|
Abbas Nasir //DAWN April 27, 2025
IT wasn’t clear if US President Donald Trump was using a figure of speech or confused his history when mentioning the Kashmir dispute as being over 1,000 years old but the operational part of his statement on board Air Force One on Friday was that he appeared confident that India and Pakistan, both of whom ‘I am close to’, will sort this out.
He was responding to a question on the spiralling tension between the two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours in the wake of the terror attack on tourists in Pahalgam in India-held Kashmir this week in which 26 civilians were killed.
Indicating that it held Pakistan responsible for the carnage, India announced a number of measures including reduction of diplomatic staff at the Pakistan mission in Delhi, expulsion of all military attachés, cancellation of visas issued to Pakistan nationals and more significantly holding in abeyance the Indus Waters Treaty between the two countries that has survived several armed conflicts between them.
Pakistan retorted with its own measures mirroring the Indian move in terms of reduction of diplomatic mission staff, cancellation of visas, and more interestingly, mulling the suspension of bilateral agreements such as the Simla Agreement concluded after the 1971 war.
Matters are exacerbated because there appears to be no dialogue mechanism.
The Trump remarks, which echoed the assessment of some Western diplomats in Islamabad, shared privately with journalists, seemed to suggest that this diplomatic tit-for-tat was all the fallout from the Pahalgam incident that was to be; and that, after a tense period, de-escalation would likely follow. But the mood in India, at least judging from the media, belied this assessment as it was belligerent and jingoistic. An array of recently retired senior military and intelligence officials all seemed convinced that the Modi government would not let the matter rest with the diplomatic measures but would surely plan a ‘kinetic’ operation to ‘punish’ Pakistan.
One Indian anchor on a mainstream channel asked a recently retired three-star general who commanded the corps in Kashmir if the kinetic action could include “eliminating some major or brigadier of the Pakistani military or its intelligence services who ordered the Pahalgam attack?”
“Why stop at a brigadier or junior officers,” the former three-star responded. This same former military officer drew parallels between Hamas and its activities with the Pakistani military and intelligence services. He also suggested Pakistan face similar consequences to the campaign of Israeli occupation forces against Gaza.
Shockingly insane as this chalk and cheese (to put it mildly) comparison was, I was left wondering if this was a retired officer airing his own dream or was this view shared by India’s military commanders and the political decision-making set-up with the Hindu nationalist BJP at the helm.
If social and legacy media is a representative measure of the sentiment in India, then let me say that I have watched many, many Indian experts, military and civilian, betraying zero empathy for the victims of the Gaza genocide. Also, they have been repeatedly expressing admiration and envy for the Israeli occupation forces, and wondering aloud why their country could not replicate this against Pakistan.
Of course, there are a few, isolated voices of sanity, even though they appear to be losing the battle to be heard against the cacophony of the utterly insane ones, reminding their compatriots of the perils of creating a momentum leading to an armed conflict between two nuclear-armed neighbours.
The main value of the nuclear deterrent is to forestall a conventional war, especially between two numerically uneven adversaries, and only the deranged would want to see the situation spiralling towards such a possibility because it leads to mutually assured destruction.
Yes, experts would take us down the path of second strike capability and who has it and who doesn’t. But to me all that does not mask an unprecedented threat to humanity, to one-and-a-half billion people, in the two countries and even more across South Asia.
The Modi government has often demonstrated the hold it enjoys over most of the country’s mass media and has social media handles, amplifying its view, running into millions. So, if it doesn’t wish the media to raise public expectations of ‘kinetic action to punish Pakistan including assassinations’ into becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, it may consider dialling down some of the rhetoric that the public is feeding off.
It is prudent of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to offer an ‘impartial and transparent’ probe into the Pahalgam incident so the Indian allegations of Pakistan’s role can be evaluated and discarded as not being legitimate or credible.
Some India peaceniks say this offer would not be seen as amounting to much at this time because it would have helped if Pakistan had taken its probe into the 2008 Mumbai attacks — which saw militants kill some 175 people and injure nearly 300 — to its logical conclusion but it did not.
