Pettiness is the overwhelming theme of Indo-Pakistan relations today, where blind self-righteousness pushes the Indian leadership to new depths.
In Pakistan, low national morale, a struggling economy and deep socio-political divisions define the present circumstances. This was starkly reflected in an eye-opening statement by Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb before a Senate climate change committee on February 12: "As a country, we have lost our credibility."
His blunt assessment - though displeasing to many - captures a reality shaped by both internal mismanagement and external pressures. The nation faces multiple crises - many of its own making though. A far-sighted neighbour would extend a helping hand rather than exploit vulnerabilities. Yet, India's singular focus on linking Pakistan to terrorism exposes its small-minded, short-sighted approach — echoed recently by Indian representative Kshitij Tyagi at the UN Human Rights Council's 58th session in Geneva.
Arrogance, intransigence and a holier-than-thou attitude now define India's approach to Pakistan. Rather than fostering regional stability, its leadership appears intent on humiliation.
Despite its economic muscle and cultural soft power, magnanimity remains absent. Instead of seeking a win-win approach, India's policies seem dictated by a desire to belittle and browbeat smaller nations. Petty actions — such as refusing visas for Pakistan's cricket and taekwondo teams, delaying medical visas and routinely invoking security concerns - expose an intransigent mindset.
Recently, a Pakistani woman's medical visa to India was rejected for the second time after being "pending security clearance" since November 2024, despite a written request from a New Delhi hospital to India's Islamabad mission.
This reminds me of an Indian High Commissioner — who shall remain unnamed - once likening Indo-Pak relations to a college-level mindset.
"I don't know when we'll move past this adolescent rivalry," he remarked years ago when I pointed out another petty bilateral issue.
Since the advent of the Modi era, this mindset has only deepened. The capture of Kulbhushan Yadav exacerbated tensions further.
Was this mindset at play - or mere coincidence — when the Indian national anthem was mistakenly played before the Australia-England cricket match in Lahore on February 22? Or when the word "Pakistan" was missing from the Champions Trophy logo during the India-Bangladesh match in Dubai?
India's foreign policy toward Pakistan hinges on a singular narrative — terrorism. This diplomatic drumbeat serves one purpose: to keep maligning Pakistan at every opportunity.
Yet, this narrative wilfully ignores ground realities. Under the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Pakistan took significant steps to neutralise terrorist entities. Its removal from the FATF grey list was no small achievement - it was a global acknowledgment of its counterterrorism efforts.
Still, India clings to the cross-border terrorism rhetoric, not as a security concern, but as a strategic tool for coercion. The irony? Pakistan itself remains a victim of terrorism, while Indian officials and intelligentia pretend ignorance over what its termination squads have been doing in Canada, the US and even in Pakistan.
Groups like the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) continue to target Pakistani interests, from Balochistan to Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. These groups don't operate in a vacuum. Their funding and logistical support come from external sources.
Consider this: Why did India issue a visa to Baloch separatist Brahamdagh Bugti within 24 hours while hosting him for four months in 2015? Clearly, the grievances are mutual. Former Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry was right — breaking this deadlock requires a leap of faith by both, not bullying and recriminations.
Equating Balochistan with Kashmir is disingenuous. Balochistan, despite its socio-economic challenges, is not a disputed region. Kashmir, on the other hand, remains an "unfinished agenda" at the UN Security Council.
India, it seems, is practicing what it accuses Pakistan of — supporting cross-border terrorism. National Security Advisor Ajit Doval has long articulated an aggressive doctrine that appears to be in play today.
How should one interpret India's refusal to resume dialogue under the pretext of terrorism? There will always be spoilers of peace - even if state institutions on both sides find common ground.
India has enjoyed favourable treatment from the US, particularly under Democratic administrations since Bill Clinton's 2000 visit. But with the second Donald Trump presidency, a shift in global politics looms. Trump's focus on trade and economic nationalism — 'America First', cost-cutting and bringing investment back home — could disrupt the India-US dynamic. He has already scrapped India's waiver on the Iranian Chabahar Port, a move that hints at changing priorities.
Whether Washington's indulgence toward India continues under Trump — as it did under Biden - remains to be seen. But one thing is certain — parroting outdated narratives as a pretext for non-engagement serves neither India nor Pakistan.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