India_Peace_Spoiler

 Pakistan has been a major proponent of a peaceful Afghanistan not only in its own interest but also for the larger interest of the region. However, India has consistently played the role of a spoiler to sabotage Pakistan’s efforts towards regional peace and stability. Pakistan, being a responsible regional actor, has repeatedly stressed that disengagement with Afghanistan will undermine pursuit of peace and stability. In this regard, Pakistan is prioritizing the well-being of Afghan people to whom it had extended hospitality during the Soviet invasion. Even now, Pakistan, despite its socioeconomic challenges and international pressure is helping Afghanistan.

Pakistan has always been concerned about establishing peace and stability in Afghanistan. No one has suffered more than Pakistan from the spillover effects of not only the invasion of Soviets but also the War on Terror. Pakistan has paid a huge price in the form of more than 70, 000 lives, USD 130 billion economic loss and a nightmare in the form of Army Public School attack which further strengthened its commitment to eliminate the menace of terrorism from its soil. Yet, even after the recent fall of Kabul, Pakistan did not isolate itself from the plight of neighboring people and once again extended a hand of support by actively pursuing regional and global diplomacy to draw assistance for the people of Afghanistan to avert any further humanitarian and refugee crisis. Pakistan’s Prime Minister underscored the urgent need of unfreezing Afghan assets in order to avert any foreseeable economic crisis in Afghanistan. In addition, he said ‘Pakistan would provide essential food items, including wheat and rice, emergency medical supplies and shelter items to Afghanistan’. It is one of many examples which reflects Pakistan’s sincerity towards the Afghan people.

The cost of disengagement with Afghanistan could bring humanitarian and economic catastrophe to an already fragile Afghanistan. Avoiding the mistakes of the 90s, all regional and global powers should engage with the interim-set up in Afghanistan to prevent economic collapse of the country. Together, regional neighbors and major powers need to create economic incentives within Afghanistan through financial and political assistance in the fields of education, health, food and other sectors.

In an attempt to enhance communication between major powers and build consensus, Pakistan hosted TROIKA plus meeting in Islamabad, with participation of Special Representatives for Afghanistan of China, Russia and the United States. On the other hand, India hosted a low-key gathering of regional National Security Advisors in New Delhi in a desperate attempt to remain relevant vis-à-vis Afghanistan. Ruling Bharatya Janta Party’s aspiration to move in the direction of Akhand Bharat and its attempt to secure a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council reflects India’s desperation to become a regional hegemon. In doing so, the recent meeting of NSAs was

an unproductive gathering which did not contribute to the efforts for peace and stability. More so, no formal invitation was sent to Afghanistan after which the forum was considered to be one sided. Also, Pakistan and China refused to attend the conference because the principle stakeholders of the conflict were ignored.

The initiative clearly lacked transparency and the members could not come out of it on the same page showing that the final agreement lacked consensus. There were two separate statements issued by India and Russia. New Delhi’s press statement stressed upon the ‘collective cooperation against the menace of radicalization, extremism, separatism and drug trafficking in the region,’ however, there was no such reflection in the statement from Russia. It stated that ‘UN plays a central role in Afghanistan and the permanent UN presence in the country must be maintained’.

Spoilers cannot be peace builders, as underscored by Pakistan’s National Security Advisor. This is a true reflection of the way India is dealing with the ongoing situation in Afghanistan. The absence of principal actors like Afghanistan, China and Pakistan and the post-summit divergent views of the attendees highlighted India’s imprecise calculation of the regional situation and its shoddy policies towards Afghanistan. On the other hand, TROIKA plus meeting in Islamabad was successful in gathering relevant parties with regards to Afghanistan on the discussion table. To discuss ‘Afghan’ issue, Foreign Minister of Interim government of Afghanistan was included in the talks, making TROIKA + a more relevant platform as opposed to selfish desire driven Indian initiative. This mechanism is a balanced combination of countries that have long been associated with Afghanistan, like the US, along with the rising global power, China. Each of these countries has different interests in various directions on the Afghan issue, yet together they are capable of backing regional and international efforts for peace and stability in Afghanistan.

Asad Ullah Khan is a senior researcher at Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »