Articles Regarding Pakistan
Doval’s doctrine in action
By: Hina Parvez Butt
June 05, 2025
Courtesy: The News International
India’s tactical defeat in the recent conflict hasn’t prompted restraint. It’s accelerated a dangerous descent. That a nuclear-armed state would respond to a military setback by doubling down on covert proxy warfare isn’t a sign of strategy but of desperation. And nowhere is that desperation more visible than in Balochistan, where the decades-old Indian hand is now a matter of record.
The link between India’s RAW and the Balochistan Liberation Army has been well-established. But what’s new – and demands a far more serious response – is the engineered alliance between the BLA and the TTP. These are ideologically incompatible groups with no organic reason to work together. Their operational merger makes sense only when understood as the product of a foreign intelligence apparatus acting with purpose – in this case, RAW.
For years, Ajit Doval’s doctrine of 'offensive defence' has been passed off as strategic brilliance in Indian circles. In reality, it’s amounted to exporting terror to Pakistan and masking it as containment. Doval himself has been more than happy to explain it all to his YouTube audience – how India is engaging in hybrid warfare, how its reach extends into Pakistan’s tribal belt, and how non-state actors are used as force multipliers. When such admissions come not from whistleblowers but senior security officials, there’s no point pretending we’re dealing with anything less than a state policy of sustained subversion.
Yet for too long, Pakistan has hesitated to update the rulebook. Even when arrests were made and confessions surfaced, the preferred response was caution and international diplomacy. Now that India’s role in stoking unrest through the BLA-TTP nexus is undeniable, that playbook has run its course.
India isn’t just backing terror. It’s building a parallel theatre of conflict that doesn’t show up in ceasefire agreements or diplomatic overtures but bleeds Pakistan in slow motion. And after the embarrassment of a failed escalation, India has every incentive to let this theatre take centre-stage.
The signs are already there. Cross-border terrorism has picked up. Sleeper cells are being activated in urban centres. Ethnic fault lines are once again being tested. The pattern is textbook asymmetric warfare, but the context is important: this isn’t the behaviour of a rising regional power. It’s the last gasp of a regional spoiler that thought military posturing would yield strategic depth, only to realise it was neither ready nor capable of sustaining it.
The most troubling front in this campaign remains Balochistan. Unlike past cycles of violence, the new wave is far more calculated. It targets infrastructure, demoralises security personnel and aims to isolate the province both politically and economically. The agenda is no longer about Baloch grievances; it’s about creating sustained instability that can be leveraged externally. What we’re seeing is really remote-controlled sabotage.
RAW’s tactics in Balochistan are evolving. Recent operations have shown a marked increase in technical sophistication. Communication channels are encrypted, funding routes are harder to trace and targeted disinformation campaigns now accompany kinetic attacks. This hybrid model mirrors patterns seen in other destabilisation theatres, from eastern Ukraine to parts of the Middle East, and should not be dismissed as improvisation. This is India’s strategy.
Meanwhile, international attention remains fleeting, driven more by geopolitical alignments than objective assessments. Western capitals that preach stability have shown little appetite for calling out India’s double game. At best, they issue bland statements of concern. At worst, they reward India with defence deals and diplomatic cover. Pakistan must break this silence – and not with dossiers alone. Strategic engagement, evidence-based diplomacy and a calibrated media campaign must converge to challenge the narrative.
What matters now is clarity of purpose. Pakistan’s security establishment cannot afford to play defence indefinitely. The enemy has declared its strategy. It’s time Pakistan declared its resolve. That means enhancing internal coherence, securing the information space, denying operational depth to proxies and building the regional alliances necessary to expose and isolate the architects of subversion.
India’s defeat on the battlefield should have marked a pause in hostilities. Instead, it has sharpened the covert edge of its foreign policy. The choice before Pakistan is clear: either let Balochistan be used as a permanent pressure point or expose the covert war for what it is – and act accordingly.
No provisions for suspension of IWT-1960
By: Dr Muhammad Khan
May 26, 2025
Courtesy: Pakistan Observer
There is no explicit legal clause for the abrogation or suspension of Indus Water Treaty-1960 (IWT-1960) by any party to the agreement, nor there exist any explicit clause for the exit from treaty or its part (s) by any party.
Besides, Clause 12 of the Treaty explained perpetuity of the Treaty; it shall remain in force until modified or terminated by both parties to the treaty.
Nevertheless, if mutually agreed-upon by both India and Pakistan to amend it or a new treaty is signed and ratified by both governments for the purpose of termination.
Key explanations of this clause (12) include; a) a mutual agreement is needed between India and Pakistan for the termination of the treaty, b) any termination or modification must be formalized through a separate, duly ratified treaty, c) there is no unilateral suspension or termination of the treaty, d) under any condition it cannot be unilaterally suspended, modified and terminated.
Since is no such clause in IWT-1960, for the suspension/ termination therefore, Indian unilateral Act of suspending IWT-1960 is totally illegal; against the essence of the Treaty itself, against the international water laws, UN Charter and against International Law.
The key principle of international law of water is: “each riparian state has the right to a reasonable and equitable share of the river’s water”.
It is further secured to cooperate and protect the river’s ecological system.
India has always violated all these laws and principles.
On April 23, 2025, India suspended IWT-1960 to reflect its hegemony and power in South Asia while quoting "sustained cross-border terrorism by Pakistan".
This is quite funny that, a state which itself is sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan for decades, accusing the victim state (Pakistan) and also stopping its water.
Indian Government has also referred Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties for suspension of IWT-1960 which is quite absurd and nonsense.
This Article says: “A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless: (a) The existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and (b) The effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.”
All the sub-parts of this Article negate the Indian unilateral Act of suspension of IWT-1960.
Then the treaty has its own clauses for its continuation under any circumstance including hostility and wars which it withstood in the past.
In case of any change in the circumstances, the treaty has its own inbuilt mechanism for negotiated modifications.
In last five years, India has constantly been making all efforts to trap Pakistan for its renegotiations and modification as per Indian designs which later refused.
The current action of India after its false flag operation at Pahalgam in IIOJK is quite illegal and illogical from all perspectives.
The experts of international relations analyzed that, this suspension is a barging chip of India for the renegotiating the treaty, as India has been constantly asking for in last few years.
“The suspension also serves as a way for India to gain leverage in future negotiations about the treaty's terms.
India has been pushing for a review of the treaty, citing changing needs and circumstances, and the suspension may be a way to force Pakistan to engage in these renegotiations”.
In last two years, India has severed four notices about the renegotiations over IWT-1960 to Pakistan and also stopped sharing the data and information about water in three western rivers, whose water is exclusively meant for Pakistan.
In February 2022, Dr.Daniel Haines, an associate professor from University of Bristol, United Kingdom suggested Pakistan, not to renegotiate the Indus Water Treaty-1960.
He said that, “Renegotiating or repealing the Indus Waters Treaty would be very risky unless the context of India-Pakistan relations changes radically.”
In the opinions of many Pakistani well-wishers and experts of India-Pakistan relations as well as experts of water (especially IWT-1960) Dr Daniel’s proposal was very relevant and timely.
Unfortunately, there has been no positive change in the bilateral relationship of Pakistan in recent years.
Both view each other with lot of skepticism and pessimism on various accounts; mainly because of their internal power dynamics and regional hegemonic designs of India.
Otherwise, there has never been cordiality in their bilateral relationship ever since the decolonization of Sub-continent and partition in 1947.
The same situation exits even today, which means there are no new circumstances prevailing between India and Pakistan except continued water manipulation by Indian from western rivers.
It took over one decade to negotiate and agree upon the Indus Water Treaty-1960 where World Bank played a significant role to finalize the agreement.
Their decision over IWT was accepted by both India and Pakistan without any precondition of any special circumstance or time limit.
In last three decades India has constructed many dams, hydroelectric projects, water storages and water diversions on the western rivers which are serious violations of IWT-1960.
Pakistan must reach over to the guarantor of the Treaty; World Bank and United Nations against Indian unilateral and illegal act of suspending IWT-1960.
Any future negotiations with India should be within the basic framework of IWT-1960.
India’s War on Truth
By: Asif Mahmood
May 26, 2025
Courtesy: Daily Times
Amid a tenuous ceasefire along the international border and the Line of Control, India appears to be waging a sophisticated cyber warfare campaign against Pakistan, reflecting a desire to shape a narrative that compensates for its military setbacks.
Following the unsuccessful attempt to achieve its objectives through the Pehlgam false flag operation, India is now leveraging its cyber warfare capabilities to disseminate a harmful narrative against Pakistan. This narrative claims that Pakistan is planning two imminent attacks in India and occupied Kashmir. Such statements serve not only to unjustly vilify Pakistan but also reveal India’s intention to orchestrate another false flag operation shortly.
This narrative appears to be a tactical precursor to the forthcoming operation. India is possibly planning something similar to Pehlgam and is using its proxies to advance its upcoming false flag operation.
Importantly, this narrative is being propagated by BJP-owned media outlets, rather than credible investigative journalists. It is being driven by individuals linked to terrorist proxies operating under Indian support.
Despite India’s failure to present any substantive evidence of Pakistani involvement in the Pehlgam attack, it is now attempting to sway global perceptions with a misleading and baseless narrative.
India’s misleading narrative about a purported missile attack on the Golden Temple exemplifies its alarming tendency to weaponize misinformation. The question is: why would Pakistan-never once having attacked Hindu temples-target a Sikh place of worship?
By spinning this fabricated story, India aims to portray itself as the protector of Sikhs, while simultaneously labelling Pakistan as the villain.
However, let’s scrutinize the validity of this alleged missile strike. If such an attack had truly occurred, would India’s air defence system realistically have been able to intercept a missile in just 20 seconds?
India is possibly planning something similar to Pehlgam and is using its proxies to advance its upcoming false flag operation.
A short-range ballistic missile from Pakistan would reach Amritsar in the blink of an eye, making it highly improbable that India’s defences could mount an effective response in that timeframe.
Moreover, during the May 10 missile crisis, when Pakistani missiles targeted Indian military installations, India’s air defences suffered a catastrophic failure, leading to substantial damage. If India could not safeguard crucial military sites located far from the border, how could it possibly be equipped to defend a revered site like the Golden Temple, situated so close to the frontier?
This narrative collapses under scrutiny, revealing its true nature as a strategic fabrication.
India’s involvement in spreading misinformation has been extensively documented, notably through a 2009 investigation by the EU DisinfoLab, which revealed a network of 265 fake local media outlets across 65 countries, all aimed at promoting Indian interests and undermining Pakistan.
This operation extended to questionable think tanks and NGOs in Brussels and Geneva, further exposed in the “Indian Chronicles,” which detailed efforts to cultivate pro-Indian sentiment while disparaging Pakistan and China.
The orchestrators of this campaign, linked to the Srivastava Group, registered over 550 domain names for various organizations, many of which were swiftly unregistered and reappeared under new identities after their exposure.
