An emerging India through Pakistani Eyes - threats and counter strategies

[Srinivas_K]

Problem with Pak that they understand, where are they now.

So now they thinking let attach Pak to India this way we(Pak) also recognize in the world.

They cant digest where India is and where are they(Pak).

The west is categorising Pakistan as dangerous country. Nukes of Pakistan are in focus I think.

 

[Hari Sud]

The quest for prosperity

Pakistan’s highway to prosperity and stability goes through India. And India’s entry to the developed world depends on its cooperation with Pakistan. Prosperity and peace in South Asia...

www.thenews.com.pk

The quest for prosperity
Pakistan’s highway to prosperity and stability goes through India. And India’s entry to the developed world depends on its cooperation with Pakistan. Prosperity and peace in South Asia can only be achieved through the principle of workability.

Bangladesh today has better economic and political standing, which will ultimately lead to its economic prosperity, because it relies on the workability principle when maintaining its relations with India, without compromising on its interests. It is time for Pakistan to work its way out of its economic and political crisis by applying the same principle.
The principle of workability is a concept where, despite all differences, people and nations find a way to talk to each other. By maintaining contact with each other, they work out a plan to resolve or minimize the areas of conflict. When people and nations have no contact with each other, they lose control over different situations and other people.
In 1947, when Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah responded to a question on India-Pakistan relations by saying that these relations would be most-friendly and cordial, he meant that they would follow the principles of ‘workability’. According to the late Sharifuddin Pirzada, an authority on Jinnah, the Quaid wanted the relationship of Pakistan and India to follow a similar pattern to that of the US and Canada.
Despite his differences with Jinnah and his opposition to the idea of Pakistan, Gandhi also announced a fast until death to get Pakistan its due share in assets. He also wanted a working relationship between Pakistan and India. Also, despite the 1948 war over Kashmir between the two countries, Liaquat Ali Khan and Nehru signed the 1950 pact to protect minorities. Similarly, Ayub Khan and Nehru signed the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960. Ayub Khan also signed the Tashkent Agreement with LB Shastri in the 1960s. In the 1970s, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indira Gandhi signed the Simla Accord.
In the past, India and Pakistan always found a way to maintain their mutual relations. Unfortunately, this is not true anymore. The unending territorial conflict over Kashmir and the resultant miscalculated policies on both sides have widened differences and distrust between the two neighbours. All prospects of peace and cooperation and its resultant benefits for the people of both countries have become remote. Many opportunities of improving relations on a permanent basis were missed in the past. Now, the only way forward is to accept and adopt the principle of workability. It is a challenge for the leaderships of both sides.
In the 1970s, the US wanted to improve its ties with China. This could happen due to Pakistan’s role in bringing the two countries together. India has been denying Pakistan any chances of using this principle of workability to keep contact with India. The neighbouring country believes that its behaviour has a more severe impact on Pakistan as, according to it, India has figured out alternate ways to keep moving forward. It now finds itself in the league of large economic, political and technological powers. But given India’s energy needs and its long desire to have access to European, Central Asian and Middle Eastern markets, it still needs Pakistan.
Pakistan has to understand that it does not benefit anyone if it denies India access to these markets and energy resources. India will still find a way to these markets, albeit at a much higher cost. But in the process, Pakistan will lose a great opportunity.
Both countries need to review their policies towards each other. Pakistan has paid a huge price during the last 20 years after the unfortunate 9/11 incident. The doctrine of strategic depth apparently failed as the threat from its western front did not subside. India partly succeeded in isolating Pakistan, which consequently made Pakistan more dependent on other countries for maintaining its strategic balance. It is again a big misconception and needs to be revisited in the light of new economic and geo-political realities. Despite big claims of economic turn around and recovery, there appears to be no hope of sustainable growth and development in the near future partly due to domestic turmoil and instability.
Pakistan’s economy is now totally dependent on foreign loans and aids and foreign-funded projects for its survival. The decades-old security and development paradigm put forward by Ayub Khan in his book ‘Friends not Masters’ needs to be revisited. Tragically, the first 30 years were lost and we could not find a working relationship between the two nations.
The bitterness and distrust created by military conflicts in the next four decades did not allow them to work out a permanent solution to their problems. In real terms, despite denials, both countries missed out on the true blessings of peace and prosperity.
India’s foreign policy towards Pakistan is also frozen in time. The BJP is unwilling to change its policy, stance and beliefs towards Muslims and Pakistan, not realizing that the over 700 million Muslims in South Asia are a reality to be recognized. This religious extremism is an existential threat to humanity. The fruit of peace and prosperity resulting from mutual cooperation, trust and trade remain unrealized due to such stagnant approaches to old issues.
Pakistan has all along insisted on the settlement of ‘issues and problems’ before any economic and other cooperation is made. India always puts economic and other cooperation before anything else. Because of this rigidity, from the UN resolutions to the Agra Summit, everything has become a tale of failures. Pakistan and India are permanent neighbours.
South Asia is academically and strategically a recognized area of study because almost one-fifth of the world’s population live here. The region is a matter of great attraction and interest (also due to being a potential nuclear holocaust) for all the great economies. The US, Europe, Russia and China are interested in exporting their goods to this region as it has a big consumer market for their products. If both countries cooperate in the field of trade and business, then instead of being a consumer society they can revive the economic glory of the Mughal era which used to contribute over 38 per cent to the global economy.
Pakistan and India have remained prisoners of geography after Partition. They are caught in an unending territorial conflict that has drained their resources. India has also become a prisoner of history as it is unwilling to permanently adjust to the idea of Partition. India has a huge Muslim population, and Pakistan also has a sizable Hindu population. These religiously marginalized groups are the direct victims of this lack of workability between the two nations. It is time to find a way towards a workable future for the prosperity of the region.

