11

May

Indo-Pak Confrontation: A War of Words, Views, Opinions and False Expectations

image

Prof Pradeep Mathur

A person with white hair and glasses AI-generated content may be incorrect.

New Delhi | Monday | 12 May 2025

While growing tensions between India and Pakistan, and the ever-watchful eyes of global superpowers, a candid reflection on the recent military developments and diplomatic manoeuvres has stirred debate. Despite being a known critic of the BJP-RSS ecosystem and openly opposing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political strategies and governance style, I find no fault in India's recent military actions targeting terrorist hubs across the border.

The decisive strikes, followed by a mutual ceasefire, mark a significant moment in India's security narrative. These actions, irrespective of whether the United States gained or China lost strategically, served India’s interest in targeting cross-border terrorism. Criticism of the Indian government’s stance in this conflict appears to be both uninformed and biased, driven more by ideological prejudice than by facts on the ground.

While many are quick to read ulterior motives into every diplomatic or military step, the reality is that international politics is always dictated by national interest. This principle applies to all major players, including the U.S., which has historically used global conflicts to benefit its armaments industry. It is not unusual for a third country to profit when two neighbours are embroiled in hostilities. Such dynamics are par for the course in geopolitics.

However, what seems to be largely misread or oversimplified is China’s role in this ongoing conflict. As Pakistan’s closest ally, China was never expected to take a position that could be construed as supportive of India. Doing so would go against its strategic and economic interests. Nonetheless, China's strong condemnation of terrorism, particularly in the wake of the Pahalgam incident, signals its nuanced position. It recognises the threat of terrorism, even as it balances its diplomatic equations.

 

Article at a Glance
The recent military actions by India against terrorist hubs in Pakistan have sparked debate amid rising tensions between the two nations. Despite being critical of the Indian government, the author supports these strikes as necessary for national security. The subsequent ceasefire is viewed as a significant moment, though opinions vary on its implications—some see it as a diplomatic victory, while others argue it reflects international pressure. The author emphasizes that national interests drive international politics, including China's complex stance, which balances its support for Pakistan with its own security concerns regarding terrorism. India's transition from an arms importer to an exporter, particularly to Africa, is noted, alongside the potential long-term damage to Pakistan's credibility following the strikes. Ultimately, the author calls for a nuanced understanding of these developments, arguing that India's actions reflect strategic maturity rather than weakness, and highlights the importance of differentiating genuine critique from partisan bias in discussions of national security and diplomacy.

 

China’s own experience with terrorism on Pakistani soil, especially the repeated targeting of its engineers and workers involved in infrastructure projects, underscores its complex position. While it may not openly criticise Pakistan’s handling of terrorism, its internal security concerns align—at least partially—with India's apprehensions.

This moment also highlights the broader realities of global trade and strategic alignments. India, once a major importer of arms, is now emerging as an exporter, especially to countries in Africa. How those arms are used depends heavily on the capabilities of the recipient nations, and it would be presumptuous for anyone without technical expertise to comment on the effectiveness or sophistication of military hardware.

Reports suggest that Pakistan’s defence infrastructure sustained significant damage from the Indian airstrikes. But beyond the physical toll, what may haunt Pakistan in the long term is the international damage to its credibility. Images of its military and political leaders attending the funerals of known terrorists have shocked the global community and may have far-reaching implications for its diplomatic standing.

Amidst all this, the ceasefire has been a point of contention, especially in political and strategic circles. Some see it as a diplomatic victory, a mature end to a specific military objective; others argue it was a premature halt, potentially influenced by international pressure. From a strategic perspective, however, once the mission to dismantle key terrorist hubs was achieved, continuing the confrontation would have lacked justification.

Comparisons are being drawn to the 1971 war, when then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi released thousands of Pakistani prisoners of war without leveraging them for strategic concessions. Critics argue that if today’s leadership accepted a ceasefire without extracting diplomatic gains, they would lose the moral ground to critique decisions made in the past.

The perception of Prime Minister Modi as a strong, unbending leader has taken a hit among some circles. There’s a sense of disappointment among his supporters who believed in his decisive style. The optics of the ceasefire announcement, particularly how it was presented by the U.S., made India appear subservient to American interests. This, many believe, could undermine India’s image as an assertive global power.

Yet, this is a skewed and partial interpretation of the broader diplomatic landscape. The United States has consistently spoken out against terrorism. If India’s decision to end active military engagement was influenced by global diplomacy, it doesn't necessarily imply weakness. Rather, it could reflect a strategic calculation—one that balances military achievements with international expectations and longer-term regional stability.

In assessing these events, it is critical to maintain a realistic and balanced view. National interests, diplomatic equations, and international pressure are intertwined in ways that are not always visible to the public. Every move—be it military, diplomatic, or rhetorical—must be seen in the context of long-term strategy rather than short-term optics.

In conclusion, while political affiliations and ideological leanings may colour our perceptions, national security and international diplomacy demand a more nuanced and informed understanding. It is vital to differentiate between genuine critique and partisan posturing. What India has done in this case—launching targeted strikes, managing international narratives, and accepting a ceasefire—is not a sign of weakness but a demonstration of strategic maturity.

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed