Latest news with #Indo-Pakistani
Hans India
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Why did Rajiv Gandhi approach US for help in facilitating talks with Pakistan, questions Nishikant Dubey
New Delhi: BJP Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey has once again targeted the Congress party and late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi over attempts to involve the United States in facilitating talks with Pakistan, which, he said, ran against the spirit of the Shimla Agreement. Dubey shared a letter from former US President Ronald Reagan addressed to Rajiv Gandhi, suggesting that the then Indian Prime Minister had sought American involvement in negotiations with Pakistan. 'Being a Gandhi is not easy,' Dubey wrote, posting the letter on social media. 'This letter is a response from U.S. President Ronald Reagan to Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. As per the 1972 Shimla Agreement, all disputes between India and Pakistan were to be resolved bilaterally, without any third-party mediation. Why then did Rajiv Gandhi approach the United States for help in facilitating talks with Pakistan?' Citing excerpts from the letter, Dubey pointed to Reagan's remarks that reflect US interest in promoting regional peace and its willingness to assist both India and Pakistan in avoiding future tensions. A part of Reagan's letter reads: 'Mr Prime Minister, we strongly support all efforts which help ensure peace and security in South Asia… To help prevent similar unfortunate misunderstandings in the future, we have provided some background on procedures in effect between Eastern and Western Europe. We are offering both your government and that of Pakistan additional information that may help alleviate future tensions.' The letter also acknowledges Rajiv Gandhi's proposal to involve American drug liaison agents in Indo-Pakistani narcotics consultations. 'I was particularly interested in the proposal in your letter of January 7 that American drug liaison agents be associated with your bilateral narcotics consultations… I assure you we will be happy to assist in whatever ways you and the Government of Pakistan find helpful,' Reagan wrote. Dubey's remarks came amid the BJP's narrative questioning the Congress party's historical foreign policy decisions, particularly those related to national security and diplomacy. Dubey had earlier shared a declassified 1963 telegram from the US State Department alleging that former Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were responsible for decisions that led to territorial concessions to Pakistan. 'Iron Lady Indira Gandhi. Despite opposition from the then Defense Minister Babu Jagjivan Ram and Army Chief Sam Manekshaw, India itself halted the 1971 war under American pressure. Babu Jagjivan Ram wanted the war to continue until the part of Kashmir forcibly occupied by Pakistan was reclaimed, but the fear of the Iron Lady and the terror of China prevented this. Was it more beneficial for India to reclaim its land and the Kartarpur Gurdwara or to create Bangladesh?' he had said.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Four months in, Trump is cementing his legacy for better or worse
After only four months in office, the outlines of Donald Trump's legacy to the country are already emerging. George Washington's legacy was as the father of his country. Abraham Lincoln was remembered for preserving the nation after a wrenching civil war. Even Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal took time to implement. Donald Trump, in contrast, is in a hurry. The first convicted felon (for the right or wrong reasons) to serve as president, his legacy is set in advance by the many charges and allegations he has faced, including two impeachments. Combined with what appears to be huge conflicts of interest in how he and his family have accumulated great wealth from his time as president, the standards of conduct have surely been corrupted. The Trump family business is earning billions in new contracts in the Middle East arising from Trump's visit there — an impressive public relations success. If Jared Kushner had been anyone else's son-in-law, would the Saudis have given his fund some $2 billion and potential access to some of the possibly $1 trillion in U.S. investment being discussed with Riyadh? Trump may accuse former President Joe Biden of leading a 'crime family.' But even if that were true, the monies would be pitiful compared with what Trump is raking in. Bitcoin and crypto have been huge windfalls in which investors have been promised or received ringside seats at Trump events. The parade celebrating the Army's 250th anniversary is estimated to cost at least $45 million. It coincides with Trump's 79th birthday, making people wonder about the real reason for the spectacle. And donors will reportedly receive special attention during the parade through a 'VIP experience.' Even if it violates all perceptions of conflicts of interest, none of this may be illegal or a crime. However, if a president