India threatening South Asia's stability
EDITORIAL: As part of Pakistan's diplomatic outreach to the international community in the aftermath of last month's four-day military standoff with India, PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari visiting London at the head of a delegation gave a briefing to a meeting of cross-party British parliamentarians.
There he highlighted India's attack on civilian population, violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and holding in abeyance of the Indus Water Treaty in contravention of international law and modern rules-based system.
Bilawal also explained that 'India had levelled serious accusations [of backing the Pahalgam terrorist attack] without any credible investigation or verifiable evidence,' and that these actions are not just irresponsible, but pose serious risks to peace and stability in South Asia and beyond. Pakistan has rightly been arguing that if India has evidence of its involvement in the Pahalgam atrocity, it should allow an independent investigation so as to establish the truth.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a habit of using accusation of cross-border terrorism as a political tool during times of internal pressure or upcoming elections — in Behar come October. Assaults on Pakistan, rhetorical or real, are projected by him as demonstrations of strength for rallying his Hindutva support base.
Extremely troubling, however, is what followed last month's incident: missile and drone attacks on alleged 'terrorist sanctuaries' inside Pakistan in blatant violation of this country's sovereignty and international law. With hubris getting the better of them, PM Modi declared the strikes as the 'New Normal', i.e., a right to fire missiles into Pakistan in the event of any act of terrorism; meanwhile, his External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar stated that Pakistan was informed about the strikes before the start of 'Operation Sindoor', arrogantly assuming there would be no reaction. Pakistan's quick retaliatory response delivered extensive military losses, acknowledged by many independent defence analysts. The two nuclear-armed neighbours were on the brink of a full-fledged war when US President Donald Trump helped mediate a ceasefire. According to Modi, though, it is only a 'pause'. Escalatory rhetoric and actions benefit no one. Consequences of any miscalculation between the two nuclear states are unthinkable.
India's attempts to unilaterally alter regional dynamics through unsubstantiated accusations and aggressive military posturing should be a matter of concern to the international community. What is needed is normalisation of dialogue rather than normalisation of aggression, and a commitment to peaceful coexistence. Pakistan, for its part, has consistently expressed willingness to engage in dialogue and address all outstanding issues of dispute, including terrorism, water, and of course Kashmir — the root cause of three of the four wars between them. The cycle of provocation and retaliation must give way to dialogue and conflict resolution in the greater interest of peace and stability in South Asia.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
6 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Iran-Israel conflict may spill into Pakistan: Masood Khan
Former President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and senior diplomat Sardar Masood Khan warned that the intensifying conflict between Iran and Israel could have severe consequences for Pakistan's security, stability, and regional standing. In a series of interviews, He said that a prolonged war could prompt an influx of Iranian refugees into Pakistan, comparable to the fallout of the Afghan conflict. He cautioned that Pakistan's already stretched resources would come under further strain if hostilities in the Middle East persist. If the war drags on, there is a strong possibility of a mass exodus of Iranian refugees towards Pakistan,' Khan said. 'Such a scenario would create economic, political, and social pressure.' Khan also warned that instability on the western border could provide a gateway for infiltration by anti-state groups allegedly backed by hostile foreign powers, especially India. He named outfits like the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) as potential threats. 'A weakened border with Iran could be exploited by proxies seeking to destabilise Pakistan,' Khan stated. Discussing Israel's strategic aims, Khan noted that Tel Aviv had already targeted Iranian nuclear infrastructure at Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan, and other critical sites. According to Khan, Israel claims to have neutralised nearly 40% of Iran's air defence network. He further alleged that Israel is pushing the United States either to intervene militarily or to grant approval for the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons. 'They're proposing subterranean nuclear strikes, which they argue would limit fallout,' Khan explained. 'But experts believe such thinking is dangerously naïve.' On international reactions, Khan said that while Russia and China have voiced support for Iran, Tehran has not formally sought military assistance. He added that Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to mediate, a gesture welcomed by Iran but dismissed by Israel. Khan also highlighted ongoing diplomatic efforts, noting that the United States has allowed a 15-day window to decide its course. 'This has opened room for backchannel diplomacy,' he said. 'The British Foreign Secretary has been active in Washington, and even some of President Trump's advisors are calling for restraint.' Despite diplomatic movements, Khan warned that US military deployments in Europe, the Middle East, and at Diego Garcia signal preparation for escalation. 'The world stands at a perilous crossroads,' he concluded. 'We must prepare for all outcomes, even as we hope diplomacy prevails.' Meanwhile, Iran has condemned US airstrikes on its nuclear facilities as a grave breach of international law, warning of dangerous consequences and vowing to defend its sovereignty by all means. Read more: Tehran vows self-defence with 'all force' after US strikes three nuclear installations The strikes, carried out on June 21 and announced by US President Donald Trump, targeted Iran's main nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Trump declared the mission a success and warned Tehran of further attacks if it retaliates or refuses peace. The attack, launched in coordination with Israel amid its ongoing military attacks against Iran, marked a major escalation in regional tensions. Trump, flanked by senior US officials, said the strikes aimed to destroy Iran's nuclear capability and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. He later claimed all US aircraft had exited Iranian airspace safely. Iran denounced the strikes as criminal aggression and called on the United Nations and the IAEA to hold Washington accountable. Iranian officials accused both the US and Israel of undermining diplomacy, and criticised Western nations for demanding Iran return to talks it says it never left. Global reaction was mixed. Israel praised Trump's decision as historic, while UN Secretary-General António Guterres called it a dangerous escalation that threatens global security. The EU, UK, and several other nations urged de-escalation and a return to diplomacy. Countries including Venezuela, Cuba, and Qatar condemned the US action, warning of regional instability.
