How India And Pakistan's Terrorism Challenge Effects Global Security

We, as a human race, are only minutes away from obliteration. At one push of a button, millions can be wiped out. We are all familiar with the catastrophic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I visited Hiroshima in 2013. It is easily the most moving experience of my life. Innocent children were charred to death. Hundreds of thousands were killed in a matter of seconds.

Empires have fought wars. Countries still do, always will. But never before in history did we unleash such evil on fellow citizens of the world. We learn from history that we have learned nothing from it. Wasn’t what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki state-sponsored terrorism? What is terrorism? The Cambridge dictionary defines it as “violent action or threats designed to cause fear among ordinary people in order to achieve political aims”. And that is exactly what the atomic bombings were. All States have a legal right (under international law) to use armed force in self-defence, but it should be necessary and proportionate. Necessary? It perhaps was. Proportionate? Most certainly not.

In 1945, bombers had to fly over these cities to drop the “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today, there’s no need to do so. Mankind has done itself a huge favour by designing and developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads thousands of miles without a soul (pun intended) on board. What is most worrisome is that rogue nations also have access to such advanced technology.

Make no mistake, the army chief is the all-in-all of Pakistan. Sadr-e-Riyasat/Wazeer-e-Azam are titular posts. Titular enough to buy an estate in Surrey or a palatial house in England or Dubai, but the real power rests with the Chief of Army Staff.

It is a well-established tradition that a visiting dignitary meets her/his counterpart. What we saw recently was a blatant admission of the fact that the de facto president of Pakistan is the army chief, who was received with pomp and glory by the president of the United States. Be that as it may. On the soil of the “free world”, the “Field Marshal” said that he would “take half the world down” with him. Is that not an act of terror? Coming from the head of a nuclear-armed nation, it ought to have been dealt with there and then by the international community. Not a word by the host.

Let me remind him that it was the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who had committed the most heinous crime on American soil. The man that America tried to hunt for the better part of a decade and spent trillions of dollars on its “war on terror”; that man, Mr President, was found in Pakistan, mere miles away from a military academy—well-harboured, well-hidden, well-protected. Lest we forget.

The US codenamed the operation of arming and financing the “mujahideen” in Afghanistan as Operation Cyclone. The programme started in 1979 and ended in 1992. The US spent billions of dollars. Most of the money flowed through Pakistan. It was Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that devised, aided and abetted the “mujahideen” in Afghanistan with American dollars to fight against the Soviets.

Bruce Riedel, who served for 30 years in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and served as senior advisor on South Asia and Middle East to four presidents of the United States, in his article—‘How the United States enabled Al Qaeda’—argues that trusting Pervez Musharraf, then President of Pakistan, to fight on our side against Bin Laden and the Taliban was another strategic failure.

“Our man” in Islamabad turned out to be helping the Taliban regroup while Bin Laden hid out in his front yard, living in plain sight of Pakistan’s most elite military academy for years. And when Musharraf faltered, we still tried to prop him up. Our desperate attempt to save Musharraf failed to keep the dictator in power, further alienated the Pakistani people and, tragically, ended with Al Qaeda’s assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister and Pakistan’s best hope.

That was a different time, a different administration. Let’s come to President Donald Trump’s previous presidency. In his first tweet after taking the oath as the President of the United States, he wrote: “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit… They give safe havens to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!” Post India’s engagement with Pakistan, the current administration has really cosied up to Pakistan. (Why? Long story, for another day).

The pattern is disturbingly clear. An unchecked Pakistan does not merely endanger South Asia but threatens the very fabric of global security. A country whose institutions are deeply entangled with extremist ideologies, whose military generals hold de facto supremacy over civilian administrations and whose covert apparatus has, time and again, cultivated terrorism as state policy, cannot be trusted with the stewardship of nuclear weapons.

It is no secret that Pakistan’s economy is perpetually in shambles, propped up every few years by bailouts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), handouts from Gulf monarchies, or loans from China under the predatory terms of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Instead of prioritising the welfare of its people, Pakistan’s rulers have historically diverted resources to its military-industrial complex, nurturing insurgent groups and funding extremists. This cocktail of financial fragility, ideological extremism and unaccountable military dominance makes Pakistan uniquely dangerous.

The global community cannot afford to pretend that Pakistan’s threats are empty rhetoric. When leaders and generals openly declare their willingness to unleash nuclear destruction, it should set off alarm bells. If the “leadership” ever loses control, the nightmare of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists could become a reality. And this scenario isn’t far-fetched. The law and order situation is such that the army generals almost never live in Pakistan post-retirement. They find safe havens in the US, UK, Canada, Australia or Dubai.

In stark contrast, India is a stabilising force in the region. India has consistently demonstrated restraint, responsibility and adherence to international law and set customs. India’s nuclear doctrine is one of credible minimum deterrence and a declared no-first-use policy. That moral clarity matters. India’s emphasis has always been on deterrence, never aggression.

Pakistan openly trains, arms and funds extremists and provides sanctuaries to groups that threaten international peace. India is not only the world’s largest democracy but also a proven, time-tested partner in upholding peace and stability in the ever-changing global order. Whether it be peacekeeping missions under the United Nations, counter-piracy operations in the Indian Ocean or supplying COVID-19 vaccines to the world during the pandemic, India has shown time and again that its rising power is a force for stability, not coercion.

At the heart of India’s claim to global support lies one unshakeable truth: India has a moral compass. Despite repeated provocations and cross-border terrorism (under the “thousand cuts” doctrine. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” says Ralph Waldo Emerson), India has always sought diplomatic avenues first, reserving military options only as a last resort. Remarkably, even when India has had to engage militarily, its actions were precise, proportionate and communicated as defensive and not expansionist.

The choice before the world is not whether to get involved or not, but how soon. Pretending that Pakistan’s nuclear theatrics and China’s expansionism are India’s problems alone is dangerously short-sighted. The arm of terror and tyranny has a way of crossing oceans and continents—as we learned on September 11, 2001, and during waves of terror attacks across the world.

The lesson of the 20th century is loud and clear: unchecked aggression eventually engulfs even those who consider themselves immune. An irresponsible nuclear-armed state, economically bankrupt yet militarily aggressive, is a danger not just to its immediate neighbourhood but to the entire world. Add to that China’s ambitions, economic and military funding and the free-flow of modern-day weaponry—this danger multiplies.

Against this backdrop, India emerges as both shield and hope. Shield, because its military prowess is modernising and resilient and sufficient to deter Pakistan and complicate Chinese adventurism. Hope, because its democracy, its moral compass, and its commitment to peace offer the world an alternative to authoritarian coercion.

It’s now (high) time for the global community to stand with India, not as a matter of favour but as a matter of survival. For, in supporting India, the world is not just backing a nation, it is safeguarding the enduring idea that power can be wielded responsibly, that the rise of the largest democracy of the world will not be stalled for a single second by threats by those who have tasted defeat after defeat by our peaceful yet indestructible forces who are ready to fight till the end to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.

“Iss shamm-e-faroza ko aandhi se darraate ho?

Is shamm-e-faroza ke parvaane hazaaron hain.”

(Views expressed are personal)

Sartaj Chaudhary is an LLM from the University of Kent, UK