This multifaceted strategy of misinformation not only highlights a serious threat to global information integrity but also calls for urgent scrutiny of the tactics employed by India to influence geopolitical narratives.
PAF Creates History
By: Dr Zia Ul Haque Shamsi
May 26, 2025
Courtesy: Daily Times
By May 20, 2025, I had completed my research on the claimed kills of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) over its archrival, the Indian Air Force (IAF). In a short video on my YouTube Channel, “Reflections by Dr Shamsi,” I claimed that the PAF had become the most successful air force of the 21st century after at least 10 IAF aircraft were knocked out of the skies either directly or indirectly.
I fully understand that claims and counterclaims are part of warfare, and it is challenging to confirm an aerial kill in the absence of the wreckage of the downed aircraft. While it was easy to claim the MiG-21 Bis of the IAF, which was shot down on February 27, 2019, by the PAF, because the wreckage fell in Pakistan’s territory and the pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan was captured, the IAF’s claim of the F-16 was declared as nonsense by none other than a US Defence Expert, Dr Christine Fair.
My claims are based on academic research and verified by at least two former leaders of the PAF. Secondly, many of the Indian viewers have since my claim reminded me of successful Indian attacks on Pakistani cities and PAF Bases between May 7 and 10, 2025. Still, none have refuted my claim that the PAF was responsible for at least 10 losses that the IAF has suffered since February 2019, making the PAF the most successful air force in the world in the 21st century. IAF losses include an SU-30 MKI, a MiG-21 BIS, and an MI-171 V5, shot down by the Indian Air Defence, primarily because the PAF overwhelmed the zone of operations.
Fast-forward to May 2025, and IAF losses include multiple state-of-the-art French-made Dassault Rafale, a Mirage 2000, an SU 30MKI, and a MiG 29. In support of its claims, the PAF provided “crash locations, cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcripts of the pilots’ final communications, and flight data.” The combination of PL-15E missiles on Chinese-origin Chengdu J-10 fighters achieved a total surprise, thereby shooting down some of the best fighter jets the IAF had. The official confirmation of these claims may take years of intelligence and investigations by independent defence experts from various countries. Still, circumstantial evidence suggests that the PAF came out clean and most of its claims were on the dot. Perhaps, it is necessary to mention that IAF did not get airborne after the night of the 6th and 7th clashes with the PAF, and India resorted to surface-to-surface missiles, and drone attacks on Pakistani cities and the PAF Bases.
For now, the PAF can celebrate its unique record of some 10 aerial kills against a formidable air force, the IAF, which no other air force has achieved in the 21st century.
There is an uneasy ceasefire between the two arch-rivals, brokered by the US. Nevertheless, India’s hardline leadership under PM Modi is not showing signs of easing. It continues to threaten further punitive strikes on Pakistan for its alleged involvement in an attack on the tourist site of Pahalgam in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, in which around 26 innocent people lost their lives. Pakistan condemned the brutal attack and offered its sincerest cooperation in an independent investigation. Therefore, “the possibility of yet another military engagement between India and Pakistan, similar to February 2019, exists with varying degrees of probability, thus challenging the efficacy of nuclear deterrence. Until the probabilities of military engagements are minimised, the possibilities of peace and stability in the region would remain elusive.” One can add to the far more intense and violent clashes in a four-day war in May 2025.
Since the PAF was the automatic choice to respond to India’s aggression in any domain, it did what it had trained itself for and what the nation had expected of it. Pakistan Army also responded with full force at the Line of Control (LOC).
After repeated victories in the aerial battles, the PAF appears to have achieved cognitive superiority over the IAF. The aerial kills by PL 15E AAMs, launched from J 10C aircraft, against the Rafale aircraft, at a distance of over 190km, may have created a record of the longest aerial kill in aviation history. The impact of this kill is going to last on the hearts and minds of the IAF aircrew for ages, and from now on, whenever an IAF pilot approaches the war zone against the PAF, they will assume that the opponent is a killer combination, J 10C equipped with PL 15 E.
For now, the PAF can celebrate its unique record of some 10 aerial kills against a formidable air force, the IAF, which no other air force has achieved in the 21st century. However, the PAF must know that it has won an aerial battle only, and an all-out war is still to come, even under the overhang of nuclear deterrence, because the enemy is arrogant and irrational and does not recognise the consequences of a nuclear conflict.
India’s false flag gamble and South Asian deterrence
By: Zamzam Channa
May 26, 2025
Courtesy: Pakistan Today
On 22 April, a tragic attack in Pahalgam, a tourist spot in Indian-Occupied Kashmir, killed 26 civilians, mainly tourists hailing within India. Pakistan strongly condemned the unfortunate incident and was open to any “neutral and transparent” investigation into the Pahalgam attack in Indian-Occupied Kashmir. However, India’s accusations of an alleged involvement of Pakistan with no proven evidence left the region at risk of an outright war between two nuclear-armed states.
On May 7th, India launched its Operation Sindoor and initiated massive air strikes against Pakistan with missile and drone attacks to avenge the Pahalgam incident. The Indian air strikes in Pakistan resulted in the loss of public infrastructure, worship places, and innocent civilian lives including women and children. Pakistan strongly condemned India’s provocative actions and called it a “cowardly and unlawful act of war”. Additionally, on May 9, India carried out multiple missile strikes on PAF bases, including the Noor Khan, Muridke, and Shorkot airbases. India used BrahMos, long-range supersonic cruise missiles, to launch the attacks on Pakistan. India follows a recurring pattern of attacking Pakistan, a nuclear-weapon state, through devastating missiles that threaten the airspace of Pakistan, violating international law.
In response to India’s unlawful operation and continued drone and missile attacks, Pakistan retaliated by launching Operation Bunyanun-Marsoos (Iron Wall), in defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Pakistan’s retaliatory military operation crushed Indian aggression and re-established conventional deterrence. Pakistan effectively showed synergy in air, land, sea and cyber domains. As part of the operation, multiple Indian military sites and air bases were targeted and reportedly destroyed including the BrahMos missile depots, S-400 air defence system, and cyberstrikes, which disabled 70 percent of India’s air capability. As noted by Radio Pakistan, the precision strikes wiped out Indian bases at Pathankot, Sirsa, Bathinda, Akhnoor, Halwara, Udhampur and artillery in Dehrangyari, Mankot. Brigade Headquarters at Bhimber Gali, KG Top, Rajouri MI Center and Uri depot were also decimated by the PAF airstrikes. Notably, during the air combat, India also lost its six fighter jets, including the French-manufactured 4.5 generation Rafale, which caused New Delhi to face international humiliation. A press conference by the Director General of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) noted that “we targeted 26 military sites as well as the facilities that were used by India to launch cowardly attacks on innocent civilians.” It was stated that Pakistan’s response was precise, proportionate, and remarkably restrained.
Since becoming the world’s seventh nuclear power in 1998, Pakistan has substantially relied on nuclear deterrence as a cornerstone of its national security and has effectively maintained the strategic balance in the region. Pakistani strategic thinkers argue that nuclear deterrence in South Asia has effectively prevented large-scale conventional wars. Moreover, India’s idea of a limited war fought under the nuclear overhang has been effectively discounted, with the capability of Pakistan’s retaliatory action.
The Indian aggression against Pakistan has pushed the region closer to a potential all-out-war. In the 2019 crisis, the conventional conflict had soon escalated into a nuclear rhetoric with Prime Minister Modi claiming that India had prepared for a “Qatal ki Raat” (night of murder) on 27 February. However, Pakistan’s robust nuclear deterrence provided no room for a limited conventional war under the nuclear overhang and effectively deterred Indian aggression. In a conversation published by BASIC on 12 March 2025, Arms Control Advisor to Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division Brigadier Dr. Zahir Kazmi stated that “Pakistan had also made it clear that for every Indian missile prepared, three Pakistani missiles were ready, demonstrating the credibility of its deterrent posture.” The recent past has witnessed India employing the false flag operations, particularly in IIOJK, to accuse Pakistan of cross-border terrorism, aimed at tarnishing its international reputation.
The Pahalgam incident coincided with the high-level visit of the US Vice President James David Vance to New Delhi which raised suspicions about its timing and intent. All indicators point towards it being a false-flag operation conducted for strategic gains. These politically motivated false-flag operations not only threaten regional peace and security but also exacerbate broader geopolitical tensions. India’s pattern sheds light on a wider strategy that deflects attention from its internal fault-lines, including the marginalization of Muslims and the ongoing repression of Kashmiri people.
The recent false-flag operation by India is not only an attempt to malign the image of Pakistan but to adversely affect its national interests. Swiftly after the incident, India suspended the World Bank-brokered Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. Subsequently, India downgraded the diplomatic relations with Pakistan by reducing its diplomatic staff from the High Commission of Pakistan in India. It also discontinued all third-party trade with Pakistan, and shut down the integrated check post at Attari, along with prohibiting the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) visa exemptions scheme to Pakistani nationals. However, the Indian aggression was not limited to the diplomatic, economic, political measures against Pakistan, the ideologically driven Modi regime authorized its armed forces the ‘operational freedom’ to craft a severe military action against Islamabad.
The South Asian strategic equilibrium remains under strain due to India’s increasingly assertive military posture, its pursuit of advanced defence technologies through strategic partnerships, and its ambitions to assert itself as a self-perceived regional hegemon. India’s aggressive strategic posture, driven by Hindutva ideology, threatens Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, increasing tensions and pushing South Asia to the nuclear threshold. These developments risk the erosion of deterrence stability that has thus far prevented the outbreak of a major war in the region.
In response to India’s offensive diplomatic measures of April 23, Pakistan announced punitive actions, which included the closure of its airspace for Indian flights, suspension of the 1972 Simla Agreement, closing the Wagah Border Post, and subsequently the closing of all visas under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES). Pakistan’s closure of its airspace for Indian flights has caused heavy losses to its commercial flights, with over 1,000 Indianattributed to flights affected so far.
Since 1971, India has been conducting recurring false-flag operations against Pakistan. In 2000 the Indian Army conducted a false-flag operation in occupied Kashmir before the visit of the US President Bill Clinton to India. The motive was to defame the image of Pakistan in the USA. Likewise, the Indian Parliament attack of 2001, which resulted frpm Indian security forces’ failure, was immediately charged against Pakistan. Similarly, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Pathankot airbase attack and the 2016 Uri attacks were India’s bogus claims against Pakistan, depicting it as a terrorist state. Pulwama is yet another stark example of India’s staging of false-flag operations. Resultantly, on 26 February 2019, India had launched airstrikes in Pakistan’s Balakot, which resulted in a national humiliation for New Delhi when two of its aircraft were shot down by the PAF and one pilot, Wing Cdr Abhinandan, captured.
Ironically, India has been involved in territorial disputes with nearly all its neighbouring states, and its assertive military posture often positions it as a self-perceived regional hegemon, often being considered the aggressor in regional conflicts. India’s continuous military aggression, particularly the “surgical strikes” against Pakistan under the pretext of counterterrorism, can result in strategic and diplomatic setbacks to both countries.
