NEW DELHI: Every time Pakistan offers a gesture of peace, it falls short on one crucial element. Trust. India has faced repeated betrayals at critical moments, from the 1947-48 invasion of Kashmir, the 1965 war after Operation Gibraltar, to Pakistan’s role in the 1971 crackdown in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).
Thereafter came the sponsorship of insurgency in Kashmir since 1989, the 1999 Kargil War shortly after former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s Lahore visit, the 2001 Parliament attack, and the 2008 Mumbai carnage despite ongoing backchannel talks.
The 2016 Pathankot airbase attack soon after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s surprise stopover in Lahore. Then came the Uri attack, the 2019 Pulwama bombing, and most recently, the April 22 Pahalgam massacre. For every olive branch, India has often found a dagger concealed behind it.
At the core of these repeated provocations are Pakistan-backed terror outfits such as Hafiz Saeed ’s Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Masood Azhar ’s Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). Both remain among India’s most wanted terrorists for their roles in fomenting unrest and orchestrating deadly attacks.
In this context, the latest remarks by Pakistan’s former foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari have raised eyebrows. Bhutto has claimed that Islamabad is willing to extradite Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar, provided India "cooperates legally."
This offer stands in sharp contrast to Bhutto’s earlier posture. Just days after India put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance, a visibly rattled Bhutto issued a combative statement: "I want to tell India that the Indus is ours and will remain ours. Either water will flow in this Indus, or their blood will."
So what explains this sudden pivot, from incendiary rhetoric to conciliatory overtures? Is it a genuine shift in Pakistan’s policy or a desperate attempt to draw India back to the negotiating table, particularly on the Indus Waters Treaty, which New Delhi suspended following the Pahalgam terror attack?
And most importantly, should India take Bhutto seriously?
Pakistan, which depends on the Indus river system for nearly 90 per cent of its agriculture, views the treaty as vital to its food and water security. As the upper riparian state, India holds significant leverage. A reduced flow could intensify economic distress and internal unrest in Pakistan.
Union home minister Amit Shah, Union jal shakti minister CR Paatil have firmly stated that the central government has developed a comprehensive strategy to halt Indian river water from flowing into Pakistan.
Dismissing Pakistan’s loud objections over the IWT, PM Modi also made it clear that "the waters rightfully belonging to India will now serve Indian interests alone".
Seen in this light, Bhutto’s statement appears to be a strategic move, deliberately ambiguous and easily retractable if no progress occurs.
"Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has no locus standi. He is not in the cabinet, he is not part of the armed forces. Yes, his father is the president of Pakistan (Asif Ali Zardari), and that's about all. So, the Pakistani army uses people like Bilwal Bhutto to make comments which can then be retracted tomorrow," Major Gaurav Arya (Retd) told TOI.
He further said: "Because the Indus Waters Treaty has been held in abeyance by India, they want