Site Title

Tag: pakistan

  • Three historical mistakes by India from Military perspective

    The fate of any nation depends more than the grave mistakes that it makes rather than the correct decisions that it takes. While I am a proponent of peace, I do think that sometimes it is the military might that is required to establish stability and peace in the region. We have fought four wars with our neighboring Pakistan, three out of which have been over Kashmir. India, in my opinion, has made three historical miscalculations of great proportions that still continues to haunt it to this day.

    The first was the return of 93,000 prisoners of war (POW’s) back to Pakistan after the 1971 War and liberation of Bangladesh. This was one of the largest surrender by any army after the surrender of Nazi forces in Stalingrad in 1943. Undoubtedly, a decisive victory for the Indian Armed forces, the war brought back the lost pride from the 1962 Indo-China War. Playing the same flute of peace to the world, India, under the Shimla agreement, agreed to return back the captured Pakistani soldiers. Disregarding the reality that these “battle hardened” soldiers could be thrown back into the circulation and could be integrated back into the “Pakistani War machine” operating in Kashmir, India made a fatal misjudgment. What we could have done at this pivotal moment was to negotiate with the Pakistani administration over the Pakistani Occupied Kashmir or POK. We should have returned these prisoners but in exchange of Pakistan agreeing to give away at least some of the critical positions that it holds in the POK region to us, if not the entire occupied territory.

    The second is the return of Haji Pir to Pakistan after the 1965 conflict. Albeit not a conclusive victory like the 1971 war, the battle of Haji Pir was a major win for our Armed forces. The re-capture of Haji Pir gave India a strategic and a military advantage to the armed forces since it has been a main point for the insurgents to infiltrate into the Kashmir Valley. The occupation of Haji Pir gave the Indian armed forces control of the Uri-Pooch highway, thereby cutting off the a major supply line for the terrorists to get into the Indian territory and operate from there. I have a deep reverence for Lal Bahadur Shastri, who was the Prime minister during this war and when the Tashkent agreement was signed, but I think Shastri made a ghastly mistake by reaching a status quo with Pakistan.

    The third mistake made by the Indian polity was our “inertia” in acting swiftly during the 1947 Indo-Pakistan conflict. Recapitulating what I mentioned in my previous article, had we sent in our army quickly or had Nehru not gone to knock the doors of United Nations, we might have resolved the Kashmir problem once and for all. The Pakistani army was already on the run, and we could have pushed them further consequently capturing a large area of what we call as POK today. Given the reality that none of the countries were nuclear equipped at that time, there was no threat of the conflict going beyond the confines of a conventional war. I also believe that had Sardar Patel tackled this conflict, we would have the entire Kashmir as an integral part of India today.

    While I do salute the Indian armed forces for their valor in each of these three wars, I believe these terrible blunders committed by the feeble Indian administration continue to echo to this day.

  • Response to General G.D Bakshi: Why Russia did not launched nuclear strike on Ukraine?

    Historically ,the foremost reason for most of the invasions across the world has been expansionism. May it be the annexation of Europe and Northern Africa by the Nazis, the rise of imperial forces across Asia and Africa, or the spread of Christianity and Islam across the world, the goal has been to increase the sphere of influence over the conquered lands. Russian invasion on Ukraine is no different.

    Ukraine and Russia have had cordial relations up until 2013 when the pro Russian government was overthrown and the demand of the people to join NATO grew. Did the Russian invasion of Ukraine stems out only because of the reason that if Ukraine joins NATO, it would pose an “existential threat” to Russia? I do not think so. There are already reports that imply that the purpose of invasion was to capture the resources (like Lithium) on the Ukrainian soil. To add to that, Poland and Finland, are other two countries which share their borders with Russia, and are members of NATO. Did Russia invaded these aforementioned countries too? No, it did not. The three year conflict have left thousands killed, thousands displaced, and have caused one of the largest humanitarian crises the world has seen after the World War – II

    To elaborate on why I think Russia is on the wrong footing here is a discussion for another time. To stay within the confines of the article, I would like to express my thoughts on as to why the bloody battle did not resulted in Russia striking Ukraine with its vast stockpile of nuclear weapons and opening the gates of hell on the entire European continent.

