Dr M Ali Hamza
Sovereignty is the supreme authority of a state to govern itself without external interference. The US attacks on Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 raised debates over sovereignty. In Afghanistan, the US targeted Al-Qaeda after 9/11, with some justification under self-defence: UN Charter Article 51. However, Iraq’s invasion was based on disputed claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs); later proven false, lacking explicit UN approval, and widely seen as a breach of sovereignty. While Afghanistan’s case had limited international acceptance, Iraq’s invasion was largely viewed as unlawful under international law, completely violating sovereignty. Both actions sparked controversy over the legitimacy of foreign intervention.
In February 2019, India conducted airstrikes on Balakot, Pakistan, claiming to target a Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terror camp in retaliation for a suicide attack in Pulwama, Kashmir. Since Pakistan denied the existence of such a camp, the raid was seen as a breach of its sovereignty under international law. While states have the right to self-defense: UN Charter Article 51, the strike lacked conclusive evidence of an imminent threat, making it a unilateral act of aggression. Pakistan condemned it as a violation of its territorial integrity, escalating tensions. The incident highlighted the risks of military actions based on unverified claims and undoubtedly was a breach of sovereignty from Indian side. Yes, in legitimate response to India’s Balakot airstrike, Pakistan launched Operation Swift Retort and Pakistan’s Air Force struck near Indian military positions in Kashmir, downing an Indian MiG-21 and capturing its pilot; later released as a peace gesture. Pakistan’s decision to release captured Indian pilot Abhinandan Varthaman as a peace gesture, drew positive global reactions. UN, US, UK, EU saw it as a step toward peace. The move briefly lowered tensions but failed to resolve long-standing disputes.
Once again, India has invoked a terror attackin Pahlgamto justify military strikes, targeting three locations in AJK and three in Punjab, Pakistan. In its official briefing, India’s language bore a striking resemblance to the US government’s rhetoric after 9/11, invoking the “right to respond.” But the critical question remains: Respond to what?So far, no concrete evidence has surfaced linking Pakistan to the Pahlgam attack. Instead, emerging details suggest the possibility of a false flag operation orchestrated by Indian authorities. The situation draws disturbing parallels to the aftermath of 9/11, when the US swiftly launched its “War on Terror” based on contested narratives.
This brings to mind *Fahrenheit 9/11*, Michael Moore’s 2004 documentary, which critically dissected the Bush administration’s handling of the attacks, media manipulation, and the dubious justifications for war. The film presented compelling evidence to question whether 9/11 was a genuine terror attack or a staged pretext for geopolitical agendas.As India employs similar rhetoric, the world must scrutinize the factsnot just the narrative. Without irrefutable proof, such strikes risk escalating tensions. The lessons of history urge caution: not every “retaliation” is what it seems.
Phalgamattack demands immediate scrutiny. Pakistan has called for an independent international investigation, a reasonable request if the goal is truth rather than propaganda. Yet India, predictably, shows no interest in a fair inquiry or meaningful collaboration to combat terrorism.This refusal speaks volumes. If New Delhi’s claims were credible, why block transparency? True counterterrorism requires cooperation, not unilateral strikes based on unverified allegations. India’s aversion to an impartial probe only fuels suspicions that its narrativelike its bombsis aimed at political theatrics, not justice.
Pakistan has been a key player in the global fight against terrorism, suffering immense losses. Since 2001, over 80,000 Pakistanis, including civilians and security personnel, have been killed in terrorist attacks. The country has faced over 19,000 terror incidents, including major attacks like the 2007 Karachi bombing:140+ dead, and the 2014 Peshawar school massacre: 149 killed, mostly children. Launching of Pakistan’s military operationsZarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad dismantled terrorist networks, killing 3,500+ militants and clearing tribal regions. These operations showcased the will to eliminate terrorism. Despite criticism, Pakistan’s efforts have reduced terror attacks by 75% since 2014, though challenges like cross-border militancy persist.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly admitted India’s role in Bangladesh’s 1971 war, effectively acknowledging interventionist policies of his country. In controversial 2016 Independence Day speech, he explicitly cited Balochistan’s “human rights violations,” signalling support for separatists. His government is effectually helping to amplify voces of Baloch rebels internationally. India’s interference extends beyond rhetoric. The exposure of spy Kulbhushan Jadhav; a RAW operative arrested in Balochistanand evidences linking India to the deadly Jaffar Express bombing prove state-sponsored terrorism. Despite these provocations, Pakistan has demonstrated restraint, prioritizing regional stability over escalation, and respected territorial integrity. On the contrary, India’s actions persistently undermine regional harmony, fuelling instability and derailing any meaningful progress toward peace.
