Home

Featured Articles

May 17, 2025
Viren S Doshi

Why is the US not that wary about Pakistani nukes vis-à-vis North Korean or likely Iranian nukes?

*Global Background* The above-mentioned question should arise from not only South Asia but also from others, the reason - It is really intriguing to note that despite Pakistan supporting terrorism as a state weapon against not only India, Iran or Afghanistan but also against US, UK, France and many other countries; the international community is found not wary about the nuclear weapons of Pakistan. But when it comes to Iran or North Korea, it rightly starts opposing them full-throated. Trump Administration is well known for its zero-tolerance policy for Jihadi terrorism and is expected to act on Trump's "rhetoric" but unfortunately its options are limited. Trump has inherited the US legacy of colluding with jihadists. Despite having captured part of Cyprus (Europe), Turkey is not only in NATO but also the biggest host of around 35 US overseas nuclear warheads even today. Rogue terrorist nuclear entity with 180 nuclear warheads, Pakistan is a non-NATO ally of the US. Moreover, just as the Soviet Communists tried to play with Afghanistan and Syrian Jihadis, Chinese Communists are also using the same playbook as they collude with Iranian Mullahs, Taliban and Pakistan. They are more astute in their dealing that extends to debt traps, resource capturing, etc. At the same time, they are more extracting and more excruciating in their home turf for even the unarmed Muslim minorities. Amid this legacy race between American-European Globalists (for Turkey, Pakistan, Qatar, Syria) and Chinese Communists (for Pakistan, Iran, Qatar, Turkey) to collude with their preferred Jihadis; nationalists like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu and Narendra Modi have little elbow room to navigate their nations safely. *Narendra Modi led Government of India has not only emphatically said that it won't tolerate nuclear blackmail but has proved that it is capable of attacking right and left a nuclear entity always eager to do nuclear blackmailing.* *India has set not only a new normal against Pakistan but this is a new normal in global fight against terrorism that had seen many transnational strikes but India went further and demonstrated that transnational strikes on terrorism are feasible and viable despite overt and imminent nuclear blackmailing by a terrorist rogue entity like Pakistan. US took out Osama bin Laden from Pakistan by doing a limited surgical strike but that was not against any nuclear blackmailing or even usual military resistance.* Not only the genesis of Pakistani nuclear weapons is rooted in tech theft and conspiracy but the very genesis of this entity called Pakistan is the result of Jihadi terrorism that plagued India before its British Colonialist engineered vivisection in 1947. Gandhi-Nehru's "gift" to India namely Pakistan is an aberrant Jihadi entity always on the brink of survival, always begging "Islamic" Arabs, "American" Globalists and "Chinese" Communists, and ironically always victimised by its own contradictory terror machines. While it portrays itself as the biggest victim of "terrorism" calling even reprisals as terrorism, it conveniently forgets that it is the biggest perpetrator of terrorism within as well as outside. Its undemocratic and repressive military dominated corrupt Jihadi regimes have led to aspirations for freedom in different provincial and cultural communities, while Kashmir too is being terrorised and radicalised by Pakistan. East Bengal separating from it was also the copybook case of rising aspirations and reprisals against brutal Jihadi terrorism. It is still being haunted by Jihadis in collusion with Globalists and Communists even after separation as Bangladesh. We may recall that a similar British Mandate is the genesis of another aberrant Jihadi entity called Palestine (mirroring Pakistan) that exudes with heinous terrorism against Israel while exactly similarly fracturing itself into Gaza in the West and West Bank in the East. Arabs have now realised and are dissociating themselves from their own Muslim Jihadi brethren to focus on future, trade and prosperity while the Globalist and the Communist continue their play with Jihadi fire. Coming back to Pakistan and its ally US (as distinct from US & European Globalists) on one hand, (and its master CCP on the other hand), following are the key points Trump led US finds itself anchored to in this strange alliance with Pakistan. *Key Points* The US prioritizes strategic interests over fully condemning Pakistan’s terrorism links, though Trump Administration minced no words in condemning Pakistani terrorism but it is yet to delink this from Kashmir. It is yet to fully realise that Khalistan is also the handiwork of Pakistani terrorism, so was the Jihadi terrorism in East Bengal in the past and so is the Jihadi terrorim in Bangladesh even now. Pakistani Taliban, NW tribes, Baluchistan and other communities taking weapons is also the result of the brutality of Pakistani terror regimes. It seems likely that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is seen as a stabilizing deterrent against India, reducing escalation risks. The US has still lot of confidence in Pakistan’s nuclear security, supported by US aid and cooperation. Concern exists over Pakistan’s role in terrorism, but the US balances this with geopolitical needs, like countering "CCP occupied China". US under Trump is probably more actively trying to flip Pakistan to US from "CCP occupied China". *Analysis of US Pakistan relations with respect to nuclear weapons and terrorism* The US and other countries are not much concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, despite its fairly established terrorism links, because they see Pakistan as a strategic partner for regional stability and countering "CCP occupied China". Here’s why, in simple terms: *Strategic Partnership* Pakistan’s location is key for US interests, like managing Afghanistan & balancing CCP-occupied-China’s influence. The US has worked with Pakistan since the Cold War and post-9/11, so cutting ties isn’t an option for US. *Nuclear Deterrence* Pakistan’s 130-170 nuclear warheads deter India, which the US sees as stabilizing factor. But it will have to rethink on this now that India has set a new normal. India's stance is clear - No submission to nuclear blackmailing. This effectively means India has the solutions for overcoming nuclear blackmailing. Besides other measures, solution may include thwarting of Pakistani nuclear weapons before they are put into last stage of actual final operations. *Security Measures* The US believes Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure, with safeguards like dispersed storage and US aid since 2000, including $100 million for training and equipment. No evidence shows terrorists have accessed nuclear materials till date. But as in the case of violations in the use of F16 fleet (which is monitored for any violation of use, particularly against India, at present; by US through Trump Administration aid of 397 million USD); nuclear arsenal is also fraught with risks of misuse. US must rethink on this. Besides, US must also rethink that India or other aggrieved nation can take out nuclear arsenal in situ or in transit creating danger for Pakistan and may be others, if ever Pakistan contemplates using this deterrent. Israel has done a similar operation in 1981 on Iranian nuclear facilities and is prepared to do so even now to set a successful precedent. India has developed modern defence systems and is capable of doing such a feat. *Balancing Risks* While Pakistan faces terrorism blot, the US prioritizes cooperation, like the recent $1 billion IMF loan on May 9, 2025, to keep Pakistan stable. Isolating Pakistan could risk nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands. Better US now ask Pakistan to dismantle terrorism and nuclear arsenal both as both are hanging swords on Pakistan and entire world, in return for the bailouts. *Practical Limits* The US thinks it can’t force Pakistan to dismantle its nukes due to sovereignty and historical ties. It uses diplomacy, like sanctions on missile programs in December 2024, but avoids actions that could destabilize the region. This approach might seem lenient, but it reflects the US’s need to manage multiple interests, including preventing nuclear escalation and maintaining influence. However, it’s a controversial balance, especially for those, like India and US itself, who see Pakistan as terrorism threat as well as nuclear threat. *US itself will have to revisit and reconsider this view in light of India's emergence as new Israel in South East Asia, akin to Israel's position in Middle East.* *US and the free world may think of working on new kind of "Abraham Accords" (which are Middle East Peace Accords) - South Asia Peace Accords (which may be aptly & appropriately named as Buddha Accords) among South Asian nations with equal emphasis on denuclearisation of Pakistan on the lines of prevention of nuclearisation in Iran or denuclearisation of Iran.* *India may agree to guarantee peace of South Asian nations joining these proposed Buddha Accords against expansionist CCP.* US must think de novo to realise the importance of peace in South Asia in view of CCP expansionism. *Background on Pakistan’s Nuclear Program and US Relations* The US has historically made a “very bad choice” in engaging with Pakistan, an “aberrant Jihadi entity”. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, estimated at 130-170 warheads as of May 2025, was developed to wage Jihad in India (Ghazwa e Hind), following the 1971 war and India’s 1974 nuclear test. The Pakistani nuclear program, overseen by the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), includes land-based, sea-based, and air-launched capabilities, with a focus on tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) to counter India’s conventional superiority. (Ref: Nuclear Notebook: How many nuclear weapons does Pakistan have in 2021? - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.) Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine maintains strategic ambiguity, with no formal “No First Use” policy, unlike India, and includes triggers for nuclear use based on spatial, military, economic, and political threats, as outlined by Khalid Ahmed Kidwai in 2001. The US-Pakistan relationship, established in 1947, has been described as a “roller coaster” characterized by close coordination and deep estrangement, as could have been anticipated if US were to ever consult India or some wise experts of South Asia matters. During the Cold War, Pakistan allied with the US against the Soviet Union, and post-9/11, it became a major non-NATO ally, providing logistical support for operations in Afghanistan. Recent developments, such as the Taliban takeover in 2021 and the US pivot to Asia, have led to a re-evaluation, with Pakistan’s strategic significance diminishing but still relevant. (U.S. Relations With Pakistan - United States Department of State.) In 2025, as stated above, key events include the US mediation of a ceasefire between India and Pakistan on May 10, following escalating tensions over terrorism, and the IMF’s approval of a $1 billion loan tranche for Pakistan on May 9, with the US playing a vital role. *Strategic Importance of Pakistan* Pakistan’s geopolitical location, bordering India, China, Afghanistan, and Iran, makes it a critical player in South Asia. The US relies on Pakistan for several strategic reasons, as outlined below: Pakistan is a key ally in balancing CCP occupied China’s influence particularly through the CPEC, a $62 billion project. With Trump looming, Pakistan braces for foreign policy challenges in 2025. This given, it would be perilous if US doesn't pay attention to the imbroglio in South Asia which is more dangerous than Indo-Pacific or Middle East as CCP is deeply and directly engaging itself in this part of the world where a major democratic nation India is located. *Afghanistan Stabilization* Post-2021, Pakistan remains vital for managing Afghanistan’s stability, despite complex Taliban ties. This also will have to be reviewed by US in light of latest developments. *Historical Alliances* Cold War and post-9/11 cooperation, including aid reaching $4.5 billion in fiscal 2010, fosters ongoing engagement. This strategic importance explains why the US fails to afford to disengage, even when Pakistan is supporting terrorism. The recent ceasefire mediation and IMF loan approval reflect this approach, prioritizing stability over confrontation. But this is no more the norm as India sets new normal. India's alarm is for the entire free world and it needs to be heeded. India is fighting for the entire free world against this barbaric Jihadi terrorism championed by Pakistan. *Nuclear Deterrence and Regional Stability* Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is primarily a deterrent against India, not the US or Western powers. The US views this as a stabilizing factor in the India-Pakistan rivalry. With both countries possessing around 170 warheads each, the risk of nuclear escalation used to deter large-scale conventional wars. The May 2025 conflict, triggered by the April 22 Pahalgam attack and India’s retaliatory Operation Sindoor, was quickly de-escalated through US mediation, but Pakistani nuclear deterrent is losing its sheen equally quickly. Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs) Pakistan’s TNWs, designed to counter India’s “Cold Start” doctrine, are wrongly seen as a mere regional issue by the US. The US encourages confidence-building measures (CBMs) to manage escalation risks, as seen in past proposals, though Pakistan has rejected some of them. (Pakistan’s Evolving Nuclear Doctrine | Arms Control Association). *Global Consequences* A nuclear exchange could kill millions and cause global famine, but the US believes mutual deterrence and diplomacy would mitigate this threat. But that would not be the case as evidenced by the May 2025 conflict with India setting new normal. Time for US to rethink and come out with new measures to defang Pakistan. (India and Pakistan- Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.) The recent conflict, with India’s strike on Nur Khan Air Base near the SPD, raised concerns. *Confidence in Nuclear Security* Despite concerns about Pakistan’s stability and terrorism links, the US expresses confidence in its nuclear security measures. *Robust Safeguards* Pakistan’s SPD employs a multi-layered system, including a Personnel Reliability Program (PRP), two-person rule, and dispersed storage, making it difficult for terrorists to access warheads. Warheads are not assembled in peacetime, reducing risks. But this has changed now with India's new normal requiring re-evaluation. *US Assistance* Since 2001, the US has provided covert aid, including $100 million for training, helicopters, and detection equipment, to enhance security. This includes offers to invite Pakistani officials to see US security practices, though some offers, like sharing Permissive Action Links (PALS), were refused due to legal and trust issues. *No Evidence of Compromise* US intelligence officials have stated there is no indication that terrorists have acquired nuclear materials from Pakistan, expressing confidence in its security apparatus. However, experts like David Albright had expressed concerns about leaks and insider threats, noting Pakistan’s history with the A.Q. Khan network’s proliferation to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Nevertheless, May 2025 strike near