ISLAMABAD: The manner of Pakistan’s tit-for-tat response to punitive diplomatic measures by India over the April 22 terrorist attack on tourists in J&K’s Pahalgam highlights deeper structural differences between the neighbours.
India’s decision to slap a series of retaliatory costs on Pakistan for cross-border terrorism was framed at a meeting of elected representatives led by PM Narendra Modi, reflecting democratic consensus amid a groundswell of public outrage over the killing of 26 people, all but one of them tourists.
In contrast, Pakistan’s response came through the National Security Committee, dominated by military generals and underscoring the army’s outsized role in what would normally be an elected government’s prerogative. That this comes amid increasing political instability, with ex-PM Imran Khan of Tehreek-e-Insaf behind bars, adds to the dichotomy.
By rejecting India’s allegations of involvement in the attack as “baseless”, Pakistan sought to deflect blame, emphasising its condemnation of the violence and extending condolences for the loss of lives.
But foreign minister Ishaq Dar’s demand for evidence, while diplomatically sound, lacks credibility given Pakistan’s historical links with militant groups.
Islamabad’s denial, coupled with its claim of a “false flag operation” by India, appears more rhetorical than substantive, as it fails to address Delhi’s security concerns or sway international opinion, with the US and EU condemning the attack and aligning with India.
Pakistan’s suspension of the 1972 Simla Agreement, which established the Line of Control (LoC) and committed both nations to resolving disputes bilaterally, is a bold but risky move. It signals a rejection of the post-1971 status quo, potentially inviting international scrutiny over Kashmir, which Pakistan has long sought.
However, this could backfire, as India’s stronger global diplomatic clout may overshadow Pakistan’s narrative, especially without concrete evidence to counter Delhi’s charge of sponsoring cross-border terrorism.
Pakistan’s assertion that India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty was an “act of war” could be seen as highly escalatory, risking military conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours. The statement’s bellicose tone apparently aims to deter India and rally domestic support, but limits diplomatic flexibility.
The decision to suspend trade, close airspace and expel Indian diplomats mirrors India’s actions, signalling a desire to project strength domestically and internationally. However, these measures risk further isolating Pakistan economically, already strained by internal challenges.
The closure of the Wagah border and suspension of train services disrupt minimal bilateral trade, disproportionately affecting Pakistan’s smaller economy. Similarly, barring Indian airlines from Pakistani airspace may inconvenience India, but also isolates Pakistan’s aviation sector, potentially deterring foreign investment.
Pakistan’s response, while assertive, lacks strategic depth and risks escalating a crisis it is ill-equipped to sustain. By prioritising symbolic retaliation over diplomatic engagement, Pakistan has probably undermined its international credibility and economic stability.
India’s decision to slap a series of retaliatory costs on Pakistan for cross-border terrorism was framed at a meeting of elected representatives led by PM Narendra Modi, reflecting democratic consensus amid a groundswell of public outrage over the killing of 26 people, all but one of them tourists.
In contrast, Pakistan’s response came through the National Security Committee, dominated by military generals and underscoring the army’s outsized role in what would normally be an elected government’s prerogative. That this comes amid increasing political instability, with ex-PM Imran Khan of Tehreek-e-Insaf behind bars, adds to the dichotomy.
By rejecting India’s allegations of involvement in the attack as “baseless”, Pakistan sought to deflect blame, emphasising its condemnation of the violence and extending condolences for the loss of lives.
But foreign minister Ishaq Dar’s demand for evidence, while diplomatically sound, lacks credibility given Pakistan’s historical links with militant groups.
Islamabad’s denial, coupled with its claim of a “false flag operation” by India, appears more rhetorical than substantive, as it fails to address Delhi’s security concerns or sway international opinion, with the US and EU condemning the attack and aligning with India.
Pakistan’s suspension of the 1972 Simla Agreement, which established the Line of Control (LoC) and committed both nations to resolving disputes bilaterally, is a bold but risky move. It signals a rejection of the post-1971 status quo, potentially inviting international scrutiny over Kashmir, which Pakistan has long sought.
However, this could backfire, as India’s stronger global diplomatic clout may overshadow Pakistan’s narrative, especially without concrete evidence to counter Delhi’s charge of sponsoring cross-border terrorism.
Pakistan’s assertion that India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty was an “act of war” could be seen as highly escalatory, risking military conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours. The statement’s bellicose tone apparently aims to deter India and rally domestic support, but limits diplomatic flexibility.
The decision to suspend trade, close airspace and expel Indian diplomats mirrors India’s actions, signalling a desire to project strength domestically and internationally. However, these measures risk further isolating Pakistan economically, already strained by internal challenges.
The closure of the Wagah border and suspension of train services disrupt minimal bilateral trade, disproportionately affecting Pakistan’s smaller economy. Similarly, barring Indian airlines from Pakistani airspace may inconvenience India, but also isolates Pakistan’s aviation sector, potentially deterring foreign investment.
Pakistan’s response, while assertive, lacks strategic depth and risks escalating a crisis it is ill-equipped to sustain. By prioritising symbolic retaliation over diplomatic engagement, Pakistan has probably undermined its international credibility and economic stability.
You may also like
Delhi: World's largest adrenal tumor removed robotically at Safdarjung Hospital
Houses of three LeT terrorists demolished in J&K (Lead)
UNSC condemns Pahalgam attack, says those responsible should be held accountable
Man who dragged Delhi cop on car bonnet nabbed from Kolkata
Global E-Cricket Premier League 2025: Sara Tendulkar Becomes Owner of Mumbai Grizzlies, Shares Emotional Post
