The real collusion wasn’t between Trump and Putin; it was between intelligence elites and a Democratic establishment.
This piece was originally published in BAR in 2018
“When Trump met with the arch-enemy Vladimir Putin in
Helsinki and didn’t declare war on Russia some of the loudest
denunciations came from Black liberals.”
Increasing evidence emerges that confirms what ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern suggests was a classic off-the-shelve intelligence operation initiated
during the last year of Obama’s presidency against the Trump campaign
by employees of, and others associated with, the CIA, FBI, and the NS.
Yet the public is being counseled to ignore possible proof of state
misconduct.
The historic and unprecedented timing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of
twelve Russia military intelligence officers on the eve of Trump’s
meeting with Putin, was clearly meant to undercut Trump’s authority.
This still did not pique the journalistic curiosity of an ostensibly
independent press to at least pretend to question the possible
motivation for these indictments at such a specific moment. Instead of
critical questions, Democrats, along with the corporate liberal media,
flipped the script and suggested that those questioning the allegations
of Russian manipulation of the 2016 U.S. elections, which supposedly
included the active or tacit support of the Trump campaign, was
ipso-facto evidence of one’s disloyalty to the state — if not also
complicit with implementing the Russia inspired conspiracy.
This narrative has been set and is meant to be accepted as veracious
and impermeable to challenges. Powerful elements of the ruling class,
operating with and through the Democratic party in an attempt to secure
maximum electoral success, decided that Trump’s alleged collusion with
Russia shall be the primary narrative to be utilized by Democrats —
from the increasing phony opposition represented by the Sanders wing of
the party, to the neoliberal, buck-dancing members of the Congressional
Black Caucus. All are expected to fall in line and do the ruling class’s
bidding.
“Democrats suggest that those questioning the allegations
of Russian manipulation of the 2016 U.S. elections, are complicit with
implementing the Russia inspired conspiracy.”
When Trump met with the arch-enemy Vladimir Putin in Helsinki and
didn’t declare war on Russia for conspiring against Clinton, charges of
treason were splashed across the headlines and editorial pages of the
elite press with some of the loudest denunciations coming from Black
liberals.
Not being at war with Russia, at least not in the technical sense,
was just one of those inconvenient facts that didn’t need to get in the
way of the main objective, which was to smear Trump
And while evidence of collusion continues to surface, it’s actually
not between Trump and the Russians, rather it’s between intelligence
officials in the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign. The
latest revelation of this evidence was reported by John Solomon in, “The Hill, ”
a Washington insider publication. According to Solomon, former FBI
attorney Lisa Page gave testimony to the House Judiciary committee that
seemed to confirm the partisan intentions of Peter Strzok and other high
officials in the agency.
Page was one of the authors of the infamous text messages between her
and Peter Strzok (the two were also in a personal relationship at the
time) while they both worked together at the FBI. The texts soon became
the objective of endless speculation ever since they were revealed last
summer. Exchanges shared between Strzok and Page during the 2016
campaign season, appear to point to Strzok’ participation in a vast
conspiracy to gather intelligence on the Trump campaign and then to
undermine his presidency on the unexpected chance of his election.
“There’s no big there there.”
Two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named Mueller
as special counsel, Strzok, who at that time was the lead investigator
on the Russia probe texted, “There’s no big there there.”
Presidents Donald Trump and Ursula von der Leyen. IMAGE/ European Union
Lacking the ability to enforce its interests, Europe mustn’t keep subsidizing US arms makers while alienating Chinese markets
In the opening moves of Trump’s second presidency, a pattern
has emerged: Washington sets the agenda, Beijing adapts with precision,
and Brussels capitulates. What emerges is a bipolar order where Europe has relegated itself to the role of financier and cheerleader.
Trump plays poker, Xi plays go and Europe struggles with simple
puzzles. Within five months, Trump secured defense spending commitments
previous presidents only theorized about. While China’s rare earth
export restrictions forced Washington into rapid recalibration, Europe
responded with nothing but hollow laments. The asymmetry reveals
everything: One bloc wields leverage, another answers with resolve, and
the third writes checks.
Trump’s return exposed the EU’s strategic failures. Instead of
setting boundaries or leveraging collective power, leaders defaulted to
flattery toward Washington and scapegoating toward Beijing. The ‘antidiplomacy’ weakens the EU on China while offering America servitude without guaranteed returns.
Where Mexico and Canada bargained, Europe genuflected without
conditions. Where China retaliated decisively, Europe escalated rhetoric
and surrendered substance. The latest example: Four days after
Washington conceded to Beijing in a rare earths deal, von der Leyen launched a new offensive against China on the same issue – as if the agreement had never happened.
Timing shouldn’t ruin a well-staged display of servility: Her G7 speech preached
toughness while ignoring Europe’s real vulnerabilities.
