INDO-PAK WAR
Published May 19, 2025
DAWN
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
IT may be too early to fully assess the multiple dimensions of the India-Pakistan crisis but some conclusions can be drawn.
Never before had the two countries attacked each other’s mainland with missile and air strikes as well as deployed new generation technology and weapons including drones. And never before had they edged so close to all-out war after becoming nuclear-weapon states.
The rapid escalation in the military confrontation went beyond the traditional battleground of occupied Kashmir and much further than previous crises to test deterrence. This was unprecedented but the way the crisis was defused — by third-party intervention — followed a well-rehearsed path and mimicked the past.
The military, diplomatic and international dimensions of the crisis need to be carefully examined to make an assessment about the future. Predictably, both countries have drawn very different conclusions from the crisis. The Indian claim, voiced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is that a ‘new normal’ against terrorism has been established by India’s military actions, and that in future any terrorist attack will be deemed an act of war and responded to militarily by this ‘new’ doctrine.
Pakistan sees its kinetic response in the crisis to have demonstrated that conventional deterrence worked as it prevented India from escalating to an even bigger conflict and thwarted India’s effort to expand space for conventional war under the nuclear overhang. India’s loss of several Rafale aircraft symbolised the costs imposed by Pakistan’s retaliation. That and its ability to strike at multiple targets in the Indian mainland showed its conventional capabilities were able to force a ceasefire and neutralise India’s aims of ‘limited war’.
The reality is that India failed to achieve its military objectives in the conflict in spite of Modi’s unsubstantiated assertions of having destroyed “terrorist infrastructure”. It miscalculated the consequences of its actions. Its resort to a military ‘solution’ for a terror attack backfired. The claim that a new norm has been created by India flies in the face of facts.
The assertion that henceforth India would respond militarily if there is another terror attack is easier said than done, given the unedifying outcome of the latest crisis for New Delhi. With the credibility of Pakistan’s conventional deterrence re-established if not strengthened, the costs for India could be even higher the next time around for it to consider similar action. India got a new normal but not the one it wanted.
An uneasy truce prevails between India and Pakistan with dim prospects of any diplomatic re-engagement.
As both countries have drawn sharply conflicting conclusions and lessons from their military confrontation this heightens the risk for miscalculation and creates uncertainty ahead, especially if sustained communication is not established between them.
Contact between the DGMOs after the ceasefire has been important but the communication channel has to go beyond a technical or tactical level. There is little immediate possibility of this. This continues to make the situation fraught and unpredictable especially as Modi has declared India has “only suspended” military operations.
The diplomatic costs of the crisis were even greater for India than the military costs. By its reckless military actions, New Delhi lost significant international ground as global attention shifted from terrorism to the danger of a full-fledged war with India climbing up the escalatory ladder. This showed how poorly the Modi government assessed the international environment. The clash brought global attention back to Kashmir, to the Modi government’s discomfiture.
In the biggest blow to New Delhi, President Donald Trump in announcing the ceasefire offered to mediate on Kashmir. While this will be rejected by India, it catapults Kashmir to the global stage. India also failed to elicit any international support for its decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. Even the US asked India to observe the treaty in private conversations with Indian officials.
Moreover, US intervention to defuse the crisis and Trump’s statements after the ceasefire re-hyphenated India and Pakistan, which India has tried so hard over the years to delink. Former Indian foreign secretary Shyam Saran acknowledged to the Financial Times that the crisis set back New Delhi’s efforts to dissuade countries from treating India and Pakistan “on a par, and relations with each as interlinked”. “That hyphenation is now back,” he added. If a top Indian geopolitical goal is to join the world’s big league this crisis has produced the opposite outcome for New Delhi.
The Modi government also misjudged the evolving American position, assuming it would receive unequivocal support from Washington for its military action to avenge the Pahalgam terror incident. But the Trump administration sought to defuse the crisis from its very onset, urging restraint on New Delhi (and Islamabad) both publicly and privately.
As the crisis escalated, US diplomatic intervention intensified. This was reflected in multiple phone calls made by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to top leaders in both countries and finally Vice President J.D. Vance’s intercession with PM Modi when the crisis looked like spinning out of control.
This led to the ceasefire President Trump announced and claimed credit for. The Indians neither publicly welcomed his announcement nor acknowledged the US role in ending the crisis. Modi made no mention of this in his post-ceasefire speech. Later, Indian officials refuted the US role. This contrasted sharply with the synchronous communication and close understanding between Pakistan and China throughout the crisis including in vital intelligence cooperation.
As for the political ramifications of the crisis, this provided a contrasting picture. The outcome divided India while uniting Pakistan. Modi came under mounting domestic pressure to explain what he achieved by Operation Sindoor. His right-wing base was furious at the truce.
With his strongman image dented, the opposition said Modi had much to answer for while the Congress president criticised the government for “strategic missteps”. In Pakistan there was jubilation at the outcome, rallying of national unity and renewal of national confidence while the public standing and reputation of the armed forces went up exponentially.
An uneasy truce now prevails between India and Pakistan with a fragile ceasefire that is being implemented in phases. Confidence-building measures are being taken to reduce military tensions and the “level of alertness”. But it will be a mistake to conclude that ‘normalcy’ will return anytime soon. The outlook remains troubled and fraught with uncertainty.
Published in Dawn, May 19th, 2025
IT may be too early to fully assess the multiple dimensions of the India-Pakistan crisis but some conclusions can be drawn.
Never before had the two countries attacked each other’s mainland with missile and air strikes as well as deployed new generation technology and weapons including drones. And never before had they edged so close to all-out war after becoming nuclear-weapon states.
The rapid escalation in the military confrontation went beyond the traditional battleground of occupied Kashmir and much further than previous crises to test deterrence. This was unprecedented but the way the crisis was defused — by third-party intervention — followed a well-rehearsed path and mimicked the past.
The military, diplomatic and international dimensions of the crisis need to be carefully examined to make an assessment about the future. Predictably, both countries have drawn very different conclusions from the crisis. The Indian claim, voiced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is that a ‘new normal’ against terrorism has been established by India’s military actions, and that in future any terrorist attack will be deemed an act of war and responded to militarily by this ‘new’ doctrine.
Pakistan sees its kinetic response in the crisis to have demonstrated that conventional deterrence worked as it prevented India from escalating to an even bigger conflict and thwarted India’s effort to expand space for conventional war under the nuclear overhang. India’s loss of several Rafale aircraft symbolised the costs imposed by Pakistan’s retaliation. That and its ability to strike at multiple targets in the Indian mainland showed its conventional capabilities were able to force a ceasefire and neutralise India’s aims of ‘limited war’.
The reality is that India failed to achieve its military objectives in the conflict in spite of Modi’s unsubstantiated assertions of having destroyed “terrorist infrastructure”. It miscalculated the consequences of its actions. Its resort to a military ‘solution’ for a terror attack backfired. The claim that a new norm has been created by India flies in the face of facts.
The assertion that henceforth India would respond militarily if there is another terror attack is easier said than done, given the unedifying outcome of the latest crisis for New Delhi. With the credibility of Pakistan’s conventional deterrence re-established if not strengthened, the costs for India could be even higher the next time around for it to consider similar action. India got a new normal but not the one it wanted.
An uneasy truce prevails between India and Pakistan with dim prospects of any diplomatic re-engagement.
As both countries have drawn sharply conflicting conclusions and lessons from their military confrontation this heightens the risk for miscalculation and creates uncertainty ahead, especially if sustained communication is not established between them.
Contact between the DGMOs after the ceasefire has been important but the communication channel has to go beyond a technical or tactical level. There is little immediate possibility of this. This continues to make the situation fraught and unpredictable especially as Modi has declared India has “only suspended” military operations.
The diplomatic costs of the crisis were even greater for India than the military costs. By its reckless military actions, New Delhi lost significant international ground as global attention shifted from terrorism to the danger of a full-fledged war with India climbing up the escalatory ladder. This showed how poorly the Modi government assessed the international environment. The clash brought global attention back to Kashmir, to the Modi government’s discomfiture.
In the biggest blow to New Delhi, President Donald Trump in announcing the ceasefire offered to mediate on Kashmir. While this will be rejected by India, it catapults Kashmir to the global stage. India also failed to elicit any international support for its decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. Even the US asked India to observe the treaty in private conversations with Indian officials.
Moreover, US intervention to defuse the crisis and Trump’s statements after the ceasefire re-hyphenated India and Pakistan, which India has tried so hard over the years to delink. Former Indian foreign secretary Shyam Saran acknowledged to the Financial Times that the crisis set back New Delhi’s efforts to dissuade countries from treating India and Pakistan “on a par, and relations with each as interlinked”. “That hyphenation is now back,” he added. If a top Indian geopolitical goal is to join the world’s big league this crisis has produced the opposite outcome for New Delhi.
The Modi government also misjudged the evolving American position, assuming it would receive unequivocal support from Washington for its military action to avenge the Pahalgam terror incident. But the Trump administration sought to defuse the crisis from its very onset, urging restraint on New Delhi (and Islamabad) both publicly and privately.
As the crisis escalated, US diplomatic intervention intensified. This was reflected in multiple phone calls made by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to top leaders in both countries and finally Vice President J.D. Vance’s intercession with PM Modi when the crisis looked like spinning out of control.
This led to the ceasefire President Trump announced and claimed credit for. The Indians neither publicly welcomed his announcement nor acknowledged the US role in ending the crisis. Modi made no mention of this in his post-ceasefire speech. Later, Indian officials refuted the US role. This contrasted sharply with the synchronous communication and close understanding between Pakistan and China throughout the crisis including in vital intelligence cooperation.
As for the political ramifications of the crisis, this provided a contrasting picture. The outcome divided India while uniting Pakistan. Modi came under mounting domestic pressure to explain what he achieved by Operation Sindoor. His right-wing base was furious at the truce.
With his strongman image dented, the opposition said Modi had much to answer for while the Congress president criticised the government for “strategic missteps”. In Pakistan there was jubilation at the outcome, rallying of national unity and renewal of national confidence while the public standing and reputation of the armed forces went up exponentially.
An uneasy truce now prevails between India and Pakistan with a fragile ceasefire that is being implemented in phases. Confidence-building measures are being taken to reduce military tensions and the “level of alertness”. But it will be a mistake to conclude that ‘normalcy’ will return anytime soon. The outlook remains troubled and fraught with uncertainty.
