&w=3840&q=100)
US-Pakistan bonhomie: Why India should not be surprised
Should India be surprised by the latest turn in US-Pakistan relations under the Trump 2.0 administration? Analysts of Indo-US relations have often characterised this relationship as the one with 'ups and downs' or 'peaks and valleys', particularly during four decades of the Cold War.
But US-Pakistan relations have witnessed more extensive fluctuations in history, and that pattern continues until today. Pakistan is yet to learn lessons from the extreme oscillations of its ties with the United States, and currently Islamabad seems excessively jubilant over the latest turn in its ties with the Trump White House.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
President Donald Trump, who had accused Pakistan of offering nothing but 'lies and deceits', is all praise for the Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir. He truly honoured a terror-sponsoring field marshal by hosting lunch for him in the White House—a rare gesture in US history—and thanked him for ending Pakistan's war against India that could have gone nuclear.
There is recorded evidence that it was the Pakistani Army's DGMO who called India's DGMO requesting 'ceasefire'. Field Marshal Munir has openly expressed President Trump's intervention in ending the armed conflict and even suggested that Trump should be awarded the coveted Nobel Peace Prize. What he has not revealed is Pakistan's SOS call to Washington to push for a ceasefire with India after the Indian military not only destroyed several terror camps in Pakistan but also severely damaged Pakistani military bases. When advised by Washington to speak to the Indian side and ask for a ceasefire, Pakistan's DGMO did that.
President Trump is right that he played a role in the India-Pakistan ceasefire, but that role was confined to giving sane advice to Islamabad to seek a ceasefire agreement. India thus is right as well in repeatedly asserting that the ceasefire agreement was the outcome of conversations between the DGMOs of the two countries and it was not because of any mediation by Washington.
The whole irony of the Trump-Munir luncheon meeting lies in the fact that it took place so soon after the Pahalgam attacks by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists that forced India to punish the terrorists and their sponsors. It was wise on the part of President Trump to advise Pakistan to seek a ceasefire agreement with India, but it was ill-advised on his part to sing praise of Pakistan's contribution to counterterrorism efforts. First, the CENTCOM head General Michael Kurilla described Pakistan as a 'phenomenal' counterterrorism partner in his Congressional testimony. Now the president of the US bestows all praise on the Pakistani field marshal.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Washington is well aware of Pakistani duplicity in counterterrorism operations undertaken by the US in Afghanistan. How Pakistan under General Pervez Musharraf was taking billions of dollars of economic and military assistance from the United States and diverting some of the wealth to strengthen the anti-Western Haqqani network in Afghanistan is not unknown to the policy community in the US.
How a Pakistani nuclear scientist once visited Al Qaeda supremo Osama bin Laden in the caves of Afghanistan is also not a secret. Nor is the place where Osama bin Laden was hiding, and the Obama administration captured him without informing Islamabad and by violating Pakistani sovereignty, also known to the world. That even a few American citizens were killed in the Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack on the Taj Hotel in Mumbai could not have been an unfamiliar event to the Trump advisors.
Why is there then this renewed praise for Pakistan's contribution to counterterrorism so soon after the Pakistani hand in the brutal and inhuman terror attacks in Pahalgam? It is because the Trump administration may need Pakistan's endorsement for probable US military intervention in Iran. Pakistan's memory of its engagements with the US is too short. It willingly joined the US-backed regional collective security groupings, such as CENTO and SEATO, and soon found that these two alliances were of no use in its anti-India misadventures in 1965 or 1971. Pakistan played the key role of being a conduit for America in its anti-Soviet proxy war for 10 years in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989, only to be abandoned after the Soviet withdrawal of troops in 1989.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Pakistan expected the US to quietly look the other way at its clandestine nuclear activities for serving so well the US interests in Afghanistan in the 1980s. But Washington imposed the Pressler Amendment and cut off all assistance to Pakistan after the end of Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan. Pakistan went to the extent of offering its troops for US operations during the Kuwaiti crisis of 1990-1991 with the hope that Washington would show leniency on nuclear issues. But it failed in its attempt.
