The Big Question: Has Pakistan failed Kashmir & the Kashmiris?

By Amir Zia

Monthly News

September 2019

As far as the Indians are concerned, they have settled the Kashmir dispute for good in their favour. Now they have to manage the fallout of their decision. The Indians are convinced that as time goes by, the world will accept Kashmir as an integral part of India and they will be able to bully their way into the lives of Kashmiris – if not win their hearts and minds.

  

In times of crisis, one should not dwell on the past. It is akin to deflecting the real issue and evading the fundamental question of what needs to be done now?  Therefore, I will rephrase the question from, ‘Has Pakistan failed Kashmir’ to, ‘Should Pakistan abandon Kashmir?’

My two-word answer: “No, never.”

Pakistan should never abandon the Kashmiris in their struggle to end the Indian occupation and demand the right of self-determination, in line with UN resolutions. Standing up and fighting for Kashmir is our moral duty and a national cause. We need this kind of sharp clarity of mind, emotional belief, conviction and an unyielding commitment to stand up for Kashmir as a nation – come what may.

With one stroke of the pen, India’s Hindu extremist government, has unilaterally changed the status of Occupied Kashmir: it has divided and made this Muslim-majority state part of its union territory, without taking into account the will of the Kashmiris and violating the United Nations resolutions and its bilateral agreements with Pakistan.

This criminal Indian move to assimilate occupied Kashmir is an open act of war. And it must be seen as such. Resorting to pseudo-intellectual debates revolving around ifs and buts or discussing the past, is a futile exercise. Yes, we know that Pakistan faces an economic crisis and diplomatic challenges. We know our constraints. Let’s now zero in on our enemy’s limitations and weaknesses.

And let’s not waste time waiting for the world conscience to wake-up or international organisations like the United Nations to take any practical steps to help the Kashmiris.

The bitter fact is that there is no justice in history and no room for morality in politics and foreign relations. History is overwhelmingly made by the mighty and the powerful on the blood of the weak and the oppressed, while politics and international relations are driven by national objectives and interests. The moralist sloganeering is best left for peace times. In the real world of politics, it never works.

It is up to the Kashmiris and Pakistanis now to choose to act or not to act against the backdrop of the Indian design to make Kashmiri Muslims a minority in their own land.

As far as the Indians are concerned, they have settled the Kashmir dispute for good in their favour. Now they have to manage the fallout of their decision. The Indians are convinced that as time goes by, the world will accept Kashmir as an integral part of India and they will be able to bully their way into the lives of Kashmiris – if not win their hearts and minds.

Indian calculations are based largely on the presumption that internationally, the tailwind remains in their favour because of the size of their economy. They expect a muted response to their move from the world powers; they expect them to act only to keep the two South Asian nuclear powers at bay from an all-out war.

Secondly, Indians think that the crisis-ridden Pakistan will not go beyond mounting conventional diplomatic efforts, which may earn Islamabad some useless brownie points but will not change the situation on the ground. Empty words and meaningless statements or resolutions will not help the Kashmir cause. Neither will our demonstrations in Pakistani cities and some western capitals hurt New Delhi nor our jihad on the social media, the virtual world and on the local television screen. And New Delhi knows this.

By lowering the threshold of their response to the armed struggle of the Kashmiri mujahideen and using forums like FATF, India has cleverly kept Pakistan under pressure. They assess that without Pakistan’s active and practical support, they will be able to crush any political or armed uprising of the Kashmiris.

The Indian game is apparently flawless.

Pakistan can only put a spanner in India’s plans and attempt to turn the tide by resorting to unconventional means and restrained brinkmanship. This does not mean abandoning conventional diplomatic and political efforts, but Pakistan has to up the ante – if its leadership is serious about Kashmir.

To begin with, Pakistan must shun their apologetic attitude as regards the armed resistance of Kashmiris and provide active diplomatic, political and moral support to this indigenous movement. At the same time, Pakistan should adopt an uncompromising defensive stance – in case India strikes, using the bogey of terrorism. Pakistan should make it clear to the world that it will climb the escalation ladder swiftly and deliver the hardest blow possible in case India resorts to adventurism on the international frontier or at the line of control.

The Pakistan government has to look within to draw for strength and bank on its armed forces and people for the country’s defence, sustenance and survival rather than towards the western capitals and our “brotherly” Muslim countries.

Pakistan does not seek war. A war between two nuclear-armed neighbours would be sheer madness, but if it is thrust upon us, then let’s give India a war instead of settling for a bad peace.

Pakistanis and Kashmiri need to be clear on one score: if we are not able to stand up for Kashmir now, we will not be in a position to do so a couple of years down the road, when the Indian grip on Kashmir will have been consolidated and demographic changes been orchestrated. It is now or never. 

ENDs 

Saffron Terrorism

By Amir Zia

Monthly Hilal

July 2019

The dominance of hardline Hindu nationalism in Indian politics is not just acting as a destabilizing factor within India, but threatens peace in South Asia and beyond.

When on June 30, the Indian cricket team appeared at Edgbaston to face England in the Cricket World Cup 2019 tie, it donned a new “away kit” – a bold splash of orange (saffron) on the shoulders and back of the players’ shirts. The change of colour in the kit – from traditional blue to the splattering of saffron, one of the three colours in the Indian national flag, is perhaps a sign of times, coinciding with the second consecutive victory of Hindu extremist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India’s April-May polls. 

In Hinduism, saffron is the most important colour. No wonder the BJP and its allied groups are all out to paint “Bharat” orange. Yes, it is for the first time in more than thousand years of history that the Hindu extremists are firmly in power and in a position to assert themselves and promote their hate-ideology as they could have never done in the past.  
So if Indian politics has turned saffron, it makes sense for cricket to follow suit – the money-minting game for which there is more passion in India than providing toilets to the teeming masses.
Therefore, for promoters of Hindutva, cricket is just another means to showcase Hindu-ness and muscle-power of their country rather than sport and a gentleman’s game. Falling in line, wicketkeeper Mahendra Singh Dhoni felt the need to display a military logo on his gloves at the World Cup. Mercifully, the International Cricket Council barred him from doing this, though many feared that the big money clout of Indians may force it to bend rules. 
And prior to the gloves’ controversy, Indian cricketers shocked the world of sports by wearing army’s camouflage caps during the 3rd One-Day International match against Australia at Jharkhand. 
However, saffron coloured kit, gloves with the military logo or the camouflage caps in cricket hold only a small symbolic value in the big picture of India. The real cause of concern for the world should be Hindutva’s ominous and scary agenda being unfolded with a rapid speed on the domestic and external fronts following Modi’s re-election.
The BJP’s second innings in power has started off with a sharp spike in anti-minority mob violence and rhetoric, particularly against Muslims – raising the mega question about what does the dominance of Hindutva mean for the so-called world’s largest democracy? It is also important to analyze how the Hindutva agenda would impact the region, particularly India’s immediate neighbours? And where this unbridled rise of politics of extremism and hate could lead to?  

Targeting Minorities
In India, the frequency and ferocity of attacks by the Hindu extremist vigilante mobs targeting followers of the minority faiths continue to increase. 
According to the New York-based Human Rights Watch report – released in February 2019 – radical cow protection groups have killed at least 44 people and injured around 280 in more than 100 attacks carried out between May 2015 and December 2018. Out of these 44 slain victims, 36 were Muslims.  
Following Modi’s re-election, vigilantism has shown an upward trend. And media – by design or default – reports only tip of the iceberg of all the discrimination, harassment, exploitation and violence meted out to the members belonging to the religious minorities and people belonging to the so-called lower castes. 
For example, in Jharkhand a 24-year-old Muslim, Tabrez Ansari, was tortured to death by a Hindu mob. The video clip of this horrific incident appeared on June 22, showing Ansari begging for mercy as he was being tortured and forced to chant “Jai Shri Ram” and “Jai Hanuman” by the mob.    
Two days after the Jharkhand incident, a 26-year-old Muslim cleric, Hafeez Mohammed, was pushed out of a train in West Bengal by a mob chanting “Jai Shri Ram.” Luckily, Hafeez escaped death, but sustained some minor injuries.
Countless such incidents can be quoted underlining the fact that Hindu extremists are out to further squeeze space for people belonging to the other faiths in their bid to transform India in line with the Hindutva ideology. 
India’s national identity is being defined only as Hindu identity by the BJP and its allies like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Hindu Mahasabha. 
For a country, where one-fifth of the population comprises non-Hindus, this push towards establishing a Hindu state is seen widening its fissures.

