The India-Pakistan relationship, a pressing issue fraught with tension, mistrust, and sporadic conflict, indicates that there must be a shift in approach. It’s time to move from reactive posturing to proactive diplomacy and kinetic options, strategic planning that is more crucial than ever.
The Precision Guided Weapons should be used during day time to let the population feel that things can get worse in case the “terrorist mindset of the GHQ in Rawalpindi does not change”.
The Current Landscape: Reactive Policies and External Influences
India’s approach to Pakistan has often been reactive, responding to provocations rather than setting the agenda. India must adopt a proactive stance, leveraging its growing economic and military clout to shape regional dynamics. However, it must avoid being swayed by foreign governments’ engagements to seek a peaceful resolution. The onus of de-escalation lies with the Pakistani military leadership.
The Pakistani leadership has been relying on social media rumors to satisfy the ‘need of its population’ to assuage their feelings.
Social media narratives amplify equipment failures and glorify conflict as marketing tools for defense manufacturers. Wars translate to business and profits for them. Conflicts rarely lead to peaceful resolutions; instead, they entrench divisions and suffering.
In Pakistan, the troika of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the military, and religious hardliners hold disproportionate power, often at the expense of the Pakistani people, who face grave deprivation. This moment in Pakistan’s history is critical. It is time for the population of Pakistan to step forward, challenge these entrenched power structures, and seek what is truly in their best interest—a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic nation.
This power structure must be harnessed—not just by Pakistan’s citizens but also by international institutions that finance the Pakistani government. Countries like the US, UK, and European nations have a role in pressuring these power centers to prioritize governance over militancy. Yet, their actions are often inconsistent, shaped by their geopolitical interests. The Global Financial institutions, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund must audit and put restrictive measures in place for Pakistan.
Geopolitics further complicates matters. Some global powers appear to benefit from a weak India, encouraging Pakistan and other neighbors to maintain inimical relations with New Delhi. For instance, the recent visit of a Saudi minister to both capitals likely conveyed divergent messages, reflecting the complex balance of external actors in the region. India must remain vigilant, recognizing that some view its rise as an economic and military power with apprehension.
The targeting of Indian military cantonments is a blatant provocation and must be met with firm and unequivocal retaliation. India cannot and will not tolerate aggression directed at its armed forces or sovereign territory.
Any act of hostility by the Pakistani military establishment must be countered with calibrated, decisive force—militarily, economically, and diplomatically. Strategic restraint does not imply weakness. It means choosing the time, place, and method of retribution that inflicts maximum cost on the perpetrators. While India distinguishes between the Pakistani military and its civilian population, it will not hesitate to dismantle any infrastructure, tangible or ideological, that threatens its national security.
The days of appeasement and symbolic protests are over; India will lead from a position of strength, not concession. Hurting the military’s ability to provoke without escalating to full-scale conflict is critical. This could involve targeted economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation of military-backed entities, or precise counterterrorism operations.
Nationalism, while a powerful force on both sides, must not blind leaders to the need for peace. The cycle of “no war, no peace” benefits neither nation, draining resources and perpetuating instability. A bilateral issue like this requires mutual effort. The bold step taken by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2015, when he made an impromptu visit to Lahore to meet then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, set a precedent. It is now incumbent upon Pakistani leadership to reciprocate with a similar gesture of goodwill.
The Power of Initiative: Lessons from 1971
History teaches us that the side that controls the initiative shapes the outcome. In 1971, India’s strategic foresight, political resolve, and military preparedness forced Pakistan to negotiate, resulting in the creation of Bangladesh and the most decisive victory in South Asia’s modern history. India seized the diplomatic space, prepared the military theater, and ensured global understanding of its moral and strategic position.
The Pakistani military leadership was forced to capitulate not just because of battlefield defeats, but because India had built overwhelming international and regional pressure, executed military maneuvers with precision, and sustained the political will to go the distance.
That lesson must never be forgotten. The initiative is not about rash action but about setting the tempo—politically, diplomatically, militarily—and forcing the adversary to respond, not act. With a stronger economy, more sophisticated military, and global goodwill today, India can recreate this strategic advantage—but only if it consciously chooses to lead rather than wait.
Pre-requisite for Peace
From India’s perspective, “the Troika of Pakistan needs to be harnessed by the people of Pakistan—the masters of their destiny” is both a strategic imperative and a prerequisite for long-term peace in South Asia.
Understanding the Troika
The “Troika” refers to Pakistan’s three power centers:
- The military (especially the Army and ISI),
- The civilian political leadership, and
- The radical religious groups (often with implicit or active state backing).
These three forces often act at cross purposes, and peace with India has historically been sabotaged when one arm, especially the military or extremist groups, feels threatened by it. The civilian government may want peace, but rarely controls the national security agenda.
India’s Core Concern: Stability and Accountability
- For India, meaningful peace requires a stable, democratically accountable partner. As long as Pakistan’s military retains veto power over foreign policy, particularly toward India, the chances of sustainable peace are slim. This is because:
- • The military has institutional incentives to maintain hostility with India, justifying its massive budget, influence, and control by projecting India as an existential threat.
- • Militant groups nurtured under the strategic doctrine of “bleeding India through a thousand cuts” are viewed as assets, not liabilities, by certain sections of the establishment.
- • Civilian leaders, even when well-intentioned, often lack the strength or independence to challenge this status quo.
