Latest news with #Simla
India Today
21-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
The rise and rise of Gen. Asim Munir
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated May 12, 2025)The Pakistan army chief General Asim Munir is not just in the eye of the storm clouding the subcontinent, he is the storm himself. It is no coincidence that he was the head of the notorious Pakistani spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence or the ISI, when it orchestrated the vicious Pulwama terror attack that saw the deaths of 40 personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force on February 14, 2019. Six years on, Munir, now de facto supremo of Pakistan, is once again in India's crosshairs as the alleged mastermind of the Pahalgam terror attack in which 25 tourists and one local were gunned down in Kashmir's alpine haven on April 22. As the Modi government readies a military riposte to the worst civilian massacre in the Valley in two decades, it must not underestimate the guile of Asim who have done so in the past have learnt their lesson the hard way. Among them was Imran Khan who, as Pakistan's prime minister, cleared Munir's appointment as ISI chief in 2018, only to sack him nine months later, apparently because Munir was bold enough to brief him about the alleged corrupt dealings of his wife, Bushra Bibi. Munir never forgave Imran for the humiliation of being possibly the shortest-serving ISI chief and bided his time to hit back. The opportunity came after Imran was deposed in an army-engineered 'parliamentary coup' in April 2022, and Munir, backed by a ruling coalition opposed to Imran, became the army chief that November. Months later, Munir had Imran jailed on multiple charges of corruption that saw the former prime minister sentenced to 14 years in prison early this DECODING ASIM MUNIR Studying Munir's personality traits, psychological make-up, strengths and weaknesses has become central to India's strategy to deliver a fitting riposte to Pakistan for the carnage it instigated in Pahalgam. Munir heads a formidable, half-million-strong, Pakistan army—the sixth largest in the world—which also has nuclear weapons and is evenly matched with Indian troops on the Line of Control. As a top expert, who does not wish to be named, puts it, 'This is not an asymmetric war like Israel vs Hamas or Azerbaijan vs Armenia. This is between two of the most professional armies who are equally matched and have nuclear capabilities. Anything we do, we should expect him to retaliate. Controlling the escalation ladder of conflict will not be easy. Judging by Munir's recent actions, we should be prepared for unpredictability and surprises, including him initiating something and blaming us for it.'With Munir being the rare Pakistani general to have been chief of ISI as well as the Director General of Military Intelligence, he is expected to have thought through his strategy well. It was evident in Pakistan's instantaneous suspension of the 1972 Simla agreement in response to India's decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. Another strategist familiar with the process of war gaming points out, 'Munir would have gamed all options beforehand and is moving with greater caution than normal. We need to carefully gauge him, as he has extensive intelligence and operational exposure. It's like a game of chess in which we need to think 10 steps ahead of him along with our own contingency plans and punches. So, we have to keep second-guessing his moves till we have some tentative answers at least. Specialists also need to do a detailed psychological profiling based on his behaviour and statements.'advertisement There are enough clues in Munir's 17-month tenure that showcase his ability to take calculated and calibrated risks. In the beginning, he was on the back foot given the unprecedented internal dissent in the ranks over Imran's arrest. But Munir ruthlessly consolidated his hold over the army, purging even the corps commanders who opposed him and replacing them with loyalists. Since then, he has gone beyond being just the security czar of Pakistan, and now controls all levers of political power, including tackling Pakistan's distressed economy through the army-manned Special Investment Facilitation Council. Munir has also adroitly 'cleansed' the Supreme Court of Imran backers by getting an amendment passed in Parliament that allows the supersession of judges. In one more unprecedented move, he got another amendment passed in Parliament that extended his three-year tenure to five. This has ensured he will be in the driver's seat till 2027, with no age limit for another pretty telling the way Munir has handled the polycrisis he confronted after he became chief,' says Michael Kugelman, a South Asian analyst based in the US. 'There was severe political instability, the economy was on the verge of collapse, there was resurgent terrorism and a marked internal dissent in the army. He has addressed those problems better than others and has kept things under control. He has his failures, but in terms of his actions, Munir is resolute and exhibits a supreme level of confidence in the way he has inserted himself in so many different aspects of public policy.' But even as the army chief has consolidated his position in the institutional space, there have been real-world setbacks on the security front, particularly the recent hijacking of Jaffar Express by Baloch rebels, which have dented his and the army's credibility. There is also growing discontent among Pakistan's youth, who are unhappy with the way the country is being Pakistan army has always played an outsize role in running the country—in the 77 years of its