Pakistan News
Modi Reemerges: Humbled, Hurt, and Unreformed
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 : When tragedy struck in Pahalgam on April 22, Prime Minister Narendra Modi seized the moment—not for justice or truth, but for electoral gain. Assuming the roles of victim, judge, and executioner, Modi promptly blamed Pakistan without investigation, forensic inquiry, or evidence. In doing so, he shielded India’s bloated security establishment from scrutiny and used the incident to ignite nationalist passions just ahead of elections.
On May 12, in his first national address since the escalation began, Modi resurfaced to glorify “Operation Sindoor” as a surgical strike on terror. He painted a picture of technological precision, national unity, and decisive leadership. He boasted of eliminating over 100 terrorists and destroying terror camps in Bahawalpur and Muridke, celebrating India’s new doctrine of proactive defense. But the actual events bore little resemblance to this narrative.
Modi claimed that Operation Sindoor had carved a new benchmark in India’s fight against terror, framing it as a new normal. What he didn’t admit was the colossal failure of India’s intelligence and defense apparatus, and the devastating retaliation India faced from a militarily and economically smaller Pakistan. Instead of acknowledging the risks he plunged the region into—and the global threat such recklessness posed—he offered a hollow narrative that concealed more than it revealed.
In reality, India’s multi-pronged strikes by air, land, and sea killed no terrorists. They destroyed civilian homes, mosques, and empty fields. No confirmed terrorist casualties were reported. It was a spectacle designed for optics, not justice.
Then came the shock: on the very first day of hostilities, six Indian fighter jets, including three much-hyped Rafales, were downed by Pakistan’s lean but precise Air Force. A smaller, resource-constrained Pakistan had exposed the hollowness of India’s military bravado. Indian forces launched waves of drone and missile strikes, but Pakistan’s air defenses stood firm. Retaliatory strikes by Pakistan targeted and damaged Indian military infrastructure, shaking the very myth of India’s invincibility.
Between his lines, Modi hinted at the scale of Pakistan’s retaliation. He admitted that Pakistani forces struck military bases, schools, temples, gurdwaras, and other sites—though framed them as attacks on civilians. He emphasized that India’s air defenses shot down Pakistani drones and missiles, but these assertions rang hollow against the verified losses and visible destruction within Indian territory.
What he deliberately omitted was the fact that several Indian missiles misfired and landed within Indian-administered Kashmir and East Punjab, killing and maiming civilians—a damning failure of India’s command and control systems.
Crucially, Modi ignored how India had to turn to Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States to plead for de-escalation. While portraying Pakistan as the one seeking ceasefire, it was India—bloodied and embarrassed—that sought mediation. Modi attempted to mask this diplomatic retreat by saying it was Pakistan that “contacted our DGMO” and “begged for peace,” but the timeline and international reports suggested otherwise.
From May 5 to May 10, the Prime Minister vanished from public view. In those tense days of peak escalation, Modi chose silence. His disappearance was not tactical restraint but a tacit admission of miscalculation. When he finally returned to deliver his May 12 speech, it was less a declaration of victory and more an exercise in damage control.
His rhetoric turned to nuclear threats and pseudo-moral posturing. He vowed to respond to future attacks on Indian terms, claimed that India would no longer tolerate nuclear blackmail, and blurred the lines between governments and terrorists. He decried Pakistani officers for offering funeral prayers for those killed, presenting it as evidence of state-sponsored terrorism. Yet, the speech revealed more desperation than dominance.
He further championed India’s “Made in India” weapons and New Age Warfare capabilities, asserting that the operation validated indigenous defense manufacturing. However, it was evident to the world that India’s weaponry failed to protect its skies or maintain strategic superiority. Most ironically, some of those weapons malfunctioned and fell on Indian soil—a bitter embarrassment Modi dared not mention.
Perhaps the most overlooked and revolutionary aspect of this confrontation was Pakistan’s demonstration of indigenously developed soft warfare capabilities. Pakistan showcased its ability to launch effective cyberattacks, disrupt unmanned aerial vehicles midair, and induce critical errors in India’s missile command and control systems. Using precision electronic warfare tools, Pakistan successfully diverted, reprogrammed, and redirected multiple Indian missiles midflight, neutralizing their threat without conventional interception. Moreover, it identified and targeted high-value military assets in real time using its sophisticated soft skills architecture.
This capability—honed quietly over years—has now catapulted Pakistan into the ranks of countries mastering the next-generation battlefield. It may well be the first nation to have demonstrated such multi-domain, integrated, soft offensive capabilities in a live conflict. These assets played a decisive role in establishing Pakistan’s air, land, and sea superiority during the conflict, negating India’s numerical and technological advantages.
One particularly dangerous narrative that Modi had often championed before this conflict—the threat to divert rivers flowing from India into Pakistan—has now been permanently shelved. The harsh lesson taught by Pakistan during this war has ensured that weaponizing water will remain a non-option. The idea of choking Pakistan’s lifeline has backfired, permanently.
Despite his thunderous declarations, Modi could not undo the most significant outcome of this conflict: the re-internationalization of the Kashmir issue. For years, India had worked to suppress international discourse on Kashmir. But now, thanks to its own aggression, Pakistan gained sympathy, legitimacy, and diplomatic traction. U.S. President Donald Trump once again offered mediation, forcing India to confront the very topic it sought to bury.
Operation Sindoor, contrary to Modi’s celebratory framing, will be remembered not as a triumph but as a strategic blunder. It exposed the limitations of India’s military, the hollowness of its regional hegemony claims, and the perils of using warfare as an electoral tool.
India’s dream of uncontested regional supremacy has been reduced to rubble. Its myth of military superiority lies shattered. The chest-thumping nationalism that sought to project dominance has instead exposed deep vulnerabilities. From this humiliation, India may take years to recover—if at all. For now, the illusion of the subcontinent’s sole superpower has gone up in smoke, replaced by wreckage, remorse, and rhetorical retreat.
Pakistan News
Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded
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.
Pakistan News
Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow
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/
Pakistan News
Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed
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.
-
Europe News1 year agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News1 year agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
American News1 year agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
Pakistan News9 months agoComprehensive Analysis Report-The Faranian National Conference on Maritime Affairs-By Kashif Firaz Ahmed
-
American News1 year agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Art & Culture1 year agoThe Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage
-
Art & Culture1 year agoInternational Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
Pakistan News12 months agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?