That may be a valid point but since then, Pakistan’s actions against militant groups as part of its compliance with the Financial Action Task Force regulations on terror funding, money laundering, etc, has choked them off and resulted in the jailing of many key figures. Additionally, observers also point out to at least two to three ‘false flag operations’ where it was subsequently established that allegations of Pakistani involvement were patently false.
Equally, at a time when the Pakistani military and civilian leadership has assigned top priority to economic recovery and stability, an incident such as the Pahalgam massacre would be totally counterproductive to its prioritised cause. Any such incident’s fallout would harm Pakistan more than India.
Whenever passions are running high, sanity tends to take a backseat. Despite Western optimism about South Asia peace, the situation appears poised on a hair trigger. Matters are exacerbated because there appears to be no dialogue mechanism between India and Pakistan.
Against this backdrop, Saudi and Iranian mediation efforts represent hope of a peaceful resolution and should be welcomed. The Saudi foreign minister has already talked to his counterparts in New Delhi and Islamabad but we await details of the conversations.
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com
Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2025
===============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL: 27 April 2025
ASININE statements about Pakistan and India’s ‘1,500-year’ dispute over Kashmir are unlikely to help this corner of the world navigate its latest almost-war.
Directed efforts to reduce tensions and force diplomacy just might. It seems India may have overplayed its hand by jumping straight to accusations against its eastern neighbour, which the rest of the world has not been as ready to accept as it may have hoped. This should boost morale in Islamabad, and Pakistani authorities have made the right move by calling for a neutral, international probe into the Pahalgam tragedy.
But with America neck-deep in the Ukraine and Middle East crises, there seems to be little interest in Washington about the possible outcomes of the latest Pakistan-India flare-up. Various Trump administration officials have offered India their sympathies and some support, but not the validation New Delhi has desperately sought for its combative stance against Pakistan. But US President Donald Trump can do better than expect the two states to “get it figured out, one way or another”.
India’s extreme reaction to the attack has created a situation in which a global intervention may be necessary to create space for de-escalation, and Mr Trump, who claims to know the leadership of both countries, may be better placed than most to find a way out.
Meanwhile, others are already attempting to defuse the crisis. The foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Iran, both countries with strong relationships with India and Pakistan, have made phone calls to Islamabad and New Delhi, offering to mediate crisis talks.
The UN has called for maximum restraint and “meaningful mutual engagement”, with the UN spokesman telling media in New York that issues between the countries “can be and should be resolved peacefully through meaningful mutual engagement”. There is, after all, much at stake given both countries’ nuclear-armed status and propensity for conflict.
It is therefore far more mature to seek de-escalation through intermediation than to expect that the two countries, which even ordinarily refuse to talk to each other, will figure out their differences in the midst of a severe breakdown in trust.
It is hoped that other responsible world powers will also act before any mistake or misadventure occurs that could further inflame tensions. Sense needs to be restored so that the Pahalgam attack may be independently investigated and the victims given justice.
Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2025
===============================================================================
Muhammad Amir Rana Published April 27, 2025
THERE is no match between the media landscapes of India and Pakistan. The former, with its vast reach and influence, is becoming increasingly aggressive, and often projects hostility not only towards its neighbours but also against its own marginalised communities.
However, both countries suffer from the absence of a credible peace lobby that can offer rational alternatives during moments of crisis and resist the pull of emotional hysteria that dominates the public discourse.
When the fragile calm breaks, India’s political leadership loses its composure, and the media — traditional and digital — deepens the crisis by crafting an environment of anxiety and manufactured outrage. Saner voices do exist, but they are quickly sidelined once nationalist narratives begin to dominate. For its part, Pakistan is not immune to these patterns either. While its media infrastructure lacks the algorithmic sophistication and narrative machinery of its Indian counterpart, it still often mirrors the same confrontational posture.
A peace lobby, in this context, is not merely desirable, it is absolutely vital. For two nations caught in an ongoing cycle of suspicion and hostility, the presence of cross-border peace advocates can play a role to promote stability. The role of these peace advocates can be particularly critical during periods of relative calm when there is an opportunity for engagement and trust-building to expand the space for dialogue and reduce the risk of future escalation.