is gaining so much wealth — or at least if his family is for the time being — how will future presidents behave? The old expression of coming to Washington to 'do good and end up doing well' has been elevated by orders of magnitude. In terms of foreign policy, Trump has been everywhere. Although negotiations over Gaza failed, in that Israel has increased the scale of violence by occupying much of the strip, the others are in flux. Trump took credit for the Indo-Pakistani cease-fire after terrorist attacks in Kashmir, attributed to Islamabad, provoked Indian and then Pakistani retaliation. But negotiations over ending the Ukraine War and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons are far from settled, despite the administration's very optimistic reports. Will this act of diplomacy serve as a catalyst or a deterrent to future presidents? On the one hand, activism can be positive. On the other hand, if it fails — and it may well — new administrations and Congress will take note. But perhaps most significant to Trump's legacy is what he has done in expanding executive power and in perhaps irreversibly changing the Republican Party to the MAGA party. The flurry of executive orders has challenged the system in terms of volume and tests of the Constitution. Birthright status for citizenship and constraints in applying due process to individuals who are in the country illegally are among the most politically visible. However, tariffs and cutting banking regulations could have far more profound economic effects. The Savings and Loan banking crises of the 1990s and the 2007 to 2008 financial meltdown, which were caused by a failure to oversee and regulate financial instruments that became monetary weapons of mass destruction, must not be forgotten. And the 1929 financial collapse, likewise, allowed the purchase of stocks on margin, turning debt into a time bomb. In American politics, Trump has accelerated the negative trends of distrusting the government and the collapse of civility and compromise on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — both of which have been in play since the Vietnam War. The bile and anger that both sides of the political aisle express are grave threats to the republic and possibly impenetrable barriers to restoring decency and competence to governing. Clearly, these failings were in place long before Trump. He did not cause them. But he surely exploited and intensified them. What's next? It may well be that Trump tries to win a third term. He could run as vice president, much like Russian President Vladimir Putin ceded the presidency to Dmitri Medvedev for a term, but not the reins of power. Whether this is constitutional or not, it could be the most lasting legacy of the Trump era. We will see. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He is co-author of the forthcoming book, 'The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
20-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Four months in, Trump is cementing his legacy for better or worse
After only four months in office, the outlines of Donald Trump's legacy to the country are already emerging. George Washington's legacy was as the father of his country. Abraham Lincoln was remembered for preserving the nation after a wrenching civil war. Even Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal took time to implement. Donald Trump, in contrast, is in a hurry. The first convicted felon (for the right or wrong reasons) to serve as president, his legacy is set in advance by the many charges and allegations he has faced, including two impeachments. Combined with what appears to be huge conflicts of interest in how he and his family have accumulated great wealth from his time as president, the standards of conduct have surely been corrupted. The Trump family business is earning billions in new contracts in the Middle East arising from Trump's visit there — an impressive public relations success. If Jared Kushner had been anyone else's son-in-law, would the Saudis have given his fund some $2 billion and potential access to some of the possibly $1 trillion in U.S. investment being discussed with Riyadh? Trump may accuse former President Joe Biden of leading a 'crime family.' But even if that were true, the monies would be pitiful compared with what Trump is raking in. Bitcoin and crypto have been huge windfalls in which investors have been promised or received ringside seats at Trump events. The parade celebrating the Army's 250th anniversary is estimated to cost at least $45 million. It coincides with Trump's 79th birthday, making people wonder about the real reason for the spectacle. And donors will reportedly receive special attention during the parade through a 'VIP experience.' Even if it violates all perceptions of conflicts of interest, none of this may be illegal or a crime. However, if a president is gaining so much wealth — or at least if his family is for the time being — how will future presidents behave? The old expression of coming to Washington to 'do