Discrimination
The BJP government has either taken or plans a series of highly discriminatory and controversial actions against the minorities by changing the constitution and the law. 
The most inflammatory plan is to abolish the special status of the disputed region of Kashmir – the only Muslim majority state of Hindu India – and scrap all its constitutional guarantees.
If this plan materializes it would diminish all possibilities for a peaceful solution to this protracted conflict in which Kashmiris have been forced to turn to armed and unarmed resistance in the wake of growing atrocities and human rights violations by the Indian forces. 
The BJP is also changing India’s refugee and citizenship policies to make them more discriminatory and anti-minorities. Under this plan non-Muslim refugees will get Indian citizenship more easily than Muslims.
Hindu hardliners are also pursuing their agenda to falsify and distort history by rewriting textbooks, changing names of places and pressuring Muslim institutions to amend their charters. 
This sort of discrimination is not just isolating the religious minorities, especially the Muslims, but is likely to force retaliation. 
Abdul Basit, Pakistan’s former high commissioner to India, said that Hindutva’s extremist ideology is intrinsically dangerous as it is heavily inspired by Nazism. 
“Savarkar, the founder of Hindutva, was critical of Jews for retaining their separate identity in Germany and compared them to Indian Muslims. It is, therefore, hardly surprising what is happening to Muslims in India under the BJP and Modi.”
According to Air Vice Marshal Shahzad Chaudhry (R) India's declaratory policy of Hindutva has sharpened the divide in this multi-cultural state. “It has placed communities on warpath inside India, while it has spawned similar polarity of sentiment in the neighbourhood.”

Threat to Regional Peace
Indeed, the dominance of hardline Hindu nationalism in Indian politics is not just acting as a destabilizing factor within India, but threatens peace in South Asia and beyond.
India’s tense relations with Pakistan over Kashmir is an old story. But under the BJP’s adventurous policies, they have aggravated and fears of a full-blown conflict increased as witnessed in February this year when the armed forces of the two nuclear-armed states briefly locked horns following the violation of Pakistan’s airspace by Indian fighter jets. The retaliatory action by Pakistan Air Force had downed two Indian aircraft.    
Any miscalculation amidst this kind of Indian brinkmanship and war-hysteria fanned by its leadership could prove catastrophic for the entire region.
“The BJP is an extension of the RSS, which sees Kashmir dispute not as a political but religious one,” says Dr. Syed Rifaat Hussain, who specializes in international relations with a focus on South Asia, arms control and proliferation.
With all their temples and some holy places, they even consider Kashmir as a sacred Hindu land and therefore, are not ready to open talks on the disputed Himalayan region. “Congress also had the same problem, but it was not averse for talks,” he said.  
According to Mr. Basit, now even engaging with Pakistan by India is considered a concession.  “Indian leadership wants their country to become an economic hub by isolating Pakistan… they want to keep Pakistan under pressure. Even if they talk, they will not talk on Kashmir… in the current situation, at the most conflict between the two countries can be managed, but not resolved.”  
While Kashmir remains an old problem, India is using Afghanistan to stoke ethnic tensions, terrorism and violence in Pakistan. The arrest of Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav – a serving Indian naval officer – by Pakistan in 2016 is a living proof of how India is responsible for terrorism in Pakistan.  
Other disputes between Pakistan and India including on Sir Creek and Siachen Glacier also remain unresolved due to New Delhi’s belligerence and obstinate attitude.
Mr. Basit said that one can see how Hindutva agenda is working to damage bilateral relations between Pakistan and India, as well as impeding regional cooperation. “India's bullying tactics vis-á-vis SAARC is [a] clear manifestation of the latter.”

