Latest news with #LahoreDeclaration
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
08-06-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Price of strategic autonomy: What Russia's reaction to Op Sindoor tells India
Both Washington and Moscow hesitate to 'go all in' for India. Without clear strategic commitments, neither side will offer India the kind of automatic, noncommittal support it might extend to a formal ally — whether in military terms, intelligence sharing, or diplomatic cover in multilateral forums read more War or conflict is often viewed as the failure of diplomacy. Yet, even during a war, diplomacy remains essential to statecraft. Justifying one's war effort as legitimate, legal, and invariably defensive requires proactive, sustained, wide-ranging diplomatic overtures. War is the ideal time to test the strength of alliances and the resolve of one's adversaries. During Operation Sindoor, India's diplomatic focus was on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the US, European countries and Russia. Saudi Arabia's and the UAE's neutral positions were considered foreign policy successes for the Modi government. In its quintessential didactic habit, the European Union offered unsolicited advice on peace, underscored the fear of nuclear escalation, and was seen as patronising agents. The US initially appeared to throw its weight behind India's counter-terrorist strike well within Pakistan and eventually, in the course of a mysterious later development, positioned itself as a mediator in a cease-fire. What transpired between these two contradictory stands is in the realm of speculation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The most surprising element in these diplomatic overtures has been the stance of Russia, a longstanding, time-tested ally of India. The Russian response to Operation Sindoor was well-calibrated, formal, and essentially neutral if one goes by its public statement. There has been no public statement so far from the top leadership. Russia appeared to be noncommittal. Russian Foreign Minister's spokesperson Maria Zakharova, in her official statement, urged both India and Pakistan to exercise restraint to prevent further deterioration of the situation in the region. She further said that the two countries should resolve their differences through political and diplomatic means in accordance with the provisions of the Simla Agreement (1972) and the Lahore Declaration (1999). Russia's South Asia Policy Two imperatives primarily drive Russia's South Asia policy: first, maintain and deepen its 'special and privileged strategic partnership' with India to create a multipolar Asia and a multipolar world. In this, India is the fulcrum of Russia's South Asia policy. Second, the creation of a firewall on the southern border of Central Asia to check the spillover of Islamic fundamentalism, narcotic trafficking, and refugees emanating from the South Asia region, particularly from Afghanistan. Ensuring regional stability is vital, and Russia cannot afford one more failing state (Pakistan in this case) in South Asia. Russia views Afghanistan as a key node in its regional security. Given Pakistan's entrenched penetration and influence on the sections of the Taliban, Russia is left with no choice but to take Pakistan on board in its Afghan policy. Since the mid-2010s, Russia has cautiously improved ties with Pakistan, focusing primarily on counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing and military exercises (eg, Druzhba). However, evolving developments in the Af-Pak region question the effectiveness and influence of Pakistan in Afghanistan and its northwest tribal region. Pakistan is no longer in a position to dictate terms in Afghanistan. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan has intensified its campaign against the Pakistani state in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In light of these developments, India appears to have failed to convince that Pakistan is the fountainhead of terrorism, not a solution. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Historically, the global geopolitical setting has dictated Russia's position in South Asia, especially in the India-Pakistan conflict. In 1965, Russia played the mediator role, did not take sides and was instrumental in the Tashkent agreement. In the 1971 war, Moscow sided with India to counter the US-China-Pakistan axis. In the current geopolitical setting, Russia is heavily dependent on China in the wake of its ongoing war with Ukraine. This requires delicate balancing between India and China, and the Russian position on Pahalgam is a balancing act. Price of Strategic Autonomy India has pursued its policy of strategic autonomy, formally institutionalised through the Non-Aligned Movement in the 50s and 60s. Though strategic autonomy was not popular then, the term was popularised after the end of the Cold War, used mostly by the European Union vis-à-vis the US. Invoked by President K R Narayanan in 1999, it has been used by both the UPA and NDA leaders to chart an autonomous strategic course that India needs to undertake. Some scholars define it as 'a dependence control strategy aimed at safeguarding its independence in both foreign policy decision-making and protecting strategic assets against American pressure'. This pursuit of strategic autonomy has led India to participate in issue-based alliances actively or groupings, eg, Quad, SCO, BRICS, G-20, etc. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's recent push for issue-based alliances rather than long-term strategic partnerships comes with its strategic consequences, particularly in today's world of rising geopolitical contestation. Big powers often prefer dependable partners and camp followers — allies who align their interests, adopt similar strategic goals, and show a willingness to coordinate policy. For example, the United States provides robust security guarantees and diplomatic backing to NATO allies Japan and South Korea precisely because these partners are committed to shared defence and strategic alignment. India's non-aligned stance during the Cold War made Washington hesitant to extend full diplomatic or military support, viewing New Delhi as unpredictable or even sympathetic to the Soviet camp. Even with the Soviet Union, India's closest partner during the Cold War, the relationship stopped short of alliance. While Moscow supplied arms, diplomatic backing, and economic support, it understood that India would not become a satellite state or subordinate its interests to Soviet bloc priorities. This limited the extent to which Soviet support could translate into unreserved backing, especially when Moscow's own global calculations conflicted with India's. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the contemporary context, the rise of China further complicates India's position. While India has moved closer to the United States, particularly through frameworks like the Quad, it continues to avoid formal alliances or security pacts. As a result, both Washington and Moscow hesitate to 'go all in' for India. Without clear strategic commitments, neither side will offer India the kind of automatic, noncommittal support it might extend to a formal ally — whether in military terms, intelligence sharing, or diplomatic cover in multilateral forums. This reveals a broader pattern in international politics: big powers reward alignment, not independence. Countries that position themselves as independent-minded actors often preserve their sovereignty and flexibility but pay the price of standing largely alone when power politics heats up. In India's case, this means that despite its size, economic weight, and geopolitical importance, it remains diplomatically constrained — drawing on a razzmatazz of transactional relationships with multiple powers, termed as multi-alignment, but lacking the kind of deep, reliable backing that comes with formal alignments. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In conclusion, India's Pahalgam diplomatic experience underscores a hard truth of international relations: strategic autonomy offers freedom but limits the scope of external support. This should drive home a lesson that India has to tread alone and can't rely on Russia or, for that matter, any other power. Strategic autonomy comes with strings attached. As global rivalries sharpen and the international order becomes more contested, India will continue to face the challenge of balancing its cherished independence with the need for dependable partnerships in a world where major powers expect loyalty in exchange for support. Amitabh Singh teaches at the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Ankur is a doctoral candidate at the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
India Gazette
31-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Pakistan betrays peace efforts time and again: All-party delegation member SS Ahluwalia
Freetown [Sierra Leone], May 31 (ANI): BJP leader SS Ahluwalia, who is part of the all-party delegation led by Shiv Sena MP Shrikant Shinde, on Saturday reflected on Pakistan's repeated betrayal, citing the Kargil War following the Lahore Declaration during former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's reign. Speaking at an interaction with the Indian diaspora in Freetown, Sierra Leone, the BJP leader reflected on India's persistent efforts to foster peace with Pakistan, noting that the neighbour only indulges in terrorism against India and not through conventional war, just to weaken the country. 'Former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee used to say that it's the geography that Pakistan is our neighbour and we cannot change it, but we can bring the change and can make Pakistan our friend. That's why during the Lahore Declaration, he travelled to Lahore by bus; but what happened after that - Kargil happened... Time and again, we try to have an agreement and send a message of peace, but Pakistan always betrays us. Pakistan doesn't indulge in a conventional war with us but terrorism, as it wants to weaken us,' Ahluwalia stated. His remarks, delivered as part of a broader diplomatic mission by an all-party delegation, were echoed by delegation members BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj and BJD MP Sasmit Patra, who emphasised India's firm response to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism through Operation Sindoor, reflecting the country's increasingly assertive stance on the global stage. Swaraj emphasised India's transformed approach following the Pahalgam terror attack, noting that there was a 'paradigm shift' in how India handles Pakistan's sponsored terrorism. 