PAKISTAN/INDIA/KASHMIR
Defiant unity
THERE are times when one is struck by the remarkable resilience of our people and their ability to rally together despite the country’s many internal contradictions and divisions. The developments over the past days and Pakistan’s measured responses to them have served up one such reminder.
Accosted with irrational belligerence by an unusually ornery neighbour, Pakistanis have not lost their calm. Instead, they have set aside their many differences and put up a united front. Hardened by years of overcoming setbacks and seemingly insurmountable challenges, they have learned to keep their head while others are losing theirs. Even with the threat of war looming over their heads, ordinary Pakistanis have gone about life as usual, confident that they will see this crisis through, like they have so many others. This attitude, perhaps, is what continues to give the nation the strength to face every adversity head-on, sometimes while mocking it to its face.
But it should not be taken for granted. This is a time for both political and institutional leaders to reflect deeply on why this country’s people continue to offer their unquestioning support in times of crisis, and whether it is appropriate to continue to paint opposition, dissent and dissatisfaction with certain perspectives as ‘disloyalty’ to the nation. It is normal for people to disagree with each other, and sometimes to disagree strongly. It is merely a symptom of a healthy and passionate sense of national identity. Differences in worldviews should never be taken to suggest that opponents do not agree with the basic principles on which this nation was founded. It is harmful for leaders, civilian or otherwise, to frame internal conflicts in these terms, especially when what they are really trying to do is to silence opposing viewpoints. As Pakistanis have demonstrated over the past week, their differences are quickly overcome in the face of a common crisis.
Forces inimical to this nation must have been hoping to exploit its internal differences to weaken it from within. The united response from the people of Pakistan has demonstrated that they will get no satisfaction. However, this is also an opportunity to rebuild bridges and bring people closer together. The state has an opportunity to capitalise on the prevailing sentiment and address outstanding social and political crises, ensuring that no obvious vulnerabilities remain for enemies to exploit. The sooner issues are settled, the better.
Meanwhile, New Delhi’s act of suspending the Indus Waters Treaty needs a strong response, and the Modi regime’s hate-filled rhetoric and aggression need to be checked in every domain before it grows any bolder. Irrational though it is, the intent next door seems crystal clear. Pakistan needs to focus all its energies on protecting its interests. This fight must be won on every front.
Published in Dawn, May 2nd, 2025
Disturbing escalation
Zahid Hussain
DAWN
Editorial
Editorial
Published May 2, 2025
THERE are times when one is struck by the remarkable resilience of our people and their ability to rally together despite the country’s many internal contradictions and divisions. The developments over the past days and Pakistan’s measured responses to them have served up one such reminder.
Accosted with irrational belligerence by an unusually ornery neighbour, Pakistanis have not lost their calm. Instead, they have set aside their many differences and put up a united front. Hardened by years of overcoming setbacks and seemingly insurmountable challenges, they have learned to keep their head while others are losing theirs. Even with the threat of war looming over their heads, ordinary Pakistanis have gone about life as usual, confident that they will see this crisis through, like they have so many others. This attitude, perhaps, is what continues to give the nation the strength to face every adversity head-on, sometimes while mocking it to its face.
But it should not be taken for granted. This is a time for both political and institutional leaders to reflect deeply on why this country’s people continue to offer their unquestioning support in times of crisis, and whether it is appropriate to continue to paint opposition, dissent and dissatisfaction with certain perspectives as ‘disloyalty’ to the nation. It is normal for people to disagree with each other, and sometimes to disagree strongly. It is merely a symptom of a healthy and passionate sense of national identity. Differences in worldviews should never be taken to suggest that opponents do not agree with the basic principles on which this nation was founded. It is harmful for leaders, civilian or otherwise, to frame internal conflicts in these terms, especially when what they are really trying to do is to silence opposing viewpoints. As Pakistanis have demonstrated over the past week, their differences are quickly overcome in the face of a common crisis.
Forces inimical to this nation must have been hoping to exploit its internal differences to weaken it from within. The united response from the people of Pakistan has demonstrated that they will get no satisfaction. However, this is also an opportunity to rebuild bridges and bring people closer together. The state has an opportunity to capitalise on the prevailing sentiment and address outstanding social and political crises, ensuring that no obvious vulnerabilities remain for enemies to exploit. The sooner issues are settled, the better.