    What prompted me to manifest my two cents as to why the war did not resulted in a nuclear conflict was a video of Major General G.D Bakshi. In the video he was drawing parallels between Indo-Pakistan conflict and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict stating that if Russia did not fired nukes on Ukraine even after three years of prolonged and costly battle, Pakistan would also not do the same. “How may nuclear bombs have Russia dropped on Ukraine since the war started?” were his words that I vividly remember. I base my arguments on the following four points:

    First, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not a conflict between two equal opponents. Even if NATO is behind Ukraine, it is a reality that Russia possesses the largest stock of nuclear weapons and Ukraine, even though has nuclear plants, does not have any weapons of mass destruction. In contrast, both India and Pakistan are nuclear states.

    Secondly, in my opinion, Russia never had and never will face any threat to its existence even if the war prolongs for another decade. Russia is a vast country and history has proven that from the Napoleon aggression to the Nazi’s invasion, the country has never ever been under occupation by a foreign ruler. The depth, length and breadth of the country is so vast that it is almost impossible for any country to occupy it. Now, on the other hand, it is very much possible for India to capture a sizeable part of Pakistan or to enforce a complete blockade of the Karachi port thereby strangling that country to a definitive collapse. This dire situation, according to many Pakistani analysts including their revered Najam Sethi, will be considered as an existential threat. As per the Nuclear doctrine of Pakistan, if it faces this kind of a threat, it will use its tactical nuclear weapons on the Indian armed forces.

    My third argument has its basis on what a responsible state and a responsible leadership is. Russia, even after the break up of Soviet Union, is a technologically advanced country. It has a robust space program and still is amongst the largest exporters of weapons in the world. According to a report, Moscow has the second largest number of billionaires in the world after New York City. Russia has seen immense progress in its past and is still recognized as a global power to reckon with. Viz-a-Viz, Pakistan is mostly a failed state with a plummeting economy and far from making any technological footprint on the world map.

    My fourth and last argument revolves around the Jihadi mindset. As I have also iterated in my other articles that the intoxication of dying for one’s religion is the most destructive and the most lethal intoxications of all. Pakistani Army is headed by such an extremist mindset. Even though the country is on a verge of an economical collapse, its head, Asif Munir continues to arm his forces to its teeth. He also continues to spit venom against other religions as is evident by his recent speech against the Hindus. In the event of a conventional defeat, I am highly skeptical that this idiosyncratic Munir will not press the the “doomsday button”. Russia on the other hand, though fueled by its greed and ambition to exert and reestablish its sphere of influence in the Eastern European and the Baltic region, does not suffers from this “do or die” mindset of achieving martyrdom in the name of God.

  • An analysis of the “Grey Shades” of Pandit Nehru’s policies

    Atal Bihari Vajpayee, one of India’s greatest statesmen and politician, once stated about the erstwhile Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru that he is a “mix of Churchill and Chamberlin”. While Churchill lead the Allied forces to victory over the Nazis, Chamberlin, was a puny leader known for his appeasement policy towards the Nazis.

    The spirit and soul of any country lies in its institutions and the capability of its leaders to build these institutions. I strongly agree that Nehru’s character and his policies were an amalgamation of both strength and weakness. On the one hand, he was an institution builder and paved the way for accelerating the growth and development of India but on the other hand, he made a few blunders when it comes to some of the most contentious issues facing the country even to this day.

    As the first prime minister of independent India, he prioritized boosting domestic production thereby reducing the reliance solely on imports. He boosted industrialization and promoted social equality uplifting millions of Indians out of sheer poverty. His reforms in the agriculture sector are undoubtedly evident in establishment of agricultural universities across the country. His administration abolished the “Zamindari” system thereby giving profits of the land to the cultivators. He played a pivotal role in creation of National Cadet Corps which empowered youth of the country and increased their participation in nation building.

    Nehru was instrumental in orchestrating planning commission which focused on formulating five year plans channelizing the country’s resources towards progress. His policies in the educational sector were impressive and deserve credit too. The establishment of four of the India’s premier technology institution’s namely, Indian Institutes of technology, or IIT’s , was brought to fruition under his leadership. Massive projects were launched under his governance ranging from setting up steel industry and to the creation of hydroelectric plants.

