In recent months, relations between India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan’s current government have shown signs of improvement. Islamabad has officially appointed a new ambassador to Kabul after nearly four years, and New Delhi has resumed issuing visas to Afghan citizens following a long suspension.
Despite these developments, tensions remain high, with both India and Pakistan exchanging accusations and threatening retaliatory actions over terrorism-related concerns.
India has explicitly stated that it will launch strikes against Pakistan whenever it perceives a terrorist threat.
Pakistan, in turn, condemned India’s recent airstrike as an act of aggression and responded immediately. Interestingly, however, the same Pakistan has carried out several airstrikes on Afghan territory over the past two years, citing the need to eliminate terrorist threats, and justifies these operations as part of its legitimate right to self-defense.
This apparent contradiction raises important questions. Why is India’s cross-border action labeled aggression, while similar actions by Pakistan in Afghanistan are deemed justified?
We put this question to retired Pakistani army general Syed Nazeer Momand: How can an attack by India be considered an act of aggression, yet Pakistan’s similar strikes on Afghanistan be viewed as a legitimate security measure?
Views: 4