Accusing China of “weaponizing” its dominance while relying on it for
99% of rare earths is like demanding fair play in a knife fight – a
measure of how well her de-risking policy proceeds. Apparently, she has
yet to grasp what great powers do: They use leverage. Then came
the admission: “Donald is right,” showing how Brussels handed over
control long ago.
The subsequent defense spending capitulation proved equally
abject. Leaders like Merz, Macron, and Sánchez agreed – without any
public debate – to raise military spending to 5% of GDP. No questions,
no rationale. Trump didn’t need to demand it; they volunteered their own
surrender. While European analysts obsess over his populism and threats
to democracy, they miss what matters – he’s getting exactly what he
wants.
A terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor launching from a THAAD battery located on Wake Island, during Flight Test Operational (FTO)-02 Event 2a, conducted on 1 November 2015 IMAGE/Ben Listerman/DoD/AFP
Israel was running low on Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) interceptors as Iranian ballistic missiles slammed into Israeli cities in June.
The US asked Saudi Arabia
to turn over interceptors to help the US ally in need. But Riyadh’s
response was “no”, two US officials familiar with the talks told Middle
East Eye.
“During the war, we asked everyone to donate,” one official told MEE.
“When that didn’t work, we tried deal-making. It wasn’t aimed at one
country.”
But Saudi Arabia was well placed to help Israel, and US officials
have been keen to emphasise that Iran is a threat to them as well as
Israel.
The US has already deployed air defence systems to the oil-rich Gulf state, which until recently was targeted by Houthi missile and drone attacks.
As Iran and Israel were fighting it out, the kingdom was preparing to
receive the first THAAD battery it purchased with its own sovereign
funds. In fact, the battery was inaugurated by the Saudi military on 3
July, just nine days after Israel and Iran reached a ceasefire.
Just before the inauguration, US officials were concerned that a
massive Iranian ballistic missile attack on Israel would drain the US
stockpile of interceptors to a “horrendous level”.
Middle East Eye was the first to report
that Israel was rapidly depleting the US’s stockpile of ballistic
missile interceptors as well as Israel’s arsenal of Arrow interceptors.
The Wall Street Journal and The Guardian later confirmed MEE’s report.
The Guardian later reported
in July that after the conflict, the US was only left with about 25
percent of the Patriot missile interceptors that planners at the
Pentagon assess are needed for all US military operations globally. A US
official confirmed that classified number to MEE.
The US also fired the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) mounted on Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers to defend Israel.
Despite Israel’s three-tiered air defence system being backed up by
additional American firepower, Iran was able to send missiles into
Israeli cities right up until the ceasefire was reached.
The Telegraph reported that Iranian missiles directly hit five Israeli military facilities.
Analysts say that the American and Israeli air defence systems held
up better than some military planners anticipated, given the scale of
Iran’s barrages, but the Islamic Republic was able to exploit the
system’s weak spot, particularly as the conflict dragged on.
“The weakness is that it is an enterprise where you are at risk of
running out of your magazine depth. We only have so many interceptors
and the ability to produce them,” Douglas Birkey, executive director of
the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, previously told MEE.
Amid the shortage, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that
some US officials even discussed taking THAAD interceptors purchased by
Saudi Arabia and diverting them to Israel.
One US official confirmed to MEE that the talks took place after
Saudi Arabia had rejected polite US overtures and deal-making efforts.
Both US officials also told MEE that the US asked the United Arab
Emirates to share interceptors with Israel. Neither would confirm if any
arrived. The UAE was the first non-US country to purchase and operate the THAAD, which it activated in 2016.
Iran’s success breaching Israel’s sophisticated air defences did not go unnoticed in the more lightly defended Gulf states, experts say.
The Menominee Indian Reservation, circa 1913–18 IMAGE/Wikimedia
A recent paper in Science addresses an intriguing question:
Did North America have settled agriculture before the arrival of
Europeans? Or were the people in what would come to be known as North
America still in the hunter-gatherer stage—unlike Mesoamericans, who had
advanced civilisations, such as the Mayans, Aztecs, and the Incas?
The answer is that indigenous populations in North America did have significant agriculture,
which “disappeared” only after their encounters with the invading
Europeans settling on their lands. Researchers have used Lidar tools to
map areas of Michigan associated with the Menominee people, showing that
settled agriculture existed not only in the lower latitudes—modern
Mexico—but even in the much harsher north, near the Great Lakes
bordering Canada.
Recent advances
in the use of Lidar technologies—particularly drones, low-cost and
lightweight Lidar sensors, and ground-penetrating radar—make it easier
to survey both surface and subsurface features. Lidar surveys have led to significant advances
in our understanding of the past. This article will look at how new
historical knowledge about agriculture in North America informs the
debate on the mass death of indigenous people in North America in the
early period of European settlement. Was it genocide, or were their weak
immune systems to blame? American historians today increasingly, though
reluctantly, accept that disease, coupled with direct violence—mass
killings and uprooting people from their ancestral lands—caused the
massive population decline of the indigenous people.