A Regional Bully  
Pakistan is not the only South Asian country which has tensions with India. Almost all the other South Asian neighbours have maritime, border or water disputes with India, which is trying to establish its hegemony in the region in all spheres – from trade to military power.
For example, Bangladesh’s relations under Prime Minister Hasina Wajid’s rule have improved in recent years, but Dhaka has not been able to convince its big neighbour to ensure its water share during drier season and manage its flow during monsoon to avoid floods. 
The construction and operation of Farakka Barrage by India over Hoogly River is a key bone of contention along with the distribution and management of the waters of River Ganges. 
India and Bangladesh also have problems on their porous frontiers as the Indian Army shoots to kill Bangladeshi villagers, branding them illegal immigrants or terrorists. 
Land-locked Nepal often remains the target of Indian belligerence. In 1962, India forcibly occupied Kalapani, which is still claimed by Nepal. Similarly, disputes over Susta and Lipulekh are also unresolved. Indian interference in the affairs of its small neighbour can be gauged from the fact that in 2016, it tried to topple down the Nepalese government.  
In 2015, India created a humanitarian crisis in Nepal by blocking its supplies as New Delhi supported the Madheshis population against the Nepalese government. 
Pakistan’s former envoy to India, Mr. Basit also said that the world had seen how India under Modi tried to bully Nepal by imposing an economic blockade for months. 
“One must commend the people of Nepal for refusing to compromise their sovereignty and national dignity,” he said, adding that despite being a Hindu majority country, Nepal, too, remains apprehensive of the regressive worldview of Hindutva.
India’s controversial intervention in Sri Lanka’s civil war is also a case in point. Initially, the Indian Army supported Tamil Tigers despite being peacekeepers and then changed track. 
Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in 1991 by Tamil Tigers was in response to this change of position. 
In recent years, Sri Lanka has moved closer to China, yet maintaining good relations with India. 
AVM Chaudhry said that even the recent communal troubles in Sri Lanka remain an extension and a manifestation of the trend in its closest neighbourhood India. “It is time for the world to take notice and pine for greater inclusiveness as a sine qua non for social and political stability in the region.”
Similarly, despite billions of dollars of trade, India’s relations with China remain distrustful and complicated. While one of the main bone of contentions is India’s dispute with China over Aksai Chin and Ladakh regions, New Delhi’s growing strategic relations with the United States are fundamentally aimed at containing Beijing. 
India wants to ensure that the Indian Ocean becomes its domain, but it is not in a position to counter China and its influence. Therefore, it has partnered with Australia, Japan and the U.S. to achieve this end. In an attempt to dominate the sea lanes, India and its allies are trying to establish their influence and control over islands stretching from Maldives to Diego Garcia and beyond by placing fighter aircraft, sea and air surveillance, naval ships and listening posts. India will gain the most if this happens.  
If this happens, not only maritime interests of China and Pakistan will be threatened but Gulf States, Indonesia and Malaysia and even Russia will be hurt. 
Pakistan and China have to develop a strategy to counter this move in which they have to ensure that Maldives maintains its autonomy and independence and doesn’t fall prey to India’s expansionist designs. New Delhi is trying to influence. Maldives and its politics through diplomacy as well as using its intelligence. It is trying to change the Islamic character of Maldives and create a negative image about Pakistan.  

In a nutshell, ‘Saffron’ India with its grand dream of emerging on the world stage as a major power, maintains from uneasy to outright hostile relations with all its neighbours. 
The dominance of aggressive Hindutva agenda, which is not a temporary phase in India, is widening cracks and fissures within the Indian polity as well as complicating and aggravating relations with neighbouring countries, threatening regional peace and stability. 

ENDS

Neither War, Nor Peace

By Amir Zia

March 2019

Monthly Newsline

In the latest crisis with India, the Pakistani leadership has displayed a great deal of sagacity, restraint and maturity to avoid a war. Now Prime Minister Imran Khan and his team have to stay the course and utilise the crisis to write a new set of rules in Pakistan’s favour

After all the menacing warmongering, dangerous posturing and tit-for-tat attacks, Pakistan and India have apparently pulled back from the brink of a full-blown war. 
If the credit for preventing an all-out conflict goes to the hectic overt and covert efforts by global and regional powers, Pakistan unarguably also helped in de-escalation through its measured military and diplomatic response to the Indian aggression and display of extreme restraint despite serious provocation. 

The uneasy lull notwithstanding, Pakistani and Indian troops remain locked in a heavy exchange of mortar and artillery fire along the Line of Control (LoC) in the divided Himalayan region of Kashmir and in other border areas. The disputed frontier – where the Indians have resorted to more than 3,000 ceasefire violations in 2018 alone – is likely to remain an intermittent conflict zone in the foreseeable future, as the prospects for peace are bleak given India’s intransigent stance on the issue. 

