After Pahalgam: Pakistan’s tactical gains and the imperative for peace

#Pahalgam #Pakistans #tactical #gains #imperative #peace

Undoubtedly, after the Pahalgam incident in Kashmir on April 22, Pakistan emerged firmly on the diplomatic front after the Pahalgam incident. Although war is rarely brings happiness, when a country faces aggression and gives a decisive answer, it can give a moment of relief and national pride.

As always, truth is the first accident in any dispute. The purpose is compromised, and the statements are created through emotions and agendas. But the way Pakistan took over the crisis militarily, diplomatically, and the media -led people to believe that India had committed a strategic mistake. He not only suffered losses on the battlefield but also found his leadership, especially Prime Minister Narendra Modi under political pressure unless he tried to “mismanage”.

War brings suffering, economic stress and human harm. Still, after that, the alliance emerged. Yet this alliance is critical and does not always reflect long -term political trends.

Pakistan got a lead for several reasons. India allegedly lost six aircraft, including Rafael, while Pakistan’s air force remains intact. Diplomatically, India failed to seek a particularly enjoyable international cooperation in the Kargil conflict. On the media front, Pakistani outlets appear to be more prevention and objective, unlike India’s thrilling, sometimes irresponsible media coverage. As a result, national morale in Pakistan increased, and echoing a coalition that has not been seen in years.

Modi’s political story has long been revolving around Pakistan and internal minorities, especially Muslims. This strategy has worked electoral, but it can reach its limits. After the Pahalgam incident, India’s global isolation was clear. Need to ask questions. Why did India this time failed to gain international support? Why was such a collision now adopted when he avoided the war, such as the Mumbai attacks or its parliament attack?

Unity is often far away at the time of war. It is up to the leadership to take it into long -term national harmony.

Elections are more transparent than India’s democratic edge, and usually Pakistan can learn from it by strengthening its electoral credibility. Unlike the unauthorized Kargil war, where Pakistan, especially the United States and President Clinton, faced a lot of pressure, the current situation was more favorable to Islamabad. The war resulted in the political outcome and Nawaz Sharif was finalized by General Musharraf.

On the contrary, the recent confrontation saw public support at the public level and even an extraordinary political ceasefire between the government and the opposition. Although this is too early for a definite diagnosis, especially the international reaction of the United States and President Trump, which acknowledged the Kashmir issue, marked a change from the usual diplomatic climate.

Modi now finds himself in a bound. The combat hysteria he has developed has become useless. Their memories can upset him politically, as happened in 2001 when the BJP lost important elections after similar aggression. Pakistan’s rapid and measured military reaction rapidly exceeded India’s border, which includes failure to prove its allegations of the Phalgam incident.

During the 1965 war, a child and a student during 1971 with his memories. After 1971, when Pakistan lost its Eastern Wing, not because India won, but due to internal political failures, the national unity became rapidly. The loss was the result of political mismanagement since the 1970 elections, not just a military failure.

The lessons of 1971 are relevant. The coalition of war is unstable without smart governance and reconciliation. Even when Pakistan celebrates its recent military and diplomatic performance, leaders should avoid victory. Shahbaz Sharif’s claim that Pakistan “took revenge of 1971” was both wrong and non -helpful. Pakistan did not give up in 1971 to India. He lost it by himself.

Today’s media scene-especially in India, is running out of sensation and thrilling. The spread of fake news and war propaganda has poisoned public talks. There is a dire need to re -consider this financial and editorial model, or we are in danger of being taken hostage for hysteria, not by truth.

Finally, war is not a solution. Peace The current ceasefire should be a step-by-step stone for dialogue-starting with the steps of the backback channel diplomacy or track II. Both Pakistan and India need to fight a different war: against poverty, illiteracy and extremism. The question is: Can we face a challenge?

Author is Geo, Jang, and Senior NewX analysts and columnists. Follow this on x: @mazharbbas.geo