existence, the country has been under martial law for 33 years, in three different phases. Munir, though, has emerged as one of the most powerful army chiefs in recent times without having to topple the civilian dispensation. He is the first army chief after General Zia-ul-Haq to invoke Islamist nationalism and even wear it as a badge of honour. In fact, he holds the rare distinction of being a Hafiz-e-Quran, or someone who has memorised the holy book by heart, passing the test when he was posted as the army's attach in Saudi Arabia. It was a trait he picked up from his father, Syed Sarwar, who had migrated from Jalandhar after Partition. A schoolteacher in Rawalpindi, Sarwar also delivered the Friday sermon at a local himself studied in a madrassa in the garrison town before winning a commission in the army through the Officers Training School (OTS) route rather than the more prestigious Pakistan Military Academy. But that didn't stop his meteoric if turbulent rise to the top echelons of the army. Rana Banerjee, a former special secretary of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India's external intelligence agency, and an expert on Pakistan, says, 'Munir's first name, Asim, means the great saviour, and the army chief seems driven by a deep sense of religious piety and purpose. He is meticulous, especially in bringing his rivals to book, but is not a visionary and seems hackneyed, even straitjacketed, in his thinking. Of late, he has adopted a deliberately insulting anti-India tone.' A STUDY IN CONTRASTSAll this is in sharp contrast to his mentor and immediate predecessor, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, the army chief between 2016 and 2022. Bajwa was a powerful behind-the-scenes player in Pakistani politics when the mercurial Imran was PM and asserted the military's dominance over public policy. It was under his tenure that the Pulwama attacks were authorised, and India responded with air force strikes on terror camps inside Pakistani territory. The first such air attack by India since the 1971 war, it was a move that set a new paradigm of deterrence, signalling to Pakistan that such cross-border terror attacks would not go toward the end of his tenure, Bajwa called for a dramatic shift in Pakistan's focus from geopolitics to geoeconomics, arguing that his country must put its own house in order economically by pursing regional connectivity, trade and development partnerships, even with India. As a sign of his earnestness, he entered into a ceasefire agreement on the LoC in February 2021, which held for four years before Munir engineered the Pahalgam massacre and destroyed the tenuous truce. As Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, explains, 'Bajwa was cut from a different cloth because he believed that the whole jihadi complex that the army had created had stopped serving Pakistan well and wanted to shift the focus to economic development. He wanted changes, but was a gradualist. Meanwhile, the marriage between him and Imran soured and he lost his nerve.'Discarding the Bajwa doctrine, Munir's vision of Pakistan is of a 'hard state', one that is strong and unyielding against both internal and external threats and ever ready for a robust military response. Internally, Banerjee says, Munir unsparingly quashed dissent in the army and across the political spectrum. Externally, he adopted a tough, no-nonsense approach, especially towards the Taliban government in Afghanistan when it continued to shelter and fund the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a rebel group pushing for an Islamic emirate in Pakistan. In late 2023, Munir expelled more than 150,000 Afghan refugees in Pakistan, putting him in direct confrontation with the ruling Taliban in while maintaining a pragmatic relationship with Iran, Munir did not hesitate to fire a missile into Iranian territory following Teheran's drone strike on an Iranian resistance group operating out of Pakistan. Munir has also cracked down severely on the Baloch rebel groups clamouring for an independent Balochistan. It's a different matter that they have regrouped and recently struck back with vengeance, undermining the Pakistani army's take-no-prisoners strategy. Munir has repeatedly blamed India for instigating and/or backing both the Baloch and the TTP rebels. Many experts in Pakistan offer it as the rationale for the Pahalgam attack. For India, these are clear signs that Munir is an unrelenting foe, one who is not afraid to retaliate even when the cards seem stacked against him. THE JIHADI TURNThere are other causes for concern for India. Since Munir took over as army chief, he has become more strident with his brand of religious nationalism. He has recast the army's role not just as defender of Pakistan's territorial integrity and sovereignty but also as the guardian of its ideological frontiers. Addressing a tribal jirga (council) in Peshawar in August 2023, Munir had declared, 'No power in the world can harm Pakistan. We are waging jihad (holy war) in the path of Allah and success will be ours. The Pakistan army's objective and principle is to be shahid (martyr) or ghazi (one who takes part in jihad).' His proclamation earned him the sobriquet of 'Jihadi General'.What spooked Indian experts, however, was Munir's comments at an Overseas Pakistanis Convention on April 16, six days before the Pahalgam outrage, where he reiterated the two-nation theory but more crudely, highlighting the 'stark difference between Hindus and Muslims' in a tone more extreme than even Zia's declamations. As T.C.A. Raghavan, a former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, points out, 'Munir's ideological position on India remains the