good and end up doing well' has been elevated by orders of magnitude. In terms of foreign policy, Trump has been everywhere. Although negotiations over Gaza failed, in that Israel has increased the scale of violence by occupying much of the strip, the others are in flux. Trump took credit for the Indo-Pakistani cease-fire after terrorist attacks in Kashmir, attributed to Islamabad, provoked Indian and then Pakistani retaliation. But negotiations over ending the Ukraine War and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons are far from settled, despite the administration's very optimistic reports. Will this act of diplomacy serve as a catalyst or a deterrent to future presidents? On the one hand, activism can be positive. On the other hand, if it fails — and it may well — new administrations and Congress will take note. But perhaps most significant to Trump's legacy is what he has done in expanding executive power and in perhaps irreversibly changing the Republican Party to the MAGA party. The flurry of executive orders has challenged the system in terms of volume and tests of the Constitution. Birthright status for citizenship and constraints in applying due process to individuals who are in the country illegally are among the most politically visible. However, tariffs and cutting banking regulations could have far more profound economic effects. The Savings and Loan banking crises of the 1990s and the 2007 to 2008 financial meltdown, which were caused by a failure to oversee and regulate financial instruments that became monetary weapons of mass destruction, must not be forgotten. And the 1929 financial collapse, likewise, allowed the purchase of stocks on margin, turning debt into a time bomb. In American politics, Trump has accelerated the negative trends of distrusting the government and the collapse of civility and compromise on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — both of which have been in play since the Vietnam War. The bile and anger that both sides of the political aisle express are grave threats to the republic and possibly impenetrable barriers to restoring decency and competence to governing. Clearly, these failings were in place long before Trump. He did not cause them. But he surely exploited and intensified them. What's next? It may well be that Trump tries to win a third term. He could run as vice president, much like Russian President Vladimir Putin ceded the presidency to Dmitri Medvedev for a term, but not the reins of power. Whether this is constitutional or not, it could be the most lasting legacy of the Trump era. We will see. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He is co-author of the forthcoming book, 'The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.'
The Wire
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
The Curious Crusade of Renu Bhatia Against Ashoka Professor Mahmudabad
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Analysis The Curious Crusade of Renu Bhatia Against Ashoka Professor Mahmudabad Pavan Korada 43 minutes ago Renu Bhatia's interventions, and her vocal defence of her actions in the Ashoka professor case, demand closer examination – not merely for what they reveal about her role but for the light they shed on intolerance and the misuse of state institutions. Renu Bhatia and Ali Khan Mahmudabad. In the backdrop is a Facebook post by the professor. Illustration: The Wire Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now Renu Bhatia, the chairperson of Haryana State Commission for Women, is now at the centre of a contentious storm over First Information Reports (FIRs) against Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University, Sonipat. The controversy, sparked by the professor's online reflections on 'Operation Sindoor' and Indo-Pakistani relations, has thrust Bhatia and her commission into a harsh spotlight. Apart from Bhatia's complaint, one FIR, filed by BJP village sarpanch from Sonipat, also reportedly stemmed from an alleged private conversation with the professor. That a mere critical reflection, particularly from an academic, can incite such a disproportionate and punitive response from the state – or those drawing authority tenuously from it – has become a dispiritingly familiar feature of our current times; a 'new normal', if you will. Bhatia's interventions, and her vocal public defence of her actions, demand closer examination – not merely for what they reveal about her grasp of her mandate but for the light they shed on prevailing intolerance and the instrumentalisation of state institutions for purposes clearly far from their stated objectives. Bhatia repeatedly asserts her unimpeachable integrity and unwavering commitment to her duties – past, present, and future. 'I will not let any daughter of my country bow down,' she declares. 