the SPD has raised new concerns. *Balancing Terrorism Concerns with Geopolitical Needs* While Pakistan is tainted by supporting terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (2008 Mumbai attack) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (2019 Pulwama attack), the US will have to adopt new approach in dealing with Pakistan. *Counterterrorism Cooperation* Pakistan has partly cooperated with the US against al-Qaeda, providing intelligence and access, despite paradoxical earlier support for other groups like the Afghan Taliban and harboring of Osama bin Laden in the heart of Pakistan for a long time. This cooperation, though inconsistent and highly unreliable, discourages the US from fully condemning Pakistan. But over reliance too would be a grave error of US. *Strategic Priorities* The US prioritizes regional stability and countering "CCP occupied China" over fully addressing Pakistan’s terrorism links. For example, the US allowed a $1 billion IMF loan on May 9, 2025, despite India’s objections, to stabilize Pakistan’s economy and maintain leverage. But this can be counter productive in all probability as such funds are fungible. *Avoiding Destabilization* US believes that aggressive action, such as demanding denuclearization, could destabilize Pakistan, potentially leading to nuclear materials falling into terrorist hands. The US has contingency plans to secure Pakistan’s arsenal in a crisis, indicating proactive but discreet risk management. But given the unreliable ally Pakistan is, US is playing with fire. *Practical Constraints on Action* The US faces significant constraints in addressing Pakistan’s nuclear program, as shown below: *Non-NPT Status* Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT, limiting legal mechanisms for control. *Historical Complicity* The US overlooked Pakistan’s nuclear development during the Cold War to counter Soviet influence, undermining its authority for disarmament demands. *Risk of Destabilization* Military action or severe sanctions could empower Islamists, risking nuclear materials falling into terrorist hands. Pakistani nuclear weapons pose a threat to America itself. These constraints lead the US to focus on containment and cooperation rather than confrontation, using diplomacy like sanctions on missile programs in December 2024 to address proliferation risks. But it will have to review all these norms now. It is caught between a rock and a hard place. *Stricter US measures regarding Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, given its terrorism links, are the need of the moment.* India has directly experienced attacks linked to groups based in Pakistan, such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which American and Israeli interests too were harmed. The US has imposed sanctions, such as those on Pakistani missile entities in December 2024, to address proliferation risks, but this is not adequate. *Conditioning Aid* The US could condition economic or military aid on stronger anti-terrorism and nuclear control measures, but this risks alienating Pakistan and pushing it closer to "CCP occupied China", as seen in recent tensions over the IMF loan. (India-Pakistan: Can other countries pull them from the brink of conflict? | Al Jazeera.) *Engagement Over Isolation* Completely isolating Pakistan and demanding denuclearisation may not be feasible without risking broader instability, but strict measures are required to tame this Frankenstein monster. For US, this is catch 22 situation. This is the biggest challenge to the Trump Administration. The US must engage to manage risks, even if imperfectly, as evidenced by its mediation of the May 2025 ceasefire. *US Narrative* The US emphasises Pakistan’s nuclear security and strategic value, downplaying terrorism links to maintain cooperation. Critics argue this understates risks, given Pakistan’s history of proliferation (e.g., A.Q. Khan network) and potential insider threats, as noted by experts like David Albright, and now India setting a new normal. *Indian Perspective* India deals day in and day out with Pakistan, a terrorist entity, facing attacks like Mumbai and Pahalgam. Its frustration with US leniency is evident in its abstention from the IMF loan vote and preference for bilateral talks over US mediation, reflecting a desire for stricter measures. *Risk Underestimation* The US assumes Pakistan’s military remains rational, but experts highlight risks from Islamist sympathizers or political instability, especially given the May 2025 conflict’s proximity to the SPD. Asim Munir looks more a Jihadi than a General an most amenable General to CCP at the same time. *Conclusion* The US and others are not much concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons due to a combination of strategic priorities, confidence in its nuclear security, and practical constraints, but these are misplaced calculations. While Pakistan’s terrorism links are concerning, the US prioritises regional stability, countering “CCP occupied China”, and preventing broader instability over fully condemning or isolating Pakistan. It is caught in a web of its own making. This approach, while somewhat relevant, faces criticism for underestimating risks and enabling Pakistan’s dual role as an unreliable ally and potential threat. The US should indeed be stricter in its dealings with Pakistan, particularly in conditioning aid on stronger anti-terrorism measures and greater transparency and control of nuclear arsenal ultimately leading to denuclearisation and Peace Accords in South Asia. However, completely disengaging is not feasible without risking greater instability. *The US must balance its interests with the need to address legitimate concerns about Pakistan’s role in terrorism, especially from perspectives like India’s, to avoid future regrets. India knows Pakistan in all its forms - naked to nuclear.* *Operation Sindoor has not only set a new normal but has opened new windows for the free world.* Image source: Uday Vani