Published in Dawn, May 19th, 2025
Hubris & humiliation
Zarrar Khuhro
Zarrar Khuhro
Published May 19, 2025
DAWN
DAWN
The writer is a journalist.
ARROGANCE is an undesirable trait in individuals, and when an arrogant individual also obtains a modicum of power, at least relative to the people surrounding him, then that potent mix can and does go to his head. Relationships suffer, self-awareness diminishes and the person in question simply cannot mend his ways because there’s no recognition of the problem to begin with; feedback from well-wishers (those few who remain) is disregarded or written off as jealousy. Protests from those at the receiving end are taken as validation of one’s own power, further fuelling a sense of superiority. You end up creating alliances against yourself as those who are at the receiving end of your abuse will tend to band together and ally themselves with someone too powerful for you to bully.
So inflated does the sense of self become that when reality breaks through the bubble of delusion, the result is despair, denial and, often, a doubling down on the same delusions that led you to this pass. In that sense, arrogance carries within it the seeds of your own downfall.
Now, when a nation’s entire domestic narrative and foreign policy is based on arrogance — strategic arrogance if you will — the cost isn’t borne just by that one nation and its citizens, but by every other nation subject to its whims and neuroses.
Such is what seems to have happened with India, which shone so brightly that it blinded itself. In some ways, this was inevitable; building on the solid foundations laid by former prime minister Manmohan Singh and many others, India’s economy soared and so did its global standing. America’s China containment policy then elevated it to the level of a strategic partner of the West. This coincided more or less with the rise of Hindutva in India, which framed these developments as a much belated return to long-lost glory. Domestically, the narrative was the curious mix of supremacy and victimhood that defines modern fascism: the internal enemy is simultaneously weak and degenerate and also an existential threat to the majority which, in turn, is at once strong and superior but also imperilled.
India shone so brightly that it blinded itself.
This line was amplified to an unbelievable degree by Indian social media and also mainstream media which has fed its teeming population with a steady diet of hate and misinformation. Cynical as it may sound, while it’s perhaps understandable to feed your own population this diet in order to secure political gains and votes, it’s quite another matter for your own leadership to actually buy into it, as they so clearly have. In doing so, India violated the cardinal rule of drug peddlers: never get high on your own supply.
Consider that in the new Indian parliament hangs a map of Akhand Bharat, or Greater India if you prefer, showing Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and so on as part of a giant mythical Hindu empire. Now consider that this isn’t bravado, but a statement of intent. The action, for its part, can be seen in the relentlessly bullying behaviour India has exhibited in its relations with all the aforementioned countries, including the Maldives and Sri Lanka. That attitude was then extended to Canada, to name just one, in the aftermath of an Indian-run assassination campaign that was conducted in such an arrogantly amateurish way that the bloody footprints clearly led back to New Delhi.
To fulfil this dream, India decided to take on Pakistan which, in its view, was internally divided, economically weak and internationally isolated. A decisive military push and India would have a victory for the ages, it thought. But nothing of the sort happened; prepared and armed with Chinese technology which had been seamlessly integrated into its own military networks, Pakistan not only shot down India’s jets but also India’s great power pretensions.
In a wonderful example of the law of unintended consequences, India has in fact injected Pakistan with a renewed sense of self-confidence, even if the aforementioned weaknesses still very much exist. But while it was certainly unintended, it should have been expected; while Pakistan’s alliance with China is decades old, India is to thank for taking it to new levels. In part due to Indian lobbying, Pakistan was denied easy and reliable access to US and Western weaponry and the outcome was that Pakistan opted to go down the Chinese arms route, with visible results.
To his credit, Rahul Gandhi warned of exactly this in his 2022 Lok Sabha speech in which he accused the Indian government of actually bringing Pakistan and China closer together. In 2025, we can now add Bangladesh to the list. Interestingly social media has become a loss multiplier for India in the global arena, as out-of-control hordes are now attacking Azerbaijan and Turkiye for their support for Pakistan, further souring India’s image, just as they did with regional countries.
X*: @zarrarkhuhro*
Published in Dawn, May 19th, 2025
ARROGANCE is an undesirable trait in individuals, and when an arrogant individual also obtains a modicum of power, at least relative to the people surrounding him, then that potent mix can and does go to his head. Relationships suffer, self-awareness diminishes and the person in question simply cannot mend his ways because there’s no recognition of the problem to begin with; feedback from well-wishers (those few who remain) is disregarded or written off as jealousy. Protests from those at the receiving end are taken as validation of one’s own power, further fuelling a sense of superiority. You end up creating alliances against yourself as those who are at the receiving end of your abuse will tend to band together and ally themselves with someone too powerful for you to bully.
So inflated does the sense of self become that when reality breaks through the bubble of delusion, the result is despair, denial and, often, a doubling down on the same delusions that led you to this pass. In that sense, arrogance carries within it the seeds of your own downfall.
Now, when a nation’s entire domestic narrative and foreign policy is based on arrogance — strategic arrogance if you will — the cost isn’t borne just by that one nation and its citizens, but by every other nation subject to its whims and neuroses.