'Whoever emits the stench of betrayal in the name of the country's daughters… I will keep speaking out against them.' Such claims, common from public officials, ring hollow against a record that, at a glance, appears more attuned to political expediency than to unyielding justice or the consistent protection of all women. This isn't to doubt her sincerity, which can coexist with a profound misunderstanding of one's role, but to question its remarkably selective application. Past Before becoming chairperson of Haryana women's commission in January 2022 – her term later extended 'until a further order', implying perhaps political favour over performance – Bhatia's career covered media and brief film work. An anchor for Doordarshan, a stint playing Benazir Bhutto (she proudly calls herself ' Bhajpa ki Benazir'), these experiences preceded her formal political career. Politics, however, was apparently 'never out of the picture', her family rooted in the RSS and BJP. This lineage smoothed her path from Faridabad municipal councillor and deputy mayor – although her second council run in 2010 was reportedly foiled by Congress fielding 'six women candidates named Renu Bhatia' – to her current, prominent position. Bhatia's leadership of the women's commission has drawn controversial public attention. A viral video from two years ago showed her in an unseemly altercation with a woman police officer over a marital dispute, while another from last year showed her threatening to deport an NRI over his wife's complaint. While she commendably pursued a sexual harassment case against a Jind school principal, her zeal seems inconsistent. For instance, her commission initiated an FIR against Sameena Dalwai, a professor, for 'outraging the modesty' of students (all above 18 years) at OP Jindal Global University, also in Sonipat, by showing them dating app profiles during a gender discussion – an accusation stretching the definition to a Victorian degree. More telling, given her current indignation for 'women in uniform', was her notable reticence on a 2017 Republic TV panel. When Arnab Goswami demanded, as part of his daily prime time harangues, that she label convicted Dera Sacha Sauda chief Ram Rahim a rapist, Bhatia consistently refused. Did a high court rape conviction not warrant such a descriptor from a self-proclaimed champion of women's dignity? Or does speaking truth to power vary with the power in question and political affiliations? Her silence regarding a judicially confirmed rapist with political clout contrasts sharply with her condemnation of a professor for a nuanced reading of a government press conference. Where was this fierce protector when Ram Rahim's followers rampaged, or when Haryana's wrestler-daughters, alleging sexual harassment by a powerful BJP MP, were dragged on the streets while he retained his seat? The past, as Bhatia herself seems keen to invoke, has a rather inconvenient habit of offering up such contrasts, casting a rather long shadow on present protestations of undiluted concern for all 'daughters'. Present Returning to Professor Mahmudabad, Bhatia's five-hour press briefing and TV interview with India Today's Preeti Choudhary offer a veritable trove for students of political rhetoric and manufactured outrage. Certain words from Mahmudabad's text – 'illusion', 'hypocrisy' and the invented 'painted faces', absent from his post but central to Bhatia's grievance – are brandished as proof of insult to 'India's daughters' and the nation. Pressed by Choudhary to find 'painted faces' in the professor's writing, Bhatia evaded: 'No, what does hypocrisy and illusion mean then? Maybe my English is not better… What does this mean then?' This feigned confusion over 'polished sophisticated English,' posing as a simple woman bewildered by academic jargon, is a classic anti-intellectual populist trope. The implication – 'intellectuals' with 'high-brow English' apparently hide nefarious, anti-national designs, transparent to the 'common person' who presumably speaks plain 'general Hindi'. 'Where does the meaning of what he has written go?' she demands as she seems unwilling to engage with the text's actual meaning, preferring a sinister interpretation fitting a narrative suspicious of critical inquiry. By equating Ashoka University to Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), she cleverly sought to use the existing anti-JNU, and as a corollary 'urban-naxal' narrative to add wind to her sails. She stopped short of declaring that 'India' (liberal elites) might find the professor's words acceptable, but 'Bharat' (the real peoples) would not. The attack sharpens with repeated, sneering references to Professor Mahmudabad as 'Raja-babu' and an unsubstantiated focus on his grandfather's alleged funding of the Muslim League. 'His grandfather funded the Muslim League in Pakistan,' she asserts, urging the media to 'go behind all this.' This is a familiar tactic — discrediting someone by supposed tainted ancestry, a form of collective culpability marking them as inherently suspect. The 'elite Muslim intellectual English-speaking liberal' is a caricature resonating within the Hindutva framework, long preoccupied with conditional minority belonging and 'mental allegiance' to a narrow Hindu Rashtra. Bhatia's fascination with Professor Mahmudabad's 'mentality' is revealing. 