In view of the above, the South Asian strategic equilibrium remains under strain due to India’s increasingly assertive military posture, its pursuit of advanced defence technologies through strategic partnerships, and its ambitions to assert itself as a self-perceived regional hegemon. India’s aggressive strategic posture, driven by Hindutva ideology, threatens Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, increasing tensions and pushing South Asia to the nuclear threshold. These developments risk the erosion of deterrence stability that has thus far prevented the outbreak of a major war in the region.
Pakistan united against the terrorists
By: Asad Ali
May 26, 2025
Courtesy: Pakistan Today
The proud and peaceful nation that is Pakistan, established on the basis of faith, unity and discipline, has once again proven that it is resilient in the contest of sabotage plans by the hostile forces to rock the foundations of the country. In the past few weeks, the nation has been able to expose and defeat a deadly conspiracy that emanated from outside aggression and internal subversion, a plot promoted by the fitnah (mischief) of the Khawarij inspired terrorist group and ably supported by Indian intelligence agencies.
The credible intelligence and investigative evidence have revealed the dire involvement of India in projecting the narrative and activities of so-called reformist outfit, whose desired mission is to shatter internal peace of Pakistan and democratic fabric. These revelations are not new and isolated. India has for several decades tried to destabilize Pakistan through illicit activities, proxy terrorism, hybrid warfare, and campaign of lies.
But what makes this latest scheme particularly toxic is the ideological cover for it. This is not just a terrorist group – it is an embodiment of the modern Khawarij who corrupt Islam to endorse violence and attack state structures to sow discord among the Ummah. Under the guise of reform, those determining the narrative that we hear much of which promote anarchy, distrust, and rebellion through foreign handlers through whom they get funding and direction.
The current threats attuned to the political leadership and national establishments did not come by accident. They are all a part of a cool-headed, well-funded plan to undermine trust, slow down national progress, and create the picture of chaos that India can utilize on the international stage. Bringing religion and sedition into play, the group and its foreign masters try to cripple Pakistan from within.
India’s meddling in Pakistan is not new. While promoting the separatist movements in the past to its established practice in sponsoring cross-border terrorism in Pakistan, India has been using the indirect warfare tactic as a source to intimidate and destabilize the latter. The Kulbhushan Jadhav case continues to be a glaring example of this policy – a serving officer of the Indian Navy caught red-handed spying and wreaking sabotage inside Pakistan. Now, with this group’s emergence, India has got another pawn to use for its disruptive aspirations.
There is still a role to be played by every citizen. Stay vigilant. Report suspicious activity. Refute false propaganda. And what is most crucial of all, do not allow the cloakers of sedition in religious robes split us. The war against TTP and foreign conspiracies is not something that pertains only to the states, but a national cause.
However, this time the story is different. Pakistan is strength— its people, its armed forces, its institutions– all shoulder to shoulder in full rejection of this new wave of fitnah. The oneness shown in the light of this threat is a reflection of the political maturity and strategic consciousness of the nation. There is simply no place for the ideological deception of the Khawarij and for India’s endless interference.
Our armed forces and the intelligence agencies helped to identify and destroy networks of subversion. Pursuits against terrorist hide-outs, disruption of propaganda sources, and monitoring of foreign funding routes have worked hugely in weakening the elements. The state’s no-tolerance policy towards terrorism irrespective of their source or grounds is a reaffirmation of its determination to defend national sovereignty and constitutional governance.
The people of Pakistan, at the same time, have proved to have a marvelous clarity. There is increased public consciousness about how these extremist groups function— how they glom onto young and vulnerable innocents, poison religious teaching, and manipulate a socio-political grievance to advance a foreign cause. The refusal of scholars, religious leaders, and civil society to accept these groups fortifies the national resolution.
Pakistan’s message is clear: we won’t be scared, estranged, or sidetracked. We will no longer tolerate the lies of the TTP. Not any group sponsored by a domestic or a foreign group shall interrupt our peace, break our sovereignty or hijack our faith. Islam is a peaceful religion of justice and sympathy, not a religion that supports terrorism or rebellion in the name of religion. TTP ideology is an aberration of Islam and an opponent of unity.
Besides, today’s war cannot be confined between the borders and battlefields. It is waged in cyber networks, media programmes, and ideological infiltration. India’s hybrid warfare would weaken Pakistan by affecting its social cohesion, discrediting institutions, and advocating constant instability narrative. These tactics, although subtle, are as threatening. The media, academia, and the digital platforms in Pakistan have to be watchful and responsible while combating disinformation and propagating national integrity.
Finally, Pakistan is united against the fitnah of the Khawarij and the scheming foreigners. Unity in every sense, belief in the constitution and peace-loving are our strengths. This should be a message to every enemy: visible and hidden, that the Pakistani nation is neither blind to deceit nor is weak against betrayal. The citizens of this country will still stand behind their institutions, protect their homeland, and unveil lie of people who want to hurt their home.
There is still a role to be played by every citizen. Stay vigilant. Report suspicious activity. Refute false propaganda. And what is most crucial of all, do not allow the cloakers of sedition in religious robes split us. The war against TTP and foreign conspiracies is not something that pertains only to the states, but a national cause.
Beijing’s Afghan future
By: Qamar Bashir
May 26, 2025
Courtesy: Pakistan Today
While the West devastated Afghanistan through decades of war, drone strikes, and foreign occupation, China took a different path— quiet, strategic, and respectful. As US troops dropped bombs and NATO scrambled for exits, China was building something far more enduring: relationships, trust, and long-term partnerships— not with governments or factions, but with the people themselves.
China never intervened in internal conflicts. It didn’t back one militia over another or try to redesign Afghanistan in its own image. Instead, it reached out to Afghan farmers, miners, traders, and workers— those who hold the real stake in a nation’s future. China didn’t issue ultimatums or demand allegiance. It offered trade, development, investment, and a shared vision rooted in mutual benefit. While others saw Afghanistan as a battlefield, China saw it as a bridge. And now, that vision is taking form.
On May 21, a landmark “informal” meeting in Beijing brought together the foreign ministers of China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. More than handshakes and smiles, it marked a strategic turning point: the decision to extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) into Afghanistan. A decision that could not only reshape the region, but offer Afghanistan a real shot at peace— on Afghan terms.
CPEC, the flagship of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, has already transformed Pakistan with highways, ports, power plants, and rail links. Now, Afghanistan joins this evolving network— not as a dependent state, but as a vital partner. This is not just about infrastructure; it’s about integration. Roads will link not only cities, but economies. Corridors will connect not only markets, but destinies.
Importantly, the emphasis is not just on “hard” connectivity— rails, roads, ports— but also on “soft” connectivity: harmonizing regulations, easing trade, facilitating the movement of people, and respecting local customs and social structures. It’s a nuanced, sophisticated model. One that does not demand political alignment but offers economic alignment.
And within this spirit of integration, other dormant regional initiatives are regaining momentum— CASA-1000, TAPI, the Trans-Afghan Railway— each poised to support energy sharing, trade expansion, and regional mobility.
What sets China apart is its commitment to letting Afghanistan rebuild itself— on its own cultural, social, and religious terms. There is no political engineering. No social or cultural meddling. China is not offering a model to impose; it is offering a hand to uplift. And that matters in a land long scarred by foreign interference.
This is not a distant hope. It is a near and unfolding reality. Under China’s guidance and with regional cooperation, Afghanistan is no longer the world’s forgotten battlefield. It is becoming its new bridge— linking civilizations, reviving ancient trade routes, and lighting a path toward shared peace and prosperity.
This new economic vision will allow Afghanistan to thrive the Afghan way. Under the guidance of its traditions, shaped by the values of its people, and led by the social fabric rooted in the Pashtunwali code, Afghanistan can now envision a future that is both modern and authentic.
In the same meeting, the three nations also addressed regional peace and stability with clarity and resolve. They jointly emphasized that no group or actor— whether Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) or the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM)— would be allowed to use their territories to threaten regional security.
But this was not a military statement. It was a reaffirmation that true security is a product of stability and opportunity, not surveillance and subjugation. And for the first time in years, regional players are aligning not around ideology, but around infrastructure, integration, and mutual interest.
The commitment to non-interference in Afghanistan’s internal affairs— a principle stressed by all three parties— further highlights the maturity of this partnership. Where others tried to rule, this alliance seeks to support.
This development also sends a gentle but clear message to powers like the USA, the broader West, and even India: peace is not built through pressure or presence— it is earned through partnership.
India, in particular, is watching this shift with unease. Having long opposed CPEC due to its passage through AJK, New Delhi now sees its regional influence challenged by a deepening China-Afghanistan-Pakistan axis. Its strategic projects like Chabahar Port and regional outreach to Central Asia now face real competition.
But perhaps this is also a moment for reflection. What has military intervention achieved that peaceful development cannot exceed? What has isolation created that connectivity cannot heal?
Afghanistan, long viewed as a crossroads of conflict, is now being prepared to become a corridor of cooperation. With CPEC stretching into its heartlands, Afghan traders will gain access to global markets. Afghan workers will have new employment prospects. Afghan youth will see schools grow, roads built, and hope return.
This transformation won’t happen overnight— but it is no longer a fantasy. With $40–50 billion in projected regional investments, trade volume expected to multiply, and transit routes expanding across borders, Afghanistan is poised to become a pivot— linking South Asia to Central Asia, the Middle East, and beyond.
China’s approach isn’t just strategic— it is profoundly human. It understands that the way to build peace is to help people live with dignity. To give them something to lose— and thus, something to protect. And that’s exactly how China transformed Xinjiang— by investing in education, skills, industries, and livelihoods. Now, the same model is being softly replicated in Afghanistan.
With China’s integrated, respectful, and win-win approach, a new Afghanistan is within reach— one where terrorism fades into irrelevance, schools thrive, trade routes flourish, and airports once again welcome the world. Roads of international standard will connect the country to the region. Its corridors will pulse with economic life. Its cities will hum with opportunity.
And most importantly, this prosperity will belong to Afghans. It will be shaped by their traditions, guided by their values, lived according to their social norms, and honoured through their timeless Pashtunwali code. No foreign model will be imposed. No social fabric will be rewritten. No cultural identity will be challenged.
This is not a distant hope. It is a near and unfolding reality. Under China’s guidance and with regional cooperation, Afghanistan is no longer the world’s forgotten battlefield. It is becoming its new bridge— linking civilizations, reviving ancient trade routes, and lighting a path toward shared peace and prosperity.
