The Indian media reports make out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s reception for the seven parliamentary delegations waging the war on terror turned into a social occasion to celebrate the flashes of ‘national unity’ before the hurly-burly of politics returns as the election cycle picks up.
The PMO did not issue any press release on PM’s remarks. We wouldn’t know whether this event on Tuesday is a substitute for a special session of the parliament to discuss Pahalgam incident, which opposition parties demanded.
Regrettably, we won’t even know the international reaction to our war on terror against Pakistan. There have been no public statements. How can a war be waged when there is no clarity about the enemy?
Terrorism is a dicey subject with a complicated history. It is not only China which maintains “ambiguity or double standards”on terrorism — per EAM S. Jaishankar’s allegation — but even within India there are misconceptions. The contesting legacies of Bhagat Singh and Savarkar bear testimony to it.
We need to tread softly. Proposals are being mooted lately that India should rally the Global South in the war on terror. There is great risk that we may lethally erode our article of faith that Kashmir is an internal matter. The world-wide perception is already that the periodic eruption of India-Pakistan violence stems from the unresolved Kashmir problem. (See my article Operation Sindoor Outreach: What Did Panda & Co Achieve In West Asia? Rediff, June 5, 2025)
Our solution lies in diligently picking up the thread of negotiations during the time of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez Musharraf. But no serious attempt has been made in this direction in the past decade or more — nor is it ever likely by the ideology-driven present government.
If the bilateral track is unproductive or damaged, what is the alternative? Fixation about bilateralism shouldn’t be an alibi for inertia. The international environment today has dramatically changed and old dogmas have become obsolete. India is no longer vulnerable to external aggression / interference / interventions. Indians are a patriotic people and national unity doesn’t have to be promoted if the country faces an existential danger. We, our children and grandchildren are all stakeholders, because we live here and this is our only country.
We see a remarkable convergence between the three big powers — the US, Russia and China — on the efficacy of dialogue between India and Pakistan. What drives the big powers may not be altruistic motives, but, quintessentially, there is convergence that all three dread a weakened, failed Pakistani state and will prevent it no matter what it takes — IMF / ADB / World Bank, etc., have been lined up. Pakistan is a highly strategic entity in geopolitical terms.
Arguably, China’s helping hand to Pakistan too is not really any different — although a powerful lobby in our country is raising the spectre of a military ‘fusion’ between the two countries. Their diabolical agenda is to legitimise the hypothesis that our problematic relations with these two neighbours have no real solutions and all that is possible is a cauterisation of gaping wounds. This is a defeatist mentality unbecoming of a civilisation state.
After all, is China doing anything essentially different from what the US did during India’s cold-war era wars with Pakistan— or for that matter, what Russia is doing for India’s militarisation and national defence? Where was the ‘fusion’ then?
Russia has openly acknowledged the US’ good offices in checking the India-Pakistan tensions from spiralling out of control. All three big powers offered to promote dialogue. So, where lies the real problem?
Simply put, we remain stuck with the ‘management’ of Kashmir problem rather than seek a permanent solution. There are interest groups that adopt maximalist positions. And political leadership lacks the courage or the moral authority to approach the problem in a spirit of give and take. Remember, Germany and France also used to be eternal enemies; they even fought two world wars.
Ironically, even as PM hosted the seven multi-party delegations that returned home, in a hearing in the US Congress, at the House Armed Services Committee, the commander of the US Central Command, Gen. Michael Kurilla lavishly praised Pakistan as a key partner in counterterrorism.
The general unequivocally commended a “phenomenal partnership” on the part of the Taliban with Pakistan in the tribal areas on their border in the fight against ISIS with the support of US intelligence, which eliminated dozens of ISIS fighters and captured at least five high-value terrorists, who included Jafar, one of the key individuals behind the Abbey Gate bombing.
Gen. Kurilla disclosed that Pakistani army chief Gen. Asim Munir called him personally to inform, “I have caught him [Jafar], ready to extradite him back to the United States, please tell the Secretary of Defence and President.”
Gen. Kurilla added, “So we are seeing Pakistan, with the limited intelligence that we provide, go after them using their means to do that, and we are seeing an effect on ISIS Khorasan…
“And I would also tell you that since 2024 — the beginning — Pakistan has had over 1000 terrorist attacks in the western area [Baluchistan], killing about 700 security and [2500] civilians. They have an active counterterrorism fight right now, and they have been a phenomenal partner in the counterterrorism world.”
Interestingly, Gen. Kurilla alluded to a US-Russian convergence — and even possibly US-Iranian — in this regard, saying, “But remember, these [ISIS] are the same individuals that did the Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow [in March 2024 in which the death toll touched 143 and more than a hundred people were injured.] They did the attack in Kerman [in January 2024 at a commemorative ceremony marking the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani at his grave in eastern Kerman, eastern Iran, where two bomb explosions killed at least 95 people and injured 284 others.]”
The US Army general summed up: “That’s why we need to— we have to have a relationship with Pakistan and with India. I do not believe it is a binary switch that we can’t have one with Pakistan if we have a relationship with India. We should look at the merits of the relationship for the positives it has.”
Isn’t it all too obvious that Shashi Tharoor who led the parliamentary delegation to Washington was beating a dead horse?
EAM condemned China publicly, but it is common sense that China also cannot afford the weakening of the Pakistani state. They’ve invested deeply in the CPEC. Or, consider Xinjiang’s stability and security and the nexus between ISIS and Uighur terrorists.
In reality, our irritation with China is that it is countering terrorist threats supported from abroad effectively, with a long-term perspective, in its own way, with all the wisdom that it can bring to bear on the challenge as a civilisation state — which has shown results, too — rather than follow our footfalls and muddling methods.
China cannot afford a hybrid war like Don Quixote’s against giant windmills because well-trained battle-hardened terrorists from Xinjiang actually constitute the cadres of the ISIS and terrorism is not an optical illusion.