    Another aspect that I appreciate about his outlook and his personality was his stand on secularism. His thoughts on religion were broad minded and accommodated religious belief’s of all sects of the Indian society. He was instrumental in launching uniform civil code which fostered social equality and created common platform under the Laws for all the religious groups represented in the country. I strongly believe that there is no place for religious bigotry and extremism in any democratic country.

    While I do commend and acknowledge Nehru’s immense contribution in igniting the much needed growth and development, especially in those initial years of the country when it was still taking its toddler steps, I strongly disagree his policies and decisions on three fronts.

    In 1947, Pakistani mercenaries and tribesmen attacked the princely state of Kashmir and occupied what is now called the “Pakistani Occupied Kashmir”. The Maharaja of Kashmir appealed to India for assistance and it took several days for Nehru and his administration to send in the Indian armed forces to counter the Pakistani assault. It is even speculated that Nehru did not intimated Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on the situation, a grave mistake considering the role that the “Iron man” played in uniting Princely states with India. Even after the army was sent in, Nehru made another diabolical mistake by approaching the United Nations for mediating in calling the ceasefire. Did we missed an opportunity to take back the entire Kashmir region had the UN not stepped in or our advancing army not stopped? I think yes. Had Patel played a more decisive role in getting back Kashmir instead of Nehru? I again think, yes.

    Nehru’s appeasement policy with China is another front where I think he displayed his incapability, or rather feebleness. He signed Panchsheel, or the five principles of peaceful co-existence with China in 1954. His imprudence in judging our larger adversary cost us dearly in the 1962 debacle when the Chinese army invaded Indian northeastern states and parts of Kashmir region. The loss is still imprinted on the minds of Indian people and our armed forces. His “unwavering” trust on China reflected an enormous gap in his foreign policy.

    I am also critical of Nehru’s (and Congress to a larger extent) policy of inclining towards Soviet Union rather than towards the Western block. USSR was a communist country and it is widely reported that it funded the Communist Party of India and shaped the Indian polity to its benefit. While I do agree that Soviet invested in India laying the foundation of much of our infrastructure, our Space program and our defense ecosystem, I do not believe in the basic tenets of communism. The ideology curbs personal freedom, liberty, and enterprising spirit of an individual. India’s policy of shifting towards the United States started with the rise of Jan Sangh, but the major change came in under Prime Minister P.V Narsimha Rao and the then Finance minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. I firmly maintain that had we joined the Western block in our early stages of independence, we would not have experienced the economical crises that we faced in 1991 following the disintegration of USSR.

    Overall, while I do think that the bedrock of development laid by Nehru in our nascent years which focused on self reliance took us far ahead than our neighbor Pakistan, his policies on Kashmir and China unfolded insurmountable challenges for our country that we continue to face to this day

  • Response to the Dawn News Article

    I detest Jingoism in all its forms, irrespective of any country that engages in it. I recently read an article by Mr. Shahzeb Ahmed in Pakistan’s most trusted English language newspaper, The DAWN. The article discusses the nonsensical role that the Indian media is playing in creating a false narrative against Pakistan and its armed forces.

    Wars and conflicts are not only about two countries exchanging artillery shells and bullets. It also entails information warfare, a potent weapon to crush the moral of enemy and boosting the moral of its own people. History has illustrated how evil a propaganda warfare can be. What the Nazi propaganda machinery under Joseph Goebbels did to the Jewish community is horrendous and abominable. Therefore, I do agree with the author but I do have my reservations, especially when it is argued in the context of the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan.

    While I agree that some of the Indian media houses are disseminating incorrect information thereby violating ethics of responsible Journalism but the author fails to mention what the media houses in his country have been doing. Leave aside the media houses, does the author has nerves to contemplate and share with his audience what the Army chief of his country says about Hindus? Does he reasons with what an idiotic analyst, Zaid Hamid says about Hindus and how he pompously claims that he will carry “Ghazwa-eHind” on India? Does he penalizes his Journalists and panelists from spewing venom against Hindus and threating India by creating “Khalistan”? Is the Pakistani media not giving this conflict a religious color? Can he talk rationality with the Indian women who were inconsolable after they lost their husbands at the hands of terrorists? These can be uncomfortable questions for the author to answer in a country where every aspect of its existence is dominated by its army.