Meanwhile, New Delhi’s act of suspending the Indus Waters Treaty needs a strong response, and the Modi regime’s hate-filled rhetoric and aggression need to be checked in every domain before it grows any bolder. Irrational though it is, the intent next door seems crystal clear. Pakistan needs to focus all its energies on protecting its interests. This fight must be won on every front.
Published in Dawn, May 2nd, 2025
Disturbing escalation
Zahid Hussain
April 30, 2025
The writer is an author and journalist.
THE war clouds have thickened with India’s rising bellicosity.
The terrorist attack in Pahalgam in occupied Kashmir and the massacre of some two dozen tourists seem to have provided the excuse the Modi government has been looking for to escalate its warmongering. Jingoism has reached new heights. Rational voices are being drowned in a cacophony of insanity. The Line of Control is already heating up with the exchange of fire between Indian and Pakistani troops.
New Delhi is building a case for its aggression by trying to blame Pakistan for the Pahalgam terrorist attack. But it has failed to substantiate its allegation. The major reason for India’s vehemence is that the terror attack has shattered the narrative that the situation in occupied Kashmir is completely normal and that the people have accepted New Delhi’s decision to abrogate the held territory’s autonomous status. The Modi government is not willing to accept its own intelligence failure.
Some Indian analysts say that such a daring attack in one of the most protected areas could not be possible without local support for the militants. The fact is that even the use of brute force has failed to crush the Kashmiris’ struggle for their right of self-determination. According to the New York Times, “India has not officially identified any group as having carried out the massacre, and it has publicly presented little evidence to support its claim that Pakistan was behind it.”
While Indian officials maintain that their investigation is still continuing, the Modi government has already implicated Pakistan in the terrorist attack.
To back their assertion, according to international media reports citing officials, “In the briefings to diplomats at the foreign ministry, Indian officials have described Pakistan’s past patterns of support for terrorist groups… .” Interestingly, within hours of the terrorist attack, New Delhi announced a series of punitive actions against Pakistan. While addressing an election campaign in Bihar, the Indian prime minster warned of “unimaginable punishment for the attackers and their backers”.
Indian leaders in their hubris seem to forget the perils of military escalation.
It’s apparent that the Modi government’s war cry against Pakistan is an attempt to divert the world’s attention from its own failure in the occupied territory. There are strong indications that India plans to launch military strikes on multiple targets despite the absence of any evidence of Pakistan being linked to the latest terrorist attack.
Even a limited military strike by India could lead to a wider conflagration. The Indian calculation that military actions against Pakistan could be kept below the nuclear threshold is fallacious. It would be an extremely dangerous escalation in one of the world’s most volatile regions. The two South Asian nations have been on the brink of conflict many times previously. But the situation today appears to be far more serious with the cessation of all diplomatic channels between the two countries.
India’s decision to unilaterally suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, whic has survived three wars between the two countries, is ominous. Although it may not be possible to block the water flow, Pakistan sees India’s reckless action as a “declaration of war”. Islamabad has announced its own retaliatory actions.
New Delhi seems to have forgotten the lesson of its 2019 air incursion and Pakistan’s swift response that downed an Indian fighter plane. It was American diplomatic intervention that prevented the further escalation of a situation that could have gone completely out of control, with disastrous consequences for regional peace. Indian leaders in their hubris seem to forget the perils of military escalation in a highly combustible environment. The belief that war can produce quick results is extremely dangerous. It’s much easier to start a war than to end it. However powerful a country may be, it cannot command the outcome.
There are so many lessons to be learnt from various wars in recent history, which ended in humiliation even for the most powerful countries. One cannot but agree with the words of an international diplomat that “the more the conflict goes on, the more difficult it will be to have a diplomatic solution”.
The illusion of achieving quick military success often leads to endless quagmires. It is particularly pertinent in the India-Pakistan case. The two countries have been locked in a forever war — overt as well as covert. They have long been blaming each other of fighting a proxy war. The slogans of punishing Pakistan or punishing India only close the door for the resolution of outstanding issues.