As long as Pakistani Army and ISI reins supreme in Pakistan, then no amount of advice like the above tendered by the former Pakistani Attorney General will become effective. They are literally following Zulfikar Bhutto’s advice that they will eat grass in order to get the Bomb and Kashmir. The Pakistani politicians and generals followed it literally. Now they really are eating grass except for Saudi, Chinese and American (IMF & World Bank) cash.

Truthfully, India likes it and wishes that Pakistanis eat grass for ten more years. That is time needed for India to reach $10 Trillion economy and become world power with greater economic clout, much superior to Chinese consumer goods clout. Already the Global Manufacturing Chain is heading towards India instead of China. The US Treasury Secretary’s visit to India was in connection to that. In addition, a bunch of belligerent leaders in Peking together with threatening noises to invade Taiwan is helping US, Japan and Europe to relocate manufacturing to India.

Pakistan will not see light at the end of the tunnel. It has to suffer more. I hope Saudis, China and America keep giving it some money with strings attached to prolong Pakistani misery. It will suit India fine…… cheers.

 

[Lonewolf]

imagine their posturing minus their nukes,thats the key here,training and sending inside neoghbours through cover fire yet claiming to be innocent is pretty much schoolyard bully behavior.

Game of Wack a mole...thats how i would describe it,but interestingly their citizens doesnt seems to mind though,while sending a brainwashed kid into a hostile territories for pennies whereas their masters living a posh life on the cost of the country.

It's not like this anymore , government funding for terrorist activity is only for cooperation and cover fire including travel arrangements etc , rest the people do crowd fundings , volunteer for the role of jihadi etc , their society and our society is totally different, don't go by the logic of "leadership is at odd , people share blood" , you haven't seen their radicalism properly yet , it's like ,kill us all because we are kafirs , seen it first handedly, those mofos are clever , they sometimes act dumb, tries to make friends with you just for benefits

 

[Indx TechStyle]

If you have time kindly post such arguments wrt state sponsored terrorism and plausible deniability

That is too cliché and monotonous set of statements not worth argument.