The US used Pakistan as a frontline state as long as its troops remained in Afghanistan until their full withdrawal by the Biden administration. But after the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Pakistan's strategic relevance ended, and it was almost abandoned by the US. President Joe Biden described Pakistan as the 'most dangerous' country in the world. Pakistan has learnt no lesson, and yet again it seems to be offering its help for any probable military operations in Iran by the Trump administration.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
It is clear that the Iran-Israel war figured prominently in the conversation between Pakistan's strongman and President Trump. In Trump's views, Pakistan knows a lot about Iran. Pakistan's knowledge about Iran could be useful to any future American intervention in Iran. After all, Pakistan shares about 900 km of border with Iran. Pakistan would prefer to have a monopoly over the 'Islamic Bomb', and that would be possible if Iran's ability to go nuclear is erased.
In the game of periodic mutual love and hate, friend and foe, and embrace and divorce equations between Pakistan and the United States, India faces the collateral damage, and it should take timely steps to safeguard its national security. There is thus no surprise that Pakistan may yet again become a frontline state for the US strategy in the South and West Asian region.
The author is founding chairperson, Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies, and editor, India Quarterly. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
25 minutes ago
- The Wire
The Rhetoric of Social Justice Ignores the Need for it
Since the general elections of 2019, national and regional parties, especially the Congress party, have increasingly woven social justice into their political narratives, promising empowerment through the constitutional ideals of inclusive governance. As Bihar gears up for its assembly elections, the discourse on social justice has again taken centre stage, often reprimanding the ruling political class for the non-implementation of social justice policies. The Union government's recent announcement to conduct a caste census signals an intent to better understand India's complex social stratification, aiming to craft targeted welfare policies for the marginalised communities, particularly the Other Backward Classes. Though the democratic discourse is infatuated with the agenda of social justice there is a visible gap between rhetoric and reality. The continued marginalisation of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes from the sphere of power and privileges, raise questions about the commitment of the state and the political elites to bring transformative change in their lives. The Indian constitution lays a robust framework for uplifting SCs and STs through three key pillars: protection from social humiliation and exploitation with provisions like the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ensuring that their social dignity and civic rights are safeguarded, equitable representation through reservations in state institutions that allows these groups to avail themselves crucial positions of power and privileges in governance, and last, advancing economic empowerment via dedicated budgetary provisions and policy initiatives. Policy measures like the special component plan for SCs and STs in the state budget were introduced to ensure financial assistance for the economic empowerment of these sections. However, implementation has been inconsistent on all three fronts, often with token value, leaving large sections of these communities outside the ambit of social justice policies. Persistent social injustices Despite substantive legal safeguards like the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, caste-based discrimination persists. The National Crime Records Bureau recorded 57,582 cases of atrocities against SCs and 10,062 against STs in 2022, reflecting deep-rooted systemic oppression and the limit of the state machinery to curb the menace. From rural areas, where Dalit people face violence for minor assertions of dignity, to urban centres, where discrimination in housing and employment is rampant, caste continues to shape access to opportunities. Such incidents are witnessed even in the arena of state institutions like universities (the institutional murder of Rohith Vemula) and legislative bodies (which see little discussion on the issues of caste-based violence). This underscores the failure of the governing classes to enforce protective measures effectively. Reservation: A partial success The reservation policy, designed to ensure SC and ST representation in state institutions, has seen uneven progress. While lower-level posts (Group C and D) in public sector units like railways and banks are often filled, senior positions remain largely inaccessible to marginalised groups even now. Especially in higher education, leadership roles such as vice-chancellors and professors are predominantly occupied by unreserved categories, highlighting structural barriers. Similarly, in the higher judiciary, SC and ST representation among judges and key functionaries is negligible, undermining the promise of equitable participation. The downsizing of public sector units has further eroded opportunities for reserved posts, exacerbating their economic exclusion. The positions of power and privileges in major state institutions are dominated by the social elites. Further, the political class and civil society have failed to engage in crucial deliberation to make private economy more inclusive with the increased participation Dalit and Adivasis. They mostly survive as the precarious labour class, distanced from the entitlements and privileges enjoyed by the