No crisis more starkly highlights the inescapable imperative of applying sustained international pressure on Pakistan than a cross-border terrorist attack in India. In the recent Shangri-La Dialogue – where Asia’s prominent strategists gather to discuss and shape the contours of regional security – Pakistan’s Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, expounded upon his country’s key objectives in its engagement with India. Though his words were wrapped in diplomatic rhetoric and echoed with a fervent appeal for conflict resolution, they served only to mask a darker and deeper intent aligned with the support of terrorism.
He called to “move beyond conflict management towards conflict resolution,” anchored in a plea for the “early resolution of Kashmir in line with the UN Security Council resolutions and the aspirations of the people.” To an uninformed, casual listener, such words would appear like an olive branch extended to neighbouring India. But for a keen observer of South Asian affairs, a simple reading of General Mirza’s statements reveals a far more calculated and insidious demand – that international law, morality, and historical truth be suspended to sanctify a solution tailored to Pakistani ambitions, being advanced by the crude arithmetic of terror and extortion.
It would be mistaken to consider General Mirza’s speech as an obligatory sabre-rattling of a military officer standing before an elite international gathering. His words were carefully constructed and diplomatically choreographed. The speech was an unmistakable reflection of a strategic manoeuvre in Pakistan’s long-standing effort to destabilize South Asia’s regional order and undermine the possibility of mutual coexistence. Behind his sophisticated delivery lay the footprints of a state that has mastered the art of duplicitous diplomacy. Pakistan has been attempting to excel in wielding the language of conflict resolution while nurturing the very instruments of conflict.
Pakistan’s invocation of international resolutions and the so-called “aspirations of the Kashmiri people” is a well-worn tactic, aimed at diluting India’s sovereign prerogatives in its own territory while inviting external players into a matter that remains strictly bilateral. Pakistan’s approach blatantly undermines the Simla Agreement of 1972, which committed both nations to resolve their differences through direct dialogue.
What makes General Mirza’s gambit more disturbing is its context. As he spoke before the audience gathered in Singapore, blood had scarcely dried on the ground in Pahalgam, where Pakistan-backed terrorists staged an audacious terror attack killing 26 innocent people. It was a terrible loss of human life. The attack was designed to provoke India into retaliation, and then to posture Pakistan as the wounded party seeking peace.
The Pahalgam massacre was not an isolated incident, but a manifestation of Pakistan’s deeply entrenched strategy of calibrated destabilization. It is a doctrine known as the “thousand cuts” strategy – a campaign of attrition, wherein terrorism is deployed as an extension of state policy. For Pakistan’s security establishment, peace is merely a narrative tool which can be manipulated to achieve desired strategic objectives.
India’s response to Pakistan’s provocation was measured and resolute. Preferring strength without hubris, India defended its sovereignty without being baited into reckless escalation. Yet, even as India has demonstrated commendable military restraint while fulfilling its main strategic objectives, Pakistan has been seeking to hide its Machiavellian designs in the garb of victimhood. Islamabad’s subsequent demand for dialogue with India are not genuine appeals for peace but tactical overtures aimed at regaining moral high ground. Its primary agenda is to reverse its geopolitical irrelevance, and repackage fabricated grievances as credible claims.
When General Mirza lamented that “the absence of a crisis management mechanism may not give enough time to the global powers to intervene and affect cessation of hostilities,” what he offered was not a procedural critique; he simply betrayed a deeper strategic anxiety – that the room for manoeuvre once presumed in calibrating responses to cross-border provocation has suddenly collapsed under the weight of New Delhi’s newfound resolve against terrorism; the sting of latest Indian retaliation has clearly unnerved Field Marshal Asim Munir and his coterie. In voicing this concern, General Mirza was essentially petitioning Islamabad’s global backers to restrain New Delhi before it “will probably be too late to avoid damage and destruction” – a plea less born of moral indignation than of the subtle terror that the storm it helped unleash will now come back with a vengeance. Clearly, the tone of General Mirza’s carefully-chosen remarks only reflect the utter shock in Pakistan’s military establishment in having underestimated New Delhi’s willingness to inflict severe kinetic punishment for Rawalpindi’s terror-permissive approach.
