(Abdul Basit Alvi)
The exchange between Indian Army Chief Upendra Dwivedi and Pakistan’s military media wing, Inter-Services Public Relations, reflected deep historical, ideological, and psychological tensions between India and Pakistan. General Dwivedi’s statement questioning whether Pakistan wanted to remain part of “geography and history” was viewed in Pakistan as a challenge to the country’s ideological foundation based on the two-nation theory and the creation of Pakistan in 1947, reviving fears that India still seeks an “Akhand Bharat” and has never fully accepted partition. The ISPR reaffirmed Pakistan’s sovereignty, identity, and permanence as a nation of more than 240 million people with nuclear capability and a secure place in South Asian history, emphasizing nuclear weapons as the main guarantee of sovereignty that changes the nature of any conflict and makes attempts to erase Pakistan politically unrealistic and militarily disastrous. The response criticized “Hindutva thinking” as an ideology promoting India as a Hindu nation seeking regional dominance at the expense of minorities, while Pakistan emphasized mutual respect and peaceful coexistence. Pakistan’s geographical and historical significance was highlighted through its borders with India, China, Afghanistan, and Iran, the strategic importance of Gwadar Port and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, the Indus River system, and its role in regional geopolitics involving the United States, China, and Russia. References to the Indus Valley Civilization, the Gandhara, Maurya, Ghaznavid, Mughal, and British Raj empires, along with Pakistan’s seventy-six years of statehood, wars, democratic transitions, and struggle for recognition, reinforced the belief that Pakistan’s existence is firmly rooted in geography and history. The ISPR stated that India had failed to learn the lessons of eight decades of wars, border clashes, and diplomatic crises since partition, maintaining that military threats and aggressive rhetoric deepen mistrust, fuel arms races, increase the risk of catastrophe, and divert resources away from development, healthcare, education, and poverty reduction in South Asia. India’s posture was labeled arrogant, narrow-minded, and belligerent, with questioning Pakistan’s right to exist linked to “mental bankruptcy” and “obsession” referring to India’s tendency to center Pakistan in discussions about its own domestic and international issues. India’s rhetoric was contrasted with the restraint practiced by responsible nuclear powers such as the United States and Russia during the Cold War, and the ISPR also accused India of state-sponsored terrorism, targeted killings in Balochistan and Karachi, and spreading misinformation internationally to isolate Pakistan while diverting attention from Kashmir. It stated that India’s aggressive language stems from frustration over failing to weaken Pakistan despite diplomatic pressure and alleged false surgical strike claims, while Pakistan continues strengthening its military and international relationships with countries such as China and Turkey.
The ISPR warned against pushing South Asia toward another war, stressing that any conflict could spread beyond geographical boundaries into asymmetric warfare, attacks on major cities and economic centers, and potentially nuclear escalation, while also drawing in powers such as China and forcing involvement or mediation by the United States and Europe, disrupting global trade and increasing fears of worldwide nuclear conflict. It stated that the political and strategic costs for India would become unacceptable regardless of military objectives and insisted that India recognize Pakistan as a major regional power with legitimate interests and pursue peaceful coexistence through dialogue, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, an end to cross-border terrorism and propaganda, and cooperation on poverty, climate change, and regional connectivity. The statement emphasized that peaceful coexistence was backed by military power, nuclear capability, and national unity, and that General Dwivedi’s remarks had strengthened Pakistan’s determination to defend itself and demand equal respect internationally. Political leaders from both the ruling coalition and opposition united in support of the military response, while social media, television discussions, and public opinion strongly backed the army, with many recalling events such as the 2019 Balakot airstrike and the downing of an Indian pilot as examples of Pakistan responding successfully to Indian aggression. Public readiness to support the military in any future conflict was linked to decades of wars, border tensions, memories of the 1971 war, the Kargil conflict of 1999, and continuing clashes along the Line of Control, while many Pakistani families have direct ties to the armed forces or have been affected by tensions with India, reinforcing the perception of India as an existential threat and the Pakistan Army as the ultimate defender of the nation. Support for the army against both internal and external enemies reflected a broader security doctrine focused on national unity, law and order, counterterrorism, and stability, while the external pressure from India strengthened internal cohesion and the rally-around-the-flag effect centered on both the national flag and the Pakistan Army. The ISPR’s response combined criticism of Indian ideology, reminders of Pakistan’s nuclear and geopolitical importance, warnings about the catastrophic consequences of war, and calls for peaceful coexistence based on mutual respect. It stressed that Pakistan would not be erased from geography or history, would not be intimidated by threats, and would defend its sovereignty with all available means, including its nuclear arsenal, backed by a united and resilient population. The exchange further deepened mistrust between the two countries while reinforcing the message that civilizational superiority and existential threats have no place in a nuclearized South Asia and that dialogue, restraint, and mutual acceptance remain the only responsible path forward, even as Pakistan remains vigilant and prepared to respond firmly to any challenge.