Such is what seems to have happened with India, which shone so brightly that it blinded itself. In some ways, this was inevitable; building on the solid foundations laid by former prime minister Manmohan Singh and many others, India’s economy soared and so did its global standing. America’s China containment policy then elevated it to the level of a strategic partner of the West. This coincided more or less with the rise of Hindutva in India, which framed these developments as a much belated return to long-lost glory. Domestically, the narrative was the curious mix of supremacy and victimhood that defines modern fascism: the internal enemy is simultaneously weak and degenerate and also an existential threat to the majority which, in turn, is at once strong and superior but also imperilled.
India shone so brightly that it blinded itself.
This line was amplified to an unbelievable degree by Indian social media and also mainstream media which has fed its teeming population with a steady diet of hate and misinformation. Cynical as it may sound, while it’s perhaps understandable to feed your own population this diet in order to secure political gains and votes, it’s quite another matter for your own leadership to actually buy into it, as they so clearly have. In doing so, India violated the cardinal rule of drug peddlers: never get high on your own supply.
Consider that in the new Indian parliament hangs a map of Akhand Bharat, or Greater India if you prefer, showing Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and so on as part of a giant mythical Hindu empire. Now consider that this isn’t bravado, but a statement of intent. The action, for its part, can be seen in the relentlessly bullying behaviour India has exhibited in its relations with all the aforementioned countries, including the Maldives and Sri Lanka. That attitude was then extended to Canada, to name just one, in the aftermath of an Indian-run assassination campaign that was conducted in such an arrogantly amateurish way that the bloody footprints clearly led back to New Delhi.
To fulfil this dream, India decided to take on Pakistan which, in its view, was internally divided, economically weak and internationally isolated. A decisive military push and India would have a victory for the ages, it thought. But nothing of the sort happened; prepared and armed with Chinese technology which had been seamlessly integrated into its own military networks, Pakistan not only shot down India’s jets but also India’s great power pretensions.
In a wonderful example of the law of unintended consequences, India has in fact injected Pakistan with a renewed sense of self-confidence, even if the aforementioned weaknesses still very much exist. But while it was certainly unintended, it should have been expected; while Pakistan’s alliance with China is decades old, India is to thank for taking it to new levels. In part due to Indian lobbying, Pakistan was denied easy and reliable access to US and Western weaponry and the outcome was that Pakistan opted to go down the Chinese arms route, with visible results.
To his credit, Rahul Gandhi warned of exactly this in his 2022 Lok Sabha speech in which he accused the Indian government of actually bringing Pakistan and China closer together. In 2025, we can now add Bangladesh to the list. Interestingly social media has become a loss multiplier for India in the global arena, as out-of-control hordes are now attacking Azerbaijan and Turkiye for their support for Pakistan, further souring India’s image, just as they did with regional countries.
X*: @zarrarkhuhro*
Published in Dawn, May 19th, 2025
War and peace
Editorial
WITH South Asia’s peace balanced on a knife-edge, it is important for national political leaders to remain grounded. In this context, it has been encouraging to see a slight shift in Islamabad’s position on the recent hostilities between India and Pakistan.
At the start of last week, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had described the recent conflict as having ‘avenged’ the 1971 war — a claim that had startled many even in Pakistan. Towards the end of the week, however, his speeches were more moderate, with the prime minister noting at one point that past wars had given the two countries “nothing but miseries” and that there now needed to be a comprehensive dialogue.
It is encouraging that there is realisation on Pakistan’s side at least that grandstanding on the recent conflict is quite pointless, and that the frictions between the two countries still need to be addressed.
Former foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar had encouraged much the same in her recent remarks in parliament. Noting that India’s defeat was not a celebratory occasion, she had said, “We must all be unapologetic as a country that celebrates a ceasefire”. After all, death and destruction are never something to cheer. Arguably, it is better not to have a war than to win one. Our political leadership must not forget this.
History shows that states benefit when they are able to escape the unending cycle of hostilities and focus on how they may coexist. Pakistan’s indignation is justified in that it offered India cooperation from the start, but was met with cold rejection. The people also cannot be faulted for celebrating their armed forces’ successful defence against external belligerence. At the same time, however, both Pakistan’s leadership and public must think about how future conflicts may be avoided instead of escalating to the point of all-out war.
It is only fair to expect reciprocity from the other party. The Indian government must realise the folly of a violent confrontation with Pakistan every few years. War is not some theatre with which to keep the public engaged. For better or worse, the two countries are bound by a long border and a shared history and culture. India must realise that it is detrimental for its interactions with Pakistan to be dictated by New Delhi’s constant desire to establish its hegemony in the region.
The recent hostilities have yielded little apart from establishing a dangerous ‘new normal’ that could see more missiles and munitions being traded in future conflicts. What tangible benefit can the people of either country derive from this?
Instead of constantly evoking the spectre of war, the governments of both countries should work towards peace. The people of the subcontinent will one day thank them for it.
Published in Dawn, May 18th, 2025
Editorial
Published May 18, 2025
DAWN
WITH South Asia’s peace balanced on a knife-edge, it is important for national political leaders to remain grounded. In this context, it has been encouraging to see a slight shift in Islamabad’s position on the recent hostilities between India and Pakistan.