standard two-nation theory and he believes it is the Pakistan army that stands between the nation and its total domination by India. He thinks Kashmir is the unfinished agenda of the creation of Pakistan and that Pakistan is the victim of great injustice and it is the responsibility of the Pakistan army to correct that.'Experts believe that there are several reasons why Munir greenlit the Pahalgam attacks. Among them is domestic turmoil, including the failure to manage internal divisions and rebellions that have dented the army's image. Feeling the heat, Munir brought India into the equation in order to rally the masses behind him. The Pakistani general may have already succeeded in that endeavour, especially after India announced the suspension of the IWT, an act that threatens to impact water supply to the most populous and politically powerful provinces of Punjab and Sindh. 'Munir wants to consolidate his power and emerge as the Supreme Leader,' says Bisaria. 'With the liberal and urban guys turning against him, he wants to win over the bulk of the right-wing establishment.' A Pakistani expert, who does not want to be named, agrees. 'There are two Pakistans,' he says. 'There is a Jihadi Pakistan which is all about creating a Pakistani identity based on an irreconcilable antipathy towards India. And there is a non-Jihadi Pakistan that believes it can exist as a federation and have normal relations with Afghanistan, Iran, India and China to do trade. Munir is appealing to the Jihadi Pakistan, which is around 60 per cent of the population. So, India needs to win over the non-Jihadi constituency.'Strategists outline another reason for Munir to strike now—the perception that India was running away with the ball on Kashmir. With Article 370 abrogated, an elected government in place, and the return of tourists to the Valley, there was a fear that the situation in Kashmir would turn irrevocably in New Delhi's favour. Hence a Mumbai 2008 kind of attack on civilians became necessary to blow the illusion of peace and stability in the Valley. Experts also see the Pahalgam attacks as part of a concerted plan by the ISI to launch what is known as the K2 operation—unleash both Kashmir and Khalistan terrorists to destabilise the two frontier states. The terrorists in Kashmir are well-trained and equipped with the latest weapons. They are also using sophisticated communication technology, of Chinese origin perhaps, which India has found difficult to intercept and decrypt. With better command, control and coordination with each other, they first struck the Jammu region last year just before the assembly election in October, and have subsequently targeted the Valley. In Punjab, terrorists are pushing heavy amounts of drugs and also encouraging gang wars to unleash mayhem in the state. PRIMED FOR ACTION: Prime Minister Narendra Modi with defence minister Rajnath Singh, NSA Ajit Doval, CDS Gen Anil Chauhan and the three service chiefs at a meeting in New Delhi, April 29. (Photo: ANI) DRUMMING UP INTERNATIONAL SUPPORTKugelman points out how Munir has been preparing the ground for international support for the jihad he is waging against India. When Donald Trump took over as US President, he cosied up to him by getting ISIS-K commander Mohammad Sharifullah, who was hiding in Pakistan, arrested and deported to the US. Sharifullah had plotted the deadly Abbey Gate bombing that killed 13 US service members while they were being evacuated from Afghanistan. Trump thanked Pakistan for helping the US out. Just a week before the arrest was made public, the US had released $397 million to Pakistan for the maintenance of its F-16s. After Pahalgam, Trump condemned the terror attack, but did not blame Pakistan. He maintained that the conflict with India was 'on for thousands of years' and the two countries should sort it out together. China and Turkey were anyway toeing the Pakistani line for an independent investigation into the terror attack. Over the past two years, Pakistan has been purchasing state-of-the-art military equipment from both these countries, in addition to sophisticated electronic warfare items from China. Despite his country's financial crunch, Munir embarked on a modernisation programme of the army that now seems to have given him the confidence to take on Munir may just have overreached with his most recent provocation. Targeting tourists in Pahalgam has damaged Pakistan's prospects in Kashmir because, for the first time, the Valley has risen unitedly in protest and condemned the attacks. These directly impacted tourism, which had been booming for the past two years, affecting their livelihood. Experts in Pakistan are despairing over Munir's actions, saying a military conflict with India is the last thing the country can afford, especially as it has far from recovered from the economic crisis. They believe Munir's ISI past has made him reckless, pointing out that rarely does someone who heads the spy agency become the chief. As one expert put it, 'When it comes to lighting fires, Munir may have been very good. But the Pakistan army has historically understood that if you let somebody with the matchbox be in charge, then you need to keep an eye on them to avoid a conflagration.'With no one capable of restraining Munir in Pakistan, it falls on the Modi government to punish the errant general. As Bisaria says, 'Pakistan knows it will have a heavy cost to pay and must be prepared for war with India. That is the only deterrent to prevent such misadventures in future.'Subscribe to India Today MagazineTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
17-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Did Trump cross the line on Kashmir issue?
