Iโve just listened to the first half-hour of Op Sindoor, the latest Brown Pundits Browncast featuring Amey, Poulasta, and Omar. The full episode runs over 90 minutes; Iโll be reflecting on the rest in due course. For now, some thoughts on the opening segment, which focuses on the recent terror attack in Pahalgam and its aftermath.
๐งจ The Attack Itself: Pahalgam as a National Trauma
The episode begins by recounting the massacre in Pahalgam, Kashmirโa tourist meadow turned execution ground. Twenty-six people, most of them honeymooning Hindus, were murdered after being identified through religious markers: circumcision, Kalma recitations, names. The hosts donโt shy away from calling it what it is: a targeted Islamist attack. The group responsible, the TRF (The Resistance Front), is introduced as a Lashkar-e-Taiba cutout, designed to launder Pakistan-backed militancy through a local Kashmiri lens.
There is a palpable sense of cumulative fatigue in how the Indian speakers describe itโnot as an aberration, but as part of a 30-year continuum of such violence. The emotional register is high, but justified. The use of plain terms like terrorists over euphemisms such as militants or gunmen reflects a long-standing frustration with how such attacks are framed in international discourse.
๐ค ย Modi, Nawaz, and the Civ-Mil Waltz
The conversation then shifts into a timeline of India-Pakistan diplomatic cycles, particularly under Modiโs tenure. From the 2014 swearing-in invitation to Nawaz Sharif, to Modiโs surprise visit to his family wedding, the podcast tracks how genuine outreach was followed by attacksโPathankot, Uri, and now Pahalgam.
Omar provides a thoughtful perspective on Nawaz Sharif as a civilian leader who may have sought improved ties, but whose efforts were repeatedly undercut by Pakistanโs military establishment. He outlines the pattern: moments of civilian diplomacy followed by military-backed escalations, followed by internal political retaliation against the civilian leadership. The Memogate, Pathankot, and Panama Papers incidents all return here as nodes in a familiar loop.
๐ From Kargil to Pulwama: The Strategic Pattern
Thereโs also a helpful review of the broader historyโfrom Kargil (1999) to the โsurgical strikesโ post-Uri (2016), and Balakot following Pulwama (2019). The episode makes clear that Indiaโs strategic posture has changedโnot only in rhetoric but in willingness to carry out cross-border retaliation. Whether or not these operations are effective is left to interpretation, but whatโs underscored is this: India is no longer sticking to the script of strategic restraint.
The discussion also explores how opposition politics within India can undermine or politicize national security issuesโhow, for instance, some domestic factions have questioned the Balakot strike, or tried to frame past attacks through partisan lenses. Thereโs a recognition that public trust in state narratives is often fragmented, particularly in a democracy with a complex media ecosystem.
๐งฑ The Wall: Pakistani Denialism and Indian Disbelief
A major recurring theme is the asymmetry of public discourse between the two nations. Indian frustration seems less about Pakistanโs hostility and more about its deniabilityโthe sense that groups like LeT, JeM, and their affiliates operate with impunity and, worse, with plausible deniability from the state. Pakistani media narratives are described as either suppressive or deflective: dismissing terror groups as โnon-state actors,โ or framing Indian actions in Balochistan as equivalent provocations.
The contrast is striking: India sees the issue as justice delayed, while Pakistan positions it as parity in grievance. Whether one agrees or not, the result is an emotional and strategic deadlock.
๐งญ ย Why This Podcast Matters
The first 30 minutes of Op Sindoor capture the emotional texture of India-Pakistan relations in a way many formal pieces miss. There is no attempt to force โboth-sides-ism,โ yet each perspective is given space to breathe. The Indian frustration is raw but rooted in experience. Omarโs contributions offer valuable context on how these dynamics look from the other side, even when the distance seems unbridgeable.
This is not just a conversation about a terror attack. Itโs about the structural incapacity for peace, the limits of civilian diplomacy in Pakistan, and the ongoing recalibration of Indian doctrine in response to repeated provocations.
๐ป Still Listeningโฆ
Iโll share more thoughts on the rest of the episode soonโespecially on the Indus Waters Treaty, the expanded airstrikes post-Pahalgam, and the discussion of domestic Pakistani responses. But even in this first third, Op Sindoor is a must-listen for anyone trying to understand why peace in South Asia always seems one funeral too late.
https://thewire.in/security/decoding-a-frozen-conflict-between-india-and-pakistan-who-is-the-winner
“The recent diplomatic attacks and military ceasefire between India and Pakistan only seem to suggest a โfrozen conflictโ, which can erupt again based on the domestic conditions and political landscape. Dialogue, along with diplomacy, is the only way forward.
There have been a couple of instances where the two countries have come close to finding a peaceful solution. However, this time, if the two countries have to find a peaceful solution, it will require a genuine commitment to fight terrorism from the Pakistani military and the Indian government to reaffirm Indiaโs secular social fabric.”
I have seen a lot of Indian TV debates in the last couple of weeks and I believe that Indian hawkishness is counterproductive. Many panelists (diplomats and national security strategists) speak of “punishing” Pakistan. I understand that this expresses Indian rage and frustration at repeated acts of terror. However, one has to realize that Pakistan (meaning the state and the army) doesn’t feel “punished”. If it did, Asim Munir would not have been promoted to Field Marshal. As a panelist on one of these shows pointed out, for Pakistan a draw against India is a victory.