Do pakistanis think or blame india for removing imran khan from pm and to his subsequent assasination attempt?

Some do. What's the big deal here? Online Pakistanis claim things without proves or logics.

Problem with Pak that they understand, where are they now.

So now they thinking let attach Pak to India this way we(Pak) also recognize in the world.

They cant digest where India is and where are they(Pak).

It's their cope mode (this time prolonged). With every leap of gap between India and Pak, they deny it, doubt it, they weep like this, accept the fact and then move on trolling Indians in other ways. It's a rinse and repeat cycle which will continue even if India's GDP per capita crosses 5 times of Pak.

Gap in economic and strategic power in India and Pakistan will continue to increase and people will learn to ignore Pakistan just as they do to Nepali or Bangladeshi trolls.

As @ezsasa said

it's not childish by any means, they talk like this when they feel they are on backfoot. they will take an aggressive tone when they think they have parity or an advantage in their hands.

 

[Alamarathan]

That is too cliché and monotonous set of statements not worth argument.

Some do. What's the big deal here? Online Pakistanis claim things without proves or logics.

It's their cope mode (this time prolonged). With every leap of gap between India and Pak, they deny it, doubt it, they weep like this, accept the fact and then move on trolling Indians in other ways. It's a rinse and repeat cycle which will continue even if India's GDP per capita crosses 5 times of Pak.

Gap in economic and strategic power in India and Pakistan will continue to increase and people will learn to ignore Pakistan just as they do to Nepali or Bangladeshi trolls.

As @ezsasa said

Does shebaz enjoy the same artificial clout like imran or they despise him for replacing IK,i mean in general

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Does shebaz enjoy the same artificial clout like imran or they despise him for replacing IK,i mean in general

No, Shahbaz is a temporary installation for the time being establishment gets rid of Imran. He's not popular as an individual leader at all.

Mid of 2010s saw rise of popular leaders and nationalist movements in Poland, Italy, Hungary, India, US, Philippines and so forth. Imran was an attempt of Pakistan army to assimilate rise of popular leader in Pak. Off course, it backfired onto them.

 

[Alamarathan]

backfired onto them.

To be precise,into his legs

 

[Indx TechStyle]

To be precise,into his legs

0 out of 10 in that staged attack LOL.

 

[Alamarathan]

0 out of 10 in that staged attack LOL.

We should blackpill them by saying his wifes blackmagic caused such setbacks for IK,

 

[Indx TechStyle]

We should blackpill them by saying his wifes blackmagic caused such setbacks for IK,

Or we should circulate that Imran is dead and sitting one is an imposter.
(Given that Sharif once called for IK's post-mortem after being shot and IK said, "I was murdered but still I can't register an FIR LOL).

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Want Pak to have relations with US but…: Imran Khan draws parallel with India
Imran Khan: "I basically want a dignified relationship with the US like India. India has a very dignified relationship with the US," Imran Khan said.

Imran Khan: Former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan is seen.(AP file)

Former Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan said that he wanted the United States to have a "dignified relationship" with Pakistan similar to what it shares with India, in an interview with UK-based publication Financial Times. Imran Khan said that India has a "very dignified" relationship with the US.

"I basically want a dignified relationship with the US like India. India has a very dignified relationship with the US," Imran Khan told Financial Times. The remarks come following Imran Khan's claims that the US conspired to remove him as prime minister a few months ago.

Citing India's decision to import Russian oil, Imran Khan said that India says "no" to the US and takes priority for its people. Even Pakistan should be allowed to say no, Imran Khan asserted calling the ties between Islamabad and Washington as that of a "master-servant".

"Our relationship with the US has been as of a master-servant relationship, or a master-slave relationship, and we've been used like a hired gun. But for that I blame my own governments more than the US," Financial Times quoted Imran Khan as saying.

"As far as I'm concerned, its over, its behind me. But, whatever the US desires could not have happened without people here who actively took part in the conspiracy to get rid of me," Imran Khan further said.