At the start of last week, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had described the recent conflict as having ‘avenged’ the 1971 war — a claim that had startled many even in Pakistan. Towards the end of the week, however, his speeches were more moderate, with the prime minister noting at one point that past wars had given the two countries “nothing but miseries” and that there now needed to be a comprehensive dialogue.
It is encouraging that there is realisation on Pakistan’s side at least that grandstanding on the recent conflict is quite pointless, and that the frictions between the two countries still need to be addressed.
Former foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar had encouraged much the same in her recent remarks in parliament. Noting that India’s defeat was not a celebratory occasion, she had said, “We must all be unapologetic as a country that celebrates a ceasefire”. After all, death and destruction are never something to cheer. Arguably, it is better not to have a war than to win one. Our political leadership must not forget this.
History shows that states benefit when they are able to escape the unending cycle of hostilities and focus on how they may coexist. Pakistan’s indignation is justified in that it offered India cooperation from the start, but was met with cold rejection. The people also cannot be faulted for celebrating their armed forces’ successful defence against external belligerence. At the same time, however, both Pakistan’s leadership and public must think about how future conflicts may be avoided instead of escalating to the point of all-out war.
It is only fair to expect reciprocity from the other party. The Indian government must realise the folly of a violent confrontation with Pakistan every few years. War is not some theatre with which to keep the public engaged. For better or worse, the two countries are bound by a long border and a shared history and culture. India must realise that it is detrimental for its interactions with Pakistan to be dictated by New Delhi’s constant desire to establish its hegemony in the region.
The recent hostilities have yielded little apart from establishing a dangerous ‘new normal’ that could see more missiles and munitions being traded in future conflicts. What tangible benefit can the people of either country derive from this?
Instead of constantly evoking the spectre of war, the governments of both countries should work towards peace. The people of the subcontinent will one day thank them for it.
Published in Dawn, May 18th, 2025
Time for a Saarc summit
Muhammad Amir Rana
Published May 18, 2025
DAWN
The writer is a security analyst.
SINCE the announcement of the ceasefire on May 10, Pakistan has more than once reiterated its willingness to engage in dialogue with India. However, New Delhi has yet to respond in kind, reinforcing the perception that it remains averse to meaningful engagement. In response to US President Donald Trump’s offer to mediate on the Kashmir issue, India firmly rejected third-party involvement. Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar maintained that all matters between India and Pakistan would be addressed bilaterally, a position that leaves little room for external facilitation.
India’s growing economic stature has undoubtedly enhanced its international profile. Yet, its recent confrontations with Pakistan, alongside developments in its immediate neighbourhood, have served as a sobering counterpoint to the prevailing ultranationalist mindset within the country. Just a year earlier, India experienced a diplomatic setback when a friendly government in Bangladesh was overthrown amid a violent uprising. These back-to-back challenges have exposed vulnerabilities in India’s regional policy and raised questions about the current leadership’s capacity to manage complex relationships with its neighbours.
The inability to cultivate stable ties within the region undermines India’s diplomatic standing and tempers the expectations of those in the West who view New Delhi as a strategic counterweight to Beijing. For many observers, these developments offer a more grounded assessment of India’s regional influence and the limits of its current foreign policy trajectory.
Pakistan has never denied engaging in dialogue with India, both directly and through backchannel mechanisms. At present, communication at the level of the directors general of military operations continues as part of efforts to uphold the ceasefire agreement. Yet, the prevailing mood in New Delhi remains unyielding, with little indication of interest in reviving either a comprehensive or composite dialogue process. This reluctance is largely shaped by the political cost of any engagement that places Kashmir on the agenda, a prospect the current Indian government appears keen to avoid, especially following its unilateral revocation of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir’s special status on Aug 5, 2019.
Saarc has historically served as a platform to facilitate engagement between India and Pakistan.
Islamabad is open to discussing all issues, including terrorism, as long as Kashmir is included in the talks. However, there are growing indications that New Delhi may attempt to reshape the contours of future engagement. One emerging tactic appears to be the instrumentalisation of the Indus Waters Treaty. By signalling an unwillingness to engage further in this long-standing framework, India may be seeking to limit the agenda of any prospective dialogue to two narrow points: terrorism and water, effectively excluding Kashmir.
This approach suggests a strategic recalibration by India, aiming to redefine the bilateral discourse in a manner that neutralises Pakistan’s core concerns. However, such a limited framework is unlikely to yield sustainable peace or regional stability, as it overlooks the centrality of the Kashmir dispute in South Asia’s security calculus.
The global community has increasingly voiced concern over the enduring tensions between India and Pakistan, warning that the conflict has the potential to escalate into a nuclear flashpoint. There have been repeated calls for the global leadership to play a more proactive role in de-escalating tensions between the two neighbours. Pakistan has consistently highlighted the risks the unresolved dispute poses, reinforcing the perception that peace in South Asia remains precarious. While President Donald Trump offered to mediate, only a handful of Western and Gulf states have actively tried to nudge both sides towards dialogue. In contrast, most regional countries have remained conspicuously silent, despite their significant potential to contribute to peacebuilding.