While Indian forces continue to target civilians along the LoC and the working boundary, the Pakistani military – as per its standard operating procedure –makes sure to fire with care to avoid villagers being hit in Occupied Kashmir. 
And so, against the backdrop of deafening artillery fire and a pounding of mortar shells in various areas of the disputed region, Kashmir is again calling for international attention as the most dangerous nuclear flashpoint in the world. Any sharp escalation of hostilities and even a small miscalculation by either of the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours has the potential to spin out of control and result in a doomsday scenario for not just the region, but even the world.

Using the bogey of terrorism, India is setting the pace of the conflict against Pakistan, through both words and actions.  

Islamabad’s repeated peace overtures and offers for talks on assorted issues, including Kashmir and the challenge of terrorism in the region, have so far been haughtily rejected by New Delhi. And Prime Minister Imran Khan’s decision to free Abhinandan Varthaman, the pilot of the downed Indian fighter aircraft, is being portrayed by the jingoistic Indian media and leadership as an act induced by external pressure rather than a goodwill gesture.

And so while international diplomatic efforts have helped avert the danger of a full-blown war for now, chances of sustained and meaningful bilateral talks between the two countries before or after the Indian general elections – scheduled in April-May this year – appear slim. 

Even if talks resume – as they have done several times in the past – whether or not the two neighbours will be able to take even few baby steps towards resolving their disputes, including the core dispute of Kashmir, remains a key question.  And if the core issue remains unresolved, will Pakistan and India be able to carve out a roadmap for peace and confidence-building measures, or at least opt for a prolonged season of cold peace? In the current environment of hostilities, particularly from the Indian side, the possibility of even holding talks for the sake of talks appears remote. 

The records of the bilateral “composite dialogue,” which started in 1985 and dragged on till 2008, followed by a “comprehensive dialogue” that began in 2015, indicate that the two countries failed to address even those issues – such as the dispute over Sir Creek and Siachen Glacier – which were seen as ‘low hanging fruits’ that were easy to pluck. The responsibility for the failure of the bilateral talks overwhelmingly rests on the shoulders of New Delhi which did not implement the decisions considered a done deal after the talks, such as a pulling out of troops from the Siachen Glacier. 

So if the past is any guide, why the result of any such efforts in the future would be different is a point to ponder, as an economically buoyant India attempts to redefine red lines in its favour vis-a-via Pakistan on the back of New Delhi’s growing diplomatic clout in key world capitals. 

For Pakistan, the situation has never been as challenging and tricky in recent years as it now stands, with prospects for regional peace remaining precarious.

Pakistan – despite constraints – gave an effective military and political response following the crossing of the LoC and international frontiers by Indian fighter aircraft on February 26 to bomb a deserted area in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhawa province. Though India contends hitting an alleged “terrorist camp,” there is no evidence on the ground to back these claims. 

India justified the attack in the name of self-defence and in retaliation to the February 14 suicide bombing in Occupied Kashmir’s Pulwama area which killed more than 40 Indian soldiers. But according to Foreign Office sources at home, in the dossier presented to Pakistan after the escalation of hostilities, India failed to provide any definitive evidence of Pakistani involvement in the attack.

Although the Indian attack failed, it was an indisputable act of aggression that aimed to set a precedent in India’s favour for the future. Pakistan had no choice other than to respond. The very next day, pilots of the Pakistan Air Force downed two Indian fighter aircrafts and bombed six targets in Occupied Kashmir, clearly demonstrating the forces’ capacity, ability and will to retaliate when attacked. However, even the retaliation was restrained. Director General, Inter Services Public Relations, Maj. General Asif Ghafoor told reporters that as the Indian attack did not cause any loss of life, the PAF bombed close to Indian military positions rather than hitting them directly to avoid damage and casualties. (SEE BOX FOR DETAILS) 

Facts also exposed India’s propaganda. The Pulwama attacker was a local youngster, Aqeel Dar, who wanted to avenge Indian atrocities in the occupied region. Dar had joined militants because he was humiliated and tortured by Indian troops. Yet, even before the fires of the Pulwama attack had been doused, anti-Pakistan hysteria gripped the Indian media.  

And while Pakistan scored some tactical diplomatic and military success in this latest Indo-Pak impasse, its one-sided efforts to lower tensions do not raise many hopes for peace, as India remains adamant about pursuing new rules of engagement.

