The recent India-Pakistan ceasefire is not just a military or diplomatic development—it is a reminder of how deeply geopolitical interests, especially those of the Anglo-American power bloc, continue to shape South Asia. For decades, I have maintained that Pakistan was carved out as a vassal state, a strategic asset for the West. And true to form, the West always comes running when Islamabad calls.
Washington and London do not want India to drift toward Russia or Pakistan to lean too heavily on China. They would rather keep both countries locked in tension—just enough to maintain their influence and keep the multi-trillion dollar arms industry alive. Their strategic balancing act ensures that both India and Pakistan remain reliant on them, militarily and diplomatically.
Back home, our so-called defence experts—many of them linked to arms lobbies—fill newspapers and TV studios, selling weaponry with nationalist rhetoric and technical jargon. Their aim isn’t clarity or peace, but profit.
The recent ceasefire, announced by Donald Trump but claimed by Indian officials as initiated by Pakistan’s DGMO, is shrouded in ambiguity. If a ceasefire was so easily accepted, one must ask: why escalate in the first place? The official Indian stance that it only targeted “terrorist infrastructure” and not the Pakistani military raises further questions. If you cross borders and strike targets, any sovereign country—whether right or wrong—will retaliate. To believe otherwise is either naïve or disingenuous.
Yes, it’s no secret that Pakistan’s ISI continues to support insurgents in Jammu and Kashmir. The participation of top Pakistani military officials in militant funerals sends a clear message. But even as India hit back hard—independent sources suggest it did inflict significant damage—we must ask: was the objective of “Operation Sindoor” achieved?
Beyond the battlefield, the geopolitical lesson is clear: the Anglo-American power structure will never allow India to dominate South Asia. They are willing to tolerate an ascendant China, but not an assertive India. Our only time-tested ally has been Russia. Yet, even Moscow remains cautious, noting that the Indian government today speaks in multiple tongues depending on the audience. Still, Russian-made S-400 systems neutralized Pakistani drones, and the BrahMos missile remains a testament to Indo-Russian collaboration.
But such strategic partnerships require sincerity. Instead, India’s media—heavily influenced by arms lobbies and Western interests—routinely vilifies Russia. This narrative is shaped not by national interest but by lobbyists serving foreign clients.
There’s much we can learn from Vladimir Putin’s Russia—about strategic clarity, national dignity, and resisting Western bullying. Russia continues to grow despite sanctions and isolation, thanks to internal cohesion. India, meanwhile, is tearing itself apart. Communal disharmony and divisive politics weaken us from within. The BJP’s polarising campaigns have not gone unnoticed by the world. In the age of digital diplomacy, every hate speech and every inflammatory post gets global attention.
Our credibility is at stake. The myth-making in our media—that our troops are at the gates of Lahore or Karachi—is disconnected from reality. Worse, this kind of bravado alienates potential allies. At the recent IMF meeting, not one country stood up for India. In contrast, Pakistan was bailed out.
This isn’t the failure of our diplomats but of a political class obsessed with winning local elections—from municipalities to mohallas—using nationalism as a convenient tool. Instead of coherent foreign policy, we get election rhetoric and performative patriotism.
India is now being equated with Pakistan, a state long seen as unstable. Why? Because of the irresponsible behaviour of our political leadership, amplified by a toxic media environment. The public discourse has sunk to such depths that even civil servants like Vikram Misri, simply doing their duty, are trolled mercilessly for reading out a ceasefire statement.
This is no longer just bad journalism—it’s a national security risk. Channels allow retired military men to hurl abuse at visiting dignitaries, including Iran’s foreign minister. Pakistani journalists are invited only to be baited and berated. Is this diplomacy? Or a circus masquerading as news?
Media’s unchecked arrogance extends beyond Pakistan. Even smaller neighbours like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives have been ridiculed by our anchors. These countries, regardless of size, have self-respect. Russia showed how it’s done—sending a plane to bring Burkina Faso’s president to Moscow for Victory Day. That’s respect. That’s diplomacy.
Our current media culture is not helping India. Instead, it’s making the foreign ministry’s job harder. It’s undermining our professional armed forces, who are under civilian command and cannot respond to political provocations. Worse, real-time coverage of troop movements violates defence protocols and endangers lives.
Donald Trump, never one to shy away from self-promotion, claimed credit again for the ceasefire, hinting that economic threats brought both sides to the table. Regardless of whether that’s true, the bigger reality is that Indo-Pak relations are now globalised. The era of quiet back-channel diplomacy is over. India can no longer insist on bilateralism while its own leaders internationalise the issue with reckless statements and media spectacles.
The time has come to rethink. India must strengthen BRICS and revive its traditional alignment with Russia. The Soviet Union stood by us during the Bangladesh liberation war. That historical alliance must not be forgotten.
In today’s volatile world, credibility matters more than chest-thumping. Let us learn from history—and act with wisdom.
---
*Human rights defender
Comments