A significant body of opinion—expressed particularly in popular books such as Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel—ascribes
the killing of native peoples primarily to their lack of immunity to
diseases brought to by Europeans. This view airbrushes out of history
the colonists’ repeated massacres, seizure of native lands and means of
sustenance, and continuous displacement of indigenous communities. It
depicts the drastic fall in the latter’s population as merely an
unfortunate accident of history: “The microbes did it, not us.” As we
shall see, this not only contradicts what we know about history, but also about epidemics and immunity: the silent battle between germs and our immune system.
It is here that the actual history of agriculture in the North America becomes significant. The Lidar survey of Michigan brings out the extent of
Menominee settlements and their agricultural practices in the Great
Lakes area of Michigan. We also know that the Menominee previously
occupied a much larger territory, estimated at 10 million acres.
Treaties with the US government reduced their land base to only 2.5 percent of their original lands, coinciding with a sharp drop in their population.
It might not surprise you. But it did surprise me.
When I first heard the Hebrew greeting Shalom aleichem, properly spoken during a visit to Israel a few years ago, I unmistakably heard it as Salaam Alaykum,
the Arabic greeting familiar from my childhood in central Kerala, where
Muslims, Christians, and Hindus live alongside one another. Salaam Alaykum
was a part of the landscape. So when the Jewish organiser of the Indian
journalist delegation I was part of in 2018 greeted me with Shalom, I
instinctively said I’d heard Salaam. His face paled. He quickly
clarified that the two were “very, very different”. I apologised. But
the moment stayed with me, how languages and gestures that sound and
feel alike can be drawn into the service of separation.
That sense
of familiarity strained into estrangement is something many of us
recognise while observing West Asia—from India to Africa, or even in the
enduring conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Shared pasts are
splintered. Common ground becomes contested. It’s not an exaggeration to
say that West Asia—to speak from an Asian rather than colonial
cartographic vantage—is a geography defined by such paradoxes. Its long,
layered histories—histories that could build empathy—are time and
again turned into geopolitical weapons. Neighbours become enemies.
Cultures are distorted. Loyalties talk economics and business.
Edward Said wrote in Orientalism that the Orient is not just
an other, but something systematically othered. His argument still
holds. The violence we see today is not a sudden eruption, but a
controlled burn, stoked by strategic interests. The West—former colonial
powers and the United States foremost among them—remains deeply
embedded in the region’s instability for now-explicit reasons. Military
bases, oil routes, arms contracts.
Nowhere is this more evident
than in Palestine. We know now that the Nakba of 1948—the mass
displacement of over 7,00,000 Palestinians—is not past tense. It
continues in evictions in Sheikh Jarrah, in the blockades of Gaza, in
the fragmented autonomy handed out in place of freedom. The Palestinian
historian Rashid Khalidi calls it a “Hundred Years’ War”. That naming
resists the framing of Palestinian struggle as reactive or recent. But
even a basic acknowledgment of this history invites suspicion. Sympathy
itself is policed—by mass media, social media debates sponsored by the
interested parties (read Israel and America). As a colleague reminded me
during our trip, strategic realism demands aligning with Israel. The
moral cost of that realism is absorbed elsewhere.
The Oslo Accords
of the 1990s were held up as a turning point. But for many
Palestinians, they marked the beginning of a different kind of
occupation—managed, administrative, but still fundamentally colonial.
The journalist Amira Hass described Oslo as a system “built to maintain
Israeli dominance… wrapped in the language of peace”. That framing
captures the bind: even the peace process becomes a cover for
dispossession.
But this pattern does not begin or end with
Israel-Palestine. Wherever power demands control, division is created.
We know how the partition of India and Pakistan—executed with imperial
haste—transformed neighbours into adversaries. Bangladesh’s emergence in
1971 carried forward the violence embedded in those arbitrary lines. In
Rwanda, colonial administrations shaped the categories of Hutu and
Tutsi, which later became tools of mass violence. Europe is not immune
either. The war in Ukraine reveals how shared histories are twisted into
justification for conquest and control.
Why does it keep happening? Because conflict is profitable. Arms are sold, alliances recalibrated, and reconstruction is turned into industry. As a wry saying among foreign correspondents goes, “When armies cross borders, the people in suits count dollars.” In Iraq, Libya, Syria—interventions wear the mask of humanitarian concern, but the calculations are always geopolitical.
So we return to the present, where Israel and Palestine remain locked
in a long war of narratives. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by
Britain, promised Jews a “national home” in a land already lived in by
Palestinians. Europe’s reckoning with its own anti-Semitism was
offloaded onto Palestinian soil. The consequences are still unfolding.
To name this injustice is not to deny the right of Jewish people to
safety, history, or self-determination. But too often, criticism of
Israel’s state policies is dismissed as anti-Semitic. The result is a
silencing of real debate. And yet, voices within Jewish communities—Noam
Chomsky, Ilan Pappé, Avraham Burg—have long argued that Israel’s
current path betrays the very moral lessons Jewish history has taught.
These perspectives rarely influence public discourse.
Violence
doesn’t emerge from nowhere. It is taught, constructed, disseminated
through media and even inherited. The Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish
asked: “Where should we go after the last frontiers? Where should the
birds fly after the last sky?” That question lingers—urgent, unanswered.
Geopolitical shifts have only deepened the crisis. Israel’s strategic
partnership with the US, its growing ties with the UAE and Saudi
Arabia—brokered through American diplomacy—have come at a clear
Palestinian cost. These “normalisations” leave Palestinian aspirations
outside the room. Dialogue, if it occurs, is already rigged.
Iran
is cast as the region’s chief threat. But this too is a simplification.
Iran’s actions—especially in Syria—reflect both ambition and anxiety.
Isolation, sanctions, and decades of threats have bred aggression. The
US invasion of Iraq in 2003, carried out on the fiction of “weapons of
mass destruction”, destabilised the entire region. That war not only
empowered Iran and created a vacuum for the Islamic State, but also
entrenched rivalries that continue to devastate Yemen today.
One
of the cruellest truths is that peace in the region might well emerge if
foreign powers simply stepped back. But that would mean giving up
contracts, leverage, and control. So the cycle remains: crisis is
managed, not resolved. For many of us, watching from afar, this can be
overwhelming. The news loops between horror and hollow truce. Every new
generation is asked to carry forward old wounds. I remember an Israeli
journalist in Tel Aviv once told me, “One day, Israelis and Palestinians
will realise we have been fighting over a piece of land that will
outlive us all.” That day feels distant. With each round of violence,
positions harden. Victims become aggressors, and memory becomes
ammunition.
So what now? To rephrase Jean-Paul Sartre, are we
condemned to helpless observation? Perhaps part of the answer lies in
naming what has been concealed. These divisions are not natural. They
are constructed. And they benefit a very small group. Even the feeling
of helplessness deserves scrutiny. To see and understand, to reject
false choices, to affirm dignity over dominance—these are not minor
acts. They matter. Supporting Palestine should not require justifying
violence. Rejecting anti-Semitism should not mean endorsing occupation.
Ethics demand more than allegiance.
What future awaits West Asia
under Benjamin Netanyahu’s unrelenting campaigns—in Gaza, Lebanon,
Syria, Iran? The outlook is grim. And yet history offers small openings.
Apartheid fell. European wars found uneasy peace. These shifts came
when those in power lost their grip, and when pressure built from below.
Until that pressure builds, we watch. And we remember. Not for the
spectacle of suffering, but for the people who go through it.
That is why Frontline returns to
West Asia in our latest cover. Writers Bashir Ali Abbas, Deepika
Saraswat, Anwar Alam, and Amit Baruah trace the region’s power
alignments and internal contradictions—not to explain away the violence,
but to insist that those most affected by it are not forgotten. For
them, and for all of us, Shalom and Salaam must remain more than
greetings. They must be the starting point for a future we are still
waiting for.
Read the pieces and as always, write back to us with your comments, rejoinders and more!
The failure of diplomatic attempts to reach peace agreements in
Ukraine amid increased military support from the USA and the EU has led
to a major reshuffle in the government. The large-scale reshuffle is
taking place against the background of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine
with vague prospects for its cessation. Volodymyr Zelensky, fearing
failure in future presidential and parliamentary elections, is making
active efforts to clean up the political field and discredit possible
rivals for the post of the Ukrainian president.
Thus, on July 16, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
nominated Economy Minister Yulia Sviridenko as the new prime minister
with a simultaneous reshuffling of the majority of cabinet members1
As a result of the mass reshuffle, Ukraine’s military industry will
be placed under the leadership of the Defense Ministry, which will be
headed by former Prime Minister Denys Shmygal, who has held this
position since March 4, 2020. Under pressure from Zelenskyy and the head
of the Ukrainian president’s office, Andriy Yermak, Denys Shmygal was
forced to tender his resignation on July 15, 2025. The Ukrainian
parliament voted for the resignation of Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys
Shmygal on 16 July 2025.
Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement has emerged from right-wing rule stronger than ever.
The
MST (Landless Workers’ Movement), Brazil’s largest social movement,
fights for land redistribution by occupying unused farmland, backed by
constitutional rights; its iconic red hat became a symbol of resistance
during Bolsonaro’s presidency. Today, the MST navigates political
tensions, pushing land reform while resisting backlash from agribusiness
and conservative forces.
If
you went to a trendy restaurant in São Paulo in 2021 or 2022, you were
likely to see the red hat. If you went to Mamba Negra, the underground
rave with DJs visiting from Berlin, or to enough art gallery openings—in
short, if you hung around the country’s progressive cultural elite—you
were likely to see the red hat.