The story so far: U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated claims that the U.S. mediated the May 10 India-Pakistan ceasefire has been sternly denied by the Ministry of External Affairs, including by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, and has raised questions about the impact of the comments on India-U.S. bilateral ties. However, far more than Mr. Trump's incredible assertions that he threatened Delhi and Islamabad with cutting trade in order to talk them back from a 'nuclear conflict', his references to the Kashmir dispute have been a cause for worry. Why have the comments caused uproar? The U.S. President was among the first leaders to call Prime Minister Narendra Modi to condemn the Pahalgam terror attack. Yet, once Indian airstrikes on terrorist infrastructure in Operation Sindoor intensified into an India-Pakistan conflict, Washington joined countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran to push for a halt in hostilities. Half an hour before the ceasefire was announced by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, Mr. Trump took to his account, claiming credit for a 'U.S.-brokered' ceasefire. Later, in media meets, he lavished praise on 'both great nations', promised to increase trade with them, and offered to mediate to resolve the Kashmir issue, erroneously saying it was 'a thousand years old' dispute (it dates back to 1947). With his statement, elements of which he repeated in remarks at the White House; at an investors conference in Riyadh; speaking to U.S. troops in Doha; and in an interview, Mr. Trump crossed all the red lines of Indian foreign policy when it comes to Pakistan and Jammu & Kashmir. These can be summed up as no third-party mediation, no hyphenation with Pakistan, no internationalisation of the Kashmir issue and focussing on terrorism as the core concern. What does internationalisation mean? India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru is accused of the original internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute after India went to the United Nations Security Council against Pakistan's illegal acquisition of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) in December 1947. An offer by Nehru to hold a plebiscite for the Kashmir Valley was contingent on Pakistan vacating PoK, and was shelved thereafter. However, as diplomat Rajiv Dogra points out in his book India's World: How Prime Ministers Shaped Foreign Policy, Nehru made it clear in Parliament that he had only asked to end Pakistan's aggression, not to seek arbitration or 'adjudge the validity of Kashmir's accession or to determine where the sovereignty lay,' but the UN broadened its scope of enquiry. Trumpeting claims: On the U.S. President's claims, India and Pakistan Since then, India and Pakistan have fought wars, and held talks over the issue, with no resolution. In 1972, after Pakistan suffered a humiliating defeat with the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, Pakistan PM Zulfikar Bhutto is understood to have assured Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that the Simla accord they signed would lead to a bilateral resolution of Kashmir along the Line of Control, but then never kept the promise. In 1994, in the wake of the insurgency in J&K backed by Pakistan, Parliament passed a resolution taking a firm line: it called the State an 'integral part of India', and said Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of J&K. After the 2019 re-organisation of J&K following the amendment of Article 370, Pakistan tried to internationalise the issue again. While it was largely unsuccessful, Pakistan, with China's support managed to hold a UNSC closed-door meeting on 'the volatile situation surrounding Kashmir', for the first time in 50 years. However, post 2019, the Narendra Modi government, which did negotiate with the Imran Khan government for the Kartarpur corridor and the 2021 LoC ceasefire, drew another line: that the only India-Pakistan talks on Kashmir henceforth would be for the return of PoK. While the position seemed maximalist, it was the outcome of decades of frustration at Pakistan's refusal to keep its commitments on the LoC and cross-border terrorism. Has any third-party ever mediated before? The Simla accord made the UN process that Nehru invoked irrelevant. Global powers have been more difficult to keep out of trying to intervene, however. Whenever tensions between India and Pakistan run high, countries like the U.S., the U.K., the UAE and Saudi Arabia establish parallel lines to both capitals, carrying messages between them until there is a pause in the military action, as was the case after Operation Sindoor. The more notable attempts at mediation were by the Soviet Union which hosted ceasefire talks to end the 1965 war, resulting in India and Pakistan signing the Tashkent Declaration. During the Kargil war in 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton tried to call PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Washington to meet PM Nawaz Sharif, but Mr. Vajpayee told Parliament that he refused the offer. On a day-trip to Islamabad, after his visit