Balochistan’s Shadow War
By: Dr. Gul.i.Ayesha Bhatti
May 26, 2025
Courtesy: The Nation
“If you want to destroy a nation without war, make its people doubt their identity,” said Confucius. The slow, methodical destabilisation of Pakistan’s most resource-rich but conflict-torn province—Balochistan—seems to follow a similar philosophical playbook, albeit in a modern, hybrid guise. What we are witnessing today in Balochistan is not merely an internal insurgency nor simply the product of historic grievances. It is an externally fuelled and deliberately prolonged conflict—one that bears the unmistakable fingerprints of Indian intelligence operations seeking to weaponise ethnic fault lines to bleed Pakistan from within.
While the world’s attention often shifts from warfronts in Ukraine to Gaza, a quieter war is being fought in Balochistan. On the surface, it manifests as periodic bomb blasts, targeted killings, and attacks on security installations. But beneath these visible events lies a shadow war—one shaped by geopolitical anxieties, proxy warfare, and covert intelligence games that trace their roots across the eastern border. India’s strategic interest in Balochistan is neither ideological nor emotional; it is purely instrumental—disrupt, disorient, and dilute Pakistan’s strategic depth while avoiding direct conflict.
Recent developments have made this agenda clearer than ever. On 7 May, India launched Operation Sindoor, a series of airstrikes justified under the pretext of responding to an alleged terrorist attack in IIOK. However, what followed was a decisive and well-calibrated military response by Pakistan in Operation Bunyan al-Marsus. The balance of kinetic engagement left Indian assets heavily damaged, including the confirmed downing of several Rafale jets—a staggering loss by any measure. This sobering experience has recalibrated India’s cost-benefit calculus. Having faced a tactical and narrative defeat in the skies, New Delhi now appears more inclined to wage war in the shadows—through proxies, disinformation, and sabotage rather than missiles and airstrikes.
In this evolving doctrine, Balochistan is a convenient arena. Insurgent groups such as BLA and TTP, and other splinter insurgents, are involved in synchronised terrorist attacks in Balochistan and KP—a level of operational sophistication that strongly suggests external assistance. Even more chilling was the recent school bus bombing in Khuzdar that killed several children—an attack that shook the conscience of the nation and, according to intelligence intercepts, bore the hallmarks of foreign training and financing.
For India, the doctrine of plausible deniability offers the perfect cover. After all, in today’s information-rich and accountability-poor world, evidence can be buried under layers of proxies, cyber warfare, and diplomatic obfuscation. Yet, intelligence briefings, captured operatives, and even statements by senior Indian officials leave little room for doubt. India’s former National Security Adviser Ajit Doval famously declared that India would engage enemies in their “own backyard.” The capture of Kulbhushan Jadhav, a serving Indian naval officer operating under false identity in Balochistan, further substantiates the long-standing Pakistani claim of Indian subversion in the province.
Dr Avinash Paliwal, a professor at the University of London and author of My Enemy’s Enemy, provides an unflinching look into how not just India but Western powers—most notably the United States—have historically seen utility in supporting insurgencies within Pakistan. In his work, Paliwal outlines how the U.S. and India shared interests in nurturing militant elements in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, both to contain China’s western corridor ambitions and to apply pressure on Pakistan’s military establishment. In other words, Balochistan’s tragedy is not just Pakistan’s domestic challenge—it is the consequence of a multi-layered international chessboard where human lives are mere pawns.
And now, having faced humiliation in Operation Sindoor, India appears to have doubled down on what it considers its “comfort zone”—covert operations. Instead of escalating into another overt kinetic exchange (which would risk further military defeat and international embarrassment), India is likely to continue using proxies to carry out high-impact, deniable operations. These are cheaper, politically safer, and yield psychological dividends without crossing the conventional thresholds of war. Moreover, the digital terrain is now part of the battlefield. A systematic campaign of disinformation—ranging from fake videos, forged protest footage, and fabricated news stories—has emerged to paint the situation in Balochistan as a popular uprising against state oppression. Much of this content is amplified by networks with suspiciously synchronised messaging, often traced back to Indian-sponsored cyber clusters and diaspora influencers. The aim is clear: erode Pakistan’s credibility on the international stage while sowing distrust and despair among its citizens.
But Pakistan is not unaware of the stakes. From stepped-up counter-insurgency efforts to diplomatic briefings for key allies, Islamabad is gradually shifting the narrative from one of passive victimhood to active resistance. The precision and proportionality shown during Operation Bunyan al-Marsus reflected not only military confidence but also strategic maturity. Pakistan understands that winning in Balochistan does not only mean neutralising insurgents; it means exposing and discrediting the foreign sponsors who profit from the chaos.
There is, however, no room for complacency. The nature of conflict has changed. As we can describe it, “If you are waiting for Operation Sindoor 2 to start, then it won’t—it will unfold.” This next phase of conflict will be quieter, layered, and more deniable. It will take place in villages and valleys, in WhatsApp groups and satellite feeds, not just on the battlefield. And it is precisely this transformation that demands a united, vigilant, and forward-looking national response. Balochistan’s pain is real. So is the hand that keeps pricking the wound, preventing it from healing. The sooner we recognise this external manipulation for what it is—a geopolitical strategy disguised as a human rights concern—the closer we move towards a lasting solution. Until then, the people of Balochistan will continue to suffer the consequences of a war they neither started nor benefit from.
The Indus River crisis: A call to action for Pakistan
By: Tanweer Ahmed
May 26, 2025
Courtesy: The Nation
The Indus River is far more than a waterway; it is the absolute heart of Pakistan, sustaining our nation, feeding our people, and powering our progress. For generations, it has been the source of life for hundreds of millions. Yet today, this vital lifeline faces a confluence of severe and escalating pressures.
A rapidly growing population, increasing demands from farms and factories, rampant pollution, and the intensifying reality of climate change are pushing the Indus system towards crisis. These challenges are complex, interconnected, and pose existential threats to our public health, our food security, and even the stability of our region. To navigate this critical juncture, we require clear, strategic vision and decisive action.
One of the most pressing concerns is the alarming deterioration of water quality. As urban areas expand and industrial activity increases, a torrent of untreated sewage, agricultural runoff, and industrial waste flows directly into the river. This isn't merely an environmental issue; it's a profound public health emergency. Contaminated water contributes tragically to high rates of infant mortality, particularly in rural areas, and is linked to tens of thousands of deaths annually in major cities, many of them children. Pollution also devastates the river's precious ecosystems, including critical coastal mangroves.
Adding to this burden, the Indus Basin is extraordinarily vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. We are witnessing an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events – devastating floods and prolonged droughts that disrupt natural river flows. These changing patterns, combined with human pressures, threaten the basic environmental health of the river system itself. The catastrophic monsoon floods of 2010 and the more recent floods of 2022 served as stark reminders of our vulnerability, displacing millions and leaving vast populations without access to safe water.
Beneath the surface, we face the critical, often less visible, issues of groundwater depletion and increasing salinity. Excessive pumping for irrigation in freshwater zones is causing water tables to plummet, while in saline areas, a lack of adequate drainage leads to the accumulation of salt, rendering valuable agricultural land unproductive. These issues are projected to worsen significantly without intervention, already causing immense agricultural losses measured in the tens of billions of Rupees annually.
Navigating these challenges is further complicated by governance complexities and political dynamics. Our existing water allocation frameworks, while foundational, lack the necessary flexibility to adapt to changing realities and haven't fully fostered the trust required for basin-wide consensus on essential new infrastructure. Managing this vital resource effectively requires significantly enhanced strategic coordination between federal and provincial authorities, supported by both a shared national vision and sustained budget allocations.
The international dimension also remains significant, particularly the enduring, yet recently tested, Indus Waters Treaty with India. While remarkably resilient through past conflicts, recent pressures underscore that even this vital agreement is not immune to political tensions, highlighting the critical need for continued dialogue and strategic engagement.
Given the scale and urgency of these challenges, a fragmented, piecemeal approach is insufficient. We need a comprehensive, integrated strategic vision that encompasses the entire Indus system. This vision must prioritize several key pillars:
Firstly, we must transform our governance and planning. This requires a strategic shift towards managing surface and groundwater resources as a single, integrated system, demanding unprecedented coordination across all relevant government sectors. While fundamental changes to established accords are complex, we must explore innovative, flexible mechanisms for optimizing water use across the basin. Crucially, this includes implementing prudent policies for groundwater management, limiting unsustainable extraction – a strategic necessity that could also be cost-effective in the long run.
Secondly, strategic investment in critical infrastructure and technology is paramount. Upgrading our aging canal systems is essential to dramatically reduce water losses, reclaim land affected by salinity, and free up water for more productive use. Building new reservoirs is necessary to strategically increase storage capacity, providing a crucial buffer against droughts and shortages while also generating much-needed hydropower. Furthermore, widespread adoption of modern, water-saving irrigation technologies on farms is a vital investment in future efficiency.
Thirdly, we must strategically boost agricultural productivity. This means producing more food with less water by improving farming techniques, utilizing improved crop varieties, and adopting technology. Increasing overall water productivity in agriculture is not merely an efficiency gain; it is a national food security imperative.
Finally, our strategic vision must be underpinned by enhanced research and data capabilities. We need to deepen our scientific understanding of the entire basin, particularly how climate change impacts snow and ice melt in the upper regions, which directly affects water flow downstream. Investing in advanced data collection, analysis, and modeling tools is necessary for strategically predicting future conditions and effectively evaluating different adaptation pathways.
Securing the future of the Indus River is not solely the mandate of government ministries; it requires the strategic awareness and active engagement of every citizen. It means supporting integrated national policies, adopting responsible water-use practices in our homes and communities, and demanding accountability for pollution.
The challenges are daunting, but they are not insurmountable. By clearly recognizing this crisis and uniting behind these strategic actions, we can protect and revitalize the Indus – the undeniable lifeline and heartbeat of our nation – for the prosperity and security of future generations. The time for visionary planning and decisive action is now.
Religion and Pakistan's relations with India
By: Shahid Javed Burki
May 26, 2025
Courtesy: Tribune Express
Religion became a major factor in the recent military encounter between India and Pakistan. Analysts said that the popular mood in Pakistan was a key factor as the government weighed whether and where to retaliate against its larger, more powerful rival when India used its air force to launch attacks on Pakistan in early May.
Many Pakistanis applauded the military's response to the Indian strikes. Some took to the streets to applaud actions against a country that was poorly treating its large Muslim minority. In Islamabad, authorities urged citizens to join the civil defence brigades. The United States and China called for a diplomatic solution, but it was unclear who would lead those efforts.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with both Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Jaishankar, the Indian foreign minister. "At this moment in time, there is one thing that has to stop which is a back-and-forth and a continuation, and that is what we are focused on right now," State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a news briefing on May 8.
Other countries with interest in keeping peace in South Asia also got involved with both India and Pakistan as the two were drifting towards a military confrontation. Jaishankar was approached by Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia's minister of state for foreign affairs, for an unannounced visit to Delhi. He also met with the Iranian foreign minister, Syed Abbas Aragchi.