Imran Khan was removed from office through a vote of no-confidence in April this year.

Off course this doesn't work out in a simplistic way Imran likes to believe, given India is only country besides US with a capacity and along with a future capacity to fight China one on one.

America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act for New Delhi's purchase of Moscow's S-400 surface-to-air missile system, suggesting India is simply too important to the United States' Indo-Pacific strategy to risk angering it with sanctions.

Modi's Multipolar Moment Has Arrived

Russia's war in Ukraine has benefited India as great powers are competing more vigorously for New Delhi's affection, particularly the United States and China. India has also prevented its Russia policy from spoiling partnerships with key European and Indo-Pacific partners. These trends, if...

www.rand.org

 

[Bharatiya]

A tiny bit of educated Pakistanis do realize that the distance between India and Pakistan is growing exponentially. They just are a pitiful minority and can't do anything about it. These are the kinds that you find online that praise India's development and bash their govt for lack of it.

But most of them, even the Phd-wallas still use the old frame. They can't de-hyphenate India-Pakistan, can't get out of same-same, they think India would compromise for Pakistan, they still think they are super important for India's access to central asia. They really think they have relevance.

When India ignores them after all their bark, they can't fathom why the method that worked 10 years ago isn't working anymore. But it's good this way.

Even the world populace in general is oblivious of the changes happening at the foundation of India. The West's image of India didn't change much economically or in infra or R&D in the past 10 years.

China had the same thing. Most of the world was oblivious to the giant China was becoming when all the ground work was being laid. Then one day they suddenly saw a great economy on the world stage.

We still have a long way to go. But I think the world will continue to remain oblivious to the changes in our country until it suddenly wakes up. It's good for us, I think.

When in doubt, see where the investors are going. They see the future more clearly than any common person. It's literally what they do.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Still crying lol.
Reports on BrahMos missile incident ‘disingenuous attempt’ to absolve India of its ‘irresponsible nuclear behaviour’: FO
The Foreign Office on Wednesday said that Indian media’s reports about the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general (DG) calling the BrahMos missile incident “not a cause of specific concern” were a “disingenuous attempt” to absolve India of its “irresponsible nuclear behaviour”.
The BrahMos missile — a nuclear-capable, land-attack cruise missile jointly developed by Russia and India — was fired into Pakistan territory on March 9, prompting authorities to seek answers from New Delhi on the safety mechanisms in place to prevent accidental launches.
In a report on November 14, The Indian Express quoted international nuclear watchdog IAEA as saying that it did not see the incident as any cause of “specific concern”.
In an interview with The Indian Express at COP27 climate change conference, IAEA DG Rafael Mariano Grossi said that the watchdog didn’t seek any information from the Indian government on the incident.
“We are constantly looking at all the situations around the world and of course, we look with interest when a very important member state of the IAEA has issues. But it (the BrahMos incident) was never an issue of any specific concern for us,” the report quoted Grossi as saying.
Responding to the development today, FO spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra Baloch said that the report should have “been qualified by stating that IAEA has no mandate on such matters”.
“The DG’s response cannot be purposely misinterpreted to trivialise the incident of a nuclear-capable BrahMos missile fire with grave implications for regional and global security.
“The incident has raised several questions about India’s conduct as a nuclear state, including whether it was actually an accident. India also needs to answer questions about the underlying intentions, technical features and reliability of the missile system, safety, security and nuclear command and control protocols, and the presence of rogue elements in the Indian military,” the FO spokesperson said.

She added that India needed to explain “several repeated incidents” of nuclear and radioactive material theft and illicit trafficking, saying that they were more relevant to the IAEA mandate.

Baloch went on to say that India was expected to report these nuclear security-related incidents under the IAEA Incidents and Trafficking Database.

“These critical questions, which remain unanswered, should continue to be of concern to the international community.”

