By Uzma Ehtasham
There are moments in diplomacy when a statement is far more than words; it becomes a mirror reflecting deeper anxieties, historical grievances, and ideological fears. Pakistan’s latest pronouncement, issued by its foreign office in Islamabad, is precisely such a moment. Officially, it responded to unusually sharp comments by India’s external affairs minister, S. Jaishankar, who criticized Pakistan’s institutions. On the surface, it was a formal rebuttal, insisting that Pakistan remains a responsible state whose armed forces and institutions safeguard its sovereignty. Yet beneath the measured phrasing, the statement conveys something far weightier: a profound unease over the direction India’s politics has taken under the shadow of Hindutva, an ideology that now seems to govern not just electoral calculus but the very instruments of state power.
Spokesperson Tahir Andarabi’s words were unequivocal. He labeled Jaishankar’s remarks “provocative, baseless and irresponsible,” insisting that Pakistan’s institutions are pillars of national security and professionalism. The statement anchored itself in the factual record of the May 2025 confrontation, a reminder that Pakistan’s military performance and discipline have been observed and validated both domestically and internationally. This is not mere pride in the abstract; it is a deliberate effort to frame the narrative around evidence rather than accusations. The subtext is clear: no amount of rhetoric from Delhi can obscure the operational realities witnessed by neutral observers. Yet the sharpest critique lay elsewhere. The statement accused India of constructing a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign, designed to redirect global attention away from its own destabilizing actions.
Pakistan’s position is that Indian security networks are complicit in fostering militant activity across the border, while public criticism of Islamabad is deployed as a smokescreen to obscure such involvement. For decades, these claims have been dismissed in Indian circles as deflection or hyperbole. But the anxiety behind them is real, and it goes beyond mere tit-for-tat politics. It is rooted in a fear that Hindutva—the nationalist, majoritarian ideology championed by India’s ruling establishment—is no longer confined to domestic electoral battles. It has permeated the structures of state power, reshaping institutions from the judiciary to the bureaucracy and eroding constitutional safeguards that once promised secularism and pluralism. Andarabi did not shy away from specifying the phenomena that worry Islamabad.
The rise of mob lynching, the demolition of places of worship, arbitrary arrests, and the growing culture of extrajudicial punishment are cited not as aberrations, but as evidence of a systemic ideological shift. These are not fringe occurrences but the product of a political project that normalizes intolerance, undermines democratic institutions, and weaponizes religion in governance. Observers both inside and outside South Asia have noted the alarming trajectory: practices once regarded as unconstitutional or morally unacceptable are increasingly tolerated, even celebrated, within public life. The foreign office’s statement carried a somber undertone, urging India to introspect rather than perpetually cast Pakistan as the adversary. At the same time, it reiterated that dialogue, coexistence, and diplomacy remain Islamabad’s preferred tools.
Yet there was a warning embedded in this commitment: restraint is not weakness. Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are non-negotiable, and repeated provocations will be met with a firm response. In a region where history has repeatedly shown how quickly tensions can escalate, such messaging is both a reminder and a caution. This exchange is more than the predictable banter between two rivals; it reflects a larger, unsettling regional context. South Asia today is a patchwork of volatility: border tensions simmer alongside domestic political unrest; economic pressures compound social grievances; and ideological shifts challenge the norms of governance. Within this environment, the rise of a majoritarian, exclusionary ideology in the subcontinent’s largest state cannot be treated as an internal affair.
Its consequences are cross-border, systemic, and potentially destabilizing for the region as a whole. From Islamabad’s perspective, India’s external behavior—the rhetoric, the accusations, the theatre of military posturing—is inseparable from domestic developments. By portraying Pakistan as a perennial adversary, Delhi can deflect attention from its own economic stagnation, social inequality, rising unemployment, and internal dissent. Blame becomes a political tool, a mechanism to channel domestic frustration outward. The concern is that this strategy is not merely rhetorical. By fanning regional tensions and supporting proxies that destabilize neighboring states, it risks undoing the painstaking work Pakistan has undertaken to combat extremism within its own borders.
Over the past two decades, Pakistan has waged a costly, relentless campaign against terrorism: reclaiming territories long abandoned to militancy, dismantling networks, and sacrificing thousands of lives in the process. India, by contrast, is accused of advancing an ideology that prioritizes dominance over coexistence. The erosion of rights in Kashmir, the persecution of religious minorities, targeted violence against Dalits, and the alarming growth of state-backed vigilantism illustrate a structural transformation. These are not isolated incidents; they are manifestations of an ideological project that has moved from the periphery to the heart of governance. Hindutva, once a political movement on the margins, now informs policy, shapes law enforcement, and dictates public discourse.
The implications extend far beyond the bilateral sphere. South Asia’s stability, long fragile, is intertwined with the internal politics of its largest state. The anxiety voiced by Islamabad is echoed by human rights organizations worldwide: what begins as domestic consolidation under a majoritarian banner can spill over borders, inflame sectarian tensions, and destabilize a region already accustomed to conflict. This is the curse to which the editorial title alludes—a region haunted not by geography alone, but by an ideology that privileges exclusion, erodes constitutional guarantees, and fosters conflict both within and beyond borders. Pakistan’s foreign office, in framing its response, is issuing a broader warning: the rise of Hindutva is not merely a domestic concern for India, but a structural risk to South Asian security.
By highlighting the human cost, the political manipulation, and the destabilizing consequences of ideological dominance, Islamabad seeks to draw international attention to a transformation that threatens coexistence, regional cooperation, and the fragile social fabric that binds diverse communities together. The statement is thus as much a call for reflection as it is a defence of national dignity—a plea for recognition that the region’s future depends on confronting, rather than ignoring, the ideological currents reshaping its largest state. In this light, the diplomatic exchange over Jaishankar’s comments is more than a clash of words.
It is a reminder that the rise of exclusionary ideologies anywhere reverberates everywhere, and that the stability of South Asia rests on the recognition of shared vulnerability. A region under the curse of Hindutva is not just India’s problem. It is the collective challenge of a region that has long suffered the consequences of intolerance, exclusion, and the instrumentalization of faith in politics. And unless these currents are acknowledged and addressed, the shadow they cast will only deepen, threatening peace, pluralism, and the very ideals upon which modern South Asia was envisioned.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