to Delhi in 2000, Mr. Clinton then gave a radio address saying the U.S. would not mediate on the Kashmir conflict, but would encourage the two sides for bilateral dialogue, which remained the U.S.'s position until 2019. The U.S. did help in confidence-building measures on Kashmir, as India and Pakistan held direct talks through envoys from 2003-2008 on the idea of 'making borders irrelevant' by turning the LoC into a more permanent boundary, but Washington didn't publicise them. After the Balakot strikes of 2019 however, President Trump, who was in his first term, announced that he had negotiated the release of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, who had been captured in Pakistan. He subsequently offered mediation on Kashmir during a press conference with Imran Khan, but was snubbed by Delhi. Is direct dialogue with Pakistan a possibility? Most avenues of direct dialogue with Pakistan have been closed since 2015 when External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj visited Islamabad. India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and closure of the Kartarpur corridor to Pakistan during the recent crisis closes more channels of communication other than those between security forces at the border. Meanwhile, the back-channel between NSA Ajit Doval and his Pakistani counterparts has been used more for conflict management, like after the Pathankot terror attacks (2016), or the accidental firing of an Indian missile into Pakistan (2022). Pakistan PM Sharif's latest call for talks has been met with cold rebuff from Delhi. Mr. Modi's 'new normal' outlined in an address to the nation says any talks with Pakistan will be about terrorism, and the return of PoK, which at present seem impossible conditions for Islamabad. However, as India and Pakistan have learned over the decades, not talking has also not resolved the perennial issues between them, and the absence of direct talks often causes a vacuum that other countries seek to fill by offering to mediate. For now, India's focus will remain on globalising its fight against terrorism, without internationalising the Kashmir issue in any way.
The Print
16-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Op Sindoor: Congress to join Centre's multi-party delegations to world capitals to make India's case
The Centre's proposal is reportedly part of a diplomatic outreach aimed at building global support for India's stance as a victim of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. However, the government has yet to make an official announcement of the outreach. 'The Indian National Congress always takes a position in the supreme national interest and never politicises national security issues like the BJP does. Hence, the Indian National Congress will definitely be a part of these delegations,' Congress general secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh said in a post on X. New Delhi: The Congress has decided to participate in multi-party delegations of members of parliament (MPs) the Centre is planning to send to various world capitals to present India's position on the recent military conflict with Pakistan. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has conveyed the decision to Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, who had reached out to the principal opposition party with the proposal. Ramesh said that while Kharge, in consultation with Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi, will announce the party's representatives for the delegations in due course, the Centre has still not met its demands to convene an all-party meeting and a special session of the Parliament on the recent developments. Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not attend the all-party meeting held after the 22 April Pahalgam attack, nor the one following Operation Sindoor on 7 May. The Congress has now indicated that it may boycott any future meetings if the Prime Minister continues to abstain. On 10 May, Kharge and Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, wrote to the Prime Minister, placing the 'unanimous request of the Opposition' to convene a special session of Parliament to discuss the 'Pahalgam terror attack, Operation Sindoor and today's ceasefire, first announced by US President Trump'. The Congress has maintained the announcement from Washington amounted to the 'internationalisation' of India's dispute with Pakistan. It has said that the 1972 Simla agreement precludes any third party mediation in disputes between the two neighbours. 'The Prime Minister has refused to chair two all-party meetings on the Pahalgam terror attacks and Operation Sindoor. The Prime Minister has not agreed to call a special session of Parliament that the Indian National Congress has been demanding to demonstrate a collective will and reiterate the resolution passed unanimously by Parliament on Feb 22, 1994,' Ramesh wrote on X. 'The Prime Minister and his party have been defaming the Indian National Congress continuously even as it has called for unity and solidarity. Now suddenly the PM has decided to send multi-party delegations abroad to explain India's stand on terrorism from Pakistan…' he added. (Edited by Ajeet Tiwari) Also Read: Tharoor faces Congress leadership's ire for breaking from party line on Op Sindoor, Trump's claims
