Akhtar Hussain Sandhu, an expert on Sikh studies, has recorded a program on Pak-India War and Khalistan which was broadly discussed in different academic and political circles

Many brief comments came but a comprehensive response came from Prof. Kashif Firaz Ahmad, Writer, Trainer, media person and analyst. Here is his note on the Khalistan and Pak-India War.

In the wake of recent tensions between Pakistan and India, Dr. Akhtar Hussain Sandhu presented a deeply thought-provoking and historically grounded analysis on his YouTube channel. His reflections focused on the long-standing aspirations of the Sikh community for a separate homeland—Khalistan—and highlighted two key reasons why this dream remains unfulfilled:

1. A lack of internal unity among the Sikh community
2. The absence of strong, steadfast, and visionary leadership
   Dr. Sandhu’s observations deserve recognition for their depth and realism. History, as he rightly suggests, is not shaped by mere aspirations—it demands strategic thinking, collective unity, disciplined movements, and dynamic leadership. In 1947, as the Indian subcontinent underwent a monumental partition, the Sikh nation stood at a historic crossroads. Not only did they have the opportunity to assert a distinct identity, but geographically, the land of Punjab—adjacent to the newly formed Pakistan—also offered a plausible base for an independent state.
   However, that crucial moment passed. The internal fragmentation of the Sikh community and the lack of a cohesive leadership structure meant that the opportunity was lost. The dream of Khalistan faded into historical memory rather than becoming a political reality. Dr. Sandhu’s insight that such opportunities arise once in decades—perhaps every 40 to 50 years—is rooted in historical patterns. Movements for self-determination are often intergenerational struggles. They require maturity, resilience, and above all, an unwavering commitment to organized and principled resistance. Without unity and vision, even the noblest of causes can falter.
   While Dr. Sandhu’s analysis is marked by historical depth and intellectual clarity, adding the following perspectives might enrich the conversation further:
   The Role of Global Powers: The silence or strategic calculations of influential nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia played a pivotal role in the marginalization of the Khalistan movement. A discussion of international diplomacy and realpolitik can provide a broader context for understanding its stagnation.
   Lack of Economic Blueprint: No separatist or nationalist movement can sustain itself without a robust economic vision. The Khalistan movement, while emotionally resonant, lacked a concrete roadmap for financial viability and state-building.
   The Sikh Diaspora Factor: With millions of Sikhs settled across Canada, the UK, the US, and Australia, the global Sikh community holds considerable political, financial, and intellectual capital. Exploring how this diaspora could have—or still can—play a decisive role in shaping or reviving the movement is essential for a holistic understanding.
   Scholars like Dr. Akhtar Hussain Sandhu play an essential role in helping societies understand their political realities through the lens of history. His ability to connect contemporary developments with historical precedents not only informs public discourse but also encourages critical thinking among the youth.
   His analysis carries not just value for the Sikh community but also offers important lessons for other marginalized or aspiring nationalist movements around the world. The reminder is clear: unity, discipline, and credible leadership remain the cornerstones of any successful quest for self-determination.
   I deeply appreciate Dr. Sandhu’s selfless intellectual contributions and encourage him to continue his invaluable work with the same seriousness, impartiality, and intellectual integrity. History must not only be studied—it must be understood, interpreted, and passed on with sincerity and vision. That responsibility rests in capable hands like his.

Writer:
Prof. Kashif Firaz Ahmad

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vowed to respond strongly to any future “terrorist attack”, after four days of military exchanges with neighbouring Pakistan.

“This is not an era of war, but this is also not an era of terror,” Modi said in his first public address since days of intense shelling and aerial incursions, carried out by both sides, began.

These followed a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 people, for which India blamed a Pakistan-based group. Islamabad has strongly denied backing the group in question.

The US-brokered ceasefire agreed between the nuclear-armed neighbours at the weekend appears to have held so far.

Both nations say they remain vigilant.

“If another terrorist attack against India is carried out, a strong response will be given,” Modi said in his speech on Monday.

“Terror and trade talks cannot happen together,” he remarked. This was most likely a reference to comments from US President Donald Trump, who said he had told India and Pakistan his administration would only trade with them if they end the conflict.

“Similarly, water and blood cannot flow together,” Modi added, this time referring to the suspension of a water treaty between India and Pakistan.