May 14, 2025
Vijaya Dar

The Three-Day War that Burst the Pakistani Balloon

The ceasefire announcement after three days of intense hostility was so sudden, so abrupt, that it left most of us completely bewildered. The body language of the Foreign Secretary and the Officers of the Armed Forces at the briefing indicated that even they were not fully in the picture, and perhaps as bewildered as the rest of us. Arnab, who was going ballistic on the ceasefire acceptance, suddenly calmed down and became a mouse after getting a personal call while on air. What transpired that transformed the mood from belligerence to an eerie calm? Modi and the central cabinet also did not help in clearing the air with their complete silence. There were too many false signals coming from everywhere, and we were all terribly confused. Then, all of a sudden, there were reports of ceasefire violations by Pakistan all along the border, from Kashmir to Kutch. Everybody was further confused that when the DGMO Pakistan had reached out to our DGMO and requested a cessation of military operations, why would they resume hostilities within an hour of the request? Utterly baffling, I'd say, and that's how most of us reacted. SM warriors went on a rampage, abusing Modi and the BJP, accusing them of cowardice, loss of nerve, and being completely under the thumb of Trump. The RW warriors were furious and literally tore the Government to shreds. In fact, Modi supporters were ready to lynch him. That's how fickle our public is! None of us sat down to think why we agreed to this ceasefire when we were literally at the throat of the enemy. Was it our usual Gandhigiri that prevented us from going for the kill, or was there something more? Then, by 10.30, all the Pakistani belligerence stopped, and a lot of panic that had been created in those 3 hours gradually settled down. Nagrota story went from beheading to minor injury, to complete denial. By morning, it was evident that military operations from Pakistan had ceased. The media was silent, but still there was no clarity on what had transpired. Was it China that forced Sharif to resume hostilities, and did he oblige just to satisfy Xi Jinping's ego? Perhaps we will never know. During the day, we got bits and pieces of information from defence experts on SM as they had access to more data, including photographs of the targets the Indian forces had hit inside Pakistan. Gradually, a picture is emerging that could give us an idea as to why the ceasefire request was made by the Pakistan DGMO, and why we agreed to it. I venture to put forward my hypothesis here: 1. For its dastardly, beastly, and utterly despicable massacre of Indian Hindus in Pahalgam, Modi and Bharat had decided to inflict a much larger punishment on Pakistan than was done at Balakot after the Pulwama outrage. 2. The May 7th destruction of 9 Terrorist infrastructures across Pakistan was huge and many times more damaging than Balakot. 3. If Pakistan had taken this punishment with only counter-threats as it usually does, India would not have engaged the Pakis militarily. But it retaliated with drone attacks and heavy artillery shelling, which resulted in many deaths and damage to property in the Jammu sector. India's response was swift and so destructive that within a few hours, Pakistan's airfields were reduced to rubble, making them inoperational. In fact, India achieved such aerial dominance that its army could have strolled across and raced to Islamabad in no time. A combined air, sea, and land invasion would have decimated Pakistan in a week or ten days at the most. So, the question is, why didn't we press home the advantage, and accepted the ceasefire request so readily, and allowed Trump to announce it before us? 4. There are reports that hint at the possibility of our missiles having hit the Pakistani nuclear arsenal either at Nur Khan Airport in Islamabad or at Sargodha. Some earthquakes have been felt and measured at the times when these two places were struck. 5. It seems there has been a radiation leak at one or both of these places, and the Pakistanis went into panic mode. Marco Rubio had been speaking to Munir since the 8th itself. Munir may not have told Rubio about this, but I'm sure Sharif would have blurted it out. That would have rung alarm bells in the White House, prompting Trump to demand Pakistan end hostilities immediately. Sharif would have no choice and would have asked the DGMO to go ahead and contact his Indian counterpart for this purpose. 