What happened in Pahalgam must be condemned, but the tragedy should not be used for warmongering. There is also a lesson for Pakistan, where, too, there is no shortage of warmongers flaunting the country’s nuclear capability or making some other irresponsible remarks, as the defence minister did. It’s not in our interest to exacerbate the situation. There is a need to adopt a more rational approach even in the face of provocation. There is a need to step back from the brink.
The outcome of war is always uncertain, and fighting often produces unintended consequences. There is a tendency for wars to expand, become costlier and last longer than expected. The breakdown of diplomatic ties between India and Pakistan has certainly made communication more difficult, but there are other international channels that should be used to bring down the temperature and create an atmosphere for dialogue.
In 2002, there was imminent threat of a full-fledged war between the two countries, but sanity prevailed. Not only was war prevented, but a more substantive peace process between India and Pakistan was also witnessed. Unfortunately, the war hysteria orchestrated by the ultranationalist Modi government has closed all avenues for negotiations.
India is under the illusion that it has the military superiority to dismantle Pakistan. New Delhi has chosen this time to escalate matters when the world is preoccupied with other major conflicts. But it must understand that the flames of war could also cost India dearly.
zhussain100@yahoo.com
X: @hidhussain
Published in Dawn, April 30th, 2025
Bracing for avoidable blunders
THE war clouds have thickened with India’s rising bellicosity.
The terrorist attack in Pahalgam in occupied Kashmir and the massacre of some two dozen tourists seem to have provided the excuse the Modi government has been looking for to escalate its warmongering. Jingoism has reached new heights. Rational voices are being drowned in a cacophony of insanity. The Line of Control is already heating up with the exchange of fire between Indian and Pakistani troops.
New Delhi is building a case for its aggression by trying to blame Pakistan for the Pahalgam terrorist attack. But it has failed to substantiate its allegation. The major reason for India’s vehemence is that the terror attack has shattered the narrative that the situation in occupied Kashmir is completely normal and that the people have accepted New Delhi’s decision to abrogate the held territory’s autonomous status. The Modi government is not willing to accept its own intelligence failure.
Some Indian analysts say that such a daring attack in one of the most protected areas could not be possible without local support for the militants. The fact is that even the use of brute force has failed to crush the Kashmiris’ struggle for their right of self-determination. According to the New York Times, “India has not officially identified any group as having carried out the massacre, and it has publicly presented little evidence to support its claim that Pakistan was behind it.”
While Indian officials maintain that their investigation is still continuing, the Modi government has already implicated Pakistan in the terrorist attack.
To back their assertion, according to international media reports citing officials, “In the briefings to diplomats at the foreign ministry, Indian officials have described Pakistan’s past patterns of support for terrorist groups… .” Interestingly, within hours of the terrorist attack, New Delhi announced a series of punitive actions against Pakistan. While addressing an election campaign in Bihar, the Indian prime minster warned of “unimaginable punishment for the attackers and their backers”.
Indian leaders in their hubris seem to forget the perils of military escalation.
It’s apparent that the Modi government’s war cry against Pakistan is an attempt to divert the world’s attention from its own failure in the occupied territory. There are strong indications that India plans to launch military strikes on multiple targets despite the absence of any evidence of Pakistan being linked to the latest terrorist attack.
Even a limited military strike by India could lead to a wider conflagration. The Indian calculation that military actions against Pakistan could be kept below the nuclear threshold is fallacious. It would be an extremely dangerous escalation in one of the world’s most volatile regions. The two South Asian nations have been on the brink of conflict many times previously. But the situation today appears to be far more serious with the cessation of all diplomatic channels between the two countries.
India’s decision to unilaterally suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, whic has survived three wars between the two countries, is ominous. Although it may not be possible to block the water flow, Pakistan sees India’s reckless action as a “declaration of war”. Islamabad has announced its own retaliatory actions.
New Delhi seems to have forgotten the lesson of its 2019 air incursion and Pakistan’s swift response that downed an Indian fighter plane. It was American diplomatic intervention that prevented the further escalation of a situation that could have gone completely out of control, with disastrous consequences for regional peace. Indian leaders in their hubris seem to forget the perils of military escalation in a highly combustible environment. The belief that war can produce quick results is extremely dangerous. It’s much easier to start a war than to end it. However powerful a country may be, it cannot command the outcome.