South Asian nations could play a transformative role by reviving the long-dormant South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. While not a forum for resolving bilateral disputes, Saarc has historically served as a platform to facilitate engagement between India and Pakistan. A notable example was the breakthrough at the 2004 Islamabad summit, where the Vajpayee-Musharraf handshake on the sidelines catalysed the composite dialogue process. Such moments underscore the forum’s potential. However, India’s ruling BJP government has increasingly sidelined Saarc, offering alternative platforms such as the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation, known as BIMSTEC, which have largely failed to gain similar traction or produce tangible results.
South Asia offers vast trade and connectivity opportunities, as well as geopolitical strength vital to the entire region’s foreign policy interests. The Indian experiment for alternative regional groupings has not produced the desired results and has only shown fragmented diplomatic efforts. There is now a chance for the South Asian leadership to come forward and play an active role.
Pakistan’s regional standing has also subtly improved in recent months. The political transition in Bangladesh, a founding proponent of Saarc, has opened new possibilities for regional cooperation. During a meeting in December last year in Cairo between Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Bangladesh leader Dr Muhammad Yunus, the latter remarked: “I am a big fan of the idea of Saarc. I keep harping on the issue. I want a summit of Saarc leaders, even if it is only for a photo session, because that will carry a strong message.”
Saarc has not held its biennial summit since 2014. The 2016 summit, scheduled to take place in Pakistan, was indefinitely postponed after India, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Afghanistan declined to participate. However, the strategic landscape has since shifted, particularly following changes in leadership in Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The conditions are now more favourable for Saarc to resume its role as a regional dialogue and cooperation forum. Pakistan now possesses the diplomatic strength to engage constructively with its South Asian counterparts, and the response from regional partners is likely to be encouraging rather than disappointing.
While India may continue to resist the idea of a summit in Islamabad, hosting it in a neutral member country remains a viable option. Even if such a summit does not yield immediate breakthroughs, it would signal a renewed commitment to regionalism, something South Asia desperately needs.
Published in Dawn, May 18th, 2025
SINCE the announcement of the ceasefire on May 10, Pakistan has more than once reiterated its willingness to engage in dialogue with India. However, New Delhi has yet to respond in kind, reinforcing the perception that it remains averse to meaningful engagement. In response to US President Donald Trump’s offer to mediate on the Kashmir issue, India firmly rejected third-party involvement. Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar maintained that all matters between India and Pakistan would be addressed bilaterally, a position that leaves little room for external facilitation.
India’s growing economic stature has undoubtedly enhanced its international profile. Yet, its recent confrontations with Pakistan, alongside developments in its immediate neighbourhood, have served as a sobering counterpoint to the prevailing ultranationalist mindset within the country. Just a year earlier, India experienced a diplomatic setback when a friendly government in Bangladesh was overthrown amid a violent uprising. These back-to-back challenges have exposed vulnerabilities in India’s regional policy and raised questions about the current leadership’s capacity to manage complex relationships with its neighbours.
The inability to cultivate stable ties within the region undermines India’s diplomatic standing and tempers the expectations of those in the West who view New Delhi as a strategic counterweight to Beijing. For many observers, these developments offer a more grounded assessment of India’s regional influence and the limits of its current foreign policy trajectory.
Pakistan has never denied engaging in dialogue with India, both directly and through backchannel mechanisms. At present, communication at the level of the directors general of military operations continues as part of efforts to uphold the ceasefire agreement. Yet, the prevailing mood in New Delhi remains unyielding, with little indication of interest in reviving either a comprehensive or composite dialogue process. This reluctance is largely shaped by the political cost of any engagement that places Kashmir on the agenda, a prospect the current Indian government appears keen to avoid, especially following its unilateral revocation of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir’s special status on Aug 5, 2019.
Saarc has historically served as a platform to facilitate engagement between India and Pakistan.
Islamabad is open to discussing all issues, including terrorism, as long as Kashmir is included in the talks. However, there are growing indications that New Delhi may attempt to reshape the contours of future engagement. One emerging tactic appears to be the instrumentalisation of the Indus Waters Treaty. By signalling an unwillingness to engage further in this long-standing framework, India may be seeking to limit the agenda of any prospective dialogue to two narrow points: terrorism and water, effectively excluding Kashmir.
This approach suggests a strategic recalibration by India, aiming to redefine the bilateral discourse in a manner that neutralises Pakistan’s core concerns. However, such a limited framework is unlikely to yield sustainable peace or regional stability, as it overlooks the centrality of the Kashmir dispute in South Asia’s security calculus.
The global community has increasingly voiced concern over the enduring tensions between India and Pakistan, warning that the conflict has the potential to escalate into a nuclear flashpoint. There have been repeated calls for the global leadership to play a more proactive role in de-escalating tensions between the two neighbours. Pakistan has consistently highlighted the risks the unresolved dispute poses, reinforcing the perception that peace in South Asia remains precarious. While President Donald Trump offered to mediate, only a handful of Western and Gulf states have actively tried to nudge both sides towards dialogue. In contrast, most regional countries have remained conspicuously silent, despite their significant potential to contribute to peacebuilding.
South Asian nations could play a transformative role by reviving the long-dormant South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. While not a forum for resolving bilateral disputes, Saarc has historically served as a platform to facilitate engagement between India and Pakistan. A notable example was the breakthrough at the 2004 Islamabad summit, where the Vajpayee-Musharraf handshake on the sidelines catalysed the composite dialogue process. Such moments underscore the forum’s potential. However, India’s ruling BJP government has increasingly sidelined Saarc, offering alternative platforms such as the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation, known as BIMSTEC, which have largely failed to gain similar traction or produce tangible results.