Tension over the incident
After the incident was reported, the FO had summoned the Indian envoy to register a protest over the unprovoked violation of its airspace, saying such “irresponsible incidents” reflected the neighbouring country’s “disregard for air safety and callousness towards regional peace and stability”.

It also called for a thorough and transparent investigation of the incident, the results of which should be shared with Pakistan.

The Indian defence ministry had subsequently shared that the incident was “deeply regrettable” and attributed the “accidental firing” to a “technical malfunction”. Following India’s admission, Islamabad had questioned why New Delhi failed to immediately share information about the incident and acknowledged the occurrence only after Pakistan announced it, seeking clarification.

The FO had taken note of India accepting the missile accident, saying that the matter could not be addressed through the “simplistic explanation” by India and had listed a set of questions and issues in this regard, which it had said must be answered by the Indian authorities.

The United States had also later chimed in, saying that it had “no indication” that the missile launch was “anything other than an accident”.

The Indian Air Force said in August that the government had sacked three officers over the incident but the FO subsequently rejected India’s “purported closure” of the inquiry and reiterated the demand for a joint probe into the incident.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

'India ignoring us': Pak Pres' public lament; Claims New Delhi 'not cooperating' | Details

 

[Indx TechStyle]

'India ignoring us': Pak Pres' public lament; Claims New Delhi 'not cooperating' | Details

Ignorance about history and even current geopolitics seems to be case with entirely Pakistani leadership even including president now as if Imran and Sharif weren't cringy enough.
President Dr.Arif Alvi's speech at the closing session of Margalla Dialogue | GTV News | 17 November

At 03:42
He talks about Non Aligned Movement (NAM)
"That was a movement which challenged a bipolar world and protected perspectives of non aligned countries. But as time passed, even those who formed NAM, we knew, for example India, it was an aligned state but still a founder of Non Aligned Movement. NAM is still alive with countries like Venezuela and Azerbaijan. We don't mean that we challenge bipolar world by NAM. But that we also want to be recognized...."

Summary of his blabbering:

• Smaller countries should have a greater role in world.
• Talks about power mechanisms and history of UN.
• A regional power first starts flexing its muscles in its region and then goes around to bully world with its military superiority. (Warning world to cap it right there)
• Preffered emerging great powers should not be given veto.
• Talks about power structures.
• Takes an example of a Chinese movie where a Chinses sailor visits 7 countries only for trade unlike Europe which kept on conquering them to explain "difference between China and west" LOL.
• Pakistan talking about peace is too unusual of a thing to happen.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

'India ignoring us': Pak Pres' public lament; Claims New Delhi 'not cooperating' | Details

So, what "India not cooperating with Pakistan" means here? Anyone can interpret?

 

[notaname]

So, what "India not cooperating with Pakistan" means here? Anyone can interpret?

Simple, India is not longing for Aman ka tamasha and not sending them alms in form of Trade and now they have to spend more, with India coming hard on Terrorism with an systematic approach, they are feeling the pinch, they want old India which even with 26/11 and continued terrorist attack carried on with trade and kept giving them alms and not even tried to surround them diplomatically.

And now when they are in gutter they want to clinch on India's generosity by saying we want peace the second they come out of that gutter they will again bark and try to scratch us.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Simple, India is not longing for Aman ka tamasha and not sending them alms in form of Trade and now they have to spend more, with India coming hard on Terrorism with an systematic approach, they are feeling the pinch, they want old India which even with 26/11 and continued terrorist attack carried on with trade and kept giving them alms and not even tried to surround them diplomatically.

No, India hasn't formally blocked any exports to Pak. They themselves didi it. "Not cooperating" is clearly something else.
It might be back channel economic aid to Pakistan, hard stance of Islamists in Kashmir and possibly even involvement in ongoing unrests all around Pak. Pak used gain a lot from both enmity against as well as engaging with India.
We might come to know after next Pakistani general elections or after total economic/political meltdown of Pakistan or may be we will never to know.