The Modi government in India was using all the means at its disposal to paint a positive picture of its situation with respect to Pakistan. Modi sought to define the conflict in religious terms. It named the operation against Pakistan as Sindoor, the vermillion that adorns Hindu brides and a likely reference to Hindu women grieving over the loss of their husbands in the killings by Muslim fighters in the Indian occupied part of Kashmir who had appeared from the dense forests in the area.
Pravin Sawhney, the editor of an Indian defence magazine and a former army official, said he was troubled by the religious connotation of the name of the operation which local media said was chosen by Narendra Modi himself. He said that politicising India's secular military would be harmful to unit cohesion. "A political message was being sent to the people of India, that Hindus were killed in Kashmir, so we have to take revenge."
The Hindu, an Indian newspaper based in the country's more secular south, deleted a social media post on May 7 that said that three Indian jets had been downed because there was no "on record official information", fueling concerns among journalists that Modi's administration might intensify its clampdown on the media.
The Global Government Affairs team on X said that it had received orders from the Indian government to block more than 8,000 accounts in the country. "To comply with the orders, we will hold the specified accounts in India alone," the post from X read but "we disagree with the Indian government's demands," characterising them "as contrary to the fundamental right of free speech." Across Kashmir - where Indian and Pakistani forces continued to exchange artillery shells across the contested border - people braced for long nights.
There was considerable frustration among people on the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), the name the border in Kashmir was given after an earlier confrontation. A story by its correspondents Anupreeta Das and Salman Masood in The New York Times on May 10, that covered the use of aerial drones by the two sides as the weapon of choice, was written following interviews with affected people on ground.
"Speaking on Friday [May 9] morning, residents in both parts of Kashmir said they were exhausted; some said it was the worst shelling they had experienced in nearly three decades. 'We're fed up with running every time the shelling begins,' said Atta Muhammad, 70, a resident of Uri, a town on the Indian side of Kashmir. 'It's better that both countries go for a nuclear war and kill us all. At least that will rid us of this suffering'."
The steps taken by India were most likely to increase resentment on the part of the way the Indian occupying force was treating the local populace. They were destroying the houses that were believed to be the residences of those who were upset about the way the Indian authorities were ruling the part of Kashmir that was under their control. New Delhi was also encouraging Hindus to move into the parts of the state that already had people of their faith in residence. This was the demographic strategy aimed at reducing the proportion of Muslims in the population.
Drones manufactured at home by the two countries were a relatively new weapon in their arsenal. Early on May 10, a day after India said that Pakistan had sent waves of drones toward Indian airspace, the Pakistani military accused Indian forces of launching air-to surface missiles that targeted at least three air bases across Pakistan. Among them was a key installation near the capital Islamabad.
The base is named after Air Marshal Nur Khan who had occupied several high positions in the Pakistani government. It is located on the main road that connected the cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi. On May 9, Indian defence officials said Pakistan's military had attempted aerial intrusions in 36 locations with 300 to 400 drones to test India's air-defence system.
Both India and Pakistan have been developing their respective drone-building industries in recent years, and both import drones from foreign allies - Pakistan from China, for instance - but neither country appears to have any that can carry nuclear warheads, according to James Patton Rogers, a drone expert at Cornell University. And while he calls the conflict "incredibly worrying", he also notes that drones generally are used as the lowest possible escalatory step in a conflict, usually to pressure and test the opponent's air defences.
According to one expert, "Although many countries now have drones in their arsenals, this is the first time the unmanned aerial vehicles were used by the two countries against each other." The use of drone warfare may have been inevitable, but it could reshape the way the world views hostilities between India and Pakistan, much as it did after the two countries became nuclear powers in the 1990s.
The price India paid for its hubris
By: Akbar Jan Marwat
May 24, 2025
Courtesy: Pakistan Observer
EVER since the BJP under Prime Minister Modi assumed power, India’s arrogance towards Pakistan has soared.
Every goodwill gesture or peace initiative from Pakistan was contemptuously rejected.
After India’s formal annexation of Kashmir in 2019, its hubris became unrestrained.
Without any investigation into the Pahalgam massacre, India hastily blamed Pakistan and announced punitive action to “teach it a lesson.”
On May 9, India launched attacks on multiple sites in Punjab and Azad Kashmir, killing dozens of civilians, including women and children.
This was followed by an air assault involving over 70 Indian aircraft.
Pakistan responded with about 40 jets, including JF-17 Thunders and J-10Cs.
The ensuing aerial battle, involving more than 100 aircraft, lasted over an hour and became a textbook case of modern air warfare.
When the confrontation ended, India had lost five aircraft—three French-made Rafales, one MiG-29, one Su-30—and several Israeli-made “Horrors” drones.
In response to this violation of its sovereignty, Pakistan vowed retaliation.
The following night, India attacked three Pakistani airbases.
Pakistan countered by targeting 26 Indian sites, including an S-400 air defence system and a BrahMos missile depot.
Reports in India Today stated that four Indian airbases—Udhampur, Pathankot, Adampur, and Bhuj—were destroyed in the retaliatory strikes.
The missile warfare was soon accompanied by a barrage of drones and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), hitting key strategic installations.
The conflict had now escalated to a highly dangerous level.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif convened the National Command Authority on May 10, heightening alarm globally, especially in the United States.
Initially, the US Vice President dismissed the matter as “none of our business.
” But that perception shifted rapidly.
The US reportedly learned through its channels that Pakistan’s National Command Authority, which oversees the country’s nuclear assets, was close to authorizing their use if India launched another attack.
Aware of Pakistan’s lower nuclear threshold due to its conventional military disadvantage, Washington recognized the gravity of the situation.
In response, the US initiated urgent ceasefire efforts.
Vice President JD Vance contacted Prime Minister Modi, who quickly agreed, knowing India’s military campaign had failed.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio then spoke with General Asim Munir, who, after seeking approval from PM Shehbaz Sharif, agreed to a ceasefire, which was ultimately formalized by President Trump.
Before concluding this article with the important lessons drawn from this limited Indo-Pak war, I would like to say a word or two about why India underestimated Pakistan’s military powers to this extent.
First Pakistan is very polarized politically; this may have given India the erroneous impression of Pakistan being a soft state with a weak military establishment.
The ongoing financial talks with the IMF, which India had tried to disrupt, must also have given India the impression of Pakistan being an impoverished State not able to defend itself.
Luckily for Pakistan, these Indian impressions proved patently false.
The US intervention at India’s behest automatically placed India and Pakistan on the same level.
For decades, India had worked to decouple itself from Pakistan in the eyes of the West—particularly the United States—by projecting itself as being in a much higher league in terms of economic strength, technological advancement, and military capability.
India sought recognition as the rightful American pivot in the region and the dominant regional hegemon.
One tweet from President Trump caused India to lose its presumed superiority.
The weak performance of the Indian Air Force during its attack on Pakistan—and the loss of five aircraft, including three state-of-the-art Rafales—completely shattered India’s image as a regional hegemon.
American observers must have questioned: if India could not withstand Pakistan’s Air Force, how would it fare against China?
It likely became clear to the United States that India remains a mid-level military power, still requiring significant improvement and investment to fulfill the role of a Chinese counterbalance that the US had envisioned for it.
The downing of the Rafale jets by Chinese J-10C fighters also raised global strategic concerns, as it marked the first time Chinese weapon technology was tested in actual combat.
In view of India’s less than stellar performance, the US has already announced to sell fifth generation F-35 to India.
On the other hand, China, Turkey and Pakistan are in an advanced stage of developing its own fifth generation aircraft KAAN.
Pakistan can always and on a short notice acquire J-20 and J-35 air craft from China.
Most importantly Kashmir has again assumed the status of the main problem between India and Pakistan.
The international world, especially the US, must have realized that Kashmir is the flash point between two nuclear powers and for durable peace, something has to be done about the Kashmir issue.
It can no longer be ignored as an obscure bilateral conflict between two countries.
This success against India served as a shot in the arm for Pakistan.
It is now better positioned to confront internal challenges, such as the TTP in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the BLA in Balochistan, with greater confidence.
India’s involvement in supporting these militant organizations must be exposed in a more irrefutable manner.
To secure a more sustainable and assertive role on the global stage, Pakistan must implement structural reforms in both its economic and political systems.
Assertive China ready to walk the talk?
By: Khuzair Raheem
May 24, 2025
Courtesy: Tribune Express
By hosting a trilateral meeting with Pakistan and Afghanistan (May 20) and engaging bilaterally with their foreign ministers, an economically ascendant and politically assertive, self-confident China has made its statement, emphasising its growing influence in the region.
In his meeting with Afghanistan's acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi in Beijing (May 23) FM Wang Yi reiterated China's "respect for Afghanistan's independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, as well as the independent choices made by the Afghan people".
The interactions and the statement issued after their meeting carried six distinct but significant messages:
China will, as always, support the Afghan government in achieving long-term peace and stability at an early date. Since no country recognises the Taliban regime, the reference to "the Afghan government" underlined a marked departure from its stated policy thus far. It conveys the Chinese pragmatic approach to a party that literally controls entire Afghanistan. China was the first to send an ambassador to Kabul and accredit a Taliban ambassador in Beijing – defying the rest of the world which mostly looks up to Washington for taking such decisions.
Secondly, Beijing is willing to take on new challenges linked to the geopolitical competition. "China is ready to provide support and assistance for Afghanistan's reconstruction, development, and the improvement of people's livelihoods."
This appears to be the readiness to fill the financial/humanitarian assistance gap that President Trump caused by halting all the support to Afghanistan.
Until his re-entry into the White House, the US was contributing over half of the 160 million dollars that were flowing into Afghanistan through the UN agencies for critical humanitarian assistance.
Will Beijing step in to fill the gap in a bid to win over the Afghan regime that is struggling with finances and is also anxious to get recognition of five permanent members of the UN Security Council?
The third extremely important outcome that flowed from the trilateral meeting was China's expression of support for Pakistan and Afghanistan in "safeguarding their territorial integrity, sovereignty, and national dignity". The Chinese leadership had earlier issued this reassurance when Indo-Pak tensions were peaking earlier this month. This commitment now extends to Afghanistan as well – a calibrated approach to influence Kabul.
The fourth element that stands out is Beijing's desire to act as a bridge between Islamabad and Kabul. One of the seven outcomes FM Wang Yi mentioned was Pakistan's and Afghanistan's "clear willingness to elevate diplomatic relations and agree in principle to exchange ambassadors as soon as possible".
"China?welcomes?this," Yi said, "and?will?continue to provide?assistance for the?improvement of?Afghanistan-Pakistan relations" which as of now continue to reel from tensions primarily linked to TTP-induced terrorism and Kabul's apparent reluctance to go hard on "mujahid comrades".
Both countries currently conduct diplomacy through acting ambassadors in respective capitals. If both replace them with full time ambassadors before the 6th trilateral meeting in Kabul, that would count as an exclusively Chinese achievement.
This aspect also highlighted the fact that after months of conscious dithering vis a vis Islamabad for multiple reasons Beijing has now decided to reengage Pakistan on the political front and leverage it in its rivalry with the Indo-US alliance.