South Asia offers vast trade and connectivity opportunities, as well as geopolitical strength vital to the entire region’s foreign policy interests. The Indian experiment for alternative regional groupings has not produced the desired results and has only shown fragmented diplomatic efforts. There is now a chance for the South Asian leadership to come forward and play an active role.
Pakistan’s regional standing has also subtly improved in recent months. The political transition in Bangladesh, a founding proponent of Saarc, has opened new possibilities for regional cooperation. During a meeting in December last year in Cairo between Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Bangladesh leader Dr Muhammad Yunus, the latter remarked: “I am a big fan of the idea of Saarc. I keep harping on the issue. I want a summit of Saarc leaders, even if it is only for a photo session, because that will carry a strong message.”
Saarc has not held its biennial summit since 2014. The 2016 summit, scheduled to take place in Pakistan, was indefinitely postponed after India, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Afghanistan declined to participate. However, the strategic landscape has since shifted, particularly following changes in leadership in Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The conditions are now more favourable for Saarc to resume its role as a regional dialogue and cooperation forum. Pakistan now possesses the diplomatic strength to engage constructively with its South Asian counterparts, and the response from regional partners is likely to be encouraging rather than disappointing.
While India may continue to resist the idea of a summit in Islamabad, hosting it in a neutral member country remains a viable option. Even if such a summit does not yield immediate breakthroughs, it would signal a renewed commitment to regionalism, something South Asia desperately needs.
Published in Dawn, May 18th, 2025
Humour on the battlefield
Published May 17, 2025
DAWN
The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.
IF there was very one obvious lesson from the tumultuous week of conflict we have just left behind, it is that different nations deal with war in remarkably different ways.
Ever since India began to sound the war drums following the Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025, it was all snickers and giggles from the Pakistani side.
Over on social media, where half of all battles now seem to be fought, Pakistanis devised memes and reels that mocked India and themselves. A favourite one was a reel of driving on a Karachi road in the dark, with the voiceover explaining the futility of bombing an already broken and wrecked city.
Others requested that the attack take place when the gas supply was on so that there would be no way of serving tea to the invaders after 9:15 pm. Female Instagram influencers wondered what would be appropriate to wear during the war. Some forecast Eid celebrations at the Taj Mahal, others boasted of plots purchased in DHA Phase 13, located in New Delhi. Mirth and mockery made up the national mood.
This seemed to be remarkably different from how things were across the border. Over there, the more familiar emotions that accompany an impending war were more in evidence, and there was anger, frustration, and fear of the future. The difference in the reaction itself, their own versus Pakistanis’, was something that seemed to surprise and shock the Indians. How could a country rely on humour and jokes to get itself through what were some of the most agonising moments in recent history?
All sorts of upheavals have created a national understanding that worrying at the individual level simply does not matter.
The responses to this question expose a crucial misunderstanding on the part of Indians. Unlike the Indians who have enjoyed a long period of peace and prosperity in their country, Pakistanis have endured a near-constant state of conflict for most of this century.
Pakistan was thrust into the conflict when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Pakistan became a Nato supply route. From then until 2021 and the infamous, sudden and hasty withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan, Pakistan has been constantly beset by terrorist attacks. The tribal areas were no-go zones and the military was constantly carrying out operations in them. Terror attacks that killed scores forced people to endure unimaginable levels of stress on a daily basis for years on end.
Terrorist attacks like the shocking and utterly inhumane one on the Army Public School in Peshawar in 2014 shred the nation’s emotional fabric. The tiny corpses that were carried out of the school in the aftermath of that attack are seared in the collective memory of the nation. All of this is to say that unlike India, Pakistanis are used to war because they have been at war for days and years.
They have also developed strategies to cope with war. While writing this article, I had a conversation with Dr Yousuf Zakaria, a consultant psychiatrist in the UK. According to him, the Pakistani reaction tells a deeper story about war and survival. In his view, humour as a coping strategy in times of extreme stress and uncertainty is an iteration of ‘learned helplessness’ on a mass, national level.
As he put it: “Learned helplessness is a phenomenon observed when people, after being repeatedly exposed to stressors they feel powerless to control, begin to internalise a sense of futility. Eventually, even in the face of danger or hardship, they may stop reacting with urgency or alarm — not because they don’t care, but because they’ve learned, consciously or unconsciously, that their reactions won’t change the outcome.”
Humour then is a Pakistani survival strategy.
Decades of political and military instability, the constant threat of terror attacks, unexpected school and work closures, all sorts of upheavals have created a national understanding that worrying at the individual level simply does not matter and will not affect the outcome. As Dr Zakaria put it: “Humour, nationalism, even defiant nonchalance can serve as emotional shields against helplessness. By making light of the threat, people regain a sense of agency — if not over the situation, then at least over how they emotionally experience it.”
This is not to say that the trauma of war was experienced the same way by all. Those living in border areas saw explosions, shelling, and drones in a way those sitting in the urban areas did not.
