g-20

In December 2022, India took over presidency of the Group of 20 (G-20) – an intergovernmental economic cooperation forum comprising 19 countries and the European Union (EU). This year India is expected to host around 215 G-20 meetings at around 55 different locations around the country. It organised one meeting in the capital of Arunachal Pradesh – a disputed territory between India and China in March this year. China boycotted the meeting. Apart from other locations, New Delhi plans to hold the G-20 Tourism Working Group and the Youth 20 meetings in Srinagar and Leh areas of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJ&K).

Pakistan has objected to the Indian decision and accused New Delhi of exploiting its membership of an important international group for advancing its self-serving agenda, by holding forthcoming G-20 meetings in a disputed region. Similarly, Pakistan has also asked friendly countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, that are part of G-20, to boycott the meetings being held in the disputed territory.

The spokesman of the Indian External Affairs Ministry, while reacting to Pakistan’s objection said that it was natural to hold the meetings in two Union territories of India, and added that the G-20 meetings were being held across the country and since it has always considered the region an ‘integral and inalienable part of India’, therefore, it was natural to organise meetings in the region.

Since Prime Minister Modi came to power, his government has been making attempts to solidify the illegal Indian claim over Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) that have included abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution that grants special status to J&K and splitting it into two Union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. India has also been trying to make demographic changes in the region by encouraging Hindus to settle in the area, granting domicile certificates to non-locals and giving them citizenship rights.

This Indian move to hold G-20 meetings in IIOJ&K is neither a random decision nor is ‘natural’, rather it is a calculated move by the Indian government to get international legitimacy for its illegal acts of abrogation of Article 370, splitting the region into two territories and getting it recognised by the international community as a part of India. Diplomats and delegations will be travelling to IIOJ&K, upon obtaining Indian visa and media around the world will report from the region describing it as ‘Indian Territory’. This will be a projection of IIOJ&K as a de facto part of India, and will help New Delhi build an international narrative that the disputed area is part of the country.

Despite Pakistan’s objections and calls for boycott, the state has not been successful in countering India’s move. Regrettably, the government and opposition parties are engaged in a domestic power struggle, causing a lack of interest in regional affairs. It is crucial for Pakistan’s national interest that the government takes necessary steps to counter Indian propaganda. Some measures that can be implemented at this stage include the following:

Firstly, Pakistan’s missions abroad particularly in P5, the Middle East and other important countries should be activated to raise this issue citing violations of UNSC resolutions. Secondly, an effective media strategy may be devised to propagate Pakistan’s principled stance on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. This can be done by arranging interviews of high-level government officials like the President of Pakistan, Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister with the international media. Apart from this, there is a practice that heads of state or ministers write opinion articles in internationally recognised media platforms to highlight their stance on a particular issue. Several Pakistani Prime Ministers and Presidents have done so in the past – this can be done again. Lastly, the issue should be raised at the United Nations reminding the world that Jammu & Kashmir is a disputed territory, illegally occupied by India that requires resolution according to the UNSC resolutions.

Pakistan must actively make its case and dispel the Indian notion of projecting IIOJ&K as part of its borders. If Pakistan fails to do so, India will use these events to show the world that Jammu & Kashmir is its integral part, further weakening our stance on this dispute.

The author is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected]

Image Design: Mysha Dua Salman


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 »