Firstly, the Indian leadership is confident that the time is now ripe to up the anté of tension with Pakistan in the push to establish India as an unchallenged dominant power in the region and beyond. This confidence emerges due to India’s growing economic clout and its strategic partnership with the United States. That partnership was seen at work recently as Washington endorsed the Indian position that it had carried out “counter-terrorism actions on February 26” and advised Pakistan to take “meaningful action against terrorist groups operating on its soil.” 

New Delhi has also been able to build relationships with other regional countries and neutralise some of Pakistan’s allies. The appearance of the Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj as guest of honour at the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) remains one example of India’s successful diplomatic push.

Secondly, India wants to divert attention from its human rights violations and the state-terrorism it has unleashed against citizens in Occupied Kashmir. 

Thirdly, India aims to paint the burgeoning legitimate, and now entirely indigenous freedom struggle in Kashmir, as terrorism. And in the post-9/11 world, the Indian leadership has found a conducive environment to associate the Kashmiri freedom movement with terrorism.  

Last but not least, India and some of its backers want to keep Pakistan destabilised at a time when the new government at home is trying to revive the economy and introduce reforms and clean the Augean stables. An escalation of tension between the two countries and mobilisation of troops even without a war remains a drain on the economy and discourages foreign and local investment. 

To make the situation for Pakistan even more fraught, some international players appear to be working in tandem at various levels to keep the country under pressure. For example, Pakistan fulfilled almost all the requirements set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) aimed at stopping money-laundering and terror-financing to get the country’s name removed from the Grey List. But suddenly FATF had another prerequisite before this could happen: Pakistan would have to declare the source of financing of its nuclear and security programme, a precondition which wasn’t mentioned before. 

Therefore, continued tensions and the “no talks” posture with Pakistan fits in well with India’s Hindu extremist government’s game plan which, along with its international backers, want a pliant Pakistan.

Indians feel that they can get away with their genocidal policies in Occupied Jammu & Kashmir, put this core issue on the back-burner once for all, and engage Pakistan on their own terms as and when desired. 

Meanwhile, the Pakistani leadership – at least in public – appears to agree on one point. Not just many Pakistani analysts, but even government top-guns, including Prime Minister Imran Khan, have repeatedly said that Modi orchestrated tensions because of the looming elections in which the anti-Pakistan card sells in India’s cow-belt. 

Elections are certainly a factor prodding the Modi government to get tough on Pakistan, but they are not the only factor. The Indians have greater designs in the region, and the “no talks” mantra with Pakistan suits them and their backers.    

India as a hegemonic power is looking at ways to escalate tensions and create a new normal in the region where it can take unilateral military action against Pakistan in the name of self-defence against alleged terrorists. This is, of course, an unacceptable situation for Pakistan, which in round one fully demonstrated its capabilities and will, and denied India the chance to tilt the balance in its favour.

But going forward, Islamabad will have to perform a high-wire diplomatic act to avoid the escalation of tension with India, resist diplomatic pressure regarding its core national interests, including a stand on Kashmir and the nuclear programme, and ensure that its national security red line stays in place.

At the same time, the government has to ensure internal security at every cost. On this front, Pakistan has already achieved a lot as the country has, virtually single-handedly, turned the tide of terrorism and abolished the terrorists’ safe-havens. But the fight against extremism is still far from over. It needs to be taken to the next level in line with the 20-point National Action Plan, which was the result of a national consensus following the terrorist attack on the Army Public School Peshawar on December 16, 2014. The past government failed to empower and activate the National Counter Terrorism Authority, introduce reforms in the police and judiciary, effectively curb the extremist narrative, and defang some of the already banned organisations. 

This Pakistan has to do in its own national interest and in line with the policy that only the state, not non-state actors, has the authority to formulate the rules of engagement vis-à-vis terrorism and related activity. There is already a consensus on this issue within all the state institutions. But it is time to double these efforts to deny anti-Pakistan forces the propaganda space they enjoy because of various loopholes. 

In the latest crisis with India, the Pakistani leadership has displayed a great deal of sagacity, restraint and maturity to avoid a war. Now Prime Minister Imran Khan and his team have to stay the course and utilise the crisis to write a new set of rules in Pakistan’s favour.

ENDs