Fifth, extension of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan under the broader framework of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) cooperation, underscored yet another broader but important agreement. It can serve as a bait for the Afghan Taliban to recalibrate their undeclared policy on non-state actors (TTP, ETIM, IMU) which are reportedly sheltering in, and using Afghanistan for their subversive activities in target countries.
Lastly, the resolve against terrorism and external threats denotes another critical milestone – value addition to the counterterrorism framework.
The caveat "... to stay vigilant against external interference in the internal affairs of regional countries" underscored an indirect reference to externally-driven proxy terrorism.
China is clearly stepping up its engagement in the region to upend others – ready to deploy technology (as demonstrated during the recent Indo-Pak skirmish) and willingness to cough up financial resources (the promise to help Afghanistan's reconstruction and meet its humanitarian needs).
By the way, Chinese experts make no secret of the fact that "Pakistan remains the priority number one for China – regardless of who rules the country."
Their goal is to ensure Pakistan's survivability and territorial integrity in order to keep India bogged down and frustrate its ambition to become a regional hegemon. It has also tried hard to coerce or talk away most of its developing neighbours and wean them away from China.
This fits well into the America's China containment policy, whereby India acts as the counterweight to China and a guardian of the US interests in the region – deploying all possible means including support for proxy terror groups that remain an obvious source of concern for Pakistan and China.
But the larger picture points to a dichotomy as well. Pakistan's economic and financial survivability and solvency is tied to the West and its multilateral institutions (IMF and the US goodwill in that institution). China, on the other hand, stands out as both economic as well as defence lifeline. This makes it a tightrope walk for Islamabad and Rawalpindi.
Pakistan's long-term solvency lies in radical reform of the outdated governance model and not in reliance on external support which is more transactional and strategically less consequential.
Discussions with Chinese officials and academics lead you to one un-mistakeable conclusion. They all believe this is the China moment at a critical juncture of history and they are well-equipped to seize it too.
Game theory at the border
By: Khuzair Raheem
May 24, 2025
Courtesy: Geo TV
In resisting, Islamabad wasn’t merely holding ground but rejecting diplomatic model that substituted coercion for consensus
From my Boston apartment — laptop open, law-school finals looming — I scrolled a torrent of claims: Karachi’s port in flames, Lahore under siege, Islamabad reduced to rubble. Indian channels reported victory with breathless certainty. Even the Indus Waters Treaty, they boasted, had been suspended. Celebration drowned out legality.
But beyond the euphoric headlines, reality unfolded quite differently — and far more swiftly. Within days, New Delhi’s military initiative stalled, its tactical gains proving both limited and unsustainable. Pakistan’s defensive posture, contrary to the anticipated collapse, held firm.
Rather than folding, Islamabad met the moment with unexpected cohesion and strategic discipline. Initial Indian incursions encountered stiff resistance, and the momentum quickly gave way to a grinding impasse.
Even India’s overreliance on its Rafale fleet, seen as a symbol of air dominance, proved misplaced. According to a CNN report citing French intelligence, at least one Indian Rafale jet was downed by Pakistani forces, marking the first known combat loss of the aircraft and casting doubt on the assumed air superiority advantage.
In a move that surprised even seasoned analysts, the conflict’s tempo shifted not in favour of the larger force, but toward a precarious equilibrium neither side had fully anticipated.
International reaction too shifted swiftly. Major powers, including the US, China and the Gulf bloc, issued measured but unmistakable calls for de-escalation, humanitarian restraint and a return to diplomatic channels. Behind the misfire lay a deeper misjudgment — one rooted not just in military calculus, but in flawed assumptions about escalation psychology and political will.
Why did India, a state with overwhelming military superiority and international clout, falter so quickly? The answer lies not in battlefield performance but in strategy. New Delhi approached the conflict as a coercive transaction — an attempt to impose new regional boundaries not through formal diplomacy, but through brute force framed as policy.
The goal was never total occupation or regime change; it was to compel Pakistan to accept a new normal under duress.
But this was not a war of necessity. It was a war of perception, calibrated to extract concessions by inflicting calibrated pain. India’s leadership wagered that overwhelming pressure, delivered quickly and decisively, would fracture the Pakistani state’s capacity to resist or retaliate.
But coercion carries its own risks, and game theory offers a sharp lens through which to view India’s miscalculation. As Nobel Laureate Robert Aumann observed, wars often function as rational bargains pursued under extreme incentives; the side that credibly threatens the higher price usually wins the concession.
Similarly, Thomas Schelling argued that the essence of power in conflict lies not in brute dominance but in the credibility of one’s threat.
India approached this war as a transactional negotiation by force, assuming that limited violence would extract political concessions without prolonged resistance. But Aumann’s theory of repeated games warns that adversaries rarely capitulate if today’s concession signals vulnerability tomorrow.
Pakistan understood that logic. Yielding would not have ended the pressure; it would have invited more. In resisting, Islamabad wasn’t merely holding ground but rejecting a diplomatic model that substituted coercion for consensus.
New Delhi underestimated that power without clarity of objective invites strategic ambiguity — and ambiguity breeds failure. There was no defined exit ramp, no credible theory of victory, and no coalition willing to underwrite India’s gamble.
Operation Sindoor collapsed under its own contradictions. Pakistan, sensing the absence of escalation control, refused to play by India’s timeline. By denying India a clean win, it transformed what was intended as a one-sided imposition into a contested space that soon bore diplomatic consequences New Delhi had not anticipated.
The effort to assert dominance had backfired, revealing that a state’s ability to act with force does not guarantee it can do so without consequence.
Still, as images of bombed-out buildings and disrupted lives flashed across South Asian screens, Indian media clung to an imagined triumph. Talk shows, op-eds and orchestrated military briefings sold a vision of success that diverged starkly from the diplomatic cables and internal assessments leaking out of global capitals.
Let’s not forget the piece de resistance: the supposed suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty — hailed as a stroke of nationalistic genius, yet legally untenable under its established provisions, potentially denying 240 million people access to water. In the end, these symbolic gestures did little to alter the war’s outcome, but a great deal to erode regional trust.
In hindsight, India’s mistake was not in using force but in misreading the strategic terrain. Power, especially in a nuclear region, is as much about restraint as reach.
The tools of coercion are sharp, but brittle. Once wielded without calibration, they lose their edge. Pakistan’s resistance was not heroic in mythic terms; it was strategic in political terms. It understood that surviving round one was the only way to prevent round two. The so-called ‘decisive strike’ became a case study in how imagined supremacy can unravel when tested against institutional will and geopolitical interdependence.
If there’s a lesson here for other regional powers — be they in East Asia, the Caucasus or Eastern Europe — it is this: transactional warfare often collapses under the weight of its own logic. States that gamble on quick coercion, hoping to reset regional realities without enduring political solutions, frequently misjudge the variable that matters most: the opponent’s will.
India’s 2025 gambit fits the same pattern: a hegemon, dazzled by its own strength, discovers too late that the adversary’s will is the decisive variable.
The lesson is stark. Power resides not merely in GDP rankings or aircraft inventories but in the capacity to price escalation credibly — and to read the opponent’s pricing just as well. Pakistan did both. India, believing in its own unassailable advantage, forgot that every conflict is a negotiation played under uncertainty. As game theory foretells, mispricing that uncertainty can turn a confident opening bid into a costly public defeat.
Deterrence by design
By: Dr Fida Muhammad Khan
May 24, 2025
Courtesy: Geo TV
John F Kennedy once said: “It’s most unfortunate that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.” This is not just a mere political statement or a catchy line in an articulate speech aimed at voters. This, in fact, is the reality.
Whether we like it or not, we must accept that war is a reality; one can’t stop it from happening. It can only be delayed (but with huge costs), but never stopped. As long as there are two human beings in the world, there will be war; conflict will still exist if there is only one left, and war will be there even if the earth is uninhabited by the human race and some other species replaces it.
Survival warrants competition, and competition always leads to conflict, which can be given different names depending on the level and type of conflict. Suppose someone wants to rationalise or understand the cost of buying modern jets, cruise missiles, and manufacturing fighter jets. In that case, one can simply find the answer by considering how vital survival and deterrence are.
Everything else loses its significance when your very existence is threatened. It is wise to accept the reality that war is an inevitable episode that comes many times in the course of a society's life, but it's even wiser to be prepared for it before it comes. The JF-17 Thunder, the Shaheen 1, and the recently inducted J-10C are therefore not only required but also reflect the wisdom of those who initiated these projects and made them successful.
Some might argue that Pakistan is a developing country and question why it does not spend that money on socio-economic development. These arguments, while noble and liberal in appearance, often lack economic, social, and political logic. Many who make these arguments may not fully grasp the importance of survival or have the resources to leave the country in times of crisis.
The J-10C is a multi-role combat aircraft designed by the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC). It is a single-engine, medium-weight fighter aircraft, inducted into the Chinese Air Force in 2004 after its debut test flight in 1998, nearly ten years after the programme was approved. The design resembles that of the Saab Viggen and the Isreli Lavi.
The jet features a canard design and delta wings, with CADI’s design selected after a competition with strake wings and variable sweep designs. It uses the Taihang WS-10 turbofan engine, manufactured by China, marking the J-10c as its first major application.
The airframe, with a tailless delta wing configuration and canard display, is highly manoeuvrable and made out of composites, enhancing both speed and performance in diverse atmospheric and climatic conditions. The aspect ratio of the J-10C provides high manoeuvrability and less adverse yaw, making it a formidable force.
As Professor Keith Hartley discussed in a lecture on defence economics at a PIDE webinar, future weapon systems will be more sophisticated, technology-intensive and costly, leading to lower volumes but higher lethality.
Among other attributes, upgraded avionics will determine performance. The J-10C outpaces many of its contemporaries and is on par with many 4.5-generation aircraft, such as the Rafale. In terms of avionics, it is superior to the Russian HMS Sukhoi, featuring a HODUS display and a 360-degree view with the head-on display.
The J-10C is an upgraded version in the J-10 family, equipped with an active electronically scanned array (AESA), an imaging infrared seeker, and can carry PL-15 and PL-10 missiles. With its 11 hard points and payload capacity of up to 50,600 pounds, it is an excellent air-to-air fighter and can also carry bombs and non-lethal payloads.
The true test of any modern fighter’s value lies in its specifications as well as its performance during real-world operations. This was vividly demonstrated during the recent 2025 air skirmishes between Pakistan and India, where the J-10C played a pivotal role.
As India fielded its much-touted Rafale jets, the Pakistan Air Force relied on the J-10C’s advanced AESA radar, secure data links, and electronic warfare capabilities to establish air dominance.
In a notable engagement, the J-10C, operating as part of a network-centric force, successfully detected, tracked and engaged an Indian Su-30MKI and the Crown jewel of the Indian Air Force, the French-made Assault Rafale.