    It is not hidden to the world that Pakistan is a terror factory. Mr. Khawaja Muhammad, the defense minister of that country has already admitted that it has been doing this “dirty work” for United States more than thirty years. According to the American analyst Bruce Riedel, the top three most wanted terrorist in its list are based out of Pakistan.

    And I do not blame it on the ordinary citizens of Pakistan. In my own professional and personal experience, I have met amazing people who hailed from Pakistan. It is the administration and more importantly the armed forces who have an extremist bent of mind. They are solely responsible for orchestrating nefarious plots to create instability in Kashmir and India. Their role in disintegrating India by instigating the Khalistan movement in late 1970’s and early 1980’s is evident and well documented.

    I reiterate and second that there are Indian journalists and media houses which indulge in creating war hysteria and the author did critiqued them in his piece. Now it is the turn of Asif Munir and its radical goons to get roasted by the same author in the most “rational” newspaper of Pakistan, The DAWN.

  • How successful has the Operation Sindoor been so far?

    The foreign policy of all the successive Indian government has been that of tolerance and peace. Even the Indian military’s posture has been that of defensive – offense. Never in the history has India invaded any other country or taken an aggressive stance. While some may argue that India fired the first shot in 1971 war with Pakistan that liberated Bangladesh, I would counter argue that the Indian government took action against the aggressor, which was the Pakistani armed forces, trampling the Bangladeshi people. Allied intervention and invasion of Europe against the Nazis was tantamount to what India did in the Bangladesh War of Independence.

    Indian defense strategy and foreign policy started to take a turn after 2014 when Mr. Narendra Modi got elected as prime minister. With Ajit Doval as the National security advisor, the country drastically changed its strategy to Defensive-Offence. Although, India did not launched any offence against any of its neighbor, especially Pakistan, it made it loud and clear that no terror activity on its soil would go unpunished. Albeit I am of an opinion that both the Uri attack and Balakot air strike were vague when it comes to providing concrete evidence of those assaults on the Pakistani occupied Kashmir, Indian retaliation after the recent Pahalgam attack, named as “Operation Sindoor”, surpassed my wildest imagination. Is this the same India that preached peace to the world and once gullibly signed Panchsheel with China in 1954.

    Since the 1971 Indo-Pak war, this was the first time that the Indian army struck deep inside the Pakistani territory. Nine locations were targeted in Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Pakistan by the Indian missiles and the Indian Air force under the able leadership of Air Chief Marshal Mr. AP Singh. Irrespective of how many terrorists died and how many building these retaliatory strikes brought down, it gave a strong message to the Pakistani administration and the Pakistani army and “enough is enough”. If innocent Indians, irrespective of their religion, bleed, there will be blood on Pakistani side as well. This message to Pakistan and the a larger global community was imperative.

    So, has the “Operation Sindoor” been a success? In my opinion, yes. Has it achieved its ultimate goal of dismantling the Pakistani “terror ecosystem”? I think no, at least not yet. We have to take into account that dealing with terrorism is not only dealing with the people and the buildings that constitute the infrastructure used to launch terror attacks on the Indian soil. We are dealing with an ideology with sinister designs. It is easy to bring down infrastructure and kill some people, but it is an extremely intricate mission to kill an ideology, especially when it is state sponsored.

    Just after the Operation Sindoor, I heard what the mastermind behind the Mumbai terror attacks, Masoor Azhar stated. “No regret, No Despair” were his words. He went further and stated that all his family members who died in the Indian attacks will become the “Guests of Allah”. Now how do we deal with that kind of a mindset. Killing one Masood is certainly not the solution since he (and the apparatus supporting him)can spawn ten more Masood’s.

    Even though Indian state of Punjab is largely peaceful now, have we been able to stem out the Khalistan separatism completely? Absolutely not. Has United States and the western world succeeded in subduing the “Islamic terrorism” to the full extent? Absolutely not. Even in my country of origin, have we achieved victory in curbing the nefarious plots of organizations like “Bajrang Dal” targeted against the minorities? The answer in my opinion is again no.

    I strongly think that terrorism cannot be completely erased only by the use of muscle power. It is a long term struggle requiring diplomatic, political and military measures. It also requires empowering and enlightening the youth, providing them with opportunities, and brining these disgruntled minds back into the mainstream.

    Operation Sindoor was an absolute military necessity but it is still incomplete and not yet reached its fruition. We are in a long term game here.

  • Three events that changed Indian history forever

    For any country, there are certain defining moments that change the course of its history. In my opinion, for India, there are three decisive events that not only changed its history but also altered the dynamics of its power and strength in the South Asian region. Although I do not agree with many policies of Congress party in general and that of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in particular , I strongly agree that there have been three events under the Congress government that changed the course of Indian history.

    The first is the nuclear test carried out on 18th May 1974 by the Congress government under the leadership of Mrs. Gandhi. The test was done under the garb of peaceful use of nuclear energy but some reports and experts assert that the test was done to give India minimum deterrence against China. India had lost 1962 war with China . China conducted its first nuclear test in 1967 and with Pakistan on one side and the nuclear armed China on another side, it became imperative for India to become “nuclear capable”. The test conducted in Pokhran located in the state of Rajasthan was the first one conducted by a non permanent member of United Nations thereby making India the sixth nuclear powered nation in the world. It does not matter if the test was meant for peaceful purpose or to develop nuclear deterrence against China, what matters is that India developed capability to channelize the nuclear energy to its benefit. This test paved the way for future research and development of nuclear energy. Two prominent figures who played a vital role in “Smiling Buddha”, as it was codenamed, were Homi Bhabha, also considered as the father of Indian nuclear program, and Raja Ramanna, who was also instrumental in weaponizing the nuclear energy for India.

    The second event was the liberation of Bangladesh by the Indian armed forces in 1971. There has not been a single event in the world history after World War – II where a nation was created by use of military might. The thirteen day war with Pakistan freed Bangladesh from the shackles of ethnic violence and discrimination perpetrated by the West Pakistan on the East Pakistan, as Bangladesh was called prior to 1971. It was not only a grand success of the Indian armed forces but it garnered reverence from around the world for India as a global emerging power to reckon with.

    The third moment was the Liberalization of Indian economy in 1991. India experienced a spiraling economical downfall after the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1989, mostly due to our reliance on the Soviet block for almost everything that is required to run a country. Under the leadership of P.V Narsimha Rao and the finance minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, India opened its economy to the western world, especially United States. The policies led to massive investments by United States in India which led to the spawning of call centers across the country. U.S and the western world capitalized on India’s large English speaking population that created thousands of well paid jobs thereby rescuing the country out of its economical predicament. This surge in the creation of “call center” jobs was just the beginning. The next wave of investment from the U.S into India focused on the Information Technology sector creating a plethora of technology related jobs. It changed the outlook of many Indian cities like Hyderabad, Bangalore, Pune, Mumbai and Delhi which transformed into “Tech hubs”. Innovation became a synonym of the Indian IT workforce. Indian professionals began travelling to the U.S thereby further enhancing the image of India from merely a country of snake charmers to a country with a large tech savvy population. Another outcome of this transformation was that it brought millions of Indians out of sheer poverty and destitute.

    Like any other country, India too had its share of unwise decisions and grave mistakes, but in my opinion, the aforementioned events changed the destiny of the country forever.

  • Is Pakistan’s nuclear threat a bluff?

    The horrors of the atomic bombs dropped by United States on Japan in 1945 shook the soul of humanity. Never had the world seen devastation of this magnitude before. Thousands perished within a few hours of the explosion and many thousands died in the following months. Those who survived suffered malnutrition and developed fatal skin diseases due to the radioactive smoke. Infrastructure of the two Japanese was severally damaged and it took years and years of rehabilitation efforts to pump in life back to these cities.