middle-class. Economic marginalisation One of the major objectives of the special component plan for SCs and STs is to provide income generating assets and skill so as to enable the marginalised social groups to have a sustained economic upliftment. It intends to advance composite economic development programmes to elevate their class position. Even such a significant initiative has often been reduced to a symbolic gesture today. Exclusive funds meant for SC and ST welfare are frequently underutilised or diverted, with successive governments failing to prioritise these allocations for a substantive welfare of these groups. Under the current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government, this trend has continued, with flagship schemes for the general welfare of all (like the Jan Dhan Yojana) overshadowing the targeted welfare schemes and policies meant for marginalised groups. There are negligible initiatives to examine the precarious economic conditions of Dalits and introduce effective public policies and schemes for their empowerment and mobility. Beyond political rhetoric of social justice As social justice becomes a rallying cry in electoral politics, its transformative potential remains limited without concrete action. The constitutional framework, though robust, requires rigorous implementation through executive accountability and policy innovation. Political parties must move beyond populist rhetoric and prioritise social justice as a core governance agenda. While the ruling dispensation under the BJP has often pledged to uphold the ideals of social justice, its decade-long tenure has seen a steady rise in caste-based violence and a dilution of policies aimed at SC and ST upliftment. Though at the symbolic level it offered prominent political gestures (like naming Draupadi Murmu the president of India), there is an absence of new initiatives to enhance their representation in public and private sectors. The growing political rhetoric on social justice shall complement with substantive executive orders and fair implementation of policies. However, the governing elites hardly felt any moral pressure to perform under constitutional directives. Further, within the democratic polity, the Dalit-Adivasi claims for social justice and inclusivity have weakened or relegated to negligible space. Their movements are quelled and not allowed to flourish. Without a popular movement and mobilisation of Dalit, Adivasi and Bahujan groups, political elites would always hesitate to execute effective programmes for their welfare. The growing marginalisation of Dalits and Adivasis from the national discourse has allowed the traditional elites to dominate decision-making process and to neglect the social justice agenda. The future The national political discourse shall revolve around the welfare, security and advancement of the Dalit, Adivasi and Bahujan communities, ensuring their equitable participation in positions of power and privileges. The BJP and the Congress offer a visible space to the idea of social justice in their political manifestos, but overtly hesitate to ensure its appropriate implementation. To actualise the potentials of a social justice agenda, India needs a governing class that is sensitive and committed to the welfare of the marginalised social groups in a substantive manner. Further, there is a crucial need to amplify the Dalit and Adivasi voices for social justice, enabling new movements to drive national discourse for policy reforms. Finally, the social justice discourse needs to move beyond the claim for representation in public institutions and democratic polity. It needs to examine other spheres of power and privileges (like market economy, cultural industry, sports establishments, and so on) which are overtly dominated by the conventional ruling classes. The social justice agenda needs to be applicable to a broader arena of power to make it more diverse and representative through the participation of Dalit, Adivasi and Bahujan groups. Harish S. Wankhede is Assistant Professor, Center for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Scroll.in
25 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Aadhaar, ration card can't be included as proof for Bihar voter roll revision: EC to Supreme Court
Aadhaar cards, voter ID cards and ration cards cannot be included as standalone valid documents for the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, the Election Commission told the Supreme Court on Monday. In a counter-affidavit filed in the court, the poll panel also stated that a person's citizenship will 'not terminate' on being found ineligible for registration in the electoral rolls. This came in response to the Supreme Court's July 10 order that asked the Election Commission to consider Aadhaar cards, voter identity cards and ration cards as valid proof for the electoral roll revision exercise 'in the interest of justice'. The court was hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the Election Commission's decision to carry out the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections, which are expected to take place in October or November. The petitioners had challenged the poll panel's exclusion of the Aadhaar card and voter ID from the list of documents specified as proof of citizenship for those whose names were not included in the 2003 electoral roll. The Election Commission filed its affidavit in response to the petitions on Monday. On Aadhaar, voter ID The poll panel said in its affidavit that Aadhaar does not 'constitute proof of Indian citizenship'. 