The J-10C’s induction marks a shift toward network-centric warfare, with its advanced data links, sensor fusion and C4I integration making it vital to Pakistan’s defence grid. Its role in the recent Pakistan-India skirmishes highlighted its superior situational awareness and deterrence capability. Acting as both sensor and shooter, the J-10C embodies modern, integrated warfare.
While Pakistan faces socio-economic challenges, deterrence remains essential. Cost-effective and technologically advanced, the J-10C offers a credible counter to platforms like India’s Rafale. As Professor Hartley noted, the true value of defence spending lies in deterrence – and the J-10C reinforces that strategic imperative.
War will never end; only the dead witness the end of war. It is time to accept this reality and make Pakistan economically, militarily and technologically powerful so that future generations can live without fear of adversaries’ weapon systems.
Selective Global Outcry: From Gaza to Kashmir
By: Jawad Saleem
May 24, 2025
Courtesy: Daily Times
The global conscience is an ever-shifting spectrum, shaped not by universal principles but by geopolitical convenience and economic alliances. In the age of social media and twenty-four-hour news cycles, where every bomb dropped is filmed and every child’s cry echoes through screens, selective outrage has become the norm rather than the exception. From the rubble of Gaza to the curfews in Kashmir, the world watches with a twisted lens, raising its voice when politically expedient and remaining deafeningly silent when strategic interests are at stake. This hypocrisy is not new. It has roots embedded in colonial history, perpetuated by global powers that continue to act as moral gatekeepers of international order while subverting it when it does not align with their national interests. The United Nations envisioned as a platform for justice and peace, often becomes a stage for this diplomatic theatre where human suffering is weighed against oil barrels, trade deals, and military alliances.
In Gaza, the death tolls rise like tide charts, each wave bringing with it more lifeless bodies, shattered buildings, and scarred generations. The world issues statements of concern, most laced with false equivalence, suggesting parity between the oppressed and the oppressor. When hospitals are bombed and journalists killed, there is no global tribunal, no call for sanctions, and rarely any demand for accountability. Meanwhile, military aid continues to flow into the hands of the aggressor, with justifications wrapped in strategic terminology like “self-defense” and “security imperatives.” The voices of the oppressed are muffled under bureaucratic jargon, and in the absence of justice, silence becomes complicit.
Contrast this with global responses to Ukraine, where swift sanctions, unprecedented aid packages, and a surge of international solidarity followed Russia’s invasion. The principle of sovereignty was fiercely defended, war crimes were documented in real-time, and the International Criminal Court sprang into action. One cannot help but ask: Is Palestinian blood less red? Are Kashmiri lives worth less because they do not lie in the path of Western oil routes or geopolitical rivalries with China? Kashmir, where millions live under military lockdown, cut off from the world, remains a non-issue for the global community despite ongoing human rights violations, demographic manipulation, and draconian laws. Here too, statements of concern come with diplomatic qualifiers that preserve ties with an emerging market powerhouse while ignoring the cries from the Himalayan valley.
Selective outrage is not merely about bias; it institutionalizes inequality and shapes global policy frameworks in ways that reinforce existing power structures. In Myanmar, the Rohingya genocide barely scratched the surface of international response. In Yemen, the world saw the worst humanitarian disaster unfold largely in silence, except for muted calls for restraint. The same powers that fund peace initiatives elsewhere turned a blind eye or even profited from arms sales in these regions. The currency of suffering, it seems, is valued differently depending on who suffers and who stands to gain from that suffering. This moral inconsistency delegitimizes international law and renders humanitarian principles hollow.
The price of global hypocrisy is paid not just in human lives but in economic stability.
The roots of this hypocrisy run deep in history. When the Bosnian genocide occurred in the 1990s, the international community acted late, haunted by the failure to intervene in Rwanda. But even those interventions were filtered through the lens of strategic relevance. In contrast, Congo’s brutal conflict, which claimed millions of lives, received scant attention. The pattern persists: the intensity of response is a function of location, identity, and strategic value, not the scale or severity of suffering.
Media plays a complicit role. Newsrooms in the Global North often mirror their governments’ positions, providing disproportionate coverage to conflicts that align with their national interest while minimizing or ignoring others. Terminologies shift from “resistance” to “terrorism” depending on which side of the aisle the storyteller sits. Civilians killed by allies are described as collateral damage; those killed by enemies are martyrs of aggression. This editorial framing is not accidental. It is a product of ideological conditioning and corporate interests, which dictate narratives more than facts ever could. Algorithms on social media ensure that empathy is not distributed equally. Algorithms care little for human suffering; they are coded to prioritize engagement, and outrage over Ukraine garners more clicks than the slow genocide in Gaza.
Economic interests intertwine with this narrative. Arms manufacturers in the United States and Europe profit immensely from continued warfare. Military-industrial complexes sustain political campaigns, influence legislation, and lobby for lenient foreign policy toward clients of the defence sector. In India, the arms race under the veil of nationalism is also a tool for electoral wins. This makes selective justice not merely a matter of moral failure but one of systemic corruption. Human suffering is monetized. Bloodshed becomes budgeted.
The manipulation extends to social media, where hashtags and activism are subject to algorithmic censorship. Pro-Palestinian posts are often shadowbanned, while calls for justice in Kashmir are flagged or removed. This suppression creates a digital apartheid where the voices of the oppressed are algorithmically erased. The tech giants of Silicon Valley, which claim to promote freedom of expression, become enforcers of selective silence. In a world where online presence equals existence, such erasure is equivalent to the extermination of the truth.
This asymmetry in attention and action is not lost on the youth of the Global South. From Lahore to Lagos, young people are increasingly aware of the duplicity that defines international politics. Their anger is not just rooted in injustice but in being told that their pain matters less. They see their struggles trivialized and their narratives erased. This breeds cynicism, erodes faith in international institutions, and fuels the very instability that global powers claim to combat. When the oppressed are told to wait for justice while the powerful demand it instantly, a two-tiered world order is reinforced-a world where not all lives matter equally.
The implications are dangerous. Selective justice feeds extremism. When people believe that legal avenues are closed to them and that their cries for help fall on deaf ears, they turn to the only options left-often radical and violent. It is not the ideology of extremism that attracts, but the desperation of injustice. Every drone strike that kills a family in Waziristan while the world stays silent, every mass grave in Gaza that goes uninvestigated, adds fuel to this fire. The global community’s silence becomes a silent partner in the creation of chaos.
The price of global hypocrisy is paid not just in human lives but in economic stability. Conflicts ignored by the international community destabilize entire regions. This leads to mass displacement, refugee influxes, and the stretching of already strained global aid systems. The economic burden often falls on neighbouring states, many of which cannot absorb such shocks. The war in Syria sent millions fleeing to Europe, triggering political crises and the rise of far-right extremism. The same is true for Afghanistan and now Gaza. The belief that some conflicts are someone else’s problem is an illusion.
Global institutions have proven themselves inadequate in the face of such challenges. The United Nations Security Council, with its anachronistic veto system, is a fortress for the powerful. Nations like the United States, Russia, and China routinely shield allies from accountability. This has rendered international law selective and contingent, enforced only when convenient. The International Criminal Court, despite noble intentions, has failed to prosecute war crimes committed by major powers or their allies. It is time for a fundamental reimagining of global governance.
The way forward requires bold reforms. The veto power in the Security Council must be abolished or significantly restrained. International law must apply uniformly to all states. Sovereignty must be protected not selectively, but universally. The United Nations must shift from being a club of the powerful to a genuine platform for peace and equity. This also includes empowering the Global South with greater representation and voice in international decision-making.
Civil society across the globe must play its part. Grassroots movements, student protests, and digital campaigns have demonstrated the power to shift narratives and demand accountability. South African civil society led the ICC petition against Israeli war crimes. These movements must not be episodic but continuous, sustained by the belief that justice must be global or it is nothing at all.
Pakistan, too, has a responsibility. As a nation forged through resistance, it must uphold a foreign policy rooted in consistent principles. While voicing support for Palestine and Kashmir, it must also speak out against atrocities in Sudan, Myanmar, or against Uighur Muslims. This moral clarity will elevate Pakistan’s diplomatic credibility. Furthermore, Pakistan must invest in academic and journalistic institutions that challenge mainstream narratives, producing homegrown global discourse rooted in truth. Ultimately, the choice lies before humanity: to remain complicit in a world of selective outcry or to rebuild a global order founded on equal dignity, universal justice, and unwavering truth. Silence, after all, is not neutrality. It is complicity. In the theatre of global politics, not speaking is an act of alliance–with the oppressor.
When Power Clouds Reason: India’s Regional Brinkmanship
By: Ehsan Ahmed Khan
May 24, 2025
Courtesy: Daily Times
Despite the haba haba of globalization, shining liberal world order and slogans of cooperation over competition, the world today flirts dangerously with an uncertain possibility of peaceful coexistence not just because of rising powers, but because of those who, enamoured by their might, abandon reason. A quote attributed to German realist philosopher Immanuel Kant “The possession of power unavoidably spoils the free use of reason” mostly aptly defines the simmering and potentially destructive fault lines that plague South Asia exemplified in the unfolding crisis between India and Pakistan. Intoxicated by its global relevance, economic and military power status and driven by Hindutva ideology, India’s hubristic assertion of power, its unrelenting disinformation campaigns and its disregard for regional balance risks igniting a catastrophe that can have global consequences.
India’s bull in the crockery shop posturing is not limited to Pakistan where it maintains an open hostility but has also cultivated a history of meddling in the internal affairs of all its neighbours. From supporting LTTE in Sri Lanka’s brutal civil war, and influencing electoral outcomes in Maldives to border blockades, economic pressure and political intervention in Nepal, Bhutan or Bangladesh, India has rarely missed an opportunity to subdue and coerce its smaller neighbours. However, with China, India has treaded far more cautiously, often withdrawing from positions or softening its rhetoric. This duality indicates India’s role-playing as a bully where it sees weakness and bows where it meets strength. This is the duplicity of behaviour that Kant warned against power, which if left unchecked by ethical restraints tends to breed irrational behaviour. India fits in perfectly.
War is madness and what makes it even more dangerous is when that madness is deliberately engineered.