I was also struck by the aggressiveness with which Rajdeep Sardasai (to give one example) dealt with Beena Sarwar–who is one of the most liberal Pakistanis and certainly doesn’t represent the Army. If this is how one deals with liberal and arguably pro-India Pakistanis, then it seems that there is no Pakistani interlocutor who will be acceptable to Indians.
Beena just had an event at Soas yesterday, which I was meant to attend.. Southasia is one word is her initiative
Yes, she is the person behind “Aman ki Asha”. Which is why it was so weird to see Rajdeep aggressively questioning her. To quote him “Is ‘Aman ki Asha’ dead and buried?’
Beena Sarwar is the last person who one could accuse of representing the interests of the Pakistan Army.
I don’t think Pakistanis realize that Indians are not really concerned with the inner workings of Pakistan (why should they, they are not Pakistanis).
An argument from the Pakistani liberals is often – We want peace with India. All of these terrorist proxies are the military’s game. We don’t like them too as they have jeopardized democracy etc etc.
Thing is the internal matters of Pakistan are not India’s business – whether they are a liberal secular democracy or an Islamic republic run by the army or anything in between.
What matters to India is proxy attacks done by Pakistan-backed militants. The fact they are backed by the military/ISI rather than a democratic government is moot.
That’s why the aggressiveness of Indians wrt the likes of Beena Sarwar. They are not seen as “Pakistani liberals” but “Pakistanis”.
And anyways it is not like this minuscule section of Pakistani society can influence foreign policy. So the point of some liberal “interlocutor” is anyways moot.
If even Beena Sarwar (whom “PakNationalists” would argue is anti Pakistan) is unacceptable to Indians, it means no Pakistani is acceptable to you. You can’t have dialogue in that case.
Beena made the point on Rajdeep’s show that Pakistanis like her want to see terrorists defeated. But when Indian jets are used to do so then one can’t argue that that was not an escalation by India.
Even if these guys were “acceptable” not like they have any power to do anything.
India have “tried” peace and dialogue multiple times including Modi in 2015 when HE reached out to Nawaz before being stabbed in the back.
India has showed restraint multiple times including 2001, 2008 and even 2016, 2019 to a degree.
This time was just a further escalation to show the Pakistani military that the “initial” escalation was done by them in Pahalgam.
Pakistan’s entire bluff was that we will not fight India directly as we can’t win against a bigger power but can work under the cloak of deniability using proxies.
Thins is Pakistan is not a “rational” actor whom you can have “dialogue” with so no point in even trying.
What explains 2008 Mumbai? Everything was going well. Even India Pakistan cricket had gotten boring due to oversaturation.
“What explains 2008 Mumbai?”– Pakistan Army doesn’t want peace and every time there is a dialogue process they do something to blow it up. That’s one explanation.
However, unfortunately the only alternative to dialogue is periodic rounds of military confrontation. That’s a very dangerous thing between two nuclear neighbors.
On one point you are advocating “dialogue” and on the other accepting that the military which runs the country will “blow up dialogue”.
What is the point then?
These periodic military confrontation are the only way forward. It is not a nice solution but it is what it is.
Like I said, India’s best bet is not to have “dialogue” with “civilian leaders” who hold no power but to keep raising the costs (especially to the military) every time there is a “big” terrorist attack while consolidating power so that 30-40 years down the line it can settle the issue along with international support.
Again you can claim that the military only got “stronger” due to gaining more popularity etc but that is a domestic Pakistani issue and nothing to do with India. The only thing India wants is no terrorist attacks.
You are entitled to your POV. But India is not Israel and Pakistan is not Palestine. Shivshankar Menon recently told Karan Thapar that India needs to periodically “mow the lawn” wrt to Pakistan. I found that quite an offensive phrase since it is one used by Israel wrt to Gaza. Gaza doesn’t have nukes.
I am admitting that the Pak Army doesn’t want peace with India. It is against their institutional interests. They need to justify their defence budgets and control over the country. Yet, General Musharraf was ready to make peace. That’s what the Musharraf-Manmohan Plan was about. And this is the same General Musharraf who blew up the dialogue process with Kargil.
“Conflict management” only goes so far. Eventually there will have to be a settlement–probably not in our lifetimes.
India also has no desire to blockade Pakistan like Gaza and control it’s borders. Also has no desire to deny statehood (Pakistan is already an existing state and both countries have embassies with each other).
“Mowing the lawn” only needs to happen if Pakistan does anything. O/w Pakistan can do what it wants.
Nukes will not come into the picture like it did not come this time.
For all the bluster of nukes, Pakistan is not going to use nukes unless they are fighting a losing war and India have no desire to “conquer” Pakistan.
Both Israel and Russia have “nukes” but have not used them in their long conflicts so far.
“Nukes” are a last resort not something that can be used willy-nilly.
“Conflict management” might not go far but that is the only solution to the Pak army.
There will be a settlement eventually but further in the future, more it is on Indian terms as the power differential grows and India becomes a bigger player globally.
OK. I just found Menon Sahab’s use of “mowing the lawn” offensive.
Some Indians do posture as if India is Israel. I’m glad you recognize that it is not.