Whatever General Mirza uttered at the Shangri-La Dialogue is part of a larger scheme to forcibly hyphenate Pakistan’s identity with that of India’s, seeking parity through conflict and provocation. It is a ridiculous politics of parity, sought through the deliberate staging of military crises to legitimize non-state violent actors. The prestigious forums such as the Shangri-La Dialogue are meant to foster cooperation and mutual understanding. But Pakistan is now manipulating the discourse to hide its own culpability. By repeatedly resurrecting the Kashmir issue on such global platforms, Rawalpindi attempts to distract from its own multiple domestic failings, particularly how the anti-democratic forces aligned to its reckless policies are manipulating the sentiments of Pakistani citizens. The senseless logic of confronting India has already corroded Pakistani institutions, polarizing its society, militarizing its politics and making its economy bankrupt.
General Mirza’s mantra of conflict resolution is the expression of the deeper compulsion of Pakistan’s military establishment to forcibly link the trajectory of their country’s narrow identity to that of India’s. But the international community cannot be swayed by this elaborate façade without inviting ridicule for its inanity. Pakistan’s diplomatic posturing is a veneer stretched thin over a foundation of Islamist extremism and strategic hostility towards India. It has been harbouring terrorists while preaching moderation. It provokes with one hand while extending the other in so-called reconciliation. The world is dealing with a garrison state weaponizing the peace process itself.
However, India must remain unwavering, and continue to assert the cardinal principle of its diplomacy – Kashmir is an internal matter, and there can be no dialogue with Pakistan until the latter completely renounces terrorism. Furthermore, India must amplify its diplomatic outreach beyond the all-party delegations, and relentlessly expose the reality of Pakistan’s actions to the global community. In the shadow of Pakistan’s duplicitous diplomacy, India must be the democratic light that refuses to flicker.
(Vinay Kaura is an Assistant Professor in the Department of International Affairs and Security Studies at Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Rajasthan)
He called to “move beyond conflict management towards conflict resolution,” anchored in a plea for the “early resolution of Kashmir in line with the UN Security Council resolutions and the aspirations of the people.” To an uninformed, casual listener, such words would appear like an olive branch extended to neighbouring India. But for a keen observer of South Asian affairs, a simple reading of General Mirza’s statements reveals a far more calculated and insidious demand – that international law, morality, and historical truth be suspended to sanctify a solution tailored to Pakistani ambitions, being advanced by the crude arithmetic of terror and extortion.
It would be mistaken to consider General Mirza’s speech as an obligatory sabre-rattling of a military officer standing before an elite international gathering. His words were carefully constructed and diplomatically choreographed. The speech was an unmistakable reflection of a strategic manoeuvre in Pakistan’s long-standing effort to destabilize South Asia’s regional order and undermine the possibility of mutual coexistence. Behind his sophisticated delivery lay the footprints of a state that has mastered the art of duplicitous diplomacy. Pakistan has been attempting to excel in wielding the language of conflict resolution while nurturing the very instruments of conflict.
Pakistan’s invocation of international resolutions and the so-called “aspirations of the Kashmiri people” is a well-worn tactic, aimed at diluting India’s sovereign prerogatives in its own territory while inviting external players into a matter that remains strictly bilateral. Pakistan’s approach blatantly undermines the Simla Agreement of 1972, which committed both nations to resolve their differences through direct dialogue.
What makes General Mirza’s gambit more disturbing is its context. As he spoke before the audience gathered in Singapore, blood had scarcely dried on the ground in Pahalgam, where Pakistan-backed terrorists staged an audacious terror attack killing 26 innocent people. It was a terrible loss of human life. The attack was designed to provoke India into retaliation, and then to posture Pakistan as the wounded party seeking peace.