'This is the new India that doesn't stop, it doesn't bow, and it doesn't forgive. It's the new India that has brought a paradigm shift and said that we will give a befitting reply... We are capable enough to do whatever is needed to do against the Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, but we know that terrorism is not a regional issue but a global issue, and hence, these all-party delegations are travelling to different nations for a diplomatic mission,' Swaraj said. BJD MP Sasmit Patra also added an emotional narrative, recounting how the terrorists only killed the husbands and left the wives so that they could tell what happened to them there. Patra noted that following this, Operation Sindoor took place, which targeted nine terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), killing more than 100 terrorists in the process. 'Sometimes, when we come together in this sense of solidarity... This sense came about on April 22 after Pahalgam... A terrorist comes across, asks the husband his religion, he says his religion and the terrorist shoots him. The wife turns around and asks, 'Kill me as well; why should I live?'... The terrorist turns around and tells that lady, 'I will not kill you. Go and tell this to your government.' She told, and then Operation Sindoor came. We went and struck them inside Pakistan. This is the new India... Believe that this is the new India and you are the face of the new India,' the BJD MP said. The delegation led by Shinde also includes BJP MP Atul Garg and Manan Kumar Mishra, Indian Union Muslim League's ET Mohammed Basheer and former Ambassador Sujan Chinoy. The delegation aims to brief international partners on India's response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack and its broader fight against cross-border terrorism while engaging with leaders. (ANI)
India.com
31-05-2025
- Politics
- India.com
Pakistan Betrays Peace Efforts Time And Again: All-Party Delegation Member SS Ahluwalia
BJP leader SS Ahluwalia, who is part of the all-party delegation led by Shiv Sena MP Shrikant Shinde, on Saturday reflected on Pakistan's repeated betrayal, citing the Kargil War following the Lahore Declaration during former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's reign. Speaking at an interaction with the Indian diaspora in Freetown, Sierra Leone, the BJP leader reflected on India's persistent efforts to foster peace with Pakistan, noting that the neighbour only indulges in terrorism against India and not through conventional war, just to weaken the country. "Former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee used to say that it's the geography that Pakistan is our neighbour and we cannot change it, but we can bring the change and can make Pakistan our friend. That's why during the Lahore Declaration, he travelled to Lahore by bus; but what happened after that - Kargil happened... Time and again, we try to have an agreement and send a message of peace, but Pakistan always betrays us. Pakistan doesn't indulge in a conventional war with us but terrorism, as it wants to weaken us," Ahluwalia stated. His remarks, delivered as part of a broader diplomatic mission by an all-party delegation, were echoed by delegation members BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj and BJD MP Sasmit Patra, who emphasised India's firm response to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism through Operation Sindoor, reflecting the country's increasingly assertive stance on the global stage. Swaraj emphasised India's transformed approach following the Pahalgam terror attack, noting that there was a "paradigm shift" in how India handles Pakistan's sponsored terrorism. "This is the new India that doesn't stop, it doesn't bow, and it doesn't forgive. It's the new India that has brought a paradigm shift and said that we will give a befitting reply... We are capable enough to do whatever is needed to do against the Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, but we know that terrorism is not a regional issue but a global issue, and hence, these all-party delegations are travelling to different nations for a diplomatic mission," Swaraj said. BJD MP Sasmit Patra also added an emotional narrative, recounting how the terrorists only killed the husbands and left the wives so that they could tell what happened to them there. Patra noted that following this, Operation Sindoor took place, which targeted nine terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), killing more than 100 terrorists in the process. "Sometimes, when we come together in this sense of solidarity... This sense came about on April 22 after Pahalgam... A terrorist comes across, asks the husband his religion, he says his religion and the terrorist shoots him. The wife turns around and asks, 'Kill me as well; why should I live?'... The terrorist turns around and tells that lady, 'I will not kill you. Go and tell this to your government.' She told, and then Operation Sindoor came. We went and struck them inside Pakistan. This is the new India... Believe that this is the new India and you are the face of the new India," the BJD MP said. The delegation led by Shinde also includes BJP MP Atul Garg and Manan Kumar Mishra, Indian Union Muslim League's ET Mohammed Basheer and former Ambassador Sujan Chinoy. The delegation aims to brief international partners on India's response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack and its broader fight against cross-border terrorism while engaging with leaders.
Hindustan Times
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
After Sindoor, the writing is on the wall for Pakistan
The Pahalgam massacre of innocent tourists from India and Nepal on April 22 and its aftermath have redefined India-Pakistan relations. While attacks in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in India by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists have featured regularly, it is only in the past decade that the Union government has truly endeavoured to draw red lines. Pakistan had committed in a joint statement in January 2004 to 'not permit any territory under Pakistan's control to be used to support terrorism in any manner'. Pakistan has consistently reneged on this and the bilateralism envisaged under the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration. The egregious attack by Pakistani terrorists at multiple locations in Mumbai in November 2008, which led to scores of deaths including those of foreigners, had marked a new low in cross-border terrorism even by Pakistan's dismal track record. One would have expected India to undertake military retribution. However, the government of the day decided to stay its hand. An emboldened Pakistan, outgunned conventionally, continued to use terrorism as part of its grey zone tactics against India, just below the threshold of military conflict. That threshold has changed following Operation Sindoor. Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi has repeatedly demonstrated firm resolve in dealing with Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. India's zero tolerance for terrorism translated into military retaliation against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, with cross-border land and air strikes in 2016 and 2019, respectively. Operation Sindoor is a notch higher on the spectrum of dissuasion. In the wake of the Pahalgam massacre, Modi conveyed an unambiguous message to the perpetrators of the heinous act — that India would pursue them to the very ends of the earth. Given the public outcry, it was only a matter of time that India would take recourse to punitive military action. In the early hours of May 7, the Indian armed forces destroyed nine key nerve centres of Pakistan-based terrorist networks of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) deep inside Pakistan. The free hand given to the armed forces ensured that India's retaliation was 'focussed, measured and non-escalatory'. What followed over the next four days was a kaleidoscopic blur. Despite large-scale propaganda, concocted news and deliberate obfuscation of facts, Pakistan failed to counter the hard evidence of battlefield footage put out by India. The extensive damage inflicted by the Indian armed forces was on full display. Pakistan unleashed a flurry of drones, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), loitering munitions and missiles on multiple military targets in India but came a cropper in the face of India's Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) and counter-drone networks. The subsequent massive retaliation by India on military targets brought Pakistan to its knees, compelling its director general of military operations (DGMO) to propose a ceasefire to his Indian counterpart. PM Modi's public statements following the ceasefire have introduced a 'new normal' in India-Pakistan relations. The key point is that Operation Sindoor is on pause. His assertion that India would not differentiate between terrorist masterminds and the governments that support them is noteworthy. It could imply that any future misadventure by Pakistan-based terrorist networks could invite the wrath of the Indian armed forces on targets beyond the terrorist masterminds. The dust having settled, it is clear the nuclear dimension was not in play at any point of time. Further, India's engagement of key global partners in response to their interest in the unfolding events cannot be construed as intervention or mediation. The ceasefire was a military matter, agreed upon through military channels, following the Pakistani DGMO's initiative. For Pakistan, the writing is on the wall. Terrorism and talks, or for that matter trade, sporting and cultural ties, cannot go together just as 'water and blood' cannot flow together. It is no wonder that India has put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. Pakistan has long violated the 1960 treaty by disregarding the 'spirit of goodwill and friendship' enshrined in its preamble. Moreover, the climate crisis, demographic shifts and technological advancements in hydrological science necessitate fresh approaches. Amidst the din, American President Donald Trump's gratuitous pronouncements created ripples. There is no gainsaying the fact that India's historical rejection of a third-party role needs better appreciation in Washington. Trump may well be under pressure to project an image of a 'peacemaker'. After all, his much-publicised goal of ending the Ukraine conflict remains elusive. For India, bilateralism is a sacrosanct principle for dealing with Pakistan. Talks, if any, will have to centre on concrete and verifiable action by Pakistan to eliminate terrorist havens on its soil, and the vacation of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Amidst the din, China's role came under the lens. From providing military equipment and lethal stores and supporting Pakistan's disinformation campaign, to securing Pakistan's interests in deliberations in the United Nations Security Council, the 'all-weather' friendship was in full bloom. A small irony lies in President Trump getting the better of Beijing. As is well known, China aspires to create a putative bailiwick in South Asia. On May 7, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson inter alia expressed Beijing's desire to play 'a constructive role in easing the current tensions'. This sentiment was repeated a few days later, on May 12. In this context, Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif's attempt to ingratiate himself into Trump's good books, even if through the fiction of mediation, should prove somewhat galling to Beijing. Reining in the malevolent impulses of a subaltern and maintaining objectivity on India-Pakistan issues should have been a better choice for China. Sujan Chinoy is director general of the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA). The views expressed are personal. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
27-05-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Is Shehbaz Sharif's ‘counter-terror' peace offer another trap for India? What history says
Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif's latest offer of peace and counter-terror talks with India comes amid fresh tensions and echoes a familiar pattern of diplomacy followed by betrayal. With recent attacks and intelligence inputs raising red flags, history offers a cautionary tale—raising doubts over whether this renewed outreach is genuine or another strategic ploy. read more In a renewed push for diplomacy, Pakistan's leadership once again extended an olive branch to India, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressing willingness to engage in comprehensive peace talks to resolve all outstanding issues, including the perennial flashpoints of Kashmir and cross-border terrorism, alongside water disputes and trade. However, India's experience offers little hope for optimism, as Pakistan's peace overtures have often been followed by actions that undermine bilateral trust and escalate tensions, with the latest remarks by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif once again raising questions over the sincerity of Islamabad's intentions and the real motives behind its renewed call for dialogue. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While speaking in Iran, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif declared, 'We want to resolve all disputes, including the Kashmir and water issues, through negotiations. We are also ready to engage our neighbour on trade and counter-terrorism.' The timing of this overture, just weeks after a sharp military flare-up following a terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir has raised eyebrows. For many in New Delhi, it evokes a familiar pattern: peace proposals from Islamabad swiftly followed by actions that undermine them. Indian officials have dismissed Sharif's remarks as little more than 'recycled rhetoric,' citing Pakistan's persistent support for cross-border terrorism. Recent intelligence inputs indicating the regrouping of Jaish-e-Mohammed operatives in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir have only reinforced New Delhi's long-held position: that meaningful dialogue is impossible while terrorism remains an instrument of Pakistan's statecraft. A historical pattern of peace overtures and subsequent betrayals Since the partition in 1947, India and Pakistan have experienced cycles of conflict and attempted reconciliation. Notably, peace initiatives have often been derailed by subsequent hostile actions: 1999 Lahore Declaration: Signed with much fanfare by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and then Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, this agreement aimed at nuclear risk reduction and fostering peaceful relations. Yet, the fragile peace quickly shattered with the eruption of the Kargil conflict just months later, a major military intrusion attributed to Pakistan. 2001 Agra Summit: High-level talks between Vajpayee and then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf collapsed without a joint declaration. India pointed to Pakistan's continued equivocation on cross-border terrorism as the primary reason for the failure. 2004-2007 backchannel talks: During the era of President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, secret negotiations reportedly came close to a consensus framework on Kashmir. However, political instability in Pakistan and the devastating 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, orchestrated by Pakistan-based militants, brought these promising discussions to an abrupt halt. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 2015 Modi's Lahore visit: An unexpected diplomatic gesture by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who made a surprise stopover in Lahore to meet Nawaz Sharif was followed shortly by the Pathankot airbase attack in early 2016, again attributed to Pakistan-based militant groups. 2019 Pulwama attack: A suicide bombing in February 2019 killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel in Pulwama, triggering India's retaliatory Balakot airstrikes deep inside Pakistani territory and escalating tensions. 2025 Pahalgam Attack: Just weeks before Sharif's current overture, a terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, resulted in 26 deaths. This incident prompted a swift and strong Indian response, including the temporary suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and the downgrading of diplomatic ties, highlighting the fragility of any peace efforts in the shadow of ongoing terror. 'Terror and talks cannot go together' New Delhi's consistent stance has been that 'terror and talks cannot go together,' asserting that a conducive, terror-free environment is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue. Reinforcing this firm stance, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar recently reiterated that the Kashmir issue remains a bilateral matter, stressing that the Indian government is willing to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan but specifically regarding the vacating of illegally occupied Indian territory in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the issue of terrorism. The persistent shadow of civil-military divide A critical obstacle to durable peace initiatives from Pakistan has often been the perceived discord between its civilian leadership and powerful military establishment. This persistent divide has historically undermined diplomatic efforts. Analysts in India often view Islamabad's calls for peace through the prism of its domestic challenges and international pressures. Pakistan is currently dealing with heavy economic headwinds with ongoing discussions with the IMF for financial assistance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the past, such periods have sometimes coincided with attempts to project a more peace-seeking image internationally, potentially aimed at garnering diplomatic goodwill or financial relief. The vast and disproportionate influence of Pakistan's military in its foreign policy also remains a crucial factor in assessing the sincerity and longevity of any diplomatic initiatives. The coming days will reveal India's official response to Sharif's latest offer. However, given the deep-seated mistrust, the recent military flare-up in Pahalgam, and India's firm stance on terrorism and PoK, a major diplomatic breakthrough remains a distant prospect. For now, Pakistan's offer is likely to be viewed not just on its face value but as part of a broader pattern requiring tangible and verifiable steps towards peace rather than mere declarations.