'However, this is not to say that Aadhaar cannot be used to supplement other documents to prove eligibility,' the Election Commission stated. The poll panel reiterated that the list of 11 documents that could be submitted as proof of citizenship was 'indicative and not exhaustive'. The enumeration forms include a voter's Electoral Photo Identity Card number and have an optional Aadhaar column, noted the Election Commission. It also told the court that there is a 'widespread existence of fake ration cards', which is why it has not been included in the list of the 11 documents. However, the electoral registration officer 'is obligated to consider' all documents presented as proof of eligibility, including the ration card, the Election Commission added. 'Decision to accept or reject the documents is dependent on the satisfaction of the electoral registration officer…and such decisions will be taken on a case-to-case basis,' said the poll panel. On including the voter ID card as a valid proof, it said the document is prepared on the basis of the electoral rolls. 'Since the electoral rolls itself are being revised, the production of the Electoral Photo Identity Card will make the whole exercise futile,' according to the Election Commission. The revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar was announced by the Election Commission on June 24. As part of the exercise, persons whose names were not on the 2003 voter list will need to submit proof of eligibility to vote. This means that 2.9 crore out of the state's 7.8 crore voters – or about 37% of the electors – will have to submit documentary evidence. Voters born before July 1, 1987, must show proof of their date and place of birth, while those born between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004, must also submit documents establishing the date and place of birth of one of their parents. Those born after December 2, 2004, will need proof of date of birth for themselves and both parents. If the officers are satisfied with the details provided, the voters will be re-enrolled to a new voter list by electoral registration officers. If not, they will be removed from the voter lists. A draft roll will be published on August 1 and the final roll will be out on September 30. On July 2, eleven INDIA bloc parties told the Election Commission that the special intensive revision of Bihar's electoral rolls risked disenfranchising more than 2.5 crore voters, as they may not be able to produce the necessary documents. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on July 6 defended the exercise, claiming that the exercise had to be carried out as no one was satisfied with the current voter rolls. 'ECI competent to ask for relevant documents' The poll panel also stated on Monday that there was no violation of law or fundamental rights of any voter in the electoral roll revision process. 'The SIR [special intensive revision' adds to the purity of elections by weeding out inelgible persons from electoral rolls,' said the Election Commission. It added that the petitioners' arguments that only the Union government was can determine 'all aspects of citizenship, including its existence, is patently false, misconceived, erroneous and unsustainable'. On July 10, the Supreme Court verbally observed that only the Ministry of Home Affairs, and not the Election Commission, can remove non-citizens from the electoral rolls. Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, had argued that the special intensive revision improperly shifts the burden of proof from the Election Commission to the voter.
Hans India
25 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court agrees to hear Maha govt's plea against acquittal in 2006 Mumbai train blasts case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on July 24 the Maharashtra government's plea challenging the Bombay High Court decision to acquit 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai agreed to urgently list the matter for hearing on Thursday, after Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta mentioned it. Seeking an urgent hearing on the state government's special leave petition (SLP), SG Mehta said that it was a 'serious matter' requiring the top court's consideration on 'some important issues'. In a major ruling delivered on Monday, the Bombay High Court acquitted 12 accused, of whom five were on death sentence and seven others on life imprisonment, in the July 11, 2006, Mumbai blast case. Directing their immediate release from jail, the acquittal order passed by a bench of Justices Anil Kilor and S. Chandak came as a major blow to the investigation agencies. The Justice Kilor-led Bench castigated the shoddy probe prosecution, opining that the prosecution failed to even establish the type of bombs used in the crime. The 12 accused -- incarcerated for 19 years -- succeeded in establishing before the Bombay High Court the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements. As a result, it held the statements inadmissible, saying, "On all the tests relating to voluntariness and truthfulness of the confessional statements, the prosecution failed." Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis termed the Bombay High Court verdict as "shocking", saying that the Maharashtra government will move the Supreme Court against it. On July 11, 2006, seven bomb serial blasts in packed Mumbai local trains brought the maximum city to its knees within 11 minutes. The terror attack left 189 dead and over 800 injured. Earlier in 2015, a special court convicted 12 individuals in the case, sentencing five -- Faisal Shaikh, Asif Khan, Kamal Ansari, Ehtesham Siddiqui, and Naveed Khan -- to death, while the remaining seven were given life imprisonment. The prosecution had argued that the attack was planned by Pakistan's intelligence agency, ISI, and carried out by operatives of Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba with help from the Students' Islamic Movement of India, a banned Indian group.
