Latest news with #Pulwama-Balakot
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Muted mandate: SAARC and the cycle of Indo-Pak escalation
Listen to article When founded, in 1985, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was envisioned as a platform for regional harmony and collective progress. However, its role in mitigating the most recent escalation between Pakistan and India, triggered by the Pahalgam incident of April 22, and the subsequent military and diplomatic fallout, has been conspicuously absent and critically limited. An objective evaluation reveals that SAARC, hampered by its inherent structural weaknesses and the deep-seated animosity between its two major players, has once again failed to act as an effective mechanism for de-escalation or mediation. One of the fundamental limitations of SAARC is its charter, which explicitly excludes discussions on bilateral and contentious political issues. This very clause, intended to foster cooperation in socio-economic areas without being held hostage by political disputes, renders the organisation toothless when the most pressing regional challenges are political in nature, as is the case with Indo-Pak relations. Consequently, SAARC summits and ministerial meetings become stages for polite exchanges on trade and culture, while the elephant in the room — the persistent and often escalating tensions between Pakistan and India — remains unaddressed within the formal structure. The recent crisis, which saw a rapid deterioration of diplomatic ties, cross-border accusations and even military posturing and engagement, demanded an immediate and robust regional response. Ideally, SAARC should have provided a forum for dialogue, a neutral space for both nations to air their grievances, and a mechanism to facilitate de-escalation through diplomatic channels. However, the bloc remained largely silent as bilateral tensions spiraled, underscoring its inability to transcend the nationalistic agendas of its member states, particularly when these agendas are in direct conflict. The history of SAARC is replete with instances where Indo-Pak tensions have undermined its potential. The 2016 summit was cancelled after the Uri attack. The 2019 Pulwama-Balakot standoff further marginalised the organisation. In each instance, SAARC's structural design and political inertia have rendered it a bystander. The current escalation is no different. With both nations locked in a familiar cycle of accusation and retaliation, SAARC's consensus-based decision-making process becomes a significant impediment. Any meaningful action or statement requiring the agreement of all member states is virtually impossible when the two most influential members are in direct confrontation. Furthermore, the lack of strong institutional mechanisms for conflict resolution within SAARC contributes to its ineffectiveness during crises. While the charter emphasises peaceful settlement of disputes, it lacks concrete procedures or a dedicated body to mediate or arbitrate in situations of heightened tension. This void leaves the region reliant on external actors or ad-hoc bilateral engagements, bypassing the very regional framework that was intended to foster collective security and stability. Despite these shortcomings, SAARC could still play a subtle, indirect role. By continuing to promote people-to-people contact, cultural exchanges and economic cooperation in areas where consensus exists, the organisation might foster a long-term environment of trust and understanding that could eventually spill over into the political domain. However, during times of acute crisis, these slow-burn initiatives are often overshadowed by immediate security concerns and nationalist sentiments. The palpable tension following the Pahalgam incident and India's subsequent actions has likely curtailed any such positive momentum. While the ideal of regional cooperation in South Asia remains vital, the current iteration of SAARC has proven to be an inadequate instrument for managing and resolving the most pressing security challenges facing the region. A fundamental re-evaluation of its charter and a genuine commitment from its member states to prioritise regional harmony over narrow nationalistic interests are essential if SAARC is to evolve from a largely symbolic entity into a meaningful force for peace and cooperation in South Asia.