There are so many lessons to be learnt from various wars in recent history, which ended in humiliation even for the most powerful countries. One cannot but agree with the words of an international diplomat that “the more the conflict goes on, the more difficult it will be to have a diplomatic solution”.
The illusion of achieving quick military success often leads to endless quagmires. It is particularly pertinent in the India-Pakistan case. The two countries have been locked in a forever war — overt as well as covert. They have long been blaming each other of fighting a proxy war. The slogans of punishing Pakistan or punishing India only close the door for the resolution of outstanding issues.
What happened in Pahalgam must be condemned, but the tragedy should not be used for warmongering. There is also a lesson for Pakistan, where, too, there is no shortage of warmongers flaunting the country’s nuclear capability or making some other irresponsible remarks, as the defence minister did. It’s not in our interest to exacerbate the situation. There is a need to adopt a more rational approach even in the face of provocation. There is a need to step back from the brink.
The outcome of war is always uncertain, and fighting often produces unintended consequences. There is a tendency for wars to expand, become costlier and last longer than expected. The breakdown of diplomatic ties between India and Pakistan has certainly made communication more difficult, but there are other international channels that should be used to bring down the temperature and create an atmosphere for dialogue.
In 2002, there was imminent threat of a full-fledged war between the two countries, but sanity prevailed. Not only was war prevented, but a more substantive peace process between India and Pakistan was also witnessed. Unfortunately, the war hysteria orchestrated by the ultranationalist Modi government has closed all avenues for negotiations.
India is under the illusion that it has the military superiority to dismantle Pakistan. New Delhi has chosen this time to escalate matters when the world is preoccupied with other major conflicts. But it must understand that the flames of war could also cost India dearly.
zhussain100@yahoo.com
X: @hidhussain
Published in Dawn, April 30th, 2025
Bracing for avoidable blunders
April 29, 2025
DAWN
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
AS India and Pakistan brace for a fresh round of their hop-on, hop-off military stand-off, which some say could be more grievous this time than before, the words of Noam Chomsky from 12 years ago have come into focus by their sheer prescience.
“There are two problems for our species’ survival — nuclear conflict and environmental endgame,” Chomsky warned in his 2013 book Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe.
The nuclear dimension of the threat is all too well known, but the reference to environmental catastrophe is less widely grasped. It, nevertheless, holds great relevance for South Asia, where rivers are facing the combined adverse consequences of urbanisation, big dams arresting the flow, and snow in the lofty mountain ranges losing cover with global warming. India and Pakistan are both facing the growing twin challenge of flood and drought. A water-sharing dispute would pose a mortal crisis for one or both.
Also, Kashmir, claimed by three and not just two countries, has increasingly been the venue for devastating floods, the season for which is not far away. The tragedy of Pahalgam is heartrending, but it cannot be redressed with war drums, weaponising water-sharing or spreading hate.
The wider world is grappling with a potentially devastating tussle between Israel and Iran, in which both sides claim to be prepared to inflict and absorb unspeakable damage. Between the two, Iran’s Achilles’ heel may not be the overwhelming firepower of the US and Israeli alliance.
Analysts say Iran has the military wherewithal to seriously damage Israel with conventional weapons. Iran’s less-discussed challenge lies in a crippling water crisis at home. In the event of peace winning the day in the ongoing talks with the US, Iranian rulers would be quickly combating an even more intractable predicament that could turn into a political blight for the rulers. A dispute over the Helmand river with Afghanistan lurks in the background. Water shortages have led to internal migration to northern provinces and cities around Tehran.
The tragedy of Pahalgam is heartrending but it cannot be redressed with war drums.
In the 1980s, an Indian diplomat of Persian origin was travelling from Tehran to Delhi when he coined a quaint description for Dubai, where I happened to be working with a newspaper: “What are you doing in this desalinated water economy?”