The Indian information canvas, since the tragic events of April 22nd, has been an extension of an already well-documented Indian pattern of public fury led by a complicit media ecosystem; owners, anchors, field reporters and experts all-inclusive. Media houses became echo chambers of war chants, glorifying and exaggerating military capability that would decimate Pakistan in the blink of an eye. For long India has painted Pakistan as a source of exporting terrorism while in reality itself has engaged in covert actions in Pakistan. The Indian National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, has on record spoken about supporting terrorism within Pakistan’s Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The arrest of Kulbhushan Jadhav (a serving Indian naval officer) offers irrefutable evidence of Indian state-sponsored terrorism activities inside Pakistan. Findings of the EU Dis-info Lab’s “Indian Chronicles” exposed a sprawling, decades-long campaign of fake news outlets, fabricated NGOs, and falsified sources created to demonize Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism. The disinformation tactics once used to deceive foreign audiences are now being deployed domestically to inflame war hysteria and drown out voices of reason. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025, disinformation and misinformation now rank among the top global risks with the potential to trigger real-world military escalations. During the May 2025 crisis, Indian lies-producing factories kicked into hyperdrive once again using fabricated videos, unverified claims of Pakistani aggression, and theatrical “scoops” by Indian anchors like Goswami, Gauruv and pseudo experts like Bakhshi, just to name a few, played a key role in pushing public opinion toward confrontation. India’s mastery of narrative warfare has created a volatile new front in regional conflicts one where truth is the first casualty and where reason is extinct. The euphoria gave strategic planners and the Indian public a false sense of confidence that waring with Pakistan was an easy option. Alas for them it proved otherwise.
After what unfolded on the night of May 6/7 and later on 9th and 10th, the real terror lay not in the missiles exchanged or the swarms of drones, but in the reality that both sides stood nuclear armed. Accentuated with emotional hubris, the absence of any escalation control and risk reduction mechanism and geographical contiguity hardly leaves any space for a third-party intervention to avert Armageddon. While a degree of parity exists in the nuclear forces domain, it’s the growing conventional asymmetry that threatens regional stability. Much of India’s aggressive confidence is sustained by the arms, technology, and diplomatic cover it receives from Western powers. Framed as a counterbalance to China, India is being propped to a strategic prominence. By enabling a country that openly undermines its neighbours, violates basic norms of information integrity and increasingly seeks dominance through coercion and use of violence rather than consensus, the world must wake up and Western policymakers must ask themselves: Are we arming a democratic partner or enabling a regional rogue actor?
During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union, despite their hostilities, understood the stakes of nuclear brinkmanship. They built backchannels, arms control regimes, and crisis communication tools because they knew one misstep could cost millions of lives. What exists between India and Pakistan in comparison is nothing but utter silence. India’s behaviour in May 2025 was not just reckless but was a dangerous contradiction to the global nuclear order. To use disinformation, false flags and media manipulation to provoke conflict is not strategic maturity; but akin to an aggressive and unpredictable elephant under the influence of musth. When two nuclear weapons armed nations collide, the threat is not mutual but puts the entire world in severe jeopardy. The nuclear fallout respects no borders.
War is madness and what makes it even more dangerous is when that madness is deliberately engineered. In May 2025, India played a dangerous game, weaponizing nationalism, disinformation, and strategic ambiguity to provoke conflict. It underestimated Pakistan’s resolve, overestimated its own control, and placed millions of lives at risk in the process. The world must not be a passive witness to such unwarranted brinksmanship. It’s time to act and the sane world must intervene through diplomatic pressure, support regional peace frameworks and find an enduring solution to the root cause i.e. Kashmir dispute. Power must not be allowed to overshadow reason. Peace must be given a chance and South Asia deserves this peace.
Deceptive Diplomacy of Defeated Modi
By: Hassan Ahmad
May 24, 2025
Courtesy: Daily Times
The ‘Shining India’ mantra of BJP is visible nowhere. Anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim posturing of BJP played vital role in gaining the electoral victories. Though, third one fell short of the desired numbers. ‘Ab ki bar char sou paar’ slogan of Modi turned into a shattered dream. Saner quarters consider the Pahalgam episode as a destructive replay of the ‘Pulwama false flag’. Obviously, post Pahalgam situation is not favorable for Modi, not even good for BJP’s political future. Ripples in New Delhi are visible. Indicators of multiple failure are haunting the Indian government which deserves to be called ‘Modi led Hindutva Regime’. Outraged and bruised hawks of BJP are trying to repair the enormous damages, with usual shrewdness. BJP cannot afford defeat against Pakistan – as it actually means loosing the political capital, which always thrives on anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan hateful rhetoric. Congress is now breathing on the neck of BJP to exploit the undeniable failure of Modi regime. Let’s have a glance at the debacle earned by the BJP hawks with a series of misadventures.
One: Pahalgam false flag exposed in early stages once Indian officials and media started accusing Pakistan of cross-border terrorism without evidences. Swift lodging of FIR within ten minutes of killings further dented the weak authenticity of Indian allegations.
Two: Pakistan’s offer for transparent joint inquiry with neutral representatives pushed India in a tighter spot. Rejection of this offer by India further played in favor of Pakistan and triggered critical questions on Indian war mongering.
Three: Cross-border terrorism rhetoric against Pakistan could not gain traction of influential global and regional players. Diplomatic embarrassment accentuated once international community did not buy the missile and drone strikes misadventure of Indian government. Loss of Rafale jets in first round on night 6/7 May was unprecedented itching mix of failure and embarrassment. Four: fake news factories kept working 24/7 under the umbrella of ruling party BJP and rogue elements of the covert agencies. False victory claims on night 9/10 May are now a permanent ballot on the forehead BJP’s government. India as state became laughing stock with the sunrise in Pakistan on the morning of 10th May. Pakistan conquered and erased by Indian media previous night, was very much alive, stable, firm and capable enough to hit back with jaw breaking response.
After a decisive defeat against Pakistan, BJP hawks are now resorting to proxies and terrorism.
Five: Response from Pakistani armed forces was rapid, precisely accurate, stunning and brilliantly executed. Paralysis of Indian EW system eventually compelled Modi regime to resort to ceasefire embarrassment.
Six: Ceasefire call and Kashmir mediation offer from Trump have further exposed the contradictions between Indian false portrayal of victory and covert submission to ceasefire arrangement.
Seven: Myth of Indian supremacy busted! Decisive upper hand of Pakistan in military and diplomatic domains has jolted the foundation of Modi’s political fortress.
Recent Indian maneuvers depict traditional shrewdness of BJP hawks. Following developments reflect the cleverness applied by BJP to wash the stains of absolute defeat: –
One: Lead role assigned to Shashi Tharoor in Indian diplomatic delegations destined for various capitals. By bringing Congress’ poster boy in arena instead of Jai Shankar; BJP is actually trapping the major opposition party for sharing the burden of failure.
Two: ‘Bilateralism mantra’ of India is practically discarded as sending of seven delegations across the globe is nothing but a practical step towards multilateralism. Modi regime, herself, is involving the international community in all those affairs including Kashmir which were kept untouched under self-style “Bilateralism” cover.
Three: BJP is playing “Pakistan Card” to neutralize the aggressive onslaught of Rahul Gandhi. Modi, at the moment, is not in strong position to bear the critical questions of Rahul Gandhi revolving around the IAF failure, flawed dubious Raffle deal laced with kickback scandal and strategic debacle amid strengthening Sino-Pak ties.
Four: After decisive defeat against Pakistan, now, BJP hawks are resorting to proxies and terrorism. Heinous attack on APS students bus in Khuzdar should be taken as a stark reminder that Modi regime is all set to destabilize the Pakistan as well as the region for her vested political gains.
After winning the first round, Pakistan should brace to take on the Indian onslaught revolving around deceptive diplomacy, cross-border terrorism and Disinfo warfare.
Burden of military victory
By: Brig Naveed Rahmad
May 24, 2025
Courtesy: Pakistan Today
In the recent conflict between India and Pakistan, the Armed Forces of Pakistan have acquitted honorably beating India hollow. Despite constraints, the military component developed capabilities not only by defeating the threat but also by carrying the war into the enemy territory. The joint operations and untiring coordinated effort of the three services were executed with meticulous planning and brilliant execution. This was possible by the superior strategic orientation of the Pakistan Armed Forces. For Pakistan, the military component has ended the war on a winning note. All credit goes to the military leaders who did their job extremely well. Having the victory to their credit, the armed forces of Pakistan have now shifted the responsibility of nation-building to the civilian component of national power potential.
To support this military effort, the media especially electronic media played an exceptional role, however, the politicians and civil administration were not visible. The serious question arises as to whether the present political and bureaucratic structure is capable of shouldering the national responsibilities to drive the nation in crises to fight a war and support the military effort. If it is perceived that the military alone is responsible for fighting a war is disastrous. During this brief episode, the civil leadership and the bureaucracy other than a few did not display any promise to shoulder the ‘burden of war’.
In this era of technology and quick response, the present civil administration perception and procedures are noted to be outdated, slow and sluggish. Most government servants looked over their shoulders for orders and responses from the seniors and blamed their hierarchy for inaction. This inactivity and lethargy are highly damaging to the war effort. It must be remembered that the nation fought the war. The institutions should take guidelines from the Armed Forces, that despite constraints, should not impede honouring their commitment to the people of Pakistan. This will place a demand on the political leaders and the bureaucracy to deliver. They will have to get out of their cosy offices and be visible to the public. The present mode of leaving the job to the clerical staff will in no case be capable of combating illiteracy and underdevelopment. Both bureaucracy and political leaders will have to lead from the front and develop a mental shift towards delivery for which they took the oath TO SERVE and not to rule.
With military victory to their credit, the people of Pakistan look forward to the civil government and the civil servants to fight a long-drawn war against poor governance, poverty, illiteracy, exploitation and many other facets for a secure, progressive and prosperous nation.
With a military victory to their credit, the national orientation has now to be realigned. The war has displayed that the modern means have outdated the old schools of thought. The present system of governance is not viable to run a country of 140 million. The old sluggish and laborious system now has to be upgraded to suit the modern world. At 75 years of age in Pakistan, the present generation has seen such a victory for the first time. With a ray of hope, the public will now put a serious demand on the political government and the civil servants to deliver. Both these components will now have to burn their midnight oil to find modern efficient means and methods to deliver and come up to the expectations of the public. Some words of the Chinese model of progress may be given serious consideration and applied to take people out of poverty and illiteracy. All segments of society to realign their priorities aims and objectives in the national interest towards progress. The orientation of the younger generation of looking towards the West for a greener pasture must be redirected to look inward by providing them with a sense of security and, a bright and secure future. All this will have to be modelled, orchestrated and displayed by the political leadership and the civil servants. In no case, the future long-drawn war of progress and prosperity can be won with a typewriter pace and model. The future modern hybrid, disciplined mode may be an answer to a victory and our woes.
It’s never too late, to start with, re-appraisal of the existing impediments in progress must be taken into account immediately. There has to be a mental and physical shift. The political leadership to look in the house. Some of the ‘Acts of Parliament’ are outdated and not in line with modern international standards and demands. These acts are not only detrimental towards exports but also a serious impediment to doing business. Additionally, parliamentarians should be approachable and visible to the public to solve their problems. From bureaucracy the term to shift as civil service. The structures of civil administration, the police and many others are not suited to a modern progressive structure.
The threat of war on waters is still looming large. The menace of terrorism is yet to be eliminated totally. Pakistan will have to look for viable multiple solutions. The drones and the missiles have displayed that in the modern world, some of the theories, practices and procedures are outdated and no longer suitable. With military victory to their credit, the people of Pakistan look forward
