By Uzma Ehtasham
India faced fresh criticism from Pakistan’s political and religious communities this week after Defence Minister Rajnath Singh suggested that Sindh, though not part of India today, remained “culturally” tied to it and could one day “again become part of India”. His remarks, delivered at a public event in New Delhi, revived long‑standing anxieties over the aggressive rhetoric that has increasingly shaped India’s posture under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 11‑year rule. The comments triggered swift outrage in Islamabad, where lawmakers described the remarks as a direct assault on Pakistan’s sovereignty.
The National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution condemning the statement, with the mover, PPP MNA Aslam Alam Niazi, telling the house it was another reminder of “expansionist fantasies” taking root in India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. The resolution urged the federal government to raise the matter internationally and warned Delhi against issuing threats that could destabilize the region. A similar mood prevailed in Karachi, where the Sindh Assembly also adopted a condemnation resolution. Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah told legislators that Singh’s words betrayed a mindset that viewed geography as disposable and regional borders as political toys.
Murad Ali Shah said he initially believed Singh’s remarks might have stemmed from a personal connection to Sindh, “but neither he nor his father was born there”. The chief minister alleged that India appeared to be laying the groundwork to turn the Indus River into a political weapon, adding that Islamabad should “alert the world” about India’s intentions regarding shared water resources. The Sindh Assembly resolution, tabled by PPP lawmaker Mukesh Chawla and supported by opposition benches, urged the federal government to circulate the legislature’s concerns globally. It said India’s posture over the Indus could threaten regional stability and required diplomatic attention at multilateral platforms.
The reaction was not confined to parliament. Outside the Karachi Press Club, the Hindu community staged a large demonstration led by Pakistan Hindu Council president Pureshottam Rameshani. Protesters carried banners praising Pakistan’s unity and denouncing Singh’s statement. Many chanted pro‑Pakistan slogans and accused the Modi government of provoking unnecessary hostility. Community leaders reiterated the demand, earlier voiced by MP Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani, for Islamabad to issue a formal diplomatic protest and to alert the international community to what they called India’s “baseless and inflammatory rhetoric”.
Rameshani warned that if the Indian defence minister failed to retract his remarks within three days, the community would call for a sit‑in outside the Indian High Commission in Islamabad. He said the minister’s comments had stirred deep concern among Pakistani Hindus, who viewed them as part of a wider pattern of extremism under Modi’s leadership. India’s rhetoric also reverberated among Sikh groups, several of whom announced that they could no longer stand with the Modi government. Organizations aligned with the Sikh diaspora declared their solidarity with Pakistan and accused Delhi of treating minority‑dominated regions as disposable.
The US‑based advocacy group Sikhs for Justice said Sikh communities worldwide were prepared to support Pakistan in the event of any Indian aggression. Its leader, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, urged Pakistan’s military leadership—specifically Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir—to create a pathway for Sikh volunteers from Indian‑occupied Punjab to enlist in a dedicated unit for Sindh’s defence. The group said thousands of volunteers across Europe and North America were willing to join such a force if Pakistan opened the registration process, adding that the offer reflected growing disillusionment with Modi’s policies among the global Sikh diaspora.
For analysts in Islamabad, the week’s events underlined the extent to which the Modi government’s rhetoric had isolated India not only from its neighbors but also from minority communities at home and abroad. Many argued that Singh’s remarks reflected a deep‑seated contempt for international norms, and warned that careless provocations from senior Indian officials risked heightening regional tensions already strained by border disputes and mutual suspicion. Commentators noted that Singh should have been mindful of the lessons of past confrontations, including the incidents of 10 May remembered sharply in Pakistani military circles.
They said India’s leadership often underestimated the political and military costs of escalation and tended to issue statements aimed more at domestic audiences than at responsible regional diplomacy. Critics said the Modi government had built its political narrative on defiance and nationalist fervor, leaving little space for measured engagement with Pakistan or recognition of the consequences of inflammatory rhetoric. They pointed out that repeated provocations, couched as cultural claims or historical references, had fostered a perception that the BJP leadership viewed territorial boundaries as negotiable and military brinkmanship as a political tool. Pakistan’s political class, however, used the moment to project a unified front, insisting that the country viewed its territorial integrity as non‑negotiable.
(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)