The hat in question is a scarlet baseball cap depicting a man and a
woman emerging from a green map of Brazil. The man raises a machete high
above his head—ready to tend to the crops or, if you prefer, to go to
battle. The image has been the logo of Brazil’s Movimento dos
Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), known in English as the Landless
Workers’ Movement, since shortly after its founding in 1984.
The MST pushes for land redistribution by occupying plots controlled
by the country’s traditional elites or by upstart capitalists profiting
from an agricultural boom. The group depends on an article in the
Brazilian Constitution that mandates that land must fulfill a “social
function”; if its members deem that land is unproductive or being
misused, they set up camp and fight for legal recognition of their
settlements. Over four decades, the MST has become the largest social
movement in Latin America and perhaps in the world. It comprises as many
as 2 million people across the country and has been a consistent
presence on the radical left wing of Brazilian politics.
Carla Hayden, the 14th librarian of Congress, who has held the position since 2016, received an unexpected email on May 8, 2025.
“Carla, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to
inform you that your position as the Librarian of Congress is terminated
effective immediately. Thank you for your service,” wrote Trent Morse, deputy director of presidential personnel at the White House.
Democratic politicians sharply criticized
Hayden’s termination, saying the firing was unjust. It was actually
about Trump punishing civil servants “who don’t bend to his every will,”
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said.
An information science scholar, I have written
extensively about the history of libraries and archives, including the
Library of Congress. To fully understand the role Hayden played for the
past nine years, I think it is important to understand what the Library
of Congress does, and the overlooked and underappreciated role it has
played in American life.
The Library of Congress’ work
The Library of Congress
is an agency that was first established, by an act of Congress, in
1800. The act provided for “the purchase of such books as may be
necessary for the use of Congress at the said city of Washington, and
for fitting up a suitable apartment for containing them.” Its chief librarian is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif (left) and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi IMAGE/PPI/AFP/The News
Troublemakers
Many leaders <1> are averse to running their countries in a peaceful and progressive manner. Instead of concentrating on the problems the majority of their people face, they create trouble by introducing or undoing things, in order to gain political mileage and divert the public’s attention from important issues requiring government focus. The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is one such leader.
In the Indian Lok Sabha, on August 5, 2019, Modi’s Home Minister Amit Shah announced revocation of Article 370 which had granted limited autonomy to the Indian occupied Kashmir.
Constitutional expert and eminent scholar A. G. Noorani told Akshay Deshmane what that revocation meant:
It is utterly and palpably unconstitutional. An unconstitutional deed has been accomplished by deceitful means. For a fortnight, the Governor and other people told a whole load of lies. And I am sorry that the Army Core Commander (Chief) was also enlisted to spread this false thing of inputs from Pakistan. It was all a falsehood. They have undermined the Army’s non-political character. This is patently unconstitutional. Thing is that I had always predicted that they are out to fulfill their Saffron agenda: Uniform Civil Code, Ayodhya and Abrogation of Article 370. It remains to be seen how they accomplish the Ayodhya agenda.
The Revocation of Article 370 was in complete violation of the 2018 Indian Supreme Court ruling which stated that Article 370 was a permanent part of the Indian Constitution and the only way it could be revoked was through the legislative body that had drafted the Article originally- only they could rescind it. That body, however, stopped functioning in 1957.
India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said in the Lok Sabha on June 26 and August 7, 1952.
“I say with all respect to our Constitution that it just does not matter what your Constitution says; if the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there. Because what is the alternative? The alternative is compulsion and coercion…” “We have fought the good fight about Kashmir on the field of battle… (and) …in many a chancellery of the world and in the United Nations, but, above all, we have fought this fight in the hearts and minds of men and women of that State of Jammu and Kashmir. Because, ultimately – I say this with all deference to this Parliament – the decision will be made in the hearts and minds of the men and women of Kashmir; neither in this Parliament, nor in the United Nations nor by anybody else,”
Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol. 18, p. 418 and vol. 19 pp. 295-6, respectively in A. G. Noorani, “Article 370: Law and politics,” Frontline, September 6, 2000.
That has never happened. The Kashmiri people have never been given a choice to decide their own destiny. Immediately after revoking Article 370, political leaders and thousands of Kashmiri civilians, including those who want Kashmir to be a part of India, were arrested. Kashmir and Jammu was locked down and all communication was blocked for eighteen months. Kashmir was cut off from the rest of the world.
Pahalgam
In September 2024, Kashmir Times’ editor Anuradha Bhasin told Al Jazeera:
“For the last five years, all Kashmiris have seen is an arrogant bureaucracy and the important missing layers of a local government.”
Rahul Gandhi, leader of the opposition in parliament, addressing a rally in the Jammu region said:
“Non-locals are running Jammu and Kashmir.” “Your democratic right was snatched. We have given priority to the demand for restoration of statehood.” “If [Modi’s party BJP] fails to restore statehood after the elections, we will put pressure on them to ensure it.”