‘hum atomi takhat hai’ is becoming boring. you guys should use it once.
Its not enough for Pakistanis to simply point the finger at their own military and then proceed to shrug their shoulders.
Get a ***ing grip on your own country before you come ask India and Indians to engage in ‘dialogue’.
I don’t know what power you think I have over the Pakistan Army.
It would be in India’s interest to work with Pakistani liberals (like Beena Sarwar) rather than alienate them.
Also just pointing out that India has missed opportunities to make peace. There was a point where General (and at that point President) Musharraf was willing to accept the LOC as the international border. Asim Munir probably wouldn’t accept that.
I understand that Pakistani “mango people” have zero power over the PakMil.
But that doesn’t mean the burden to rein them in is shifted to Indian government and Indian civilians. If it is, then don’t expect ‘sacrifice’ in response. Expect escalation and targeted strikes at increasing costs for PakMil.
You want to escalate. “PakMil” will escalate back.
You really want all of us to be trapped in this vicious cycle?
But “PakMil” didn’t. That’s the point.
Operation Baniyan hit nothing. For all the talks of responses post May 7, nothing happened. Indian AD was too strong. “International media” including satellite data and lack of evidence put forth by Pakistan attests to that.
All the drone/missiles strikes were repelled and India just upped the ante on May 10.
For all the bluster and promotions to Field Marshall, there simply are no videos of missiles falling over Indian cities like there is for Pakistani ones on both the 7th and 10th.
yelling at a ‘Beea Sarwar’ is useless. And as such, such “TV news” are useless to begin with.
So-called Pakistani liberals and peace activists have a real blind spot in understanding the fatigue that the Indian side feels in attempting engagement with Pakistan. Its to their own detriment. If you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Indian side – from independent citizen activists all the way up to the elected government – have repeatedly attempted engagement with Pakistan and yet suffered repeated terror attacks, then you can sit and there moan about why the Indian side is refusing to ‘engage’.
The simple fact boils down to this – Pakistani state apparatus has consistently deployed murderers to push its revisionist agenda forward. And until these actions are visibly seen to be ‘cease-and-desisted’, there is no hope for “any” meaningful talks with Pakistan. Whether its with random Beenas, or anyone else.
๐ the wire. It’s always the wire. I always wondered who they write for, it seems their target audience is clear. Not to keep pointing out their bias, but notice how the article completely avoids the most significant event in Kashmir this week, forget normalcy, India is forging ahead with integration.
Indian TV debates are basically reality tv at this point, I’m surprised you watch them and then complain about aggressiveness, the whole show is about sensationalism and eyeball grabbing. Their aim is to mud wrestle for amusement of the LCD.
One clear positive push for India is the number of announcements over defence contracts being awarded within the country. Also the calls to fund the Kaveri engine again. The psychological damage over the Rafales suddenly has the french announcing that they will start manufactiring the fuselage in India.
To clarify: I didn’t mean TV “debates” like Arnab’s but relatively sensible shows like Rajdeep Sardasai’s. The panel on the particular show I saw included Indian diplomats, Beena Sarwar, American analysts etc.
Rajdeep is and always has been terrible. Sensationalist, self promoting, trp hungry. He is exactly in the same mould, the decorum might be better but serious journalism it is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP7PTBiEUY
Is this the video? Post a link next time. Ideally cue it up. I couldn’t stand watching Rajeev for the whole thing but he doesn’t seem rude in the bits i skimmed. I don’t see what the point of Beena on the show is, does she influence any policy in Pakistan, who is she representing really, the ever vanishing Pakistani intellectual? Do they matter anymore?
You (Pakistan) just had an 18% defence budget hike. Surely if the country was governed with any intellectual advice that would not be the first move.
The news is they are buying a brand new HQ19 missile defence system from China. Wouldn’t it be far cheaper to hand over Hafiz Saeed?
Yes that’s the video. I guess since it was a “Global Roundtable”, there had to be a guest representing the Pakistani point of view. Never mind that Beena certainly doesn’t represent the official Pakistani view.
Of course we had a defence budget hike. We are preparing for the next war. As your PM says “Operation Sindoor” is only paused.
As I keep saying, these kinds of confrontations only strengthen the Pakistan Army’s control over Pakistan.
And like I have said, Pakistan Army’s control over Pakistan is a Pakistani internal matter and does not concern India.
India’s objectives are to “dissuade” Pakistan from terror attacks and decrease the frequency/intensity of the attacks. I am under no delusion that there won’t be conflicts in the future.
But if retaliation can keep buying time as opposed to “talks” which solve nothing, then it is the best of a lot of bad options.
“Operation Sindoor” is “paused” in the sense that any future terror attacks emanating from Pakistan will see military retaliation.
India has no interest in initiating things or “conquering” Pakistan.
Of course Pakistan might not believe it and prepare accordingly by increasing military budget and defenses which is completely fine and their prerogative.
I’m cynical enough to believe that “Operation Sindoor” is “paused” because Modi wouldn’t have been able to sell a US-mediated ceasefire to the Indian public.