Express Tribune
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
The road ahead
Listen to article The military, especially the air force, made the nation proud. But what is done, is in the past, however stellar it was. Today and tomorrow is another day with its own set of challenges. Now is the time to know and be ready for what is possible, what beckons and what must take our wholesome attention. To celebrate, to learn, to dissect and analyse will be in the weeks ahead. I promise my readers I will return to those in due course. But what stares in our face is immediate and must consume our absolute attention even as the armed forces of Pakistan continue to keep a keen watch over an enemy smartening from his losses and a bloody nose that it got from the valiant armed forces of Pakistan and its absolutely amazing people who went out in throngs on streets to defeat what the enemy had intended to suppress and subdue. It helps to remind what militaries do: "war is a continuation of politics by other means" — Clausewitz. What it translates into is that when the military instrument is applied it must create 'space' for politics to pursue its aims using the space opened through application of military force. We must differentiate between wars too: there are wars of annihilation as was mostly the case in the medieval era, as well as till WWII when nations were either demolished or recreated out of ashes but to destroy them to ruin was what signaled the end. Not so in the modern era when the space for war with the kind which is prevalent is greatly restricted — Russia despite being a nuclear power cannot seem to end what it began in Ukraine, a country of little military means. It is also because of the world we live in. When one nation goes down it disrupts and demolishes the entire construct of markets and supply chains which have tied the world into a coexistent entity — a safety against annihilation. Even hate, contempt and venom must have limits. Clausewitz thus retains his credence. The skirmish with India has opened the space for politics to bring back the issues that plague Pakistan's progress and development into international spotlight. What had been reduced to bilateral whims of India after Simla has found renewed relevance around the world and in the Security Council at the UN. It is up to Pakistan now to benefit from this opportunity. Balochistan continues to suffer from a foreign-based, foreign engineered, and a foreign financed campaign against the state of Pakistan and its unity. The Jaffar Express incident is too recent to forget. India is the foreign master perpetuating this insurgency as borne by the two apprehended Indian agents in Balochistan — one a serving Naval Commander of the Indian intelligence in Pakistan's custody. Indian leadership has publicly claimed its role in fomenting trouble for Pakistan in Balochistan. Similarly, Indian hand in encouraging terrorist activities by the TTP — a proscribed terrorist group based in Afghanistan - against the people and the state of Pakistan continues to consume our precious resource and focus. They instigate, encourage and finance terror in Pakistan. This must come up as Pakistan's imperative concern when we sit down to talk with India following the ceasefire. We want guarantees and assurances that such a heinous resort of a neighbour will be promptly dispensed with. Wild allegations by India on inverse charges of terrorism in made-to-order enactments in Kashmir and elsewhere against Pakistan will not wash without substantive proof and fair investigation. We just came out of a war costing precious lives and losses in billions of dollars even as Indian government posts flyers with handsome remuneration to anyone who can provide information about the incident or the possible attackers. The irony is not lost. India unilaterally suspended the Indus Water Treaty which was brokered by the World Bank which per its statutes cannot be suspended, held in abeyance, or abrogated by any one side. It is the lifeline of Pakistan and an 'act of war' if Pakistan's right to the three western rivers and its waters is in any way impeded, redirected or tampered with. This will need to be reinstated in its original jurisdiction without exception to any of its clauses and contents for any other negotiation to begin, even before the two sides agree to meet. Any provision of the Treaty that Indian wants reopened for discussion can only be undertaken when the Treaty is in place status-quo ante. Pakistan too may like to renew considerations of its share in the three eastern rivers considering changes in water availability, population explosion and threats of food insecurity in areas originally fed by these three rivers. Similarly, the free flow of rivers in areas currently occupied by India in Jammu and Kashmir will need to be ensured in renewed commitment and verifiable processes. If Indian-Occupied Kashmir reeks of unease and disquiet despite the presence of over 700,000 military and