“The hands of the clock have never moved back. Whatever has been taken from the people, in terms of their autonomy or democratic rights, has never been given back. I doubt that would change in the near future.”
In May 2024, Omar Abdullah, prior and the current Chief Minister since October 2024, had warned about presenting a rosy picture:
“The situation [in Kashmir] is not normal and talk less about tourism being an indicator of normalcy; when they link normalcy with tourism, they put tourists in danger.” “You are making the tourists a target.”
Praveen Donthi, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group:
“New Delhi and its security agencies started buying their own assessment of peace and stability, and they became complacent, assuming that the militants will never attack tourists.” “But if pushed to the wall, all it takes is two men with guns to prove that Kashmir is not normal.”
While Modi was in Saudi Arabia, on April 22, 2025, terrorists associated with The Resistance Front killed 26 tourists in Pahalgam, a beautiful hill station and a favorite destination for visitors. The victims were asked about their religion and were killed on communal basis.
Modi cut short his Saudi Arabia visit and flew back to India’s capital city, Delhi where he didn’t mention Pahalgam at all.
However, Modi’s divisive inflammatory rhetoric and strategy is well known to the Bihar-basedRashtriya Janata Dal who predicted Modi’s politics:
“The pyres of the victims of the Pahalgam terrorist attack have not yet been lit, but the country’s Prime Minister will come to Bihar tomorrow to campaign and deliver speeches because Bihar is holding elections this year.”
Modi, as if on an election campaign in Bihar, the second most populous state (with a large Dalit and Muslim population), gave a fiery speech:
“Today from the soil of Bihar I say to the whole world. India will identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backers. We will pursue them to the ends of the earth.”
Veteran journalist Jawed Naqvi points out that in foreign countries Modi typically gives his speeches in Hindi but he gave this address using English to Bihar’s Hindi speakers (perhaps, to fully capitalize from the foreign press present.)
The accusing finger immediately implied Pakistan, rather than question the security lapse of the Indian security forces or trying to determine the perpetrators. Pakistan has been involved in the past but, this time no proof exists of its involvement. The rhetoric reached fever pitch and culminated in India’s attack on its neighbor, and when Pakistan asked for evidence of the accusation, India didn’t provide it.
Pakistan also offered to join a “neutral and transparent” investigation but India refused the offer.
It’s a well known fact that Kashmir is the world’s most militarized zone with very numerous Indian check points all over the state. The question: where was Indian security? was not addressed by the government. Two months later, on June 22, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested two persons who provided shelter to three persons involved in the act, according to NIA allegations.
Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri announced 5 major decisions taken by the Indian Government in April, 2025:
1. Suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (1960) with Pakistan.
2. Immediate closure of the Atari Integrated Checkpost.
3. Cancellation of all SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme visas for Pakistani nationals.
4. Expulsion of defense, naval, and air advisors from the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi.
5. Reduction of staff in both High Commissions from 55 to 30.
The CCS reaffirmed India’s resolve to bring perpetrators to justice and hold their sponsors accountable.
These are extreme measures that, if implemented, especially the water treaty suspension, will undoubtedly create more trouble and could result in a bigger war in the future.
On July 28, Indian government said its security forces killed three persons responsible for the April 22 killing.
Asim Munir
On April 15, while addressing the Overseas Pakistanis (OPs), Munir came out as Indian Hindu Modi‘s <2> Pakistani version: full of hate, divisiveness, and communalism.
“Our forefathers thought that we are different from the Hindus in every possible aspect of life. Our religion is different. Our customs are different. Our traditions are different. Our thoughts are different. Our ambitions are different.”
“… we are two nations, we are not one nation.”
The army, not popular in Pakistan for its constant interference in politics and disappearing critics and people as Balochis, seemingly, feels driven to frequently do something to make itself relevant. Munir’s speech to OPs was one such attempt.
India blaming Munir for Pahalgam attack does not seem very credible. The oppressed people, Kashmiris in India or Balochis in Pakistan, don’t need any inciting speech to fight back; they’re just waiting for the right time because they don’t have the luxury of attacking at will, like the governments do, in the name of “national security.” The oppressed can’t reach the state so they attack innocent people to communicate their plight.
In Pakistan, Baloch separatists have stopped buses and killed Punjabis after checking their IDs, perhaps in revenge as Punjab is Pakistan’s most populous and dominant province, and has a strong hold over the central government.
The attacks are cruel, but these kind of ugly incidents may continually occur if governments involved refuse to negotiate and reach amicable solutions.
War
On 29 April, Indian government sources quoted Modi:
“They [the Indian army] have complete operational freedom to decide on the mode, targets, and timing of our response,”
On May 7, India struck some sites in Pakistan, that then counter-struck.