6. Meanwhile, Trump would have been on the hotline with Modi apprising him of the situation. In any case we had pulverized the Pakis into submission and a killer punch would have put that country into the stone age. 7. I don't believe it is in our interest to have a lawless neighbour full of fundamentalist zealots running amok with lethal armament, just like what we saw in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. Nor do we need to get POK back. The idea of an Akhand Bharat from Afghanistan to Myanmar is no longer a politically viable one. As a Hindu nation, we are already under threat by the burgeoning, disproportionate population growth of the Muslims in India. We don't want to add more numbers to these by merging POK with us. Nor do we need any of the neighbouring Muslim geographies to join us. The whole idea is disastrous, and we will become another Kashmir in practically a decade or two. And then we will have nowhere to hide. 8. Our objective of Operation Sindoor was to destroy Pakistan's terror infrastructure, and this time decisively. If Pakistan hadn't retaliated, we would not have destroyed their airfields. The action would have ended on May 7th itself. That hostilities went this far created a euphoric lust for more in our people. It's but natural because we have suffered too long at the hands of this hateful enemy. We are thirsty for revenge and want its total destruction. But, as I have written above, it is not in our interest to have a lawless geography in our neighbourhood. 9. Having met the objective of Operation Sindoor, Modi would have prudently accepted Trump's request for a ceasefire. But Modi would not have said yes without getting something substantial in return. He is a hard negotiator, something Trump himself has acknowledged. 10. I believe Modi must have demanded that America take full control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and facilities. That done, Pakistan becomes incapable of holding this threat over the rest of the world. Remember, Musharraf had once said that Pakistanis are mad people and they could very easily drop a nuclear bomb if pushed to the brink. Musharraf was not joking. Pakistanis are mad enough to carry out such threats. Therefore, it is necessary that their nuclear program is either destroyed or brought under America's control. It will also help Pakistan to divert precious resources towards development, education, and economic upliftment. Besides, the army will no longer be calling the shots and will gradually lose political power to a civil administration. 11. I don't believe India will actively pursue the goal of an independent Balochistan and will not get overtly involved in its secession. I don't think Balochistan has enough manpower and military strength to force the issue. If Pakistan gives the Baloch a fair deal in economic development, that movement will dissipate. The idea of breaking Pakistan into parts is flawed and not in our interest. I was against the creation if Bangladesh in 1971. And events today prove that Indira Gandhi went to war and managed to create another implacable enemy in the east. 12. Finally, why did Modi let Trump jump the gun and make the announcement while he himself maintained silence? I think that was the concession he made to let Trump get a lot of brownie points and satisfy his ego. A small price if he gets what I think he demanded. Modi doesn't have the kind of ego Trump has. He knew that this abrupt decision, without going into details, would get him a lot of abuse, and yet he was prepared to take that for the sake of Bharat. He has elections coming up, and already, many of his supporters are angry and threatening to desert the BJP. Modi knows that he is risking the electoral future of his party. But Modi never has a short-term view. He looks at the distance and plans his moves that benefit the nation first. The party comes next. When he did come on air Modi made two things clear. There would be zero tolerance for terrorism, and there would be no rethinking of the Indus Water Treaty. He went as far as to say that there would be no dialogue with Pakistan except on Terrorism and POJK. That's how exact he was. Of course, he wouldn't have spoken about the nuclear strike (if it happened), but he did mention that Pakistan's nuclear blackmail threat would no longer be tolerated. Neither did he mention Trump or his intervention. I'm sure Trump is unhappy at the moment, but Modi will bring him around. There was a last-ditch attempt by some in Pakistan, even after Modi's talk to the nation, to send some more trial drones over into Indian territory. They were swiftly neutralised. Maybe, this action was again to please China, but by now, even the Chinese would have realised that the Pakistani balloon was well and truly punctured for it to stay afloat any longer. Pakistan needs to take stock of its own situation, and any more adventurism will surely send it back to the Stone Age. In the next few weeks or months, we will get to know the reality of this short 3-day war. I hope those who are abusing Modi will realise how significant his silence today is. And I hope this realisation comes before the elections in Bihar.