Akbar Khalili’s half-mocking comment flowed from Iran’s civilisational history and its neighbourhood boasting the Babylonian civilisation. Civilisations form around water. The two have fought bitter wars over their claims on Shatt al-Arab. Israel took care of its water needs in 1967 by defeating Arab armies and subsequently expanding its reach to Syria’s Golan Heights, a water-rich region that enables Israel to brazenly export its popular brand of ‘kosher wine’. Egypt, harking to another great civilisation, is locked in tense jousting with Sudan and Ethiopia over claims on the Nile.
“While a nuclear strike would require action, environmental catastrophe is partially defined by wilful inaction in response to human-induced climate change,” Chomsky said in his book. “Denial of the facts is only half the equation. Other contributing factors include extreme techniques for the extraction of remaining carbon deposits, the elimination of agricultural land for bio-fuel, the construction of dams, and the destruction of forests that are crucial for carbon sequestration.” India and Pakistan tick all boxes.
“As if the crisis in the cryosphere was not enough, now we have to deal with weaponisation of water and violation of an international treaty that will destabilise the region further. We need to address survival issues together and find solutions instead of creating new problems,” observed Pakistan’s leading environmentalist, Aisha Khan. She was commenting on X about India’s abeyance of the Indus Waters Treaty with an implied intent to divert water from Pakistan-bound rivers.
Fortunately, the plan, if that is what it is, would not be fructifying anytime soon. Pakistan has responded by cautioning India that any diversion of its share of water, if it actually happens, would be deemed an act of war. India’s options, mercifully, remain theoretical until material conditions obtain — involving prohibitive costs and a lead time of at least two decades — to actually carry out the threat. In the meantime, it has left the door open to agreeable possibilities, which can be helped along only by a resumption of talks. A parallel view expressed in The Wire posits that Pakistan could challenge the abeyance of the treaty in the International Court of Justice.
A disturbing feature of the current India-Pakistan stand-off is the heavy use of religious idiom to underpin rivalries. Here they share similarities with two other theatres of war — one raging, the other shaping. The Ukraine-Russia conflict has witnessed the rupture of a historically common church. Ukraine passed a law in August last year to ban religious groups linked to Moscow in a move targeting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which the government has accused of complicity in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu and his ruling cohorts have summoned biblical references for Palestinians as ‘Amaleks’, scriptural slur for enemies of Israel who deserved to be slaughtered. Netanyahu later offered unconvincing explanations for the hateful remarks.
The Indian clamour for revenge for the insane killing of 26 tourists, primarily Hindus, in Pahalgam by terrorists believed to be Muslims has targeted Indian Muslims and Pakistan virtually interchangeably. The Jammu and Kashmir assembly had to pass a resolution to condemn the media, chiefly abusive TV channels. Joining the religious fray was the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat. He quoted the Ramayana to suggest that it was the duty of the king to protect his people from an evil rival.
Adding to the mix was the claim in Pakistan of an abiding incompatibility between Hindus and Muslims to live together. Had that been so, the Quaid wouldn’t have vehemently opposed the partition of Bengal and Punjab, whose non-Muslim population he envisaged as equal citizens of the Pakistan of his vision.
jawednaqvi@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, April 29th, 2025
AS India and Pakistan brace for a fresh round of their hop-on, hop-off military stand-off, which some say could be more grievous this time than before, the words of Noam Chomsky from 12 years ago have come into focus by their sheer prescience.
“There are two problems for our species’ survival — nuclear conflict and environmental endgame,” Chomsky warned in his 2013 book Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe.
The nuclear dimension of the threat is all too well known, but the reference to environmental catastrophe is less widely grasped. It, nevertheless, holds great relevance for South Asia, where rivers are facing the combined adverse consequences of urbanisation, big dams arresting the flow, and snow in the lofty mountain ranges losing cover with global warming. India and Pakistan are both facing the growing twin challenge of flood and drought. A water-sharing dispute would pose a mortal crisis for one or both.
Also, Kashmir, claimed by three and not just two countries, has increasingly been the venue for devastating floods, the season for which is not far away. The tragedy of Pahalgam is heartrending, but it cannot be redressed with war drums, weaponising water-sharing or spreading hate.