And now when they are in gutter they want to clinch on India's generosity by saying we want peace the second they come out of that gutter they will again bark and try to scratch us.

Pakistan parroting peace narratives of western left is the most interesting transition throughout entire development. Pakistan was never a middle power or regional power (it coned itself to believe it was one). It was always a small power in league of Iraq, Ukraine, Romania and Philippines who tried to punch far above its weight without any backup and crashed into the league of small countries from a small power.

The entire ceremony and speeches about global peace and power differential among countries sounded like it's a small European country or a small island developing country expressing its worldview.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Deteriorating ties

THE Pakistan-India bilateral relationship has never been a normal one, experiencing cycles of intense rivalry and even all-out war, alternating with cold peace and efforts to mend fences. The current phase is a decidedly negative one, with relations having dipped considerably after India’s controversial annulment of held Kashmir’s autonomy in 2019.

However, over the past few months there have been a number of unpleasant exchanges involving top officials of both countries. In October, the Indian defence minister issued a provocative statement threatening to ‘retake’ Gilgit-Baltistan, while the next month, a senior Indian general made a similarly hostile remark, threatening to ‘retake’ Azad Kashmir.

The situation over the past few days has deteriorated considerably, with Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah saying earlier this week that India was involved in acts of terrorism on Pakistani soil, and pointing to New Delhi’s alleged involvement in last year’s Johar Town blast in Lahore. This was followed a day later by Minister of State Hina Rabbani Khar telling a presser that “no country has used terrorism better than India”.

Then, at a UN media stakeout in the US, a particularly tense indirect exchange was witnessed between Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari and his Indian counterpart. The Indian minister had termed Pakistan the “epicentre of terrorism”, while accusing Pakistan of having sheltered Osama bin Laden. Mr Bhutto-Zardari responded firmly, pointing out that the “butcher of Gujarat” was now the Indian prime minister, and that India’s top offices were occupied by RSS men. In the aftermath of this incident, there have been further recriminations between both governments, while a BJP mob attempted to storm the Pakistan high commission in Delhi on Friday.

From here, Pakistan needs to proceed cautiously and handle the diplomatic spat in a mature and forward-looking fashion. It must be clearly communicated to India that any threats hurled against Pakistan’s territorial integrity will not be tolerated, and that this nation will defend itself robustly.

Similarly, New Delhi must be made aware that its involvement in fanning unrest and terrorism within Pakistan is unacceptable and will be exposed internationally. However, with these red lines set, it is in the interest of both to work towards peace, instead of beating the drums of war.

Pakistan’s repeated offer of engagement has been turned down by the far right dispensation ruling India. The peace process is unlikely to be resumed anytime soon, but at least both sides should dial down the rhetoric to prevent further escalation.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Peace between neighbours

The writer is a security analyst.
PAKISTAN has formally shared with the UN secretary general a dossier enclosing the details and evidence of Indian involvement in the deadly Johar Town blast in Lahore in 2021, among other incidents of terrorism. After the UN Security Council adopted a statement warning of the increasing dangers of militancy, envoys from India and Pakistan traded heated accusations of terrorism against each other. The dossier shared on the eve of the UN Security Council (UNSC) meeting under India’s presidency adopted a presidential statement on countering terrorism.

Needless to say, India will leave no stone unturned to malign Pakistan through accusations of terrorism. When India was elected as the non-permanent member of the UNSC, Pakistan foresaw such a tactical move, but when India took over the Council’s presidency in December, Islamabad was on alert. Though the UNSC statement underscored the obligation of nations to curb terrorism, after the meeting, the Indian external affairs minister made allegations of terrorism against Pakistan.