Pakistan Army’s control over Pakistan very much does concern India (you’re entitled to disagree). The Pakistan Army is probably the most anti-India element of Pakistani society (except maybe Hafiz Saeed who many people could argue is a tool of the Pakistan Army). In a rational world, India’s interests would be better served with a strong Pakistani civilian government in power. Someone like Nawaz Sharif for example would probably accept the LOC as an International Border and open up trade between the two Punjabs. Pakistan Army isn’t going to accept this.
I can criticize my own country and accept that the Pakistan Army uses terror attacks for their own interests. I’m not a blind “PakNationalist” (Omar Sahab’s term).
My fundamental difference with you is that India has to prove that a terror attack emanated from Pakistan. Simply alleging it isn’t enough.
Warmongering exists on both sides and reinforces each other. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
“Proving” solves nothing.
First of all who do you prove to? Secondly what happens after it is proven?
There is no “international order”. Only power matters. There is a reason that no country (including China) applied sanctions to India even after it struck Pakistan “without proof”.
Pakistan army’s control over Pakistan does not bother India. It is Pak army using proxies.
If Pak army uses the India bogeyman to increase their grip on power and terrorize their own populace/destabilize democracy, it has nothing to do with India.
In fact if Pakistan army does not use proxies, India has no qualms with even doing business with them ensuring their pockets get fatter.
While a democratic Pakistan w/o army rule would be good, that is not a lever India has access to.
Maybe in the future when India is stronger (and that is how a resolution will occur) but not as of now.
As of now this current pattern has to persist.
>>>In a rational world, Indiaโs interests would be better served with a strong Pakistani civilian government in power. Someone like Nawaz Sharif for example would probably accept the LOC as an International Border and open up trade between the two Punjabs. Pakistan Army isnโt going to accept this.
and yet, the blunt reality is that there is simply no scope for a “strong Pakistani civilian” government to magically manifest itself into being, any time in the near future. Nawaz Sharif was kicked out of the PM’s chair for ‘Dawnleaks’. i.e. simply daring to point out the failure to prosecute the 26/11 terrorists.
And there is simply nothing that Indian policy can do or change, that can magically make Pakistani civilian governments stronger. This is a Pakistani problem that needs to be solved by Pakistanis. And until that emancipation from PakMil slavery somehow takes place, if ever, the Indian government is duty-bound to do all in its power to deter, dissuade and protect against terror attacks on Indian soil. And if that means “escalating” or “warmongering”, then it is what it is.
Pakistani “liberals” shouldn’t shamelessly ask Indians to tolerate bloodshed of Indians in some stupid hope of “strengthening” Pakistani civilians.
I feel like there’s no guarantee that a strong civilian government will be any better toward India than the military regimes. Across the contiguous Muslim world we’ve seen instances where dictatorships are overthrown only to be replaced by democratically elected religious extremists.
If the military backed off, perhaps the next civilian leader would be a right wing populist like Imran Khan, who riled up so many Pakistanis including in the diaspora. His views on India are extremely negative and hostile, routinely characterizing and comparing the Indian government to the Nazis; and his support for the Taliban is well-known.
There are some civilians and even potential civilian leaders who want to take a conciliatory approach, but given the state of the masses in Pakistan, in terms of education levels and the influence of religious extremists, I would wager that it is more likely than not someone even more strongly anti-Indian would emerge.
Ind-Pak are most definitely, not at peace. And given the hostilities, why should the Indian side give a rat’s ass that PakMil’s control over its civilian slaves is strengthened? From a strategic standpoint, it suits the Indian hawk perspective just fine, if the Pakistani budget is yet again mortgaging its future to spend on PakMil’s arms gluttony and corruption.
This is obviously an issue for Pakistan and Pakistanis, but not so much for India.
I guess you want another “war” in six months or a year. You’ve made that clear.
You are not a reasonable interlocutor. So I’m not going to respond to you any further.
No one wants a war. but if Pak start one, they will get one.
PM Modi is the one who claims that any act of “terrorism” (of course according to his subjective definition) is an “act of war”. There will be a terrorist incident sooner or later. I obviously don’t want one but this is likely to happen.
This is not a sustainable strategy.
Way more sustainable than “dialogue” with people who are powerless (your words, not mine).
When the next Pakistan-backed Islamist terrorist attack happens in India, what do you suggest that India do in response?
If your response is that India should embrace secularism more, I would note that numerous major, devastating Pakistan-backed Islamist terrorist attacks took place when INC was in power.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the BJP and I would prefer India strengthen its secularism. Not a fan of religion and state mixing. But if that’s your prescription for stopping further attacks, then I don’t think history is on your side.
Any other ideas?
How about investigate the attack and place the evidence before the international community rather than simply making allegations and start bombing “terrorist camps”?
Again this “international community”.
Because Pakistanis have now realized India is far far powerful than them they believe in this mythical “international community” to maintain parity.
What will placing “evidence” before this “international community” do? Will Pakistan hand over the terrorists?
India did for Mumbai 2008.
I certainly hope that India had sufficient intelligence to indicate links to Pakistan. But if India were to do what you said, to conduct a formal investigation, like it did for the Mumbai attacks, and presented evidence indicating that the attacks had links to Pakistan, what do you think the response or outcome would be?
You don’t even need to present evidence to Pakistan–I get that there is no trust there. But you can present it to the international community.
You always have the military option as a last resort. I’m just objecting to this attitude (which Modi has indicated) of “we’re not going to investigate anything and just start bombing Pakistan”.
This is not going to help things. When India bombs Pakistan, even the most liberal Pakistanis will line up behind the Pakistan Army. It then becomes a matter of national self defence.
The international community could put pressure on Pakistan through IMF, FATF etc.
You always have a military option when all else fails.
India seems to think it is Israel and can periodically “mow the lawn”. But Palestine is not a nuclear power. It doesn’t even have a conventional army. Pakistan is a different case.
In a vacuum, I agree with your approach. You should present your findings, prosecute your case, and then, if adequate action is not taken, you escalate to military actions. But given the history over the past 30 years, I can understand the desire to respond militarily more quickly rather than going through that whole song and dance.
If India waited, let’s say, 1 year to conduct an investigation, presented its findings in the UN that it believes the attack has links to Pakistan, what would happen next?
If Pakistan did not take action on the groups identified by India after its investigation and India responded militarily, what would the response be? Would Pakistani liberals line up behind India and against Pakistan?
I’m struggling to see how the outcome would be any different.
I don’t want any war. But that desire for peace has been taken for granted by Pakistanis, and milked cynically for ‘operating space’ for jihadi violence by PakMil.
No more of that. If PakMil gives itself the ability to inflict terrorist violence on Indian civilians, and if an Indian supports the right of their government to respond with any and all policy options including overt military action, that somehow makes him ‘unreasonable’? Why, because it doesn’t suit your agenda, or agree with your perspective?
An utterly ‘frog in the well’ mindset that is.
If India bombs any sites in Pakistan again, we are prepared to escalate.
India is not Israel and Pakistan is not Palestine.
For all this talk, Pakistan did not (could not) escalate.
They tried to, but their drones and missiles were intercepted post the 7th.
India bombed Pakistan TWICE, remember and the second time was on direct military targets.
Pakistan didn’t (couldn’t) bomb India.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/14/india-pakistan-strikes-conflict-damage/
If Pakistanis want to get in an arms race with India, we should encourage it.
The economies will diverge further which will lead to India having a higher military budget which will lead to the economies diverging further which will lead to…
I saw a post by a Pakistani somewhere who said they should get new missile defense systems, new missiles, new submarines etc etc.
Considering they don’t have native production capabilities for any of these (while India does) where is the money going to come from, even accounting for the discounts Chinese give them?
I don’t think anyone is stressed about the Pakistanis and their budget on the Indian side, it looks very late stage soviet union.
On the face of it things seem to have worked out quite well. Even the Rafale loss seems to have damaged French pricing more than Indian capability.
The trouble I see is that China needs to combat test a new set of weapons to prepare for their Taiwan invasion, the previous generation proved inadequate to purpose. Pakistan’s deeper indebtedness and dependence sets up an ideal proxy war for them. With the nested proxy of terrorism the Chinese can happily battle test with no consequence at all.
Lots of moving parts and the Americans seem to have fully lost their edge in this game. Gutting USAID heavily degraded their on the ground intel ops. The NSA is inward focused, Nato is hollowed out. Tick Tock, ominous times ahead.
‘Ominous times’ are already here, not ahead.
As far as peace with Pakistan goes, India should just have a “cold peace” with Pakistan and ignore them.
Pakistan being Pakistan might resort to terrorist proxies but they should be responded to militarily like this time with proportional escalation. Of course, they might spin it as a “win” and the military might become “stronger” but that is Pakistan’s internal matter, none of India’s business.
Thing is each of these events buys India some time to widen the power differential and just grow more important globally. And the more important India grows the more it will be “allowed” to get away with (For all the celebrations in Pakistan about allies etc it is telling that no countries imposed sanctions/measures on India for literally bombing Pakistan including iron brother China. Even the Muslim countries didn’t really give much of a damn about Article 370 revocation back in 2019 remember).
Eventually a time will come when India will become important enough and the power differential wide enough that Pakistan has to resort to peace on India’s terms (LOC as IB).
This is how China “solved” Tibet, Xinjiang and the international recognition of Taiwan.
I would say somewhere in the 2050s. India will be the undisputed no 3 by then with a wide gap over whoever is no 4 and will be pretty well integrated globally.
And besides the gap between Pakistan and India might be wide enough that even Pakistanis would like to partake of the Indian pie via trade and access to the movie industry/cricket etc which will have grown even bigger (There is a reason Pakistani actors are the biggest proponents of peace. They know where the money is. Imagine the careers of Anglo actors/musicians if they had no access to American markets).
It depends on your objectives. If you want to weaken the hold of the Pakistan Army over the country than such military operations are counterproductive. Shivshankar Menon told Karan Thapar that he doesn’t believe the policy of treating every terrorist attack as an act of war is a good one since it basically gives control to terrorist groups who can start a war at any time. India and Pakistan are neighbors and will have to learn to deal with each other.
On your point about Pakistani actors: After this particular round of conflict, many Pakistani actors have expressed that they are done with Bollywood.
The wire again ๐ . Who wants to weaken the hold of the Pakistani Army? That has never been in India’s wheelhouse of achievable goals. Not every terrorist act is an act of war, the Maoists in Chhattisgarh are never blamed on Pakistan (or even China). Only the ones which the govt is reasonably convinced have a Pakistan hand.
