The recent claims made by Noreen Niazi, sister of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, completely expose Pakistan’s military myth-making and underline the widening gap between India’s capabilities and Islamabad’s illusions. In a widely circulated interview, Niazi challenged the official Pakistani account of the confrontation that followed the Pahalgam terror attack, claiming that the country’s military leadership concealed the true extent of India’s military advantage during Operation Sindoor last year. Her most striking assertion, that Prime Minister Narendra Modi “could have fixed Pakistan” had India chosen a more aggressive course, has predictably triggered fury in Pakistan because it strikes at the very foundation of the establishment’s self-image. Pakistan’s military establishment has always survived not merely through coercive power but the manufacture of perception. Its most enduring weapon been the narrative that Pakistan possesses an equal strategic footing with India despite the overwhelming differences in economic scale, technological capacity and military depth. That carefully constructed illusion has suffered a remarkable blow from a family member of Pakistan’s own most prominent political prisoner. Niazi’s remarks shatter the reputation of Pakistan’s most powerful institution — the army headquarters in Rawalpindi — and its current chief Asim Munir, considered the mastermind of the Pahalgam massacre. Pakistan’s generals have always presented themselves as the ultimate guardians of national security, using confrontation with India as both a strategic doctrine and a domestic political instrument. Niazi’s statements have thoroughly exposed this hollow claim. The statements also expose United States President Donald Trump’s repeated assertion that his intervention apparently helped bring an end to the confrontation, which saw the Indian armed forces striking deep into terror bases within Pakistan. The episode should also force a rethink within India. For months, sections of the domestic political ecosystem questioned the government’s handling of security matters, sometimes treating every military assertion through the prism of partisan suspicion. While a democracy must permit scrutiny, mindless scepticism cannot become reflexive cynicism, particularly when national security decisions are involved. The credibility of India’s armed forces cannot be reduced to domestic political contests. Nor can strategic assessments be shaped by ideological preferences. Countries are judged not by the volume of their arguments but by the strength of their institutions. The Pahalgam attack was intended to project vulnerability in India and undermine the confidence of a rising power. Instead, it produced the opposite effect. With Operation Sindoor, India demonstrated that it would make Pakistan’s terror affiliates pay dearly while retaining the diplomatic and military maturity to control escalation. The significance of this episode lies in the fact that the age in which Pakistan could use terror, brinkmanship and propaganda to maintain an artificial balance is drawing to a close. For decades, Islamabad relied on a combination of terror, international intervention and the assumption that India would exercise restraint regardless of provocation. That calculation has become hopelessly outdated.
Comments