India’s Israeli Ambassador Reuven Azar posted on X:
“Israel supports India’s right for self-defense. Terrorists should know there’s no place to hide from their heinous crimes against the innocent.”
In 2014, when Modi was to become Prime Minister for the first time, Amit Shah had bragged about BJP having 3.2 million WhatsApp groups who could instantly turn anything into believable stuff. In May 2024, BJP had at least 5 million WhatsApp groups and its infrastructure is so strong that any message relayed from Delhi could circulate all over India within 12 minutes.
Kiran Garimella of Rutgers University who researches WhatsApp in India, warned that WhatsApp is not an open social media like X or Facebook which is worrying and a cause for concern for many people.
“It is concerning that such a huge ‘hidden’ infrastructure plays a huge role in how the public consumes information.” “Only the creators of these groups know the extent to which the tentacles of this WhatsApp infrastructure are spread.”
What is the result?
War is like a game to the war inciters, war lovers, war media, and common people under the spell of the media frenzy and are most interested in the one question, who won and who lost?
The winners
There were two clear winners: Indian news media and the Pakistan army and its Chief of Army Staff: Asim Munir.
False news stories and AI generated images came from both sides but India was way ahead in fake news:
Indian Navy destroyed sea port Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city and financial center, with “over ten blasts.”
The city of Peshawar was turned to “dust.”
Pakistani soldiers were “deserting” and generals were “fleeing” the country,
Some channels announced destruction of 5 cities where as another settled for 26 cities
India’s fake news-master Arnab Goswami also declared a huge blast was heard outside Pakistan PM’s house and he was taken away to a place “20.5” kilometers (12.74 miles) away. Goswami also said it’s not clear whether it was for a safety reason or was it a coup.
For a very long time now, most Indian media has turned into “Godi Media,” a term used by Ravish Kumar, the prestigious Ramon Magsaysay Award winner. (Kumar was NDTV India’s Managing Editor but left when it was bought by billionaire Gautam Adani, a Modi supporter and fellow Gujarati.)
Kumar queried as to who should get an award for riveting fake news?
News Nation who gave news of Sharif on the run or,
Zee News who located Sharif, who was never missing?
Sumitra Badrinathan, an assistant professor at the American University, observed in an interview with The New York Times that in India “previously credible journalists and major media news outlets ran straight-up fabricated stories [on the 4 day war].”
The losers
The victims of the bombings, dead or wounded, are always the first ones to endure the horrors of war. They are the losers.
The politicians and generals on both sides claimed victory. The war was of a very short duration, thus politicians and generals didn’t feel populace hostility or face dire consequences like resignations.
Winner and loser honor
That honor goes to Modi. He was a winner and also a loser.
Modi the winner. To his followers, Modi’s heroism enhanced when the Indian news media falsely started giving way too inflated stories of India beating Pakistan.
Modi also succeeded in cutting off whatever little cooperation existed between Indians and Pakistanis through arts and sports. The Indian government ordered all Pakistani songs removed from Spotify. All media streaming services, digital intermediaries, and OTT platforms were ordered to discontinue Pakistani films, web series, songs, etc. Pakistani TV channels and dramas, very popular in India, were banned and still are. Pakistani artists and sportspersons social media accounts were blocked and still are.
The extent of Modi’s hatred can be gauged from the following film posters: before and after.
Indian actor Harshvardhan Rane and Pakistani actress Mawra Hocane in Indian film poster of Sanam Teri Kasam IMAGE/BrandSynario/Duck Duck GoIn an Orwellian move,Pakistani actress Mawra Hocane was removed from the film poster of Sanam Teri KasamIMAGE/Hindustan Times/Duck Duck Go
Indian singer, actor, producer Diljit Dosanjh film Sardaar Ji 3 <3> with the Pakistani actress Hania Aamir got banned in India. The Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar and Minister of Information & Broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw to revoke passports of Daljit Dosanjh, Gunbir Singh Sidhu, Manmord Sidhu and Director Amar Hundal. Just for working with a Pakistani artist, thus displaying the toxic mixture of hate, idiocy, and faulty logic.
FWICE’s letter contained many lies about Hania Aamir who had lamented the loss of life: “I don’t have fancy words right now. I just have anger, pain, and a heavy heart. A child is gone. Families are shattered. And for what? This is not how you protect anyone. This is cruelty – plain and simple.
Mind you, Modi personally may not be giving orders, but, people get emboldened to inflict damage as they know they won’t be stopped.
Many fields of life, from economics to education and from culture to cricket, have suffered due to rigidity, egotism, and ideology of politicians on both sides. Pakistani military’s control over politicians has never let both countries cooperate and utilize fully the trade, talents, and technology. Hardly a 100 or so Pakistani artists and playback singers have ever worked in Indian films.
