Connect with us

Pakistan News

Between Red Square and Pahalgam

Published

on

WHEN dense smoke was billowing from deadly firings across the Line of Control on Friday, smartly turned out military columns from 23 countries were paying homage at Moscow’s Red Square to the 27 million fallen men and women of the USSR who defeated Nazi Germany, captured Berlin and forced Hitler to shoot himself. Had the South Asian neighbours been more agreeably engaged than pursuing a destructive campaign against each other, the thought is too enticing to ignore that Indian and Pakistani troops would perhaps be marching in lockstep with Chinese, Russian, Uzbek, Egyptian and other comrades to pursue a new world order for equitable peace and sustainable prosperity. There are powerful antibodies stalking the possibility, however.

Mercifully, the fires have been doused in South Asia at least for now even though they were doused by the world’s most incendiary nation that ever wielded the firehose. For all their macho victory cries over claims of damage they inflicted on each other amid a display of grief and valour, India and Pakistan found themselves leaning on foreign shoulders yet again to resolve an essentially bilateral issue, illustrating not for the first time that they have not quite attained adulthood to shepherd the destiny of over a billion souls. The brokered peace, nevertheless, links the tragedy in Pahalgam with a world of power politics.

Be sanguine that the pointless flare-up wasn’t triggered by some four mysterious hate-mongers who showed up to kill innocent men in Pahalgam only to disappear without trace (as yet) in one of the world’s most militarised and policed places. That the foursome called out their victims’ religion turned into a tool to profit from with the time-tested game of identity politics. Remember that in the 2002 communal carnage in Gujarat, after a train fire tragedy in Godhra, it was Pakistan that was first named as the accused; only later mobs were unleashed on unsuspecting Muslims.

Religious politics in South Asia of the Hindu-Muslim variety was nurtured into deep fault lines by colonialism as a protection against another 1857 uprising. ‘Divide et impera’ they called it. Saadat Hasan Manto captured religious frenzy in several short stories that accompanied the violent creation of India and Pakistan. ‘Mistake’ was a story about the murder of a wrong man, the error discovered when his dead body was stripped and revealed he belonged to the killer’s community. The popular Indian leader who plies identity politics to fetch electoral windfalls was not around at the time. But he has spoken of a simpler way whereby one could identify Muslims by their attire. (And thereby also figure out the non-Muslims.) The monsters of Pahalgam missed the trick or perhaps needed an audio track for their crime.

Moscow and Beijing have found growing numbers of applicants from across the world keen to join the coalition against Western hegemony.

Step back from Pahalgam, and you might find a clearer action-reaction pattern. Pahalgam spawned a third military stand-off to involve a BRICS member. It couldn’t be a coincidence that Iran and Russia, key pillars of the coming multipolar world, are in the crosshairs of the West. Unlike the military crisis facing Iran, which has risen as a powerful symbol for the Global South, or Russia, a founding leader of BRICS, which sees itself as a pivot to a multipolar future and therefore is sought to be ‘weakened’ by the West through a grinding proxy war, the South Asian conflict disrupts BRICS more diabolically. India, a founder member of BRICS, balks at the idea of its South Asian rival joining the immensely powerful group. India is a leading member of BRICS but is increasingly perceived as its weak link. Pakistan, on the other hand, being an ardent supporter of BRICS, can become a full member only if India doesn’t obstruct the path. The Pahalgam terror attack of April 22 therefore can be explored as a trigger to sow seeds of discord in the ranks of the Global South and thereby of BRICS.

The mesmeric Victory Day celebrations at Moscow’s Red Square marked a crucial moment for BRICS, the group that terrifies Donald Trump and which Russia and China are feverishly pressing on with. Moscow and Beijing have found unexpectedly large and growing numbers of applicants from across the world keen to join the coalition against Western hegemony controlling their political and economic lives. In attendance at the Red Square to cheer the spectacular pageantry were heavyweights from the rising Global South. Xi Jinping, of course, but not to be ignored were his comrades from Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Egypt, Belarus, practically the entire Central Asian lot, but also notably, Malaysia, Myanmar and Vietnam from the Southeast Asian flank. The heads of Serbia and Slovakia, which is a Nato member, broke ranks with their Western minders to attend.

African leaders rejoiced and cheered on as Vladimir Putin put on a memorable display of music and colour that gave a new cadence to the great coming together. Stanley Kubrick’s awe-inspiring military columns in the cinematic version of Howard Fast’s Spartacus come to mind. The movie was scripted by the former head of the US communist party as an ode to the uprising of slaves against the mighty Roman Empire. The similarity with Friday’s turnout was that these soldiers, too, were celebrating the defeat of a racist regime. Not to miss the smiling face of Vladimir Lenin printed on red flags in the march past. After a long time, the communist emblem of hammer and sickle shone through the marching columns.

Missing, not unpredictably, from the celebrations was Narendra Modi. He had made up his mind to forgo the event months before the shooting war with Pakistan would happen. With the rise of Donald Trump, India has been perceived as tardy in cementing BRICS as a challenge to the West. For this alone, Modi was the winner last week, even if Pakistan claims to have fought a better war.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.