Indian Express
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
BJP, Opp hail ceasefire; Opp questions US role, calls for all-party meet
The BJP and the Opposition welcomed the ceasefire announced between India and Pakistan, with the ruling party hailing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the armed forces, and the Congress calling for an all-party meeting and a special session of Parliament. Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav hailed the Prime Minister for 'inflicting punishment on terrorists and their sponsors in a short span of time' and asserted that it was a win for India. Yadav said every Indian is filled with pride as the 'resolute response' to the Pahalgam terror attack which had brought the 'enemies to their knees'. The Congress and other Opposition parties had pledged unequivocal support to the Government in whatever action it may take against perpetrators of the Pahalgam terror attack and their handlers. There was, however, a sense of unease among Opposition parties Sunday over the role played by the US, especially after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that India and Pakistan have agreed to 'start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.' 'Like in 2019, after the Pulwama-Balakot dynamic, it was a US intervention that had calmed things down. This is documented both in terms of Trump's statement from Hanoi and the subsequent accounts written by Mike Pompeo and John Bolton who were then Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. Again this time it is explicit US intervention which is trying to calm the region down,' senior Congress leader and former union minister Manish Tewari told The Indian Express. 'What is most interesting in the statement issued by Secretary of State Rubio is that the ceasefire is hyphenated with the assertion that both the countries will talk on a broad set of issues at a neutral site. This clearly constitutes third party mediation and it demonstrates that the bilateralism which was intrinsic to the Simla agreement of 1972 now seems to be a template of the past,' Tewari said. Congress communication department head Jairam Ramesh said that 'in view of the unprecedented announcements from Washington DC, there is now a need, more than ever before, for the PM to chair an all-party meeting'. 'A special session of Parliament to discuss the events of the last eighteen days, beginning with the brutal Pahalgam terror attacks and the way forward, and to demonstrate a collective resolve' should be held,' he said. 'Peace is essential. We need to have more details. But I am very glad. India never wanted a long-term war. What India wanted was indeed to teach the terrorists a lesson. I believe that lesson has been taught. The other details are not yet clear,' Lok Sabha MP and CWC member Shashi Tharoor said. Some Congress leaders posted tweets remembering Indira Gandhi in the context of the 1971 war and the creation of Bangladesh. 'Indiraji, today the entire country is remembering you,' former Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot posted on X, along with a photo of the former prime minister with soldiers. In this context, Ramesh tweeted a letter that Indira Gandhi had written to President Nixon on December 12, 1971. 'Four days later Pakistan surrendered. She ensured that there was no 'neutral site' which has now been agreed to,' he said. The RJD's Tejashwi Yadav asked the Prime Minister to convene a special session of Parliament and 'give date-wise and point-wise information from the terrorist incident of Pahalgam to the ceasefire declaration so that all Indians through Parliament can express their gratitude to the valour and courage of the Indian armed forces in one voice and place their views on various issues'. Echoing the demand, his party colleague and Rajya Sabha MP Manoj K Jha said it was 'a little unsettling to hear that the ceasefire decision was taken by Donald Trump…that he held discussions through the night'. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi said there can be no permanent peace as long as Pakistan uses its territory for terrorism against India. 'Ceasefire or no ceasefire we must pursue the terrorists responsible for the Pahalgam attack. I have always stood by the Government and the armed forces against external aggression. This will continue…. I hope this ceasefire gives respite to the people living in border areas. I also hope that Indians and Indian political parties learn from the past two weeks: India is strong when it is united; our enemies benefit when Indians fight Indians,' he said. Owaisi, however, also raised questions, saying that Prime Minister Modi should have announced the ceasefire 'rather than the President of a foreign country'. 'We have always been opposed to third-party intervention since Simla (1972). Why have we now accepted it? I hope the Kashmir issue will not be internationalised, as it is our internal matter. Why are we agreeing to talk on neutral territory? What will be the agenda of these talks? Does the US guarantee that Pakistan will not use its territory for terrorism? Have we achieved our aim of deterring Pakistan from carrying out future terror attacks? Was our goal to get a Trump-brokered ceasefire or was it to bring Pakistan to such a position that it would not even dream of another terror attack?' he said. The CPI(M) said Pakistan has to ensure an end to terrorist activity from within its borders. 'We earnestly hope that the two countries build on this and ensure that the people do not have to suffer from the evil of terrorism,' the CPM politburo said. NDA ally JD(U), meanwhile, welcomed the ceasefire with spokesperson Rajeev Ranjan Prasad saying India had taught Pakistan a lesson that it would never be able to forget.
