New Delhi
Beyond Brethren And Brotherly Bonds
Considering India’s aggressive post-Pahalgam posturing and Pakistan’s decisive response, much will depend on whether the Indian National Congress party can mount a serious challenge to Narendra Modi.

‘China is a sleeping giant. When it wakes, it will shake the world,’ says Napoleon Bonaparte.
After more than half a millennium of Western global domination, it is thankfully ending largely due to the awakening of China after its “hundred years of humiliation.”
One must never underestimate Western civilization’s contributions to a wide range of science, philosophy, and culture. And yet it is just as important never to forget that European civilization, especially as it developed in the Western hemisphere, rested on three overwhelmingly evil foundations: genocide, slavery (including its colonial manifestation), and perpetual warfare.
Despite the seminal contributions of the United States to modern world civilization, these three foundations continue to define its contribution to the state of the world in the Anthropocene Age, in which capitalism’s ideologically driven irresponsible impulses are almost irretrievably determining the very foreseeable fate of human civilization. This is the global context in which contemporary global developments need to be assessed.
Ever since the Pahalgam incident, and India’s allegations followed by its assault against Pakistan, a lot has happened that does not bear repetition. Suffice it to say India rushed to judgment against Pakistan as a matter of policy rather than judgment since it had no interest in acknowledging the beyond-endurable human rights situation it has deliberately created over the past several decades in India-occupied Kashmir, which has elicited two Genocide Alerts from Genocide Watch.
The US initially said it did not have a dog in any India-Pakistan fight. This was a clear green signal to India to go ahead and hammer Pakistan into crying for a ceasefire, at which time the US would step in and impose completely pro-India terms for a “permanent solution” to the Kashmir dispute.
The US calculated that it would thereby (i) achieve the favour of its subcontinental ally, India, against its strategic rival China; (ii) expose the limits of China’s ability to secure its long term friend and partner, Pakistan, against the global and regional hegemonies of the US and India respectively; and (iii) sow the seeds of suspicion and resentment among the corrupt and US-dependent ruling elites of Pakistan, and hopefully even among the common people of Pakistan, against China for not saving them from humiliating defeat at the hands of India.
According to some unverifiable but not inconceivable reports there might actually have been some sort of “concerted war diplomacy” among the US, India and Pakistan whereby India would assert a “new normal” by disproportionately reacting to Pakistan’s alleged “provocation;” Pakistan would not retaliate disproportionately thereby avoiding any risk of uncontrolled escalation; and the US would intervene and finalize a pro-India territorial status quo in Jammu and Kashmir - with India pretending to be dissatisfied and Pakistan licking the wounds of another military misfire.
After all, senior Pakistani military personnel in recent years have made no secret in their interactions with the Pakistani media, especially in the aftermath of India’s revocation of the status of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, that they no longer see any point in risking war with India over Kashmir. As a result, the only potential casus belli issue with India is no longer Kashmir; it is the Indus Waters Treaty. A jaded Pakistani public opinion is much more likely to accept the reasonable supposition that the denial of water is a far greater threat to life than the denial of territory, however cherished, that seems forever lost anyway.
Moreover, a younger generation has its own priorities, in which the commitments of previous generations understandably seem much less relevant, considering the survival challenges they confront on a daily basis today. What the younger generation will need to realize as they mature, however, is that war is not the only recourse to defend principles and obligations that a country incurs as matters of national priority, dignity, and credibility. The fact that war, whether open or proxy, is most unlikely to bring about a satisfactory solution to the Kashmir dispute does not mean the pursuit of a principled and satisfactory compromise solution acceptable to the people of Kashmir needs to be abandoned altogether. That would be an exercise in gratuitous national self-contempt.
Nor need the foregoing require the abandonment of a range of mutually beneficial bilateral exchanges and cooperation with India, especially if the longer-term Kashmir strategy is to develop constituencies of understanding and mutual interest on both sides of the border, which would make a compromise settlement far less impossible than appears to be the case today.
Rational and longer-term policy-making are indispensable to solving historically inherited issues, which, of course, is only possible within the context of legitimate and good governance in accordance with the fundamental law of the land. In this regard, the hadith shareef “INNAMAL A’MAALU BINNIYAAT,” i.e., the quality of intentions determines the quality of outcomes, must never be forgotten.
The Latin proverb Vox Populi Vox Dei, i.e., the Voice of the People is the Voice of God, is also relevant as the people of Pakistan have already voiced their opinion on their choice of leader. Good “Ol’ Abe” was also on point when he said all the people cannot be fooled all the time, no matter what contrivances are availed of. Reputedly, when Churchill was asked to define good governance, he said the people know it when they have it.
The tragedy of Pakistan has been that none of this is news for the educated classes, who nonetheless contrive to seek comfort and security in servility and extinction rather than freedom in struggle and survival. Their moral cowardice betrays their country and their children, who may eventually have no country to call their own.
More recently, there has been speculation that a much more insidious shadow play has been coordinated by the US, India and Pakistan in which a more or less phony war has been presented by India and Pakistan to their respective publics in which they have allegedly countered and smashed each other’s aggressive war plans, thereby boosting the declining popularity of the Modi regime in India, and shoring up the viability of the unelected military regime in Pakistan, at least in Punjab. If there was ever any such planned scenario, it was heroically upended by China and the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) fighter pilots, who implemented a “retaliation” strategy that neutralized any new normal India tried to impose.
Whatever the realities, which will sooner or later surface despite every attempt to suppress them, the so-called war ended as suddenly as it began with Pakistan far more satisfied than India - which either submitted to Trump’s insistence on a “premature” ceasefire, or because it recognized it had no answer to the Chinese technology which the Pakistan military and AI assisted interoperative hacking technology experts used very effectively.
Where do we go from here? A lot will depend on whether or not the Indian National Congress party can mount a serious challenge to Modi in the aftermath of India’s relative discomfiture. The Bihar State elections in June may turn out to be significant in this respect. India cannot be sure it will do any better if it extends the war, as China has provided Pakistan with an invaluable opportunity to deter India without dangerously climbing the so-called escalation ladder towards nuclear confrontation.
I will conclude with a brutal note of strategic advice. While Pakistan has many “brethren,” friends, and well-wishers, it has only one dependable and effective strategic ally - China. It is not the US, which is the strategic ally of Pakistan’s principal adversary, India, and seeks to distance Pakistan from China through the multiple leverages it exercises over Pakistan’s discredited ruling elites. China will not be taken for a ride by Pakistan. It has strategic alternatives. Pakistan has to earn and sustain China’s trust through closer than ever strategic cooperation with it and radical socio-political and economic reform at home. This can only happen through uncompromising and unending people’s struggle against all manner of injustices, which the soft elites of Pakistan will oppose with all their might![]()
Based in Islamabad, the writer is Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, India, and China and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan. He can be reached at ashrafjqazi@gmail.com


Leave a Reply