Business Recorder
8 hours ago
- Business Recorder
UK PM Starmer calls on Iran to restart nuclear negotiations
LONDON: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Sunday called on Iran to 'return to the negotiating table' over its nuclear ambitions after the US carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat,' Starmer said on X, adding that 'stability in the region is a priority'. 'We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.' The UK, a key ally of the United States, confirmed it had not been involved in the overnight strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. 'We, on this occasion, have not deployed British military force in this mission,' Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told Sky News, speaking on behalf of the government. 'This was not a situation where that request (for support) was made and the US has used other means to carry out this mission,' Reynolds added. But Reynolds confirmed that the government had been 'informed' in advance of the attack. Britain moved extra fighter jets and other military assets to the Middle East as 'contingency support' last week, as the conflict between Iran and Israel escalated. Trump says Iran's key nuclear sites 'obliterated' by US airstrikes The UK will 'take all actions necessary to defend our own interest… and of course, that of key allies if they are under threat,' Reynolds said. Britain has sought to de-escalate the situation while still opposing Iran's nuclear programme since Israel launched strikes on Iran over a week ago. Israel claimed that Tehran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, which Iran has always denied. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and top European diplomats met with their Iranian counterpart in Geneva on Friday to seek a halt in fighting.
Express Tribune
14 hours ago
- Express Tribune
PPP straddles the fence on ally's hybrid model claims
Listen to article The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), once a fierce critic of the Imran Khan-led Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) for claiming to be "on the same page" with the establishment, now finds itself in a rather awkward silence after its key ally in the ruling alliance not only admitted to the existence of a hybrid model but appeared to wear the newfound power-sharing arrangement with the military as a badge of honour. The recent confession by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif – about what has long been an open secret – has laid bare an uncomfortable truth: the PML-N-led government is now openly conceding to operating under a power-sharing arrangement with the military. Asif not only just lifted the curtain but drew it wide open, calling the current setup "exemplary". What raised more than a few eyebrows was Asif's thinly veiled dig at his own party leader Nawaz Sharif. He even went on to say that Sharif's failure to implement such a hybrid model in the 1990s led to his early political exits – twice. The remark effectively undercuts Nawaz Sharif's oft-repeated claim that he was shown the door for "serving the country", making his once-defiant slogan "Mujhe Kyun Nikala" (why was I removed?) ring hollow. The PPP, which once rode the moral high horse in its opposition to military interference in civilian rule, now seems to have bitten its tongue. Its leaders, who once fired on all cylinders against PTI's so-called hybrid rule, suddenly appear to be walking on eggshells. PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari not only coined the term "puppet PM" for Imran Khan but later wore that verbal jab as a political trophy, priding in having popularised the phrase during the waning days of the PTI government. Ironically, the PPP, formerly the loudest critic of the hybrid model, now appears at a loss for words about a system they themselves are actively part of. When asked to comment on Khawaja Asif's remarks, Chaudhry Manzoor, a PPP leader from Punjab, deflected, saying the question should instead be directed to the PML-N. When it was pointed out that the PPP had been vocally critical of such arrangements in the past, and now that its ally has openly admitted to it – thus making PPP complicit – he responded, "Unfortunately, I have neither listened to the interview nor do I have any knowledge about it". Senior PPP leader Qamar Zaman Kaira, when approached for comment, questioned whether anything Khawaja Asif said was actually new. "Wasn't this known to everyone all along?" he asked. When queried whether the PPP was now comfortable being part of a hybrid model, Kaira said he could not speak on behalf of the party and would need to consult the leadership to clarify their position. He also dodged the question regarding the PPP's historical criticism of hybrid arrangements, saying that only the party could take an official stance. Attempts to reach the party's Information Secretary Nadeem Afzal Chan and PPP leader from Sindh, Shazia Marri, for comments were unsuccessful.