'I scrolled more things about him just to judge what kind of mentality he has,' she states, as if social media reveals a mind's workings, or as if such judgment is a women's commission chairperson's task. This focus on 'mentality' and 'background', not the alleged offense, crudely echoes Golwalkarian concern with an internal, immutable 'nature' supposedly rendering certain groups alien. The professor's perceived 'attitude of being critical of the BJP' – often conflated with being 'anti-national' – is deemed offensive, not just his words. His crime, it seems, is not what he said, but who he is: an independent thinker, a minority member, daring to articulate a view deviating from the official narrative. Throughout the India Today interview, Bhatia evades questions. She repeatedly asks the anchor what the offending words 'mean' but refuses to explain her interpretation of how Mahmudabad's phrasing insults women officers or is seditious. The anchor cites his posts; Bhatia cites her police complaint, as if its filing makes it true. 'I understood its meaning,' she declares. 'At such a delicate time of Operation Sindoor, I understood it.' Her understanding appears impervious to textual analysis. More perplexing, during her press briefing, was her sudden injection of the phrase 'caste equations.' 'It is a matter of surprise that when any daughter of our country progresses in this manner, we start indulging in caste equations. Why is it only about the daughter of a particular caste moving forward?' she mused, a comment tangential to Mahmudabad's posts. Could it be a 'sharp missive' on the contentious caste census, where her party, the BJP, was defensive? This plausible interpretation suggests the professor's alleged transgression offered a platform to signal allegiance on unrelated political fronts. Such performative pronouncements often prioritise signaling virtue over relevance. The reckoning Thus, we reach the crux — Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, should safeguard women's rights. Yet, while institutional energy is spent pursuing a professor for words needing prodigious misinterpretation to be offensive, Haryana's women face a grimmer reality. The state's sex ratio at birth (SRB) plummeted to an eight-year low of 910 in 2024, from 923 in 2019. This isn't an abstract statistic – it is a brutal denial of a girl child's right to live, resulting from entrenched patriarchal values, illegal sex-selective abortions, and systemic devaluation of female lives. Where is the five-hour press conference on this crisis, considering it is during her tenure that this record low was achieved? Where is the relentless pursuit of those perpetuating this silent annihilation? It is a profoundly disturbing inversion of priorities when a body established to protect women theatrically policies academic speech, while the silent, systemic violence against the most vulnerable – unborn or infant girls, in this case – continues unabated. Such actions are not isolated misjudgements but symptoms of a deeper malaise where democratic institutions serve partisan ends, their mandates reinterpreted to stifle dissent, not uphold rights. The 'stench of betrayal,' to use Bhatia's phrase, might lie not in a professor's words, but in the chasm between an institution's proclaimed duties and its impact. One wonders if the true 'illusion' and 'hypocrisy' are in a women's commission more exercised by semantics than by the denial of life and dignity to Haryana's daughters. Grandiose claims of protecting every daughter ring hollow against such stark realities, questioning the actual purpose of such commissions when their energies are so flagrantly misdirected from pressing, life-and-death issues. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Arrest Raises Critical Questions on Free Speech, Liberty and the Law Full Text | Ashoka University Professor Ali Mahmudabad's Posts that Haryana Police Calls 'Sedition' Letter Calls on Haryana Women's Commission to Retract Summons, Apologise to Political Scientist Ashoka Prof Arrested For 'Endangering Sovereignty' Over Post Criticising Jingoism, Sent to Custody Till May 20 Ali Khan Mahmudabad Presented Before Court, Sent to Judicial Custody Till May 27 The Sole Reason Behind Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Arrest Is That He Is a Muslim Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Arrest Reveals the Political Capture of Women's Rights in India 'Inverted the Meaning, Invented an Issue': Ashoka Professor on Women's Panel's Reaction to Army Post 'Action Violates Legal Process, BJP Fearful of Critical Opinion': Opposition on Ashoka Prof's Arrest About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
The Wire
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
The China Factor Can't Be Ignored in the India-Pakistan Conflict Over Kashmir