• ANALYSIS: How backchannels and US mediators pulled India and Pakistan back from the brink

Earlier, top military officials from India and Pakistan discussed finer details of the ceasefire agreed between them over the weekend.

According to the Indian army, the two sides spoke about the need to refrain from any aggressive action.

“It was also agreed that both sides consider immediate measures to ensure troop reduction from the borders and forward areas,” it said in a statement.

Announcing the ceasefire on Saturday, Trump said “it was time to stop the current aggression that could have led to the death and destruction of so many, and so much”.

India announced on Monday that it was reopening 32 airports for civilians that it had earlier said would remain closed until Thursday due to safety concerns.

The recent tensions were the latest in the decades-long rivalry between India and Pakistan, who have fought two wars over Kashmir, a Himalayan region which they claim in full but administer in part.

The hostilities threatened to turn into a fully-fledged war as they appeared unwilling to back down for days.

Both countries have said that dozens of people from both sides died over the four days of fighting last week, partly due to heavy shelling near the de facto border.

After the ceasefire, however, both the rivals have declared military victory.

On 7 May, India reported striking nine targets inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir in response to the 22 April deadly militant attack in the picturesque Pahalgam valley.

In the days after the first strike, India and Pakistan accused each other of cross-border shelling and claimed to have shot down rival drones and aircraft in their airspace.

As the conflict escalated, both nations said they had struck the rival’s military bases.

Indian officials reported striking 11 Pakistan Air Force bases, including one in Rawalpindi, near the capital Islamabad. India also claimed Pakistan lost 35-40 men at the Line of Control – the de facto border – during the conflict and that its air force lost a few aircraft.

Pakistan has accepted that some Indian projectiles landed at its air force bases.

Indian defence forces have also said that they struck nine armed group training facilities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, killing more than 100 militants.

The Pakistan military, in turn, claims it targeted about 26 military facilities in India and that its drones hovered over the capital, Delhi.

India has confirmed that some Pakistani projectiles landed up at its air force bases, though it did not comment on the claim about Delhi.

Pakistan also claims to have shot down five Indian aircraft, including three French Rafales – India has not acknowledged this or commented on the number, though it said on Sunday that “losses are a part of combat”.

Pakistan denied the claims that an Indian pilot was in its custody after she ejected following an aircraft crash. India has also said that “all our pilots are back home”.

