He rightly confronted Prime Minister Modi at a time when bold, clear leadership was desperately needed.

It is well known that Pakistan remains embroiled in a long and costly war against terrorism. Given this reality, it is highly improbable that Pakistan was involved in the recent Phalgam attack in Indian-occupied Kashmir.

That said, we must be honest about the past: non-state actors originating from Pakistani soil have, regrettably, committed heinous attacks on Indian civilians. These actions are indefensible and must be condemned unequivocally.

However, it’s equally important to acknowledge the deep-rooted and legitimate grievances of the indigenous Kashmiri people. They were promised the right to self-determination through a UN-backed plebiscite at the time of British decolonization — a commitment reaffirmed by both Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Tragically, this promise was never fulfilled. Instead, the Kashmiri people have endured decades of political suppression and the systematic denial of their basic human rights.

Today, Indian-occupied Kashmir is the most militarized zone in the world, with over half a million Indian troops stationed there. This overwhelming military presence reflects not stability, but the depth of unrest and resistance among the local population.

As renowned political scientist John Mearsheimer, a leading figure in realist theory, noted in an interview: incidents like Pahalgam are, unfortunately, likely to recur. But should every such event justify a military strike on Pakistan? If so, then we are witnessing the dangerous emergence of a new norm — a kind of Wild Wild East that could spiral into disaster between two nuclear-armed rivals.

Modi’s strike on Pakistani territory following the Pahalgam  incident was not a calculated act of national defense, but rather an expression of political arrogance and theater. Emboldened by newly acquired French fighter jets and wrongly assuming that Pakistan would not respond, he sought to portray himself as a strongman to his domestic audience. It was a strategic miscalculation — and it backfired.

I must also express serious disappointment in Pakistan’s diplomatic representation in Washington during this crisis. In a CNN interview, our ambassador appeared completely out of touch — speaking in an archaic, overly formal manner better suited to a colonial-era roundtable than today’s global stage. Similarly, another chargé d’affaires gave a disjointed and confusing interview with Yalda Hakim of Sky News.

Let’s be honest: since Pakistan’s independence, only a handful of leaders have been able to articulate our national perspective clearly and persuasively to the wider English-speaking world — Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, Imran Khan, and now Bilawal Bhutto.

Bilawal Bhutto should be appointed Foreign Minister without delay. His ability to communicate Pakistan’s narrative with confidence, clarity, and credibility is urgently needed. In contrast, Ishaq Dar lacks both diplomatic finesse and international gravitas. His continued role on the global stage risks further damaging Pakistan’s already fragile reputation abroad.

Facebook comments