There was a lot of detail on the terrorists in Pahalgam, names, equipment used etc in the press. Of course a lot of Pakistanis call it false flag and made up and what not but the incentives don’t align. Modi doesn’t have a crisis, they were getting ready to open the train line to Kashmir, none of the actions point to anything but the narrative.
Only time will tell. Lets see if it reduces the attacks. I’ll bet there isn’t one until those HQ19 air defences are ready for testing.
“Modi doesn’t have a crisis”– But he does have an election coming up in Bihar and being “tough on Pakistan” seems to play well. Let’s see if it works for him.
When do you think the Bihar election is? Local elections in India are anyway very local issue, caste, reservations, sops, not one vote in Bihar will be cast over Pakistan I assure you. National elections, maybe it can affect but Bihar, no.
Then explain why the first thing Modi did after Pahalgam was go to Bihar for an election rally?
What was he supposed to do? The rally was scheduled, he went. You can see the Biharis didn’t care much about the attack either, it was just background noise to them.
The most charitable thing you can say about Modi’s english is that it is heavily accented, yet he spoke in english to a worldwide audience at a Bihar rally where no one would understand him.
It’s hard to explain both how big and how localized India gets.
Home minister purview, Amit Shah goes to Pahalgam. This is normal behaviour. Manmohan Singh didnt rush to Mumbai in 2008, Shivraj Patil the home minister resigns.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. A case can be made that Modi uses military action against Pakistan for electoral purposes. Balakot was also used in the 2019 campaign.
In the same way Obama used the death of Osama or any politician uses any action which they can take credit for. The history of false flag events typically has a very well documented pattern, this isn’t it. Typically they are carried out once you have all your troops ready and have fully gamed out the scenario (Mukden event by the Japanese, Germany invasion of Poland), the result is an overwhelming devastating attack.
I take it you’re probably not implying false flag but that Modi is more trigger happy as a fight with Pakistan burnishes his strongman credentials. Possibly, but this is not an unknown and is stated publicly. The provocation was perpetrated fully well keeping this in mind.
I could say that the Pakistanis might have wanted to test out the linking of the swedish eyrie radar with their new long range PL15s.
I don’t think Pahalgam was a false flag attack. I know that is an incredibly offensive thing to say to Indians. That is the official Pakistani position however.
But it was never proven in front of the international community that this attack was organized by Pakistan as opposed to carried out by local Kashmiris. I don’t think conducting an investigation before carrying out military action would have been so unreasonable.
India has 29 states. There are 5-6 elections every year including big states.
This has got nothing to do with elections.
but but but “Pakistan” is somehow magically a powerful election totem. At least in the eyes of wishful thinking Pakistani self-proclaimed intelligentsia.
Calm down.
Biharis have far more pressing concerns than “Pakistan”.
Like I said above and a lot of Pakistani liberals misinterpret, India is not concerned with “weakening the hold of the Pakistani army”. Pakistan is a sovereign nation that went its own way in 1947. It’s domestic problems are not India’s.
India just wants to extract a military cost for terrorist activities emanating from Pakistan.
And India is not treating EVERY terrorist attack as an act of war. Stuff like Naxalite issues are mostly India’s domestic problems as are a lot of Kashmiri encounters (although they have some Pakistani support too).
But something as “big” as Pahalgam or for that matter Pathankot and Mumbai will be treated as an act of war.
Pakistani actors might say something but they know where the bread is buttered (and Bollywood riches are going to keep growing as the Indian economy booms).
Mahira was promoting her new movie with some “India-Pakistan” friendship thing post the conflict in London.
I don’t think Pakistani actors really need Bollywood. Most of them are doing very well in the domestic drama industry.
why should Indians give a flying fig over whether “the hold of Pakistan army” is weakened? Its not our business or concern, that is for you Pakistanis to solve. Indian focus is on Pakistani policy and actions.
If and when the Pakistani state – whether led by military or civilians, chooses to change its policies, and ceases its support and embrace of “non-state actors”, they can be rewarded with the carrot of engagement. There is simply no incentive for Indian engagement with Pakistan, as things stand.
Cool. Then be prepared for another “war” in six months or a year.
India and Pakistan conducted a dialogue process during extremely difficult periods. Shutting off dialogue is not a smart option. Indian diplomats like Raghavan Sahab have expressed this view.
That’s fine.
You yourself have admitted the powers that be don’t want peace and want to sabotage dialogue so what is the point of it anyways?
Let the Pakistan army fight a war which is it’s main purpose anyway, not running a country.
Better a ‘war’ between the 2 militaries than a ‘peace’ that demands that regular bloodshed of Indian civilians be tolerated as a PakMil negotiation tactic.
And no, supporting such a stance doesn’t make one an “unreasonable warmonger”.
In fact, one who is asking for India and Indians to just bend over and accept jihadi murders, can be reasoably asked whether they are justifying, and abetting such acts of terror.
Diplomatic Divide by Dr.Humayun Khan & G Parthasarathy
For those interested, the ex high commissioners of India and Pakistan got together and wrote a book about their respective careers in each others countries.
Here is a review.
https://www.ipcs.org/ipcs_books_selreviews.php?recNo=187
Worth a read to better understand each side and how they view each other.
