By Syed Shamim Akhtar
Pakistan’s sharp response to remarks by India’s external affairs minister is more than a routine exchange in a long history of diplomatic sparring. It reflects a deeper anxiety about where the region is heading, and about how narratives, if left unchallenged, can harden into accepted truths. By accusing New Delhi of irresponsibility and deflection, Islamabad is not merely rebutting a comment; it is attempting to reframe an argument about security, accountability and the direction of one of south Asia’s most powerful states.
At the center of Pakistan’s statement is a familiar but unresolved claim: that India has played a direct role in fueling terrorism and instability inside Pakistan. The foreign office’s invocation of Kulbhushan Jadhav, the Indian national arrested in Balochistan and convicted by a Pakistani military court on espionage and terrorism charges, is deliberate. For Islamabad, the case symbolizes what it calls “undeniable” evidence of state-sponsored interference. India, which maintains that Jadhav was a retired naval officer abducted from Iran, rejects this narrative entirely. Yet the persistence of the case in Pakistan’s diplomatic messaging underscores how deeply it has been woven into Islamabad’s understanding of regional insecurity.
What distinguishes the latest statement, however, is its attempt to broaden the argument beyond cross-border allegations to India’s internal political and social trajectory. Pakistan’s foreign office painted a bleak picture of a neighbor drifting away from its secular and democratic foundations, pointing to rising violence and discrimination against minorities under Narendra Modi’s government. By citing reports of attacks on Muslims and Christians, and the alleged silence of the Indian leadership during incidents over Christmas, Islamabad sought to connect domestic intolerance with external aggression, suggesting that both spring from the same ideological roots.
This is a sensitive and politically charged line of argument. India’s defenders bristle at what they see as moralizing from a rival with its own human rights challenges. Yet concerns about the treatment of minorities in India are no longer confined to its adversaries. International media, human rights organizations and sections of India’s own civil society have documented lynchings, communal rhetoric and the shrinking space for dissent. Pakistan’s foreign office, by referencing the Wall Street Journal, aimed to anchor its critique in sources beyond its own claims, lending it a veneer of international credibility.
The statement went further still, citing investigative reporting by the Indian outlet The Commune on issues ranging from alleged fake degrees to human trafficking and financial crime. By bundling these claims together, Islamabad sought to present an image of systemic decay, arguing that governance in India is increasingly shaped by exclusionary ideology rather than public welfare or regional responsibility. The cumulative picture it painted was of a state whose internal contradictions are spilling outward, destabilizing not only its neighbors but the wider international environment.
This framing serves multiple purposes. Diplomatically, it shifts the spotlight back onto India at a time when New Delhi is keen to project itself as a stable counterweight to China and a responsible global actor. Politically, it allows Pakistan to situate its own security concerns within a broader critique of Hindutva nationalism, aligning itself rhetorically with global anxieties about majoritarianism and democratic backsliding. Strategically, it appeals to international institutions and powers, urging them to view south Asia’s tensions not as a bilateral squabble but as part of a larger pattern with global implications.
Yet there are risks in this approach. The language of absolutes, and the insistence that the evidence is already “laid bare”, leaves little room for nuance or self-reflection. Pakistan’s own record on terrorism, minority rights and democratic stability remains contested, and critics will argue that Islamabad’s statements gloss over uncomfortable truths at home. The danger is that mutual accusations harden positions rather than encouraging meaningful engagement, reinforcing a cycle in which each side speaks primarily to its own audience and allies.
Still, the foreign office’s call for international engagement taps into a genuine concern. South Asia is home to two nuclear-armed rivals with a history of conflict and mistrust. The region’s stability matters far beyond its borders, affecting global trade routes, migration patterns and security calculations. If domestic polarization in India deepens, or if allegations of cross-border interference escalate unchecked, the consequences will not remain neatly contained.
The challenge for the international community is to move beyond selective listening. Too often, global powers engage with south Asia through the prism of their own strategic interests, downplaying uncomfortable issues when it suits them. Pakistan’s statement is, in part, an attempt to disrupt that complacency, warning that indifference carries its own costs. Whether or not one accepts Islamabad’s framing in full, the underlying message is that unresolved grievances, combined with rising nationalism, create a combustible mix.
(The writer has diverse in knowledge and has a good omen in politics, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