Some efforts have attempted to fill this void. Both the countries’ civil society actors, academics and independent thinkers have contributed to dialogue through Track 2 and Track 1.5 diplomacy. Among the more visible initiatives are the Neemrana dialogue, involving retired military and diplomatic officials, and the Ottawa dialogue, which focuses on strategic stability and crisis management. The Pugwash conferences have occasionally created space for regional discussions on nuclear issues and peace.
The role of these peace advocates can be particularly critical during periods of relative calm.
Civil society has also made some contributions to foster sustained dialogue and regional cooperation, while media-led campaigns like Aman ki Asha attempted to revive cultural and trade ties. Academic institutions on both sides have produced policy-oriented research to support cross-border engagement. Simultaneously, cultural collaborations, joint film screenings, music projects, and poetry exchanges have kept alive alternative narratives of peace, often amplified by independent journalists and public intellectuals committed to de-escalation.
But for all their visibility and occasional breakthroughs, the impact of such initiatives has been limited in shaping the public discourse or influencing state behaviour in a sustained manner. The ideological divide that exists has continued to deepen, with the result that hatred thrives, especially in the unregulated expanse of social media, where polarising content overshadows the quiet work of bridge-builders. Without broader ownership by society and the political leadership, peace efforts risk remaining peripheral to the dominant narratives that drive nationalist sentiment.
Many of these initiatives are supported by public and private institutions in Europe and America. These institutions seek tangible, short-term outcomes from their engagements. However, peacebuilding, particularly in complex conflict zones such as South Asia, does not lend itself to linear results or limited time frames. Sustainable engagement can only come about through patience, continuity and deeper investment in trust-building — conditions that often frustrate donors operating on fixed cycles.
A second, perhaps more fundamental, issue is the composition of these forums, many of whose participants, particularly the former officials among them, were once embedded in state structures known to resist or undermine peace processes. The worldview of these participants was shaped by institutional legacies and security-centric thinking, which often limits the scope of dialogue. In a number of instances, rather than contributing to meaningful discussions, they derail the debate or treat such engagements as leisure trips. Most Track 2 meetings are held in third countries because of political hostility at home, which only further detaches the process from the ground realities.
There is also a gap at the conceptual level. These forums, while called ‘peace dialogues’, rarely evolve into genuine peace lobbies. Their structure and function often mirror state-centric priorities rather than offering a broader vision rooted in human security and democratic values. A true peace lobby must be independent, consistent and resilient. It must operate beyond the confines of geopolitics, resist the seductions of nationalism and maintain its moral clarity even when public sentiment turns hostile.
Over the years, as donor interest has waned and tangible outcomes have proved increasingly elusive, these initiatives have declined. However, their deeper failure lies in their inability to act effectively in times of crisis. Rather than countering war narratives, many actors within these forums echo official talking points, thus becoming unintentional amplifiers of the very forces they were meant to challenge.
To be a peacenik in this environment is hardly easy. It involves standing firm against the spoilers of peace and confronting emotional public sentiment. These proponents of peace would be stigmatised as anti-state and, in some cases, foreign agents. The pressure built by the public and media becomes unbearable in many instances.
It may require enduring the hostility of state institutions that view alternative narratives as threatening the official position. But such voices, no matter how marginal, are essential. Without them, the region risks becoming locked in an endless cycle of confrontation, with no exit strategy.
Unfortunately, the prospect of a robust, independent peace lobby in either country remains dim. In India, ultra-nationalism aligned closely with the Hindu supremacist ideology has merged with state power. Economic growth has further emboldened its expression, making it more exclusionary and intolerant. In Pakistan, the challenges are no less severe. Chronic extremism continues to erode the fabric of society, while the state, in its quest for a hard state, relies increasingly on alliances with religious groups whose outlook is inherently opposed to peace and pluralism.
In such a climate, the path to peace must begin by reimagining what a peace lobby can be: not a short-term project or a donor-driven initiative but a long-term social investment rooted in inclusivity, civic courage, and regional empathy. Until then, peace will remain a hope, not a policy.
The writer is a security analyst.
Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2025
==============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL: 27 April 2025
AS we mark World Immunisation Week 2025 — themed ‘Immunisation for All is Humanly Possible’ — we are faced with a tragic reality: after decades of gains, global vaccination efforts are hitting turbulence. Outbreaks of measles, meningitis and even yellow fever are resurging, with measles cases alone up 20pc in 2023 to over 10m. Diseases once nearly vanquished are creeping back as routine immunisation falters in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. At the same time, support for immunisation is flagging: funding has been slashed, notably the Trump administration’s rollback of America’s contributions to vaccine programmes. The WHO and Unicef warn that donor cuts have disrupted vaccination efforts in nearly half of the 108 countries surveyed — a recipe for the return of preventable diseases.
For Pakistan, the stakes are especially high. It is one of only two countries in the world where wild polio still circulates, and after coming close to eradication it has seen a worrying resurgence — climbing to 74 polio cases in 2024. At the same time, routine immunisation has stagnated. Last year, 1.2m Pakistani infants — out of the 7.3m targeted — missed their measles vaccinations, leaving the door wide open to outbreaks. Vaccination coverage remains highly uneven across the country, with consistently low rates in Balochistan, southern Punjab, parts of Karachi, and areas of southern KP. Pakistan is home to over 600,000 zero-dose children annually — those who have never had even a single vaccine dose. Many live in conflict-affected or remote areas, underscoring the urgent need to extend vaccine access beyond urban centres. Multiple factors have stalled our immunisation progress. Misinformation and distrust are rife; bizarre conspiracy theories about vaccines still circulate. This was exacerbated by a CIA-sponsored fake vaccination drive in 2011 — a deception that validated the worst suspicions. Extremist propaganda seized on that episode to demonise polio drops. To this day, health workers, and those protecting them, face threats on the job. Just this week, two security personnel guarding a polio team were martyred.
Yet these challenges can be overcome — because immunising every child is indeed humanly possible. The first priority is rebuilding trust — and ensuring vaccinators can work safely on the front lines. Health officials should partner with the ulema, community elders and teachers to champion vaccination and dispel myths; when religious leaders publicly affirm that vaccines are safe and halal, it boosts community acceptance. The second imperative is practical: ensure a reliable vaccine supply, strengthen the cold chain, and bolster disease surveillance so that doses safely reach every village. Pakistan’s Covid-19 response proved it can execute mass vaccination — delivering over 300m vaccine doses through organised drives. That same level of national resolve is now needed to ensure no child is left vulnerable to preventable diseases.
Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2025
===============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL: 27 April 2025
THE detained Baloch Yakjehti Committee leader Mahrang Baloch and other BYC activists, including women, are reported to have been on a hunger strike since Thursday to protest against alleged police brutality and the failure of the justice system to safeguard their rights. Meanwhile, BYC supporters are staging rallies across Balochistan for the release of activists who were arrested more than a month ago under the dubious MPO law. Veteran Baloch leader Sardar Akhtar Mengal has also denounced the detention of the women activists, terming it unprecedented in the province’s history. The BYC leadership has alleged that the authorities planned to separate the detainees by transferring them to different jails.
Mahrang is apparently facing the state’s wrath for forcefully raising her voice on the issue of enforced disappearances — initially focusing on her own family and then as part of a broader movement. Since she was arrested, a malicious campaign has been launched against her on both social and mainstream media, linking her with Baloch secessionists and the gruesome attack targeting the Jaffar Express. But her support among the Baloch population has refused to wane. The PPP, which is leading the coalition in the conflict-ridden province, should know better than most about how women prisoners are treated by jail staff in the country. It must also know that no amount of state brutality has ever been able to break the resolve of political prisoners, especially women activists. The proponents of a ‘hard state’, too, should realise that their actions, which do not distinguish between militant separatists and political and rights activists, have deeply alienated an entire Baloch generation, embroiling the province in a cycle of endless violence. There is no doubt that the militant secessionist elements need to be dealt with sternly, even eliminated. But at the same time the state should engage with the more practical political voices from the province and address their legitimate demands. Time is of the essence in this context.
Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2025
|