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now World The China Factor Can't Be Ignored in the India-Pakistan Conflict Over Kashmir Anita Inder Singh 42 minutes ago Given China's stance favouring Pakistan, and its competition with India in the Indian Ocean, New Delhi will not welcome Beijing's mediation in their ongoing conflict. Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Photo: X/@CMShehbaz Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now There is more to the present India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir than America's mediation and announcement of a truce between India and Pakistan. That is the China factor in South Asia and the Indian Ocean (IO) area which should not be ignored either by India or the US. Pakistan and China are all-weather friends; both claim Indian territory. In 1947, Britain's partition of its Indian empire resulted in the creation of Pakistan as a religious state on the subcontinent and India as a secular democracy, whose nationalist leaders, Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi, did not see why a Muslim-majority province should not be part of its territory. This overriding ideological difference between Pakistan and India has sparked four wars since January 1948. Kashmir lies in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent and is bordered by Afghanistan, China, India and Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan claim the whole territory as it existed before the first Indo-Pakistani war over Kashmir in 1948, barely five months after partition. Each came to control a part of it; neither gave up its claim to the whole pre-1948 state. Their tense, contested frontier is known as the Line of Control. Pakistan eventually gave China part of its area of Kashmir, which is claimed by India. That area is now part of Xinjiang and Tibet on Chinese turf. While China has advocated an independent investigation into the Pahalgam attack and its suspects, it has also proclaimed that it will help Pakistan to uphold its sovereignty and security interests. That is not surprising. While Islamabad shares longstanding military and investment ties with Washington, it has also cultivated a strong relationship with Beijing predicated on mutual animosity towards New Delhi. Significantly, Pakistan has been a milestone on China's Belt-and-Road Initiative (BRI) since 2015. China has invested more than $46 billion in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), via Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). CPEC is therefore opposed by India. CPEC connects the Gwadar Port in Pakistan's Baluchistan and Karachi in Sindh by overland routes with China's Xinjiang province. Gwadar is a little over 100 miles from the strategically important Iranian port of Chabahar. That increases the strategic importance of CPEC in South and West Asia. Thousands of miles of roads and railways have been built, and Pakistan's capacity for power generation has also increased dramatically. In January, China and Pakistan avowed to upgrade their economic corridor . CPEC 2.0 will focus on industrialisation, agriculture, information technology, energy and livelihood projects. CPEC has had its problems. Islamabad is indebted to Beijing, while Chinese nationals and companies have been attacked in Pakistan. China wants Pakistan to provide a good business environment for Chinese investment and ensure the safety of Chinese personnel, institutions, and projects in the country. The military importance of Pakistan and China to each other to some extent explains why. China's arms sales to Pakistan On the military front, 81% of Pakistan's arms, including fighter jets and submarines, are imported from China, which is the world's fourth largest arms manufacturer, behind America, Russia and France. The Chinese military aircraft and missiles used by Pakistan against the French Rafale fighters bought by India in their recent conflict have aroused widespread interest. The latest Indo-Pak conflict has offered Western countries their first chance to assess the performance of Chinese fighter planes in aerial combat. Islamabad claims that its Chinese J-10C fighters and their PL-15 air-to-air missiles prevailed over Indian military aircraft. China has also given Pakistan air-defence equipment and airborne radar aircraft. China's arms sales have implications beyond India, whose largest arms retailer has been Russia for half a century. New Delhi has gradually reduced military dependence on Moscow and has modernised its air force over last decade by buying 62 Rafales from France. Pakistan has some 150 JF-17 fighters, most jointly made with China since 2007, and 20 J-10C aircraft that it has bought since 2022. Military experts affirm that the ultimate test is often combat. So the US and its Indo-Pacific allies are on the alert, because China uses J-10Cs around Taiwan. Those military planes could feature in a China-America war over the island. So their performance as part of Pakistan's air force against India's are being studied by Washington and its Asian collaborators to assess what they may be confronting in the Pacific. Within South Asia, China is also the largest