I like The People Next Door by T.C.A. Raghavan (former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan)
https://adarshbadri.me/book-review/raghavan-india-pakistan-relations/
[…] threads are totally fine when the post is about IndiaโPakistan, or if itโs an Open Thread. Let the sparks fly […]
https://thewire.in/world/pakistan-a-phenomenal-partner-in-counterterrorism-centcom-chief-ties-india
“The Commander of the United States Central Command (Centcom), General Michael Kurilla described Pakistan as a โphenomenal partner in the counterterrorism world,โ crediting Islamabad with a series of successful operations against ISIS-Khorasan and advocating for continued US engagement with both Pakistan and India.”
India is really doing well in “isolating” Pakistan.
Again completely irrelevant points.
Pakistan has uses for both USA and China.
India isn’t powerful enough (at this point) to “isolate” them unlike say in cricket.
But India are important enough that they can lob missiles at Pakistan without anyone explicitly coming out against them, placing sanctions, declaring war etc.
I thought the all-party delegations were being sent out to convince the international community of India’s point of view?
Looks like Washington isn’t convinced.
Total waste of time and money.
Same as the Pakistani all party delegation led by Bilawal to “restore” the IWT.
Reality is there is no “international community” which is like a headmaster enforcing rules.
International organizations exist to facilitate common goals like decrease poverty, increase healthcare facilities etc etc where all countries are unified.
Geopolitics everyone has their own goals.
The fact is that no country even did anything against India after India lobbed missiles at Pakistan or suspended the IWT.
Again, not because India is so “good and just” but simply because India has more value to them as a huge economy which is growing fast. Pakistan simply doesn’t provide that value.
That is how the world works.
There is a reason Modi keeps getting invited to G7 every year. ๐
Why is “your PM” Shehbaz never invited lol.
“Isolation” is not people boycotting Pakistan and turning them into a pariah and declaring war on them.
“Isolation” is the “international community” totally turning a blind eye to Pakistan’s “needs” including Article 370 revocation, IWT abeyance, missiles in Rawalpindi etc. And that is basically what India wants.
And while Washington has use of both countries, it needs India a bit more.
Hence India gets civil nuclear deals not Pakistan, hence Indian can buy Russian oil and weapons without getting sanctions and being offered F-35s.
And hence Washington is okay with India beating Pakistan up a bit. Hence the behavior pre Operation Sindoor – Trump washed his hands off the matter and Vance talked about India taking action against terror.
“Don’t kill him as I have need of him but yeah you can beat him up a bit. Break his nose”.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1916481/trump-willing-to-work-on-kashmir-issue-confirms-us-state-dept
India insists that the Kashmir issue is a bilateral matter but it has effectively been internationalized.
It’s going to be extremely annoying for India to hear the US State Department bring up mediation on Kashmir.
Drumpf knows that such rhetoric will buy him easy leverage from the weaker party in the Ind-Pak equation. And unless and until actual “international” discussion of JnK or IWT takes place, such rhetoric is just that.
A copium consolation prize for Pakistanis to congratulate themselves on. While the status quo keeps steadily tilting in India’s favor.
In all this coping, India is quietly building its projects. 3-4 years down the line Pakistan will accept a watered down IWT which is more favorable to India.
They will sell it to their people as a great victory – “See! We made India bow down and restore the IWT”.
It will take you 20 years to build those dams.
And–at the risk of setting you off– let me remind you that Lt. General Kidwai made it very clear that depriving Pakistan of water is a nuclear red line.
You are again looking at a zero sum approach.
India has no plans to build dams to “divert” Pakistan of water. It wants to build dams for its own uses.
And those dams for hydroelectricity production are already in construction since a few years and a few will be finished next year and a few in the years after, not “20 years”.
Of course more dams can be built in the future.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/india-advances-kashmir-hydro-projects-after-suspending-pact-with-pakistan-2025-05-06/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakal_Dul_Dam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratle_Hydroelectric_Plant
Earlier Pakistan would impede these using the IWT only to have them be accepted a few years later. No longer.
And Pakistan can use their nukes if they feel like a “red line” has been crossed. India has more nukes and more powerful ones and second strike capability (including SSBNs).
That will be the end of Pakistan as a country.
Reality is all of this is bluster. After India bombed Pakistan, Pakistan did not bomb India. They got bombed AGAIN before the ceasefire.
Pakistan is not going to use any nukes.
Like I said they will accept a watered down IWT a few years later and declare victory.
I’m sure he’ll solve it just like he solved the Israel-Palestine war and the Russia-Ukraine war, all on “day one” of his administration.
I agree that the US being somewhat neutral in this conflict is a blow to India. But also it’s really hard to rely on anything the Trump administration says or does. If I were Pakistani, I would not count on Trump. His resolution might be something bad for Pakistan, in the same way his proposed resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war was to basically have Ukraine concede everything to Russia.
Fortunately for Pakistan, China and less importantly Turkey do seem like reliable allies.
Again, a “DAWN” news article.
Reality is Washington doesn’t really give much of an f about Kashmir.
India held a G20 meeting in Srinagar and the American representative enjoyed boating around in Dal Lake.
Like I said, Pakistan relies too much on hypothetical “baaps” to save them because they know they can’t themselves.
