Recently, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar and the DG ISPR invited all political parties to a high-level briefing following the Pahalgam incident. The briefing aimed to outline the message Pakistan should send, both at the parliamentary level and through political party statements. While it is natural that every political party has its own stance and political perspective on various matters, the situation becomes different when it pertains to national issues like the security of Pakistan. In such cases, it is expected that all political divisions set aside their differences and speak with one voice on the matter, despite differing political views.
It is evident that political parties, whether secular, religious, or nationalist in nature, tend to agree on the national interest when it comes to Pakistan’s security. Political manipulation and using such sensitive matters for political point-scoring is, in my opinion, not acceptable. Every statement and every move is closely scrutinised, not only by the Indian media but also within Pakistan itself. Especially when looking at the situation in Pakistan, it is clear that Imran Khan, the founder of the PTI, is currently imprisoned and is seeking any opportunity to negotiate. This attempt to negotiate can also be seen as political blackmail, where the issue of his imprisonment is being tied to broader political demands.
The cases concerning the PTI’s founder are legal matters, and it is inappropriate to demand his immediate release based on political grounds. If there are legal possibilities for his release, then they should be followed, but if the matter is in the hands of the courts, only the judiciary can decide. There were also calls for a joint parliamentary session on the briefing, where all political parties could have a common stance. However, the joint session led to the adoption of a resolution condemning the situation and calling for a common action plan, though it was marred by Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman’s walk-out, who claimed that the government was not taking the matter seriously and had not sent key ministers.
When discussing such sensitive issues, we must recognise that every political party’s participation or lack of it sends a message. In my opinion, PTI should have attended this briefing as the situation concerned Pakistan’s national security. If the party had any reservations or questions, they should have raised them during the session and sought clarification. To dismiss the importance of such a meeting solely based on political differences is counterproductive. On this occasion, PTI and all political parties should have set aside their differences and focused solely on Pakistan’s interests.
As for the military situation, Pakistan is prepared. If Pakistan were not ready, India would have already attacked. India has made various provocative statements, including telling Pakistani nationals to leave within 48 hours and reducing diplomatic staff. Pakistan also has intelligence reports indicating the possibility of an attack. The question now arises: if India attacks, where might the assault occur? Locations such as Lahore, Muridke, and Azad Kashmir have been mentioned as potential targets, but what India fails to understand is that it lacks local support in these areas. The people of occupied Kashmir are not in favour of Indian aggression, nor is there support in Punjab or other areas.
Despite India’s military advantage, the lack of public support and internal unrest—especially among communities like the Sikh population and Indian citizens who are raising their voices against the government—creates a fragile foundation for any military action. Even independent observers argue that an attack on Pakistan would be a “suicide mission” for India, as it would not be able to sustain a prolonged conflict.
Pakistan, on the other hand, has a clear message that if India takes the first step towards aggression, Pakistan will respond with full force. Pakistan’s military, air force, and intelligence capabilities are on high alert, and the public sentiment is strong, as seen on social media and the wider media. Pakistani citizens are expressing their readiness to defend the nation, despite the tension being portrayed as a “waiting game.” The memes and messages circulating on social media reflect a unified national spirit, indicating that Pakistanis are not intimidated.
Moreover, Pakistan has also been successful diplomatically, with international media and organisations acknowledging the country’s stance. The diplomatic isolation India faces is evident, as countries such as the United States and others have refrained from offering full support. Even the former U.S. President, Donald Trump, and his foreign minister have suggested a diplomatic solution, emphasising the need for restraint. This contrasts with India’s expectations of full American support.
Pakistan’s strategic partners, including China and Iran, have shown unequivocal support. Pakistan has strengthened its position diplomatically, and Afghanistan’s cooperation has also become more visible. Although there have been concerns about Afghanistan’s position due to its historical relationship with India, recent engagements between the Pakistani government and Afghan leadership have led to an understanding that benefits Pakistan’s security.
In terms of regional security, Afghanistan, while facing its challenges, has been a cooperative partner in ensuring that no hostile elements are using its territory against Pakistan. This cooperation strengthens Pakistan’s defence on both its eastern and western borders, ensuring a strong security posture. For example, Pakistan’s military successfully neutralized militants trying to infiltrate from Afghanistan, showing the country’s readiness to handle multiple fronts.
India, on the other hand, is facing increasing pressure domestically and internationally. There have been rising voices from within the country itself, questioning the government’s actions. The international community is watching closely, with organisations like the United Nations and various global powers urging both countries to exercise restraint and avoid escalation.
India’s military might, including its advanced aircraft and tanks, might appear formidable, but it is increasingly clear that India lacks the will to engage in a full-scale war. If India were truly prepared to fight, it would have acted long ago. Pakistan has consistently shown restraint, maintaining its defensive posture without initiating conflict. The prolonged tension and lack of action have caused uncertainty in India, with its leadership struggling to justify any military aggression against Pakistan.
Pakistan, for its part, is not seeking to initiate a conflict but is committed to defending its sovereignty. The ongoing tension around water disputes, such as the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, is another aspect of the larger Kashmir issue. While India’s actions are seen as attempts to divert attention from Kashmir, they have only exacerbated the situation. The global community should pay attention to India’s provocative steps and hold it accountable for actions that threaten peace and stability in the region.
Pakistan has made it clear that it will not tolerate violations of international agreements, and it has diplomatic avenues available, including the United Nations and the World Bank, to address these issues. India’s actions will face legal challenges, and Pakistan will continue to pursue all avenues for justice and peace.
In conclusion, while India continues to provoke and escalate tensions, Pakistan’s strategy remains focused on diplomacy, defence readiness, and national unity. The international community must step in to prevent any further escalation and hold India accountable for its actions. Pakistan’s unity, military readiness, and diplomatic strength will ensure that it is well-prepared for any eventuality.
