Quetta: The manner of Pakistan’s retaliation for India’s punishing diplomatic measures in response to the terrorist attack on visitors in J&, K’s Pahalgam on April 22 highlights deeper fundamental differences between the neighbors.
At a gathering of elected associates led by PM Narendra Modi, India made the decision to impose a number of retaliatory sanctions on Pakistan for international violence, a move that reflected political consensus in the wake of the outcry over the shooting of 26 people, all but one of them visitors.
In contrast, Pakistan’s reply was handled by the National Security Committee, which is dominated by military generals, underscoring the army’s outsized influence in what would ordinarily be the prerogative of an elected government. The duality is further complicated by the fact that this occurs in the midst of growing political unrest, with former Tehreek-e-Insaf prime minister Imran Khan currently in jail.
Pakistan sought to deflect blame by rejecting India’s claims of participation in the invasion as being “baseless,” while also praising the violence and offering condolences for the loss of existence.
Given Pakistan’s history of ties to militant groups, Ishaq Dar’s request for evidence, while socially good, is unsupported.
The US and EU both condemn the attack and support it, but Islamabad’s denial and its claim that India carried out a “false flag operation” seem more facetious than substantial.
The 1972 Simla Agreement, which established the Line of Control ( LoC ) and required both countries to resolve disputes bilaterally, was suspended by Pakistan, which is a courageous but risky move. It signals a refusal of the post-war status quo, which could lead to global attention of Kashmir, which Pakistan has long sought.
However, this may fail because, especially without any concrete proof to refute Delhi’s claim that it supports cross-border violence, India’s stronger international reputation does outweigh Pakistan’s narrative.
Pakistan’s claim that India’s expulsion of the Indus Water Treaty was an “act of war” may be seen as very escalatory and could lead to a military conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbors. The article’s bellicose language appears to have a goal of deterring India and gaining local support, but it restricts political flexibility.
India’s actions reflect India’s actions, which show a desire to work strength both domestically and internationally. The decision to suspend trade, near airspace, and expel Indian diplomats is a reflection of its actions. These steps, however, run the risk of further economic isolation for Pakistan, which is already struggling with internal issues.
The Wagah border closing and the expulsion of train services disproportionately affect Pakistan’s smaller market, which causes little diplomatic trade. Similar to that, excluding Indian airlines from Muslim airspace may unnerve India and isolate Pakistan’s aviation industry, possibly deterring foreign investment.
Pakistan’s response, while forceful, lacks proper level and runs the risk of escalating a problems it is inadequate to manage. Pakistan has likely undermined its international standing and financial stability by placing metaphoric retaliation before political engagement.