The article is from “Dawn”. Are you saying the State Department didn’t say what “Dawn” is reporting?
I’m saying that “Dawn” interprets stuff according to convenience.
As does
The Wire. It is obsessed with showing the BJP/Modi in bad light, every article is dedicated to purpose, national interest be dammed.That whole Centcom article was just to point out the govt ploy of sending out delegations to explain the Indian position was a failure.
In the article itself the general/colonel/whatever was talking mainly about the afghan border where the Pakistani interests align with American ones in killing ISIS-K and TTP and ignores the LET,JEM,TLP,TRF proxies which are pointed at India.
https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/uscentcom_posture_statement_2025.pdf
Here is what the general actually wrote. It has nothing to do with India. The entire focus is on ISIS. This statement, which seems completely fine on its own is then twisted by
the wireto show up the Indian Govt as a failure, I would be hard pressed to find a better example of journalistic mendacity.FWIW, enjoy the wire as much as you like, I declare my exhaustion in showing you how incredibly biased they are.
Isn’t all media biased in some way or the other?
I’m a liberal. “The Wire” and “Scroll.in” are sources that align with my worldview. For non-India specific news, I would generally rely on “The Guardian”.
I do read “The Print” occasionally but I find it to be too right-leaning.
When it comes to Pakistan, “DAWN” is the newspaper of record.
Is it your contention that the “national interest” requires showing Modi in a good light? There is a place for the opposition’s POV.
You are free to read right-leaning sources.
The all-party delegations were trying to paint Pakistan as a terrorist state. So for the head of CENTCOM to call Pakistan “a reliable counterterrorism partner” or something like that shows that Indian diplomacy is not really having an effect. He also said that he believes the US cannot have a good relationship with India at the expense of Pakistan and vice versa.
Doesn’t all news media do that?
“The Indian Express” will have a POV and so will “Dawn”.
National interest <> Showing Modi in good light, for
the wirethough showing Modi in bad light >> National interest.The Indian Express : Anti BJP but very reliable and unbiased in my opinion.
The Times of India: Favours whichever ruling party, no moral compass.
The Hindu: Socialist secularist old guard, reliably unprovocative, Anti BJP.
The Print : Slighly pro BJP but mostly neutral.
Hindustan Times/ANI/Abp/Aaj Tak whatnot Pro BJP
Swarajya/OpIndia : Hindutva
The context of the centcom statement is very different from where
the wireplaced it. Every govt is a reliable partner against ISIS, even the Iranians hate them. I would agree with the General’s assessment that the US can rely on Pakistan to fight them and should keep this in mind.Is that how the headline reads to you in an Indian paper at this time? If so why did you quote it?
Personally (if not clear) I prefer the Indian Express to the rest. As a general perspective I am really not pro BJP or Modi, I just really despise the dynastic nature of the Congress. The only party I have donated to was the AAP, before Kejriwal went all cult of personality and destroyed everything it stood for.
I’m not going to belabor this centcom thing. But in the context of India’s all-party delegations presenting an anti-Pakistan point of view to the world, for an important American general to use the phrase “phenomenal counter-terrorism partner” for Pakistan shows that India’s narrative is not really working when it comes to the international community. It is obviously working domestically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH59XPhIkRk
Just going to link to this interview with Michael Kugelman (full disclosure, my mom was the “Pakistan Scholar” at the Wilson Center so we know Michael)
A lot of the interview addresses India’s difficulties with “isolating” Pakistan particularly at the UN
India is not USA that it can “isolate” Pakistan.
Heck, even the USA has been unable to “isolate” Iran, NK, Russia completely.
What India can do though without any repercussion from the “international community” is bomb Pakistan, abrogate IWT unilaterally etc.
And no amount of posting articles is going to change that.
IWT cannot be abrogated unilaterally. Pakistan will take the issue to the World Bank at the right time.
If India bombs Pakistan, Pakistan will respond militarily.
sorry, isn’t it already?
You can say you’ve abrogated the treaty but you are not actually allowed to do so according to the treaty itself.
All that is gobbledygook.
Who is going to “enforce” it?
India has ALREADY desilted dams which it had not done for decades.
And have ALREADY STOPPED providing data that it was supposed to according to the IWT.
“Who is going to “enforce” it?”
The World Bank presumably because they are the guarantor of the treaty.
I don’t know if Pakistan has formally started a dispute resolution process with them.
The WB have themselves said they are not enforcers but “facilitators” and the two countries have to figure it out themselves.
In the words of the WB’s own president – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAsBxd2h_Gk&t=100s
Also India bombed Pakistan this time and they didn’t/couldn’t respond.
Operation Baniyan was a failure.
Or maybe it wasn’t considering it was basically a face saving exercise before calling for a ceasefire.
Pakistan have been unable to provide proof of a SINGLE hit on a military target in India. And even international media/satellite imagery confirms that.
We are never going to agree on who pushed for the ceasefire. You guys think Pakistan came crying. We think the US forced India’s hand.
I’ll leave it at that.
What is not debatable is that India struck Pakistan including military targets. Pakistan could/did not.
So all your “threats” of Pakistani retaliation that you keep spouting are moot.
Well there’s always the next war.
To make it clear: I hope that doesn’t happen but it seems it will sooner rather than later.