Pavan K. Varma | Celebrate Armed Forces, Only They’ll Keep Us Safe

In diplomacy, as in life, what is left unsaid is often as revealing as what is articulated. When President Donald Trump announced the ceasefire after Operation Sindoor — obviously eager to take credit — his silence on Pakistan’s verified role as the epicentre of international terrorism was deafening. Surely, of all countries, the US could not forget that it was the victim of the deadliest Islamic terrorist attack in human history, when on September 11, 2001, the twin World Trade Centre towers were decimated and the Pentagon attacked.

In that attack, planned and executed by Osama bin Laden of the Al-Qaeda, 2,977 Americans died, thousands more were injured, property worth over $10 billion was destroyed, and 4,30,000 people lost their jobs. Since then, 2,000 more premature deaths have been attributed to 9/11 and cancer risks of survivors have gone up by 30 per cent due to toxic exposure.

It took 10 long years at astronomical costs for America to find and kill Osama bin Laden. And, where was he found? In a heavily guarded safe-house provided by the Pakistan government in Abottabad, where he was living comfortably with his family, a stone’s throw away from Pakistan’s military academy. If this does not incontrovertibly establish Pakistan’s nexus with terrorism what does?

Moreover, even today, dozens of terrorist groups and individuals in Pakistan are banned by the US. These include the Jaish-e-Mohammed, led by Masood Azhar, who is also a designated terrorist listed by the UN since 2019. Lashkar-e-Taiba, and its front organisation, Jamaat-ud-Dawa led by Hafiz Saeed, is also designated as a terrorist organisation by America, the European Union, Russia and, of course, India. Zakir Rehman Lakhi, the brain behind the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack, is on the UN Security Council’s Sanctions List. Hizbul Mujahideen leader, Syed Salahuddin, and the infamous Dawood of the 1993 Mumbai blasts are also designated as global terrorists by America.

The US State Sponsors of Terrorism List describes Pakistan as a “safe haven” where individual terrorists and terrorist groups can organise, plan, raise funds, recruit, train and execute terrorist attacks because of a supportive government. What stares Americans in the face is that the terrorists it has proscribed — as has the UN — roam around freely in Pakistan.

Given this, how did President Trump in announcing the ceasefire, simplistically hyphenate India and Pakistan, equating the perpetrator and the victim? He knew that Operation Sindoor was launched only as a retaliation to the heinous terrorist attack at Pahalgam sponsored by Pakistan. At the very least, how could the President of a country that found and killed Osama bin Laden in a safe shelter in Pakistan, just condescendingly congratulate India and Pakistan on their “common sense and great intelligence” after the ceasefire, without condemning Pakistan’s proven state sponsorship of international terrorism?

The answer lies in the cold calculus of realpolitik. For decades, the Pakistani establishment has mastered the art of leveraging its geopolitical position to extract concessions while evading accountability. But terrorism cannot be bad for America, or for the other major powers in the world, and ignorable for India. Especially for America, Bin Laden’s discovery in Abbottabad, should have forever exposed Pakistan’s duplicity. Instead, America and the world looked away, and IMF again rewarded a terrorist state.

In my view, India should have strongly protested these double standards. Trump was almost avuncular when he announced the ceasefire, as though he was speaking to two squabbling school boys, asking them to “grow up” and stop fighting. Our silence on this travesty of this deliberate equalisation of a terrorist state and a victim of terror, is regrettable. Indeed, while India acted decisively to avenge Pahalgam, the international reaction was tepid. Even time-tested friends like Russia, generically condemned “all forms of terrorism”, without specifically holding Pakistan culpable. The reaction of other friendly powers, such as the United Kingdom, during Operation Sindoor was merely to request both countries to “show restraint”, without a word condemning the original cause of the conflagration, which was Pakistani complicity in terrorism. In any case, the UK hardly needs to be educated on Pakistan’s consistent link with terrorism.

The UAE also only advised “restraint”, and Iran asked both countries to “deescalate” the situation. Even the UN — to the extent that it matters — only reinforced this unfair hyphenation by asking for “maximum military restraint”. Had it forgotten to see the list of the number of Pakistani terrorists and terrorist organisations it has on its proscribed list? Japan expressed “deep concern” at the rising military tensions, but kept silent on Pakistan’s terrorist profile. Only France and Israel ab initio pointed the finger at Pakistan. The French government said it “understood India’s desire to protect itself against the scourge of terrorism”. And Israel minced no words in supporting India’s right of self-defence against a terrorist state.

There is the question also why Trump announced the ceasefire. What exactly was America’s role, and what does it mean for the future? Have we accepted the mediatory role of other countries in what we have always said is a bilateral matter, and if so, how does this influence our consistent position that the dispute over Kashmir will not countenance outside mediation? The government has post facto clarified and reiterated our known position, but more transparency is needed on what exactly transpired.

The lack of explicit condemnation of Pakistan’s role in harbouring terrorists — including by Trump — reveals a sobering truth: In global diplomacy, principles are often sacrificed at the altar of expediency. The lesson for India is clear. We do not have the luxury of selective amnesia. For us, Pakistan’s state sponsored terrorist infrastructure is a real threat, which we have to counter by all means at our disposal. Parliamentary delegations at present touring the world, may help, but foreign policy is a continuum, and they must do more to change world perceptions. Still, the blunt truth is that no self-respecting nation can outsource its security to the conscience of the world. The fight against terrorism is ours to wage, as demonstrated by Operation Sindoor and our victories, thanks to our valiant armed forces, who must be celebrated not because the world applauds, but because they keep our people safe.