Many observers believe Pakistan has highlighted the Indian role in terrorism as a counter-strategy. The terror incident, which was specifically referred to in the dossier, took place in June 2021 in Lahore near the residence of Hafiz Saeed, the head of the banned Jamaatud Dawa (JuD). He was kept under house arrest there after being awarded a life sentence in a terror-financing case by a local court. Pakistan’s security agencies resolved the case within months, and claimed that execution of the terrorist attack had, undeniably, India’s fingerprints all over it. It is understandable that Pakistan has the right to choose the time to launch the dossier as per diplomatic and geopolitical needs. However, observers are not ruling out the factor of change in the military leadership here, which may signal geopolitical priorities in the coming months and years.

Just a few days after taking charge as army chief, Gen Asim Munir visited the Rakhchikri sector of the Line of Control (LoC). While addressing the troops, he vowed that Pakistan’s armed forces would “not only defend every inch of our motherland but take the fight back to the enemy”. The army chief was referring to the statements of Indian ministers on the status of the Gilgit-Baltistan region. However, many Pakistani and Indian commentators conceived his statement in the context of the ongoing political crisis inside Pakistan and the debate on military involvement in the country’s political affairs. Just before his retirement, former army chief Gen Bajwa had acknowledged that decades of interference by the security institutions in domestic politics had exposed them to public criticism.

Despite New Delhi’s arrogance, Pakistan should continue offering peace to India.​

Before that, the ISI and ISPR chiefs had made similar admissions in a presser, and said that the security institutions would refrain from interfering in domestic politics. Many experts still cast doubts on such assertions as old habits die hard. Only time will tell for how long the security institutions adhere to their pledge. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity to look into and respond to the security challenges the country is facing. Focusing on conventional and unconventional security challenges will restore the military’s public image.

On the list of internal security threats, the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Islamic State-Khorasan and Baloch insurgents are at the top. A well-calibrated approach to address the issue is needed; experts writing on these pages have made suggestions. A similar discourse is required on conventional threats, as most threats are interlinked and shape the geopolitical landscape of the country.

India’s major diplomatic tool against Pakistan has been to keep on talking about ‘terrorism’. It has used it more effectively at international forums, but now, using this tactic is becoming difficult for New Delhi, thanks to Pakistan’s campaign against terrorism and initiatives in compliance with FATF-related regulations. These measures have improved the country’s image, and now the task is to keep up the momentum of success. Dealing with the TTP is a domestic affair, and the international community, including Pakistan’s allies in the East and West, will appreciate a coercive approach to tackle the challenge. However, banned organisations like the JuD and Jaish-e-Mohammad still have the potential to erode the country’s successes. Both organisations are dormant at the moment, and many of their leaders have been sentenced by the courts. If they resurface again, even in a politically transformed form, it would allow India another opportunity to malign the country.

Nevertheless, there is a strong probability that had the June 2021 terrorist attack succeeded in eliminating its target, India unofficially would have taken the credit, like the US Marines who killed Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil.

The diplomatic challenges can be dealt with effectively if Pakistan’s muscles remain strong and the country can execute the ‘quid pro quo plus’ strategy that the army chief referred to in his LoC address. Nonetheless, in case of any conflict, the escalation ladder should remain the last option; this can come through the internal strength of a strong economy and full public support. It may require a doctrinal shift though. Experts often suggest peace with all neighbours and economic engagement to transform the conventional threat doctrine, making it important to talk to neighbours on all disputes.

The previous military leadership had much to say about a geo-economics shift, but practically it did not tap its full potential because of the challenging situation in Afghanistan and tensions with India. The low-intensity conflict on the LoC and Indian intrusion in Pakistani airspace and an effective Pakistani response kept the attention on geo-economics transformation. Though Pakistan has taken several measures to reduce tensions, including opening the Kartarpur Corridor for Sikh pilgrimages, India has not reciprocated. Despite all the arrogance of the Indian leadership, Pakistan should continue offering peace to India.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s recent statement about revitalising Saarc was a positive move. It probably also reflected the new military leadership’s priorities, which, despite all the hurdles and negativity around security institutions, does not appear to be averse to a resumption of talks with India.