel is the charge that India practices settler-colonialism in Jammu and Kashmir similar to the settlements that Israel has established in West Bank and Gaza. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although India's treatment of its citizens in Jammu and Kashmir is far from exemplary and leaves much to be desired, settler-colonialism it is not. Unlike Israel, which regularly settled Jews in Arab-majority areas over seven decades, Article 370 of India's Constitution actively prohibited 'outsiders' from purchasing land in Jammu and Kashmir and settling in that state until it was abrogated in 2019. If anything, the flight of Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs after 1990 reflected Pakistan's attempt to alter the demographic balance of the state via its proxies – a move similar to Israel's efforts at regularly evicting Palestinian Muslims and Christians from their historic homelands across West Bank and Gaza. Parallels are being drawn between the atrocities inflicted by Hamas on October 23, 2023, and the slaughter of tourists by The Resistance Front in Pahalgam. This parallel is, again erroneous given their different contexts, identities and relative support received for their actions. While violence is always reprehensible, the attack by Hamas – which has been designated as a terrorist group by several countries – was reported to have been widely celebrated in Gaza. Many Palestinians viewed its strike in Israel as a legitimate act of resistance to occupation. Hamas was seen to be responding to the decades-long occupation of Palestinian lands, systematic dispossession of its people and everyday forms of policing and violence inflicted by the Israeli state. Ironically, Hamas were the elected representatives of Gaza's population for years, propped up, as it happens, by the Israeli state as a counterfoil to the secular-minded Palestine Liberation Organisation. By contrast, The Resistance Front terrorist group has minimal support from the people of Kashmir. Far from celebrating the cold-blooded murder of tourists, Kashmiris mourned alongside other Indians and stoutly resisted attempts by the hawkish Indian media to foment religious and ethnic discord. The two events are not comparable. False parallels The governments of India and Israel have cosied up to each other in recent years. There is much that brings them together – not least the spectre of Islamic terrorism to which both have been subject. India's efforts at courting the Islamic world have not always been reciprocated. The defence and security partnership between New Delhi and Tel Aviv has only deepened, for good reason, since the 2008 Mumbai attacks. However, the newfound bonhomie between the two nations should not cloud our judgments about their fundamentally contrasting histories, politics and social structures.
Indian Express
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Pakistan is on the precipice — China can help it get back from the edge, stop unreasonable aggression
In the days since the horrific attack at Pahalgam by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists, India has signaled clarity on two fronts: One, it would raise the level of deterrence that it put in place with the Balakot strikes after the attack in Pulwama, scale up the reprisals after every act of terror. Two, its response would be precise, calibrated, and proportionate. Operation Sindoor targeted terror infrastructure in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and Pakistan — it did not target government or military infrastructure or civilians. India did not step onto the escalatory ladder. It chose its targets carefully, and the ball is in Pakistan's court to dial down on its misbehaviour and transgressions. In sobering contrast, the military leaders at the Pakistan Army GHQ and the ISI have continued to blunder and overstep. The attempted drone and missile attacks on military installations in Indian cities — thwarted by Indian air defence systems, including the S-400 and indigenous Akash — ceasefire violations along the LoC and foiled attacks on Bikaner and Jaisalmer, are irresponsible provocations. In response, India has taken out the air defence system in Lahore, while continuing to refrain from targeting civilian areas. In every communique and briefing by the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of External Affairs, India has underlined that its armed forces have only responded to attacks by Pakistan. India needs and wants nothing from Pakistan except an end to its support of terror on its soil. Even as it does not seek a military confrontation, however, it has made it clear that it will not shy away from responding to Pakistan's brazen provocations. Unfortunately, the garrison state of Pakistan has acted recklessly even by the low standards it has set for itself. After all, with its economy in shambles and its polity gripped by dysfunction, it has little to gain, and much to lose, from a prolonged conflict with India. The shadow of war may arguably encourage General Asif Munir and the military establishment he leads to believe that they have gained a reprieve from the restiveness they have been facing on the domestic front. The jailed former PM, Imran Khan, continues to be popular, the puppets Rawalpindi has propped up in Islamabad enjoy little credibility and, in recent years, the army has had to bear the brunt of widespread protests. It confronts the Frankenstein's monster of extremist groups, while it deals with major insurgencies on the border with Afghanistan and in Balochistan. The US, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, have asked for an end to the escalation with India. But that will not be enough. The world's capitals must send out a firm message — it is time they assign responsibility for the conflict where it belongs. China has the greatest leverage and highest stakes in Pakistan — it is the largest investor in the country, Pakistan is its client state. The unrest in Balochistan is already a thorn in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Beijing has said that it does not want its neighbours locked in a prolonged conflict. If so, it should make that desire clearer to the country that fired the first shot and keeps its finger on the trigger.