Pakistan News

Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded

Published

on

By

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Geopolitics has never been governed by sentiment. Not religion, not shared history, not cultural brotherhood—only interests. The unfolding realignments across South Asia and the Middle East illustrate this truth with striking clarity. Alliances are shifting, rivalries are recalibrating, and Pakistan finds itself increasingly positioned at the intersection of competing strategic designs.
The roots of today’s complexity stretch back to 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Pakistan became the frontline state in a U.S.-backed campaign to counter Moscow. Billions of dollars in American and Saudi assistance flowed through intelligence networks to arm and train Afghan fighters. The mobilization of religious ideology was not incidental—it was strategic. Fighters from across the Muslim world converged in Afghanistan. By 1989, the Soviet withdrawal marked a Cold War victory for Washington and its partners.
But militant infrastructures rarely dissolve once their immediate utility ends. The Taliban emerged in the 1990s from the ashes of war, establishing control over Kabul in 1996. Pakistan was among the few nations to recognize their regime. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the same Taliban became the primary target of American military intervention. The subsequent 20-year war cost over $2 trillion and claimed more than 170,000 lives before the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021.
The Taliban’s return to power reshaped the region yet again. Instead of ushering in stability for Pakistan, however, cross-border militancy intensified. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), operating from Afghan soil, escalated attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Islamabad responded with cross-border airstrikes against militant sanctuaries. While tactically decisive, these actions strained relations with Kabul and risked civilian backlash.
Instead, Pakistan with its deep intelligence roots in Afghanistan, had the option to adopt the same tactics which Afghanistan is using by infiltrating Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan and killing innocent people mostly by detonating human bombs in Mosque. This could have been a more discrete way to weed out the menace of TTP. History suggests that purely kinetic responses can produce unintended strategic consequences. Airstrikes may eliminate immediate threats, but they can also deepen mistrust and create diplomatic openings for rival powers.
In geopolitics, tactical victories can sometimes yield strategic setbacks. By intensifying overt military pressure, Islamabad may have inadvertently accelerated Kabul’s search for diversified partnerships.
That diversification is perhaps the most striking development. The Taliban government, ideologically committed to Islamic governance, has increasingly explored diplomatic and economic engagement beyond traditional Islamic partners. India reopened diplomatic channels in Kabul and expanded humanitarian assistance. Israel has pledged billions of dollars of aid to Kabul in alignment with India. This is a profound geopolitical entanglement: an Islamic Emirate seeking expanded engagement with a Hindu-majority India and a Jewish-majority Israel, even as tensions simmer with neighboring Muslim Pakistan.
This underscores a fundamental principle of realpolitik: states pursue survival and leverage, not theological alignment. Religious brotherhood and shared culture matter, but only when they coincide with national interest calculations. Facing economic collapse, frozen reserves, and diplomatic isolation, Kabul seeks diversification. India offers infrastructure and access. Israel offers technological cooperation and strategic outreach. Ideology yields to necessity.
For Pakistan, however, the optics intensify concerns of encirclement. On its eastern border, India remains a strategic competitor, particularly over Kashmir. On its western frontier now stands an Afghanistan willing to engage Islamabad’s rivals. To the southwest lies Iran, itself navigating tense relations with the United States. This evolving geometry fuels perceptions of a tightening strategic ring.
An additional dimension complicates matters further: Bagram Airbase. During the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, Bagram served as the largest American military installation in the country, with dual runways capable of handling heavy aircraft and advanced surveillance platforms. Its geographic location—approximately 500 kilometers from China’s Xinjiang region—made it strategically significant.
U.S. President Donald Trump publicly criticized the abandonment of Bagram in 2021, arguing that retaining the base would have preserved American leverage, particularly in the context of intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. Bagram’s proximity to Central Asia, Iran, and western China positions it as more than a counterterrorism platform—it is a potential springboard in great-power competition.
While direct American military reentry into Afghanistan appears unlikely in the near term, evolving regional alignments could create indirect pathways of influence. The strengthening of India’s presence in Kabul, combined with Israel’s strategic engagement in broader Asian geopolitics, introduces analytical possibilities. Washington maintains deep defense partnerships with both New Delhi and Tel Aviv. If Afghanistan continues diversifying toward these actors, space may gradually reopen for U.S. strategic leverage—without formal troop deployments.
Interestingly, geopolitics often unfolds through indirect channels. For Washington, containing China remains a central strategic priority. For India, Afghanistan offers westward strategic depth. For Israel, expanded regional engagement broadens diplomatic influence. For Kabul, diversified partnerships reduce isolation. For Pakistan, however, these convergences heighten strategic anxiety.
For Israel, extending its engagement with Kabul through India would provide a strategic foothold in South Asia and enhance its capacity to deter Pakistan from aligning with Turkey and Saudi Arabia in any configuration perceived as intimidating to Israel. Such cooperation could be viewed as a counterweight to a potential alignment involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and nuclear-armed Pakistan, which some analysts argue might aim to exert strategic pressure or encirclement against Israel.
Simultaneously, the Persian Gulf remains heavily militarized. The U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain deploys advanced naval assets, while Iran has invested in ballistic missiles, drones, and anti-ship systems designed to offset conventional asymmetry. China, importing substantial Gulf energy supplies, and Russia, expanding ties with Tehran, both observe carefully.
Any escalation between Washington and Tehran would reverberate in Pakistan. The country already hosts approximately 1.3 million registered Afghan refugees. A major Iran conflict could trigger further displacement, compounding economic strain amid IMF-backed reforms and domestic political polarization.
Internally, Pakistan faces political turbulence, including debates surrounding the incarceration of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and federal-provincial tensions. External pressure combined with internal division magnifies vulnerability.
Yet one broader truth emerges from this complex web: strategic encirclement is not solely a product of adversarial design. It can also arise from miscalculation, overreliance on hard power, and insufficient diplomatic agility. States that rely exclusively on military tools risk narrowing their strategic options.
This is a defining moment. Great-power rivalry, regional insecurity, and ideological contradictions intersect at fragile fault lines. Afghanistan’s outreach beyond traditional religious alignments demonstrates the primacy of interest over identity. Bagram symbolizes the enduring shadow of great-power competition. India and Israel’s evolving engagement in Kabul reflects the fluidity of modern alliances.
But history offers a sobering lesson. From the Soviet-Afghan war to the U.S. intervention, military campaigns have reshaped borders without resolving deeper grievances. Stability requires not merely deterrence but diplomacy.
Encirclement strategies may promise leverage. Hybrid doctrines may promise precision. Yet sustainable security demands cooperation grounded in mutual recognition of vulnerabilities.
Geopolitics may be ruthless in its calculations, but peace remains the only enduring strategic victory.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow

Published

on

By

Monitoring Desk: The Moscow–Islamabad Media Forum will be held on February 27, 2026, to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow, scheduled for the first week of March 2026.
The forum will serve as a platform for journalists, political experts, and diplomats from Pakistan and Russia to discuss the current state of bilateral relations, explore future opportunities, and analyze how the Russia–Pakistan partnership impacts global politics, the economy, and the contemporary media landscape.

Cooperation between Russia and Pakistan is of particular importance in the context of the transformation of international relations and the formation of a new system of global interaction. In recent years, contacts between the two countries have intensified at inter-parliamentary, expert, and media levels, while practical cooperation in the humanitarian and socio-political spheres continues to expand.
Within the framework of the forum, Russian and Pakistani journalists, political scientists, and representatives of diplomatic circles will discuss the current state and future prospects of bilateral relations, as well as the role of the Russia–Pakistan partnership in political, economic, and information processes shaping the modern world.
The event is timed to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow from March 3 to 5, 2026.
Admission for media representatives will be granted only through prior accreditation upon presentation of a passport and a valid editorial certificate confirming the journalist’s affiliation with the accredited media organization.
MSPC “Russia Today” reserves the right to refuse accreditation without providing an explanation.
This News is taken from
https://dnd.com.pk/pakistan-and-russia-deepen-media-and-diplomatic-dialogue-ahead-of-pm-sharifs-visit-to-moscow/328726/

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed

Published

on

By

Pakistan has carried out multiple overnight air strikes on Afghanistan, which the Taliban has said killed and wounded dozens of people, including women and children.

Islamabad said the attacks targeted seven alleged militant camps and hideouts near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and that they had been launched after recent suicide bombings in Pakistan.

Afghanistan condemned the attacks, saying they targeted multiple civilian homes and a religious school.

The fresh strikes come after the two countries agreed to a fragile ceasefire in October following deadly cross-border clashes, though subsequent fighting has taken place.

The Taliban’s defence ministry said the strikes targeted civilian areas of Nangarhar and Paktika provinces.

Officials in Nangarhar told the BBC that the home of a man called Shahabuddin had been hit by one of the strikes, killing about 20 family members, including women and children.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said it had carried out “intelligence based selective targeting of seven terrorist camps and hideouts”.

In a statement on X, it said the targets included members of the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, which the government refers to as “Fitna al Khawarij,” along with their affiliates and the Islamic State-Khorasan Province.

The ministry described the strikes as “a retributive response” to recent suicide bombings in Pakistan by terror groups it said were sheltered by Kabul.

The recent attacks in Pakistan included one on a Shia mosque in the capital Islamabad earlier this month, as well as others that took place since the holy month of Ramadan began this week in the north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

Pakistan accused the Afghan Taliban of failing to take action against the militants, adding that it had “conclusive evidence” that the attacks were carried out by militants on the instructions of their leadership in Afghanistan.

The Taliban’s defence ministry later posted on X condemning the attacks as a “blatant violation of Afghanistan’s territorial integrity”, adding that they were a “clear breach of international law”.

It warned that “an appropriate and measured response will be taken at a suitable time”, adding that “attacks on civilian targets and religious institutions indicate the failure of Pakistan’s army in intelligence and security.”

The strikes come days after Saudi Arabia mediated the release of three Pakistani soldiers earlier this week, who were captured in Kabul during border clashes last October.

Those clashes ended with a tentative ceasefire that same month after the worst fighting since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.

Pakistan and Afghanistan share a 1,600-mile (2,574 km) mountainous border.

Continue Reading

Trending