arms vendor of India's neighbours Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar. China is also the top trading partner of all three countries, and given its superior economic and military progress, it offers India stiff competition, even in the latter's immediate IO neighbourhood. Chinas clout in south Asia and Indo-Pacific At another level, the Biden administration's hopes that India could help America to could counter China in the Indo-Pacific ignored the fact that India lacks the wherewithal to do that. India is economically and militarily far behind contemporary China. China's GDP per capita is $12,614, India's is $2,480.8. Chinas military spending is $266.85 billion, India's is $75 billion. Pacific China has economic and strategic weight in the Indian Ocean. Geographically, China is a Pacific power. Its security priorities are East Asia and the Western Pacific, but its economic progress has extended its influence far beyond the Pacific. China recognises India's geographical advantage in the IO but has warned that the ocean is not India's backyard. Economics and strategy are linked: China has been quick to recognise that. Most Asian countries – including India's neighbours Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and Myanmar, are on board China's BRI which was inaugurated in 2013. The alacrity with which China realised and visualised the link between economics and strategy was clear from its 2015 Defense White Paper which underlined 'the new requirement of safeguarding national security and development interests'. India has no analogous strategy. Generally India's neighbours perceive it as economic slowcoach with less to offer than China. China's heft in the Indian Ocean Most of the trade and oil imports of India and China move through the international waters of the IO. China wants to ensure that the sea routes from Europe, Africa and the Middle East are not dominated by hostile powers including India and the US. In part, that determination also explains why it has developed the strategically important Gwadar and Karachi ports. Additionally, Beijing's mix of economics, strategy and building of a world-class navy challenges India because China is already a major player – second only to the US – in the Great Game being played out in the Indo-Pacific. That is the tough reality that an ambitious India faces about its Chinese competitor in the IOs. The Biden administration sold F-16 aircraft to Pakistan, and American companies hope to invest in Pakistan's large untapped minerals sector that boasts one of world's largest copper and gold deposits. But that is insufficient to counter China's clout in Pakistan. China is Pakistan's largest trading partner. In 2024 total trade in goods between them amounted to $23 billion in 2024; US-Pakistan trade touched a mere $7.3 billion. China's foreign minister, Wang Yi, has said that China is ready to play a constructive role in Pakistan-India ceasefire efforts. But he reiterates China's support for Pakistan's determination to safeguard its national sovereignty. He surprised India and many other countries by asserting that 'Pakistan stands at the forefront of the international fight against terrorism.' Given China's stance favouring Pakistan, and its competition with India in the Indian Ocean, New Delhi will not welcome Beijing's mediation in their ongoing conflict. American mediation has been acceptable to both countries, if only because President Donald Trump boasted that their rulers were his very good friends. Post-armistice, he wants to increase US trade with both countries. That will not be enough. China's overall support for Pakistan implies that if it comes to the military crunch India may find itself confronting both Pakistan and China. It would be best to keep an eye on China's economic and military interest in, and support for, Pakistan to avoid such an outcome. India must continue to make simultaneous efforts to build up its military strength and defuse the conflict while keeping watch on China and Pakistan. Anita Inder Singh is a founding professor of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution in New Delhi. She has been a Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC and has taught international relations at the graduate level at Oxford and the LSE. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News How Indian Media Sabotaged its Own War Efforts How Separatist Movements Have Created Pakistan's Two and a Half Front Dilemma India, Pakistan and The Day After Pakistan's Slick US Strategy: It's Deja Vu All Over Again Habits of Thought in the Time of Terrorism and War The Path Forward For India and Pakistan Should Be Shaped By Peace, Not By Excitement Over War Games Live: India, Pakistan Continuing Confidence-Building Measures to Reduce Level of Alertness High-Stakes Nuclear Poker: How Pakistan's Deterrent Still Checks India—Even After Operation Sindoor India Needs a Strategic Reset After Pahalgam Terror Attack, Operation Sindoor View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