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 : In the immediate aftermath of the tragic terrorist attack in Pahalgam—a heavily militarized yet scenic area of Indian-administered Kashmir—India’s response was marked by outrage rather than introspection. Yet, ten days later, no retaliatory action has occurred. Domestically, Prime Minister Narendra Modi finds himself increasingly isolated, while internationally, India stands diplomatically cornered for attempting to implicate Pakistan without credible evidence. Despite fiery rhetoric, India’s inaction reflects a sobering realization: any military confrontation with Pakistan would be regionally destabilizing, globally condemned, and potentially catastrophic.
India’s restraint from launching punitive strikes against Pakistan can be attributed to four compelling reasons. First, Prime Minister Modi’s narrative failed to gain traction among critical segments of Indian society—including Indian Muslims, ordinary citizens, and even Kashmiris and victims of the attack—many of whom demanded evidence before blaming Pakistan.
Second, Pakistan’s swift and robust military readiness served as a strong deterrent, making any offensive operation risky.
Third, the global community, including major powers like the United States, Russia, China, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations, collectively cautioned India against taking aggressive action without concrete proof.
Lastly, the absence of international support left India diplomatically isolated, forcing it to reconsider any rash military options.
Not a single opposition party supported the call for action against Pakistan. Civil society, religious minorities—including a vocal segment of the Sikh community—and even victims’ families publicly questioned the government’s rush to assign blame without evidence. Interviews conducted with Kashmiri civilians in Pahalgam revealed a powerful counter-narrative: while many condemned the attack, they rejected the notion of Pakistani involvement in the absence of concrete proof. More compellingly, survivors recounted how local Kashmiris risked their own lives to shelter and assist fleeing tourists—an act of humanity that contradicted the vilifying rhetoric being propagated by New Delhi.
The attack was universally condemned—including by Pakistan. Yet, instead of rallying global support, India’s accusations failed to gain traction among international powers or even within its domestic political spectrum. Major global stakeholders—ranging from the United States, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the European Union—issued strong condemnations of the terrorist act but stopped short of echoing India’s allegations.
Pakistan, for its part, responded with urgency and maturity. Its air force, army, and navy were placed on high alert to defend against any incursion, and preparations for a measured counterstrike were reportedly in place. Yet, Islamabad’s official posture remained one of composure and diplomacy. Pakistan reiterated its commitment to peace and offered to form a joint investigation commission—national or international in nature—to identify and prosecute the perpetrators. It was a move that showcased both moral clarity and strategic sophistication.
International reactions reflected this cautious approach. U.S. Vice President JD Vance emphasized the importance of restraint, stating, “Our hope here is that India responds to this terrorist attack in a way that doesn’t lead to a broader regional conflict,” and urged Pakistan to cooperate in addressing terrorism emanating from its territory. President Donald Trump condemned the attack as “deeply disturbing” and reaffirmed support for India, expressing solidarity with Prime Minister Modi and the Indian populace. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged in diplomatic outreach, speaking with Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, advocating for de-escalation and cooperation in investigating the attack.
The United Nations and European Union similarly declined to attribute blame without an investigation. The EU’s foreign affairs spokesperson stressed the importance of “thorough, impartial inquiry” before making any judgments. Even traditionally close allies of India, such as France and the UK, withheld any statements implicating Pakistan, instead emphasizing regional peace and counterterrorism cooperation. In short, Modi’s call to arms found no international takers.
This global restraint had a profound effect domestically in both countries. In Pakistan, a prevailing sentiment of vindication emerged. Citizens across ethnic, political, and religious lines rallied in unity—not in fear of war, but in confidence that the truth would prevail.
In India, Modi’s credibility began to erode under scrutiny. The Sikh diaspora, particularly vocal in the UK and Canada, denounced the government’s failure to produce evidence and accused it of communal scapegoating for political gain. They highlighted that diverting water from Pakistan, as threatened by Modi, was both technologically unfeasible and diplomatically provocative.
The credibility gap widened further when local Kashmiri interviews aired on Indian media and social platforms showed ordinary citizens, tourists, and survivors questioning how such a brazen act could occur in a zone saturated with military surveillance. Pahalgam, located hundreds of miles from the Line of Control (LoC), is among the most tightly guarded areas in South Asia. Many questioned how attackers could infiltrate such a zone without insider facilitation or gross security lapses—raising uncomfortable questions for Indian authorities.
Public opinion, even among those not deeply involved in politics, leaned strongly toward peace. A telling anecdote from a Pakistani household illustrates this mood. The author’s wife, observing the situation carefully, made a light-hearted bet with her brother—an American citizen—over whether India would retaliate. She confidently said India would not attack Pakistan, while her brother disagreed. The wager? One hundred U.S. dollars. As days passed and no military action occurred, her foresight proved correct. This simple household bet reflected a broader public sentiment: that common sense and mature diplomacy would prevail over hollow threats and rash decisions.
What this incident exposed, beyond geopolitical calculations, was a significant shift in global norms regarding conflict and accountability. No longer can states hurl accusations and expect blind support. The world demands evidence, proportionality, and legal procedure. Pakistan’s transformation from a nation once blamed for regional instability to one actively advocating transparency and collaboration is a diplomatic victory. India’s inability to present proof or secure diplomatic endorsement is a cautionary tale in the perils of reactionary politics.
The road ahead remains fraught. Terrorism is a mutual enemy, and both nations must prioritize internal reforms, intelligence sharing, and regional cooperation. For India, this begins with introspection: evaluating its own intelligence failures, resisting the temptation to exploit tragedy for political mileage, and honoring its democratic commitments to truth and justice. For Pakistan, it means continuing to dismantle residual extremist networks and demonstrating—consistently—its resolve to combat terrorism in all its forms.
In the final analysis, the Pahalgam attack was not just a test of national security—it was a test of national character. Pakistan passed with dignity and poise. India, blinded by political posturing, faltered in the court of global opinion. It is now for the international community to hold all actors accountable—not just with rhetoric but through principled engagement that promotes peace, justice, and mutual respect. In a region brimming with nuclear weapons and historic mistrust, silence, patience, and truth—not sabre-rattling—are the most powerful weapons of all.