Harnessing the Troika: What It Means for Peace
If the Pakistani people assert democratic control over all arms of the state, including the military and religious lobbies, it would fundamentally shift the dynamic with India. Specifically:
- No rogue elements could derail peace efforts through terrorism or border violations.
- Negotiations would have credibility, as the interlocutor across the table would speak for the entire state, not just a powerless civilian wing.
- India might invest in deeper trade and cultural ties, reducing the potential for conflict and increasing the costs of hostility for both sides.
A Historical Lens
India has witnessed how peace initiatives—the Agra Summit (2001), Vajpayee’s Lahore visit (1999), and even backchannel talks in the 2000s—have been undermined by military intervention or militant attacks, such as those in Kargil or on 26/11. The pattern is clear: unless the people of Pakistan can rein in the autonomy of anti-peace factions within their system, India has little reason to trust any overtures.
From India’s standpoint, peace with Pakistan is desirable but not at the expense of security or repeated betrayals. Genuine peace will only be achievable when Pakistan’s internal power structure is rebalanced—when the will of its people prevails over entrenched institutions that benefit from conflict. Such a shift isn’t just advantageous for Pakistan; it’s essential for a peaceful subcontinent.
Pathways for Conflict Resolution
People-to-People Engagement. Both nations should encourage cultural exchanges, academic collaborations, and trade initiatives that truly humanize the “other.” Programs like the Aman Ki Asha initiative, which beautifully promotes peace through media and civil society, could undoubtedly be revitalized. We can build meaningful bridges by opening more visa channels for civilians, especially youth and artists.
Economic Interdependence. Trade can foster mutual interests in stability. Restarting limited cross-border trade, like through the Wagah-Attari border, may bolster local economies and decrease hostility. Collaborative projects in neutral areas, such as renewable energy or agriculture, could enhance cooperation.
Track-II Diplomacy. Informal dialogues involving retired diplomats, military officials, and intellectuals can generate ideas and build trust away from the public eye. These talks can explore confidence-building measures (CBMS), such as regular military-to-military communication to prevent border escalations.
Regional Frameworks. Engaging through regional platforms like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) could provide a neutral space for dialogue. While SAARC has been stalled, reviving it and focusing on non-political issues like climate change or public health could pave the way for broader discussions.
Both nations must recognize the importance of toning down jingoistic rhetoric in media and politics. Governments could work with media outlets to promote narratives of coexistence, highlighting shared history and cultural ties rather than division. This shift in public discourse is crucial for fostering a culture of peace and understanding.
China’s War Hype and Pakistan’s Economic Fallout: A Reality Check from India’s Lens
The latest flare-up between India and Pakistan is being spun not just as a military clash, but as a global weapons showcase—especially by those eager to tout Chinese military exports. Rumors spread fast this week after Pakistan claimed it had used Chinese-made J-10C jets to shoot down Indian aircraft, including the French-built Rafale.
The claim, unverified and unacknowledged by India, conveniently surfaced alongside a 40% surge in shares of China’s AVIC Chengdu Aircraft.
Beijing and Islamabad wanted to communicate clearly: Chinese tech had outmatched Western defense hardware. But beyond the hype, reality tells a different story.
While Chinese defense stocks may have rallied on speculative headlines, Pakistan’s economy took a hit. Its stock market nosedived over 6%, and trading was temporarily halted, reflecting panic, not power. Investors responded not to military triumphs but to the instability caused by such adventurism. The so-called “win” in the air didn’t translate to confidence on the ground.
India, meanwhile, has maintained a strategic silence. It doesn’t need to engage with manufactured victories or rushed PR stunts. Military credibility is earned through performance, not propaganda. As the world watches closely, it is also learning that false narratives—even those amplified by state machinery—don’t survive long in the age of satellite imagery, real-time surveillance, and global media scrutiny.
For Beijing, this confrontation is a live-fire demonstration of its exports. For Pakistan, it is another reminder of how its foreign policy, economy, and military strategy remain outsourced to an “ironclad friend” more interested in testing equipment than regional stability.
For India, the message is simple: don’t buy into the noise. The Rafales remain fully operational, and the larger strategic picture remains unchanged. False victories may boost Shanghai stocks but don’t build trust, deterrence, or peace.
Reclaiming the Strategic Initiative: Peace on India’s Terms
Peace between India and Pakistan isn’t a fantasy—but it won’t come through passivity or wishful thinking. India cannot afford to respond to provocations merely; that reactive posture has only sustained a pattern of calculated instability, orchestrated from Rawalpindi. To break this cycle, India must seize and hold the strategic initiative.
This means diplomatically isolating Pakistan’s military elite, containing them militarily, and bypassing them politically to engage with Pakistan’s civilian population and democratic institutions, however weak they may be. Real peace requires Rawalpindi to be recalibrated, not rewarded. Pakistan’s Prime Minister and Army Chief need to swallow their pride, drop the self-defeating posture of false parity, and start from a clean slate.
India must remember the clarity and resolve of 1971. That victory wasn’t just military—it was strategic. India held the narrative, shaped the battlefield, and achieved lasting geopolitical results. That model remains relevant. The objective today is not to destroy Pakistan, but to destroy the myth that the subcontinent’s future rests on military equivalence.
Peace is not a gift India needs to offer—it’s a responsibility Pakistan must earn. If stability in the region is to have real meaning, Pakistan must take the lead, with clarity, sincerity, and a willingness to break from its militarized past.