Pakistan issued a stern rebuke of Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s recent comments suggesting that Sindh, the southeastern province of Pakistan, could one day return to India. The Foreign Office (FO) described Singh’s remarks as “delusional and dangerously revisionist,” warning that such rhetoric threatens regional peace and stability while reflecting an expansionist mindset at odds with international law and the sovereignty of nations. Singh, speaking at a gathering of the Sindhi community in Delhi, claimed that although Sindh is not part of India today, its “civilizational” ties to India remain unbroken. “Who knows, tomorrow Sindh may return to India again,” he said, according to Indian media reports. He also asserted that Sindhi Hindus of his generation had never fully accepted Sindh’s separation from India following the subcontinent’s partition in 1947.
The remarks drew immediate condemnation from Pakistan, which emphasized that borders established by international law and historical agreements cannot be arbitrarily challenged. In its statement, the FO criticized Singh’s claims as a clear attempt to invoke historical and cultural ties to justify a territorial claim, describing them as rooted in a Hindutva ideology that seeks to undermine established realities. The FO urged Indian leadership to shift focus away from provocative rhetoric and instead address pressing domestic challenges, particularly those concerning vulnerable minority communities. It highlighted the need for India to hold accountable those who incite violence or discrimination against religious minorities and to confront longstanding grievances in its northeastern regions, where many communities continue to face marginalization, persecution, and cycles of state-sanctioned violence.
Moreover, Pakistan called on India to make genuine efforts to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in line with United Nations Security Council resolutions and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. The FO underscored that Pakistan remains committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes based on justice, equity, and internationally recognized norms, while also affirming its determination to safeguard national sovereignty and security. Singh’s comments are the latest in a series of statements that have heightened tensions between Islamabad and New Delhi, particularly following a four-day military conflict in May, the most intense confrontation between the neighbors in decades. The conflict erupted after an attack on Hindu tourists in occupied Kashmir, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan, though Islamabad has consistently denied any involvement, questioning the credibility of India’s claims.
During the brief but intense conflict, both sides employed fighter jets, missiles, artillery, and drones, resulting in dozens of casualties. Pakistan initially claimed to have downed six Indian fighter jets, including French-made Rafales, and later revised the count to seven. India acknowledged some losses but disputed Pakistan’s figures. Since the ceasefire, military and political leaders on both sides have repeatedly issued strong statements, with tensions remaining high and trust at a historic low. Earlier this month, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), Pakistan’s military spokesperson, issued a warning in response to provocative statements from Indian civil and military leaders. The statement cautioned that any future conflict could lead to “cataclysmic devastation” and promised that Pakistan would respond “resolutely, without any qualms or restraint.”
Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi also contributed to the charged atmosphere, warning Pakistan to “stop state-sponsored terrorism if it wants to retain its place on the map.” Similarly, Indian Air Force Chief Amar Preet Singh claimed, without presenting evidence, that his forces had downed five Pakistani fighter jets during the May fighting. These statements, together with Singh’s recent remarks on Sindh, have been widely interpreted in Islamabad as an attempt to stir nationalist sentiment in India while maintaining a confrontational posture toward Pakistan. The FO’s statement specifically highlighted the danger of Singh’s approach, noting that invoking historical grievances and cultural ties to justify territorial ambitions is not only provocative but also a violation of international norms.
Pakistan warned that such rhetoric could destabilize the region and exacerbate existing mistrust between the two neighbors. It called for restraint, dialogue, and adherence to legal frameworks governing borders and sovereignty, rather than grandstanding at community events for domestic political gain. Historically, Sindh has been culturally and economically linked with India in various ways, but it has been an integral part of Pakistan since partition. Attempts to question its status or suggest future annexation carry enormous political and emotional weight, particularly given the fraught history of partition, communal violence, and the lingering disputes between India and Pakistan. Pakistan’s response also sought to highlight a broader narrative of accountability, urging India to address systemic issues at home, including discrimination, marginalization, and unresolved conflicts.
The FO drew attention to the persistent challenges faced by minority communities within India and to the need for New Delhi to implement measures that protect citizens, rather than inflame tensions abroad. Analysts in Islamabad noted that such statements from Indian leaders often coincide with internal political needs, particularly appeals to nationalist constituencies. By invoking historical claims, leaders can signal cultural and emotional resonance to domestic audiences, while inadvertently—or deliberately—raising tensions with Pakistan. As relations between the two neighbors remain fragile, Pakistan’s insistence on peaceful resolution, coupled with readiness to defend its sovereignty, reflects the delicate balance of diplomacy and deterrence that has defined South Asian geopolitics for decades.
While Pakistan continues to advocate for justice, dialogue, and adherence to international norms, Indian rhetoric that challenges borders risks undermining stability, inflaming public sentiment, and prolonging distrust. In conclusion, Singh’s remarks were more than a fleeting comment; they are emblematic of a worldview that Pakistan perceives as revisionist and expansionist. Islamabad’s prompt and detailed response sought not only to counter the statement but also to underscore the principles of international law, sovereignty, and regional stability. In an era where words can quickly escalate into conflict, both nations face the pressing need to temper rhetoric with responsibility, and to focus on dialogue, justice, and the genuine security of their citizens, rather than territorial nostalgia or political theatre.