    The ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan has brought the two arch rivals close to a nuclear conflict again. Pakistani administration has reiterated as always that in case matters escalate and in case if it faces existential threat, it will strike India with its nuclear arsenal. India, on the other hand, is calling it a bluff.

    Dealing with a rogue state like Pakistan, which has a dwindling economy and internal instability is not easy. Pakistani army is loosing ground to Baluchistan Liberation Army and is facing causalities on that front every day. To add to its predicament, the country is encountering violent unrest from Afghan Taliban and TTP in its Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. There are reports that the people of Pakistan are already losing faith in their armed forces. Given the historical track record of Pakistan being a safe heaven for terrorism, there is always a risk of some one pressing the nuclear button.

    It is evident that the incumbent chief of army staff of Pakistan has a Jihadi mindset. His hatred for Hindus is not hidden from the world, especially after his press conference in which he stated that Hindus and Muslims are different in all aspects and cannot live together. The most dangerous mindset in the world is the one which is driven by religious extremism. Those who think that they are fighting a “holy war” and will go to heaven after killing people of a particular community are the most difficult to subdue. It is almost impossible to subdue an ideology, especially if it is centered around dying for one’s religion or a believe system. Although, I strongly believe that the people of Pakistan are generally kind and generous, the Pakistani administration and its Army reflects this “Jihadi” ideology.

    There is an argument from the Indian defense experts that Pakistan did not conducted nuclear strike during Kargil War and therefore, will not do it in future conflicts as well. I think there is a gap in this line of thought. Kargil war was limited to a certain geographical area and did not escalated. The Indian army was strictly ordered to not to cross the line of control at any cost. To add to it, it had been proven to the world that Pakistani army personal and the insurgents had captured the Indian peaks, therefore exposing the country in front of the international community. The scope of a nuclear exchange between the two countries was further diminished with the intervention of Mr. Bill Clinton and the U.S administration.

    Things have a taken a different turn after Kargil war. The unsuccessful “Operation Parakaram” launched by the Indian army in wake of the Parliament attack in 2001 led India to adopt “Cold Start Doctrine” which states that smaller integrated units of armed forces would quickly mobilize and launch strikes into the POK or Pakistani territory thereby rendering it unnecessary for an escalation. Pakistan in turn changed its nuclear doctrine to include the use of “tactical Nuclear weapons” with less impact and lower yield aiming at the advancing Indian armed forces. Indian position on this that that any attack on Indian military with these TNW would be met with a crushing response of a full fledge nuclear strike.

    Now what does Pakistan considers as an existential threat? There is no lucid answer to this but as per the defense minister of Pakistan, if the country looses vast territory or if India carries out a blockade of Pakistan either through the sea route or aerial route, it would be considered as an existential threat. He also implied that if India stops the water entering into Pakistan by abolishing the Indus Water Treaty completely, that would also be considered as an existential threat.

    Given all these factors, I am of an opinion that Pakistan’s nuclear threat to India is not a bluff, especially in case of an all out war.

  • Is opposition right in demanding quick action from Indian armed forces?

    In 1939, the Nazi Germany launched “Blitzkrieg” on Poland which caused the entire defense machinery of Poland to collapse within less than a month. Element of surprise plays a vital role in any conflict. However, it requires years of preparation to launch a surprise assault on the enemy. It took around seven years of rigorous preparations for the Nazi Germany to plan and implement its aggressive policy on Poland and the eastern Europe.

    In context of the ongoing friction between India and Pakistan following the Pahalgam attack, some opposition parties are questioning the delay in giving a befitting reply to Pakistan. I disagree with opposition’s stand on this and think that it is making these statements to gain political milage. While the leader of the opposition, Mr. Rahul Gandhi has stated that he firmly stands with whatever action Indian government takes, some of the leaders in his party have expressed their concern over delay in kinetic action by the Indian armed forces.

    These leaders have to go back into history and contemplate what Chief Marshal Sam Manekshaw said to Mrs. Indira Gandhi when she asked him to cross the Bangladesh border. Chief Marshal Sam clearly conveyed to the then Prime minister that in order to guarantee a hundred percent victory, he needs a few months to prepare. In another statement by Major General (Retired) G.D Bakshi, Indian army (or as a matter of fact, any army) works best when it prepares methodically.