Official trade between both countries has dropped and is routed through Singapore, Colombo (Sri Lanka), and Dubai (UAE), costing more money. Even in peace times, these routes are used for trade due to some or other reason. It’s foolish, but than you can’t make people with power to understand, because the powerful don’t allow discussions or arguments.
Modi the loser. On May 10, 2025, at 6:55 A.M. Eastern Time (that is 4:55 P.M. Pakistan time and 5:25 P.M. Indian time) on his Truth Social site, Trump announced:
“After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE. Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
It was sobering news for Modi. Modi has created an image of himself as Indian superman with broad 56-inch chest who is globally famous giving hugs to presidents, prime ministers, billionaires, whether they want it or not. He has made 91 foreign trips till July 2025. He has made India a superpower not in reality but by creating such perception. Modi who likes to control the narrative and who desperately wanted to announce victory had to get a ceasefire order from Trump. Trump is such a character that you can’t argue with him because then you face more humiliation — not because Trump is more vitriolic than Modi but because US is economically much more stronger than India, who is economically heavily interconnected with the US.
Imbecile
Then there is Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. He got so carried away by Pakistan army’s downing of less than half a dozen Indian fighter planes that he equated it as a victory compensating for the loss of half the country (55% of its population in 1971) when East Pakistan seceded with Indian help to become independent Bangladesh.
That is clearly just a fictional ego boosting comparison.
Unpredictable Outcome
Who could have predicted that Modi’s war would give Pakistan army and Munir a new lease on popularity?
War should be avoided at all cost. All wars between Pakistan and India inflict tremendous cost in lives and finances, and, affect the entire South Asian region.
Both possess nuclear weapons which if, by mistake or bravado, get deployed in the war, would end in great disaster for the entire world. According to climatologist Alan Robock, 1,000,000,000 to 2 billion people would face starvation worldwide, in such case, there would be immediate climate changes, leading to much colder weather than the Little Ice Age and many other disasters, including destruction of ozone layer.
Dinner date
Trump advised the Indian and Pakistani leaders to go for a dinner date.
“Maybe we can even get them together a little bit, Marco [Rubio, the US Secretary of State], where they go out and have a nice dinner together. Wouldn’t that be nice? “
Improve relations
The population of South Asia, including Afghanistan, comprises 25% of global population. With China’s 17% added, the percentage shoots up to 42%.
The World Inequality Lab study observed that income and wealth contrast in Modi’s India is worse,more than it was during the British colonial rule. Other countries in the region are not any better.
Suggestions:
If 42% of people increase trade in way that exchange of dollars is minimized, either through barter trade or using own currencies, this would save them hustle for dollars and foreign exchange.
Increased trade also brings people closer and aids in creating more understanding and tolerance.
In the best interest of both countries and the entire South Asian region, it would be better if SAARC (South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation) is revived.
Visas should be issued to enjoy tourism and appreciate each other’s natural beauty of land, flora and fauna and cultures
Exchange student programs should be initiated
Joint cultural, artistic, sports, entertainment, and other such events should be organized and promoted.
India and Pakistan should avoid competing to get in the good books of US administration and try to sort out their problems themselves.
Pakistan feels insecure when Trump is close to Modi and vice versa.
India is the most populous country and Pakistan is the fifth most populated nation, both are made of many nations held together with very weak ties. They should concentrate on making that connection stronger by addressing the problems of various ethnic, caste, gender, and religious groups and by improving relations between the countries of SAARC.
Gur Mehar Kaur, whose father died during one of the Indo-Pak wars when she was 2 year old, wishes peace:
“Hate is the most anti-national force that we face. The worst thing the BJP under Modi did was nurture a mob that can only be satisfied with blood, killings and hate. For 10 years, this mob has been empowered.”
The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position.
For almost five decades, peace prevailed between China and the United States on the issue of Taiwan. The above policy was maintained without any serious incident. It could have gone on for decades but for some US generals and others who visited Taiwan in March 2022. Author Eve Ottenberg surmised, “to beat the war drums and provoke China.” Same year in August, Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan too, to incite China.
<2> In 1924, 1,165 in-person hate speech events took place in India; 259 were openly calling for violence. Many important BJP leaders, including Modi, his Home Minister Amit Shah, and Yogi Adityanath, the rogue governor of largest state Uttar Pradesh, were involved in these events.
<3> The 2016, the Indian film Sanam Teri Kasam had a Pakistani actress Mawra Hocane as the female protagonist. The film was re-released in February and became highest-grossing re-released Indian film. They are making a sequel but now without Hocane because of the war.
Dosanjh’s actions will encourage those Indian and Pakistani artists who wants to collaborate to release their work worldwide to cover the cost and make profit internationally, rather than be at the mercy of local politicians’ whims. Indian film Abir Gulaal with Indian actress Vaani Kapoor and Pakistani actor Fawad Khan was to release on May 9 but was postponed indefinitely. The makers should think of forgoing the Indian market and releasing it worldwide if possible and if it won’t hurt them financially.
B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com