As a study by the National Centre for Post-Traumatic Stress in the US shows, civilians who are exposed to prolonged combat face many stressors such as the fear of being bombed, displaced, targeted, having restricted access to food and water and even being fearful of experiencing sexual violence. All these threats and fears have undoubtedly affected all those who live near the targeted areas, and especially the Line of Control.
Every Pakistani knows that their worrying would have no effect on the outcome of the war. In deploying humour to deal with the build-up, onslaught and aftermath of the war they took control of their own emotional narrative. This allowed them to at least have control over their feelings even as they had little control over what Indian forces would do or even how their own forces would respond.
Resilience is often the consequence of having endured significant and serious hardship. Pakistanis are resilient because they have borne so much, wars, pandemics, coups and everything else one can imagine.
Last week’s national mood was a victory against despair and an example to the world of a country that is strong because it has endured so much and a people who can laugh — including at themselves — because they know crying will not change the circumstances or the outcome.
rafia.zakaria@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, May 17th, 2025
The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.
IF there was very one obvious lesson from the tumultuous week of conflict we have just left behind, it is that different nations deal with war in remarkably different ways.
Ever since India began to sound the war drums following the Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025, it was all snickers and giggles from the Pakistani side.
Over on social media, where half of all battles now seem to be fought, Pakistanis devised memes and reels that mocked India and themselves. A favourite one was a reel of driving on a Karachi road in the dark, with the voiceover explaining the futility of bombing an already broken and wrecked city.
Others requested that the attack take place when the gas supply was on so that there would be no way of serving tea to the invaders after 9:15 pm. Female Instagram influencers wondered what would be appropriate to wear during the war. Some forecast Eid celebrations at the Taj Mahal, others boasted of plots purchased in DHA Phase 13, located in New Delhi. Mirth and mockery made up the national mood.
This seemed to be remarkably different from how things were across the border. Over there, the more familiar emotions that accompany an impending war were more in evidence, and there was anger, frustration, and fear of the future. The difference in the reaction itself, their own versus Pakistanis’, was something that seemed to surprise and shock the Indians. How could a country rely on humour and jokes to get itself through what were some of the most agonising moments in recent history?
All sorts of upheavals have created a national understanding that worrying at the individual level simply does not matter.
The responses to this question expose a crucial misunderstanding on the part of Indians. Unlike the Indians who have enjoyed a long period of peace and prosperity in their country, Pakistanis have endured a near-constant state of conflict for most of this century.
Pakistan was thrust into the conflict when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Pakistan became a Nato supply route. From then until 2021 and the infamous, sudden and hasty withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan, Pakistan has been constantly beset by terrorist attacks. The tribal areas were no-go zones and the military was constantly carrying out operations in them. Terror attacks that killed scores forced people to endure unimaginable levels of stress on a daily basis for years on end.
Terrorist attacks like the shocking and utterly inhumane one on the Army Public School in Peshawar in 2014 shred the nation’s emotional fabric. The tiny corpses that were carried out of the school in the aftermath of that attack are seared in the collective memory of the nation. All of this is to say that unlike India, Pakistanis are used to war because they have been at war for days and years.
They have also developed strategies to cope with war. While writing this article, I had a conversation with Dr Yousuf Zakaria, a consultant psychiatrist in the UK. According to him, the Pakistani reaction tells a deeper story about war and survival. In his view, humour as a coping strategy in times of extreme stress and uncertainty is an iteration of ‘learned helplessness’ on a mass, national level.
As he put it: “Learned helplessness is a phenomenon observed when people, after being repeatedly exposed to stressors they feel powerless to control, begin to internalise a sense of futility. Eventually, even in the face of danger or hardship, they may stop reacting with urgency or alarm — not because they don’t care, but because they’ve learned, consciously or unconsciously, that their reactions won’t change the outcome.”
Humour then is a Pakistani survival strategy.
Decades of political and military instability, the constant threat of terror attacks, unexpected school and work closures, all sorts of upheavals have created a national understanding that worrying at the individual level simply does not matter and will not affect the outcome. As Dr Zakaria put it: “Humour, nationalism, even defiant nonchalance can serve as emotional shields against helplessness. By making light of the threat, people regain a sense of agency — if not over the situation, then at least over how they emotionally experience it.”
This is not to say that the trauma of war was experienced the same way by all. Those living in border areas saw explosions, shelling, and drones in a way those sitting in the urban areas did not.
As a study by the National Centre for Post-Traumatic Stress in the US shows, civilians who are exposed to prolonged combat face many stressors such as the fear of being bombed, displaced, targeted, having restricted access to food and water and even being fearful of experiencing sexual violence. All these threats and fears have undoubtedly affected all those who live near the targeted areas, and especially the Line of Control.
Every Pakistani knows that their worrying would have no effect on the outcome of the war. In deploying humour to deal with the build-up, onslaught and aftermath of the war they took control of their own emotional narrative. This allowed them to at least have control over their feelings even as they had little control over what Indian forces would do or even how their own forces would respond.
Resilience is often the consequence of having endured significant and serious hardship. Pakistanis are resilient because they have borne so much, wars, pandemics, coups and everything else one can imagine.
Last week’s national mood was a victory against despair and an example to the world of a country that is strong because it has endured so much and a people who can laugh — including at themselves — because they know crying will not change the circumstances or the outcome.
rafia.zakaria@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, May 17th, 2025