paramilitary personnel, there must be a more founding and sustaining cause at its root. The disputed status of the region since 1948 and the unactioned UNSC Resolutions that detail the need to honour and respect the right of the Kashmiris to determine their future through a plebiscite explain why the people of Kashmir remain alienated and dispossessed. That a fight for freedom by those oppressed by a forced occupation is enshrined as a right in the UN Charter. That it turns ugly on occasions is inherent in long struggles for freedom. To India it is terrorism; to the Kashmiris, their fight for freedom from forced occupation; to Pakistan it is a legacy issue used by an odious neighbour to label Pakistan for India's own failure to give Kashmiris their right to self-determination. Kashmir needs urgent international attention to resolve the dispute per UN Resolutions and the aspirations of the people of Kashmir. Kashmir is critical to peace in this region and a nuclear flashpoint between India and Pakistan as has evinced in this and every conflict; except this time, it came much closer to nuclear blows. The unstable environment and the ensuing militancy, the water dispute, and the persisting conflict between two nuclear neighbours has its roots in one source — Kashmir. If the world can resolve Kashmir — because India would not do so on its own - we can gift peace to this entire region and hope and promise to its two billion people. The US has offered to help find this noble end; may she stay the course. Pakistan displayed remarkable capability as a nation to face off India's aggression. Its armed forces reinforced the conventional deterrence in no uncertain way. Perhaps India will learn its lesson. At its core though is strategic deterrence through Pakistan's nuclear weapons. It is imperative that this foundation is stoutly preserved against any inducement in the name of safety and security through alternate mechanisms of any kind. Pakistan cannot be divested of physical possession and instant access to its nuclear weapons.
Hindustan Times
14-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
HT This Day: May 15, 1976 -- India, Pakistan to exchange ambassadors
Islamabad: India and Pakistan have agreed to re-establish full diplomatic relations between their countries snapped by Pakistan in December 1971 in the wake of India's recognition of Bangladesh. They agreed that each country should be represented by an Ambassador with supporting staff in the capital of the other country. The two countries also agreed to resume overflights suspended since the hijacking and subsequent blowing up of an Indian Airlines Fokker Friendship plane in Lahore. This was disclosed in a joint statement issued today at - the conclusion of the three days of talks between the Pakistan Government and an Indian delegation led by the Foreign Secretary, Mr Jagat S. Mehta. T hey also agreed to resume goods and passenger traffic by rail through the Wagah-Attari border. At a joint Press conference after the talks, Mr Mehta and Foreign Secretary Agha Shahi, who led the Pakistan delegation, said that all agreements reached during the talks 'would be implemented in a very short time.' Diplomatic relations between the two countries were broken off by President Yahya Khan on Dec. 6, 1971, in the wake of India's recognition of Bangladesh. Question of airlinks and overflights had defied a solution during two rounds of talks held between the two countries in November 1974 in Islamabad and in New Delhi, in May 1975 because of Pakistan's refusal to withdraw its case before the International Civil Aviation Organisation lodged in the wake of India's ban on overflights. India had banned overflights early in February 1971 following the hijacking and subsequent blowing up of an Indian Airlines aircraft in Lahore. T he agreement by the two Foreign Secretaries was announced at the conclusion of the three-day talks in a joint statement which Mr Agha Shahi described as 'straight, self-explanatory and highly explicit'. Mr Agha Shahi said they had, in fact, fixed a time limit for the simultaneous Implementation of the various agreements embodied in the joint statement. But this time limit could not be disclosed as Mr Mehta had to seek confirmation from his Government. 'He will let us know in a couple of days,' he said. Though optimism had been expressed during the last two days of the talks, there was some uncertainty this morning following the cropping up of what Mr Agha Shahi had described as 'delicate differences.' Mr Agha Shahi had referred to this at a luncheon given by Mr Mehta today. The luncheon itself was delayed by over an hour as the Pakistan Foreign Secretary was apparently trying to contact the Prime Minister, Mr Bhutto who is away in Gilgit. The joint statement was signed at 7 p.m. (IST) and this was followed by a joint Press conference by the two Foreign Secretaries. Sir Mehta told the Press conference that the agreement took into account all matters referred to in the Simla agreement. The following in the text of the joint statement issued m Islamabad and New Delhi: Pursuant to the letter written by Prime Minister Z. A. Bhutto on March 27 