Afrah Jamal

Published by Global Affairs / Nov 2017 A few years ago a gathering of Pakistani intellectuals tried to sound the alarm over India’s creeping radicalization and obvious leanings towards militant mindsets. Barkha Dutt – a prominent Indian journalist who was present as a guest speaker pooh-poohed the fears – proudly pointing to a vibrant civil society able to stave off the coming storm. Her Pakistani hosts were unconvinced. Having witnessed first-hand the rise and fall of extremism – they recognized the symptoms and could testify to its pervasive hold on an otherwise liberal society and the challenges of clearing leftover toxic waste. Pakistan’s concern was not tinged with condescension - it was well meaning. Despite its many imperfections – it had already begun mapping a way out and wondered if the region could survive the fallout of harboring an extremist outlook in the neighborhood. Hindutva – Hindu nationalism, an ideology that apparently seeks to remake Indian society and ins...

Published Feb 2017. Global Affairs. Ms.Barkha Dutt is absolutely right; and also very wrong. She argues that “in the likely event of a Hillary Clinton win, her administration will no longer be able to count on New Delhi displaying what is known as strategic restraint; Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has dramatically altered the traditional Pakistan doctrine with several high-risk firsts. None of the old rules apply.” No one can dispute this point. Modi has been testing the nuclear threshold; trading fire across the LOC and using the term surgical strikes loosely. An old flashpoint (Kashmir) has reignited tensions and the attack on an Indian base has pushed both nations to the brink of war. It has been a busy year. But then the mention of Modi’s campaign promise of taking a hard line on Pakistan and his abrupt pivot prompted by an “audacious appetite for gambling on peace” is where the argument becomes reductive. “Why India and Pakistan could be big headaches for the ne...