Newsweek
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
India's Strike on Pakistan Isn't About Terrorism or Kashmir
The latest military confrontation between India and Pakistan is not a spontaneous response to terrorism, but rather a premeditated maneuver by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi—one rooted in domestic politics rather than regional security. As the subcontinent teeters on the edge of open war, the world must understand the underlying motivations behind India's recent strikes across the Line of Control in Kashmir that divides the two: calculated redirection of public attention to redirect attention away from internal failings and toward a familiar external scapegoat—Pakistan. Two weeks ago, the tragedy in Pahalgam that claimed the lives of Indian tourists sparked rightful outrage. But outrage alone does not justify airstrikes on civilian areas in Pakistan. More concerning is New Delhi's outright dismissal of Islamabad's offer for an impartial, international investigation into the incident. Instead of accepting transparency, Modi's government chose escalation—launching "Operation Sindoor," a military campaign cloaked in symbolism, but anchored in cynical domestic politics—particularly after losing parliamentary strength in the 2024 general elections. For Modi, this pattern is not new. In the run-up to the 2019 general elections, his administration similarly used the Pulwama-Balakot crisis to whip up nationalist fervor. Then, as now, Pakistan offered cooperation and even returned an Indian pilot within days—a gesture aimed at de-escalation. But the lesson Modi seemed to have drawn from that episode was not about the cost of conflict, but its electoral utility. Students take part in an emergency simulation drill as part of the nationwide civil defense drill at a school in Kolkata on May 7. Students take part in an emergency simulation drill as part of the nationwide civil defense drill at a school in Kolkata on May 7. DIBYANGSHU SARKAR/AFP via Getty Images A few days ago, New Delhi unilaterally halted the flow of Chenab River waters to Pakistan—a move that violates the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty and sets a dangerous precedent in weaponizing shared water resources. Not only is this a breach of international law, but it also undermines the basic human right to water access for millions of Pakistanis living downstream. This time, the scale of aggression is markedly higher. India claims to have targeted militant infrastructure, but the reality is grim: at least 26 Pakistani civilians -including women and a young child were reported killed in the strikes. Pakistan's measured retaliation, confined to military sites and resulting in what it reported as the downing of five Indian fighter jets, underscores a stark contrast in approaches. Islamabad's statement, invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter, clearly signals both a desire to operate within the framework of international law and a warning that restraint should not be mistaken for weakness. It is this very warning the international community must heed. Despite the controlled nature of Pakistan's response, the situation is now spiraling into a broader crisis. Pakistan's National Security Committee has convened under Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, granting full authority to the military to respond "at a time, place and manner of its choosing." More than rhetoric, this reflects a readiness—and capability—to inflict serious damage. Military experts in Islamabad assert that Pakistan possesses the ability to neutralize Indian air force capabilities and hit deep strategic targets if provoked further. India's defense establishment, for its part, has remained silent on Pakistan's claims—particularly the downing of three French-made Rafales, one MiG-29, and one Su-30. If true, the loss would represent a staggering blow to India's aerial supremacy and a severe indictment of its strategic overreach. The broader consequences are ominous. Airspace over much of Pakistan and northern India has been cleared of commercial airlines. And yet, Modi's government appears unrepentant. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has issued a statement urging both sides to exercise restraint, and diplomats are scrambling to contain the fallout. Several world leaders have initiated travel to New Delhi and Islamabad to engage in quiet diplomacy. The U.S. State Department has said it is "closely monitoring the flare-up"—a phrase that belies the gravity of the moment. This is not a flare-up. It is a conflagration in the making. We must also remember the conflict's broader strategic context. Kashmir is not merely a territorial dispute but a nuclear flashpoint, where minor miscalculations can spiral into catastrophe. Since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, India has sought to bring Kashmir under central control, fueling further alienation among its Muslim population. The denial of autonomy has not brought peace; it has intensified unrest and regional instability. What now? There are three possible outcomes. The first is de-escalation, spurred by international intervention and diplomacy—a path the United Nations and concerned global actors must immediately prioritize. This requires not just calls for restraint but the establishment of an investigative commission into the Pahalgam incident and a direct hotline between the two militaries to avoid accidental war. The second outcome is sustained tit-for-tat retaliation, likely involving air and missile exchanges that would not remain confined to border areas. Pakistan's stated intent to paralyze India's air force and strike deep targets could lead to economic and human losses on an unprecedented scale. The third—and most dangerous—outcome is escalation beyond conventional warfare. Both countries possess nuclear arsenals. While deterrence logic may hold in theory, miscommunication and political brinkmanship in such a charged environment could lead to irreversible disaster. It is time for the international community to act—not merely to prevent a war, but to expose the real source of this escalation. The world must see through the smokescreen of nationalism and hold accountable those who light fires for electoral gain. Because if this crisis burns out of control, it won't just be the subcontinent that suffers. It will be global peace itself that takes the hit. Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and columnist on international affairs living in Karachi, Pakistan. His work has been widely published by prestigious international news organizations and publications. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
The Print
06-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Asim Malik is a fitting NSA for Pakistan—neither army nor civilian govt will challenge him
From Pakistan's perspective, Lt. General Asim Malik is certainly the man for the NSA job. He is a serving General, in charge of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). He is an officer who has the favour of the Pakistan Army chief, and is not answerable to the civilian government. Unlike some of his predecessors, Malik won't face the problem of divided loyalties between the army chief and prime minister, or of appearing too independent from the military. For example, during the 2008-2013 Pakistan People's Party (PPP) government, then-NSA Major General Mahmud Ali Durrani admitted—against the army's wishes—that terrorist Ajmal Kasab was a Pakistani national. The service soon lost confidence in him, and he was removed from the NSA post. Indubitably, the region is in crisis. Escalation is imminent, despite the widespread belief in Islamabad that New Delhi cannot respond as it did in 2019. The international community, including India's friends (such as the US), do not want New Delhi or Islamabad to escalate things further. Both sides, however, have not spoken to each other directly since the Pulwama-Balakot crisis, or last year, in a track-1.5 dialogue. A serious conversation is now necessary. Not just to de-escalate, but to ensure that limited wars can be contained in a nuclear environment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that Pakistan's recent decision to appoint a National Security Adviser is influenced by its current tensions with India. The sources I interviewed suggested that the United States advised Pakistan to make the appointment now, as it would need someone responsible to speak with the Indian NSA when the opportunity arises. A fitting NSA Asim Malik's name wasn't the only one considered for the NSA post. As some well-informed people in Islamabad I spoke to said, there were a few other candidates in the mix –including former ISI Director-General Lt. General Nadeem Anjum (retd), two Pakistanis abroad with good contacts in the US government, and at least one who had strong ties with some Middle Eastern rulers. Therefore, the question of filling the NSA's chair had been under deliberation for long, with various candidates vying for the post. The Pahalgam attack just accelerated the process and the final decision. Asim Malik was the obvious choice for two reasons. First, his credentials include good links with the West, including the US and the United Kingdom, where he was trained. Ties with the US military are particularly critical at this stage, including for the urgent matter of crisis de-escalation. Furthermore, Malik and his ISI have recently gained the Donald Trump administration's confidence by capturing and handing over Islamic State Khorasan (ISIS-K) terrorist Mohammad Sharifullah, allegedly responsible for a 2021 bombing in Afghanistan that killed 13 US troops and 170 Afghans. Second, the notion that Malik's appointment is limiting 'opportunities for critical evaluation of information and options' does not hold in an environment where the political government exists just in name. Thus, there is no point in adding to the complexity and buttonhole an NSA between a weak political government and a strong army. Malik certainly won't face the same problems that some of the previous NSAs, such as Major General Durrani (retd) and Lt. General Nasir Khan Janjua (retd), did. Durrani lost the army GHQ's trust, while Janjua never enjoyed the army chief's complete confidence. The Shahbaz Sharif government, in any case, does not want to do anything that puts it on the wrong side of army chief General Asim Munir – who is not only in charge of defence and foreign policy, but is adamant on creating a new system of governance where the military has a major role to play. Notwithstanding the poor state of the Pakistani economy, Munir aims to restore national confidence in the military. He wants to signal strongly to India that Pakistan cannot be taken lightly. It counters the impression left by his predecessor, General Bajwa, who, by his public admission, said that Pakistan did not have the resources to fight India. The ISI chief, with the dual charge of NSA, has Munir's confidence. In his previous posting as the Adjutant-General, Asim Malik was responsible for initiating the 9 May inquiry against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI)'s violent protests for Imran Khan's release. He also oversaw court martial proceedings against Lt. General Faiz Hameed (retd) and disciplined the retired officers, who, for a while, opposed Munir's appointment as Pakistan Army chief. According to some of Malik's former colleagues who spoke to me, he achieved this by cutting off pensions and other payments to military families. Also read: Who is Asim Malik, Munir's protégé and now Pakistan's 1st NSA in uniform In for the long haul Asim Malik also happens to belong to a blue-blooded army family. His father, General Ghulam Muhammad Malik, was a three-star general whose generation saw both military action and career advancement under General Zia-ul-Haq. GM Malik also mimicked Zia's bigotry. Known for being highly religiously conservative, he would ensure that his officers offered prayers in a mosque and punished those who didn't follow through. Professionally, GM Malik served as Corps Commander of the 10th Corps – reputed as a coup-making corps – and also as Director-General of Military Intelligence. Furthermore, he served as commandant of the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul. Asim Malik graduated from there during his father's tenure and received the sword of honour. All these credentials suggest that he may not retire as ISI chief this year, and hold the ISI and NSA posts together. Even if he does step down from the ISI, he will continue as NSA. In case of the latter, the army chief would likely appoint another trusted officer as ISI chief to ensure the smooth extension of his own term in November. According to the legal/constitutional procedure and as per changes in Pakistan's Army Act, the president, on advice of the prime minister, will issue a notification that will add at least two more years to Munir's term. Of course, these are all procedural matters – which also indicate that Asim Munir must appear sharp and capable to the people. Cowing down to India is not an option for him, or even his institution. History tells us that army chiefs such as Pervez Musharraf and Qamar Javed Bajwa, who tried to adopt a policy of appeasement with New Delhi, didn't last long. India is certainly the Pakistan Army's red line, which Munir can only cross at his personal risk. The manner in which he handles the crisis is highly important, which, in turn, puts a lot of pressure on Asim Malik's shoulders. Indubitably, the ISI chief will go to the negotiation table with a maximalist position – asking India not to fuel insurgency in Balochistan or carry out operations inside Pakistan, and put Kashmir back on the table. Water, too, will remain a critical issue. Malik's additional problem is dealing with a boss who isn't known for tolerating contradiction. According to some army officers in his circle, Asim Munir is reputed to leave discussions that oppose his views. At this juncture, the new NSA will have the task of convincing the world that Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed do not exist in Pakistan, and convincing India of Pakistan's ability to defend itself — a message conveyed during the recent Corps Commanders Conference in Rawalpindi. More importantly, Asim Munir seems adamant to retrieve his institution from the point where Bajwa had left it – doubtful about its financial ability to fight a war. While this may still be the case, it's not how Asim Munir imagines things. Ayesha Siddiqa is a senior fellow at the Department of War Studies at King's College, London. She tweets @iamthedrifter. Views are personal. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
New Indian Express
24-04-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Top civil, military brass in Pakistan huddle to chalk out response to India's post-Pahalgam measures
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Thursday is holding a high powered security huddle to formulate an appropriate response to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has summoned the National Security Committee meeting to discuss in detail India's 'irresponsible actions' after what Pakistan called Pahalgam false flag operation. Three services chiefs and important key ministers will attend the meeting, reported Radio Pakistan. India on Wednesday suspended the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and announced downgrading diplomatic ties with Pakistan, including expulsion of its military attaches, in view of the cross-border links to the The National Security Committee will deliberate upon internal and external situations and 'will review response to India's hastily taken, impulsive and impractical water measures,' Radio Pakistan added. Dawn reported that deputy prime minister Ishaq Dar, while speaking to a private television channel late on Wednesday, lashed out at India's approach, calling it 'immature' and 'hasty'. 'India has not given any evidence. They have not shown any maturity in their response,' Dar said. 'This is a non-serious approach. They started creating hype immediately after the incident.' Pakistan's Foreign Office, in a separate statement earlier on Wednesday, expressed regret over the loss of life. Diplomatic observers warn that the Indian response and Pakistan's counter-messaging could push bilateral relations to new lows, further widening a rift that has persisted since the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot crisis. The treaty suspension, in particular, risks sparking long-term water disputes, while the downgrading of diplomatic ties could hinder any future de-escalation efforts, Dawn reported. A day after the Pahalgam attack, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) met in New Delhi on Wednesday evening under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and firmed up the responses to the terror attack. The CCS also decided to close the Integrated Check Post at Attari with immediate effect. Pakistani nationals will not be permitted to travel to India under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES) and any such visas issued in the past to Pakistani nationals are deemed cancelled, it was announced.