and the reply of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of April 11, the delegations of India and Pakistan met in Islamabad from May 12 to 14 with the objective of resuming normalisation of relations between the two countries as envisaged in the Simla Agreement. The discussions were held in a frank and friendly atmosphere. Mr. J.S. Mehta, Foreign Secretary, led the Indian delegation. He was assisted by representatives of the ministries of External Affairs, Tourism and Civil Aviation, Finance Home Affairs, Railways, Shipping and Transport and Commerce. The Pakistani delegation was led by Mr Agha Shahi, Foreign Secretary. He was assisted by the representatives of the ministries of Foreign Affairs, Railways, finance, Communications, Commerce, Interior, Information and Broadcasting, Law, Aviation Division, the department of Civil Aviation, Ports and shipping and Pakistan International Airlines Corporation. In regard to matters relating to civil aviation, the two delegations discussed the modality of withdrawing the cases anti counter claim pending before the Council of tire International Civil Aviation Organisation and agreed to send a joint letter to the council for the purpose. They further agreed to the resumption of overflights and the restoration of airlinks between the two countries. It was decided that expert delegations from the two countries will meet to work out the necessary details. The two delegations agreed to resume goods and passenger traffic by rail through the Wagah-Attari border. In this connection the Pakistani delegation stated that the rail track on its side was already functional. The Indian delegation undertook to carry out the necessary repairs on its side as soon as possible. The two sides recognised the advantage that would accrue to trade between the two countries with the resumption of freighting of goods by rail. It was decided that the experts of the two countries should meet urgently to work out a detailed agreement regarding inter-change, freight rating, compensation claims, custom formalities, creation of a wagon pool and so on for the goods and passenger traffic between the two countries. The two sides agreed to grant multiple journey visas valid for one year to the members of the railway staff operating on scheduled services along the specified route. The two delegations agreed that goods meant for the other country could also be transported by road up to the Wagah-Attari border. For this purpose, they undertook to make necessary arrangements for the transshipment, warehousing, bonding and customs clearance. The two delegations discussed the question of early re-establishment of diplomatic relations between their countries. They agreed that each country should be represented by an ambassador with supporting staff in the capital of the other country. In view of the problems which had been faced in the past in the functioning of their respective diplomatic missions, the two delegations reaffirmed their adherence to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, to which they were party and agreed on a basis reciprocity, to grant each other's missions all facilities and courtesies for their normal functioning. The two delegations reviewed the working of the Indo-Pakistan Trade agreement of January 23, 1975, and the shipping protocol of January 15, 1975. They agreed that in terms of article 3 of the trade agreement, in addition to state trading organisations, the private sector be also enabled, with effect from July 15, 1976, to participate in the trade between the two countries subject to the laws, rules, regulations and procedures in force in their respective countries from time to time. The two delegations also agreed that the joint committee envisaged under article 9 of trade agreement should be constituted immediately to review the working of that agreement and that the first meeting of the joint committee should be held at the commerce secretaries' level as soon as possible and, in any case, before the end of 1976. The two sides decided that a further meeting of the respective ship-ping experts should be held, as early as possible, to review the protocol on shipping as provided in article 22 of that protocol. The two delegations reviewed the existing visa agreement for regulating travel between the two countries. They noted that the arrangements envisaged in that agreement were working satisfactorily and required no change. The two delegations discussed measures for promoting cultural and scientific exchanges as envisaged in the Simla agreement. They agreed that further discussions on these measures could be undertaken in due course. The two sides held discussions on the question of the detenus and agreed that this humanitarian issue needed to be resolved expeditiously. They also agreed to make efforts to locate persons still untraced and re-patriate them with all possible dis-patch in accordance with the existing working arrangements. The leader of the Indian delegation. Mr J.S. Mehta, was received by the President of the Islamic Re-public of Pakistan. The Indian delegation warmly thanked the delegation of Pakistan for its hospitality.