The wider world is grappling with a potentially devastating tussle between Israel and Iran, in which both sides claim to be prepared to inflict and absorb unspeakable damage. Between the two, Iran’s Achilles’ heel may not be the overwhelming firepower of the US and Israeli alliance.
Analysts say Iran has the military wherewithal to seriously damage Israel with conventional weapons. Iran’s less-discussed challenge lies in a crippling water crisis at home. In the event of peace winning the day in the ongoing talks with the US, Iranian rulers would be quickly combating an even more intractable predicament that could turn into a political blight for the rulers. A dispute over the Helmand river with Afghanistan lurks in the background. Water shortages have led to internal migration to northern provinces and cities around Tehran.
The tragedy of Pahalgam is heartrending but it cannot be redressed with war drums.
In the 1980s, an Indian diplomat of Persian origin was travelling from Tehran to Delhi when he coined a quaint description for Dubai, where I happened to be working with a newspaper: “What are you doing in this desalinated water economy?”
Akbar Khalili’s half-mocking comment flowed from Iran’s civilisational history and its neighbourhood boasting the Babylonian civilisation. Civilisations form around water. The two have fought bitter wars over their claims on Shatt al-Arab. Israel took care of its water needs in 1967 by defeating Arab armies and subsequently expanding its reach to Syria’s Golan Heights, a water-rich region that enables Israel to brazenly export its popular brand of ‘kosher wine’. Egypt, harking to another great civilisation, is locked in tense jousting with Sudan and Ethiopia over claims on the Nile.
“While a nuclear strike would require action, environmental catastrophe is partially defined by wilful inaction in response to human-induced climate change,” Chomsky said in his book. “Denial of the facts is only half the equation. Other contributing factors include extreme techniques for the extraction of remaining carbon deposits, the elimination of agricultural land for bio-fuel, the construction of dams, and the destruction of forests that are crucial for carbon sequestration.” India and Pakistan tick all boxes.
“As if the crisis in the cryosphere was not enough, now we have to deal with weaponisation of water and violation of an international treaty that will destabilise the region further. We need to address survival issues together and find solutions instead of creating new problems,” observed Pakistan’s leading environmentalist, Aisha Khan. She was commenting on X about India’s abeyance of the Indus Waters Treaty with an implied intent to divert water from Pakistan-bound rivers.
Fortunately, the plan, if that is what it is, would not be fructifying anytime soon. Pakistan has responded by cautioning India that any diversion of its share of water, if it actually happens, would be deemed an act of war. India’s options, mercifully, remain theoretical until material conditions obtain — involving prohibitive costs and a lead time of at least two decades — to actually carry out the threat. In the meantime, it has left the door open to agreeable possibilities, which can be helped along only by a resumption of talks. A parallel view expressed in The Wire posits that Pakistan could challenge the abeyance of the treaty in the International Court of Justice.
A disturbing feature of the current India-Pakistan stand-off is the heavy use of religious idiom to underpin rivalries. Here they share similarities with two other theatres of war — one raging, the other shaping. The Ukraine-Russia conflict has witnessed the rupture of a historically common church. Ukraine passed a law in August last year to ban religious groups linked to Moscow in a move targeting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which the government has accused of complicity in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu and his ruling cohorts have summoned biblical references for Palestinians as ‘Amaleks’, scriptural slur for enemies of Israel who deserved to be slaughtered. Netanyahu later offered unconvincing explanations for the hateful remarks.
The Indian clamour for revenge for the insane killing of 26 tourists, primarily Hindus, in Pahalgam by terrorists believed to be Muslims has targeted Indian Muslims and Pakistan virtually interchangeably. The Jammu and Kashmir assembly had to pass a resolution to condemn the media, chiefly abusive TV channels. Joining the religious fray was the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat. He quoted the Ramayana to suggest that it was the duty of the king to protect his people from an evil rival.
Adding to the mix was the claim in Pakistan of an abiding incompatibility between Hindus and Muslims to live together. Had that been so, the Quaid wouldn’t have vehemently opposed the partition of Bengal and Punjab, whose non-Muslim population he envisaged as equal citizens of the Pakistan of his vision.
jawednaqvi@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, April 29th, 2025