    It is always better for an army to prepare itself for a conflict instead of diving in with blind eyes and losing a war. There is no bigger embarrassment for an armed force of any country to face a loss in the battlefield. It puts a blemish on the face of a country and makes people loose faith in its armed forces. Consider what happened to IPKF in Sri Lanka in 1989. Indian army went in there and had to face causalities. We should never lose sight of the reality that these are two nuclear armed countries locked in horns. Even a strong country like Israel took around twenty days to launch its attack on Hamas, and they were dealing with an organization, not a nuclear armed country like Pakistan.

    I do have a strong stand that the terrorist ecosystem of Pakistan cannot be completely dismantled though military might alone, but if the war is imposed on India and if it is absolutely unavoidable, then it is better to prepare for it meticulously.

    It is the time that the opposition leaders taking a dig at the Indian armed forces take a step back and unite with the country in these trying times. It is a time when people, especially at the helm, take a rational approach and take into account repercussions of every action without just beating the war drums.

  • How successful has India been in isolating Pakistan globally?

    Propaganda plays an important role during national conflicts and wars. It has a unifying effect on the country and gives its people a common voice. May it be the “Tokyo Rose” in the Pacific theater between United States and Japan or the evil rhetoric propagated by the Nazis against Jews, propaganda is a potent weapon in building a narrative against the enemy state or against a particular community.

    But the coin has other side as well. Propaganda can be extremely vicious and can fill the minds of people with venom. It can sway the thinking away from the reality and create a fallacy.

    Amid the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan in wake of the Pahalgam attack, this propaganda emanating from the media houses has taken a front seat on both sides of the border. The press industry is beating the war drums and each side is boasting its military might to crush each other and its diplomatic prowess to garner the support of the international community.

    In a recent interview of an Indian politician, it was mentioned that Indian government has successfully isolated Pakistan on the global stage. It was further communicated that the entire world is firmly standing with India. Nothing is far from the truth. Although the entire world has condemned the cowardly attack that claimed 28 innocent lives, all countries have asked for restrain and de-escalation of the situation.

    Have we really isolated Pakistan? The answer is no. Even if the west has chosen to take a neutral stand, Pakistan has three staunch allies, Turkey, China and Bangladesh. China recently stated that Pakistan is its “Ironclad” friend. With investments running into billions, it is highly unlikely that it will abandon Pakistan for its wrongdoings. Pakistan accounts for eighty percent of arms exports from China. There are even speculations that Pakistan surreptitiously informed China about the Pahalgam attack. Whether China will provide direct assistance to Pakistan in case of an all out war is something that is contentious, but one thing is for certain. It will aid Pakistan, both financially and militarily.

    Turkey is another country on which Pakistan is relying. The two countries have very strong ties that go back historically. Both being Sunni majority countries share a lot in common, especially culturally. It has been reported that Turkey is already assisting Pakistan to build its Cyber warfare capabilities. The country’s unwavering support to Pakistan on Kashmir issue is known to the Indian administration and the world at large.

    Recent anti-India sentiments in Bangladesh has changed the geopolitical landscape in the South Asian region. The country owes its independence to India but since the last few years, has found an ally in Pakistan. Trade, especially the one centered around defense is increasing every year with Pakistan supplying fighter squadrons to the Bangladesh Air force. The peril for India here is that in case of an armed conflict with Pakistan, Bangladesh might open its front giving a strategic and military advantage to Pakistan.

    When it comes to western countries, their stand on the crises is neutral. Even though they have condemned the Pahalgam attack, they have asked both sides to de-escalate the matter. European Union has even taken a step further and recognized Pakistan’s efforts in combating terrorism. This is a shocking statement for a country with a track record of supporting terror activities, not only in India but in Afghanistan and Iran as well. Dr. S Jaishankar has already lashed out at EU for its “double standards”.

    So, should Pakistan be isolated? I believe yes. But is it a reality? The answer is no. Can it happen at least in the near future? Unfortunately, the answer again is no.