The Pahalgam massacre was not an isolated incident, but a manifestation of Pakistan’s deeply entrenched strategy of calibrated destabilization. It is a doctrine known as the “thousand cuts” strategy – a campaign of attrition, wherein terrorism is deployed as an extension of state policy. For Pakistan’s security establishment, peace is merely a narrative tool which can be manipulated to achieve desired strategic objectives.
India’s response to Pakistan’s provocation was measured and resolute. Preferring strength without hubris, India defended its sovereignty without being baited into reckless escalation. Yet, even as India has demonstrated commendable military restraint while fulfilling its main strategic objectives, Pakistan has been seeking to hide its Machiavellian designs in the garb of victimhood. Islamabad’s subsequent demand for dialogue with India are not genuine appeals for peace but tactical overtures aimed at regaining moral high ground. Its primary agenda is to reverse its geopolitical irrelevance, and repackage fabricated grievances as credible claims.
When General Mirza lamented that “the absence of a crisis management mechanism may not give enough time to the global powers to intervene and affect cessation of hostilities,” what he offered was not a procedural critique; he simply betrayed a deeper strategic anxiety – that the room for manoeuvre once presumed in calibrating responses to cross-border provocation has suddenly collapsed under the weight of New Delhi’s newfound resolve against terrorism; the sting of latest Indian retaliation has clearly unnerved Field Marshal Asim Munir and his coterie. In voicing this concern, General Mirza was essentially petitioning Islamabad’s global backers to restrain New Delhi before it “will probably be too late to avoid damage and destruction” – a plea less born of moral indignation than of the subtle terror that the storm it helped unleash will now come back with a vengeance. Clearly, the tone of General Mirza’s carefully-chosen remarks only reflect the utter shock in Pakistan’s military establishment in having underestimated New Delhi’s willingness to inflict severe kinetic punishment for Rawalpindi’s terror-permissive approach.
Whatever General Mirza uttered at the Shangri-La Dialogue is part of a larger scheme to forcibly hyphenate Pakistan’s identity with that of India’s, seeking parity through conflict and provocation. It is a ridiculous politics of parity, sought through the deliberate staging of military crises to legitimize non-state violent actors. The prestigious forums such as the Shangri-La Dialogue are meant to foster cooperation and mutual understanding. But Pakistan is now manipulating the discourse to hide its own culpability. By repeatedly resurrecting the Kashmir issue on such global platforms, Rawalpindi attempts to distract from its own multiple domestic failings, particularly how the anti-democratic forces aligned to its reckless policies are manipulating the sentiments of Pakistani citizens. The senseless logic of confronting India has already corroded Pakistani institutions, polarizing its society, militarizing its politics and making its economy bankrupt.
General Mirza’s mantra of conflict resolution is the expression of the deeper compulsion of Pakistan’s military establishment to forcibly link the trajectory of their country’s narrow identity to that of India’s. But the international community cannot be swayed by this elaborate façade without inviting ridicule for its inanity. Pakistan’s diplomatic posturing is a veneer stretched thin over a foundation of Islamist extremism and strategic hostility towards India. It has been harbouring terrorists while preaching moderation. It provokes with one hand while extending the other in so-called reconciliation. The world is dealing with a garrison state weaponizing the peace process itself.
However, India must remain unwavering, and continue to assert the cardinal principle of its diplomacy – Kashmir is an internal matter, and there can be no dialogue with Pakistan until the latter completely renounces terrorism. Furthermore, India must amplify its diplomatic outreach beyond the all-party delegations, and relentlessly expose the reality of Pakistan’s actions to the global community. In the shadow of Pakistan’s duplicitous diplomacy, India must be the democratic light that refuses to flicker.
(Vinay Kaura is an Assistant Professor in the Department of International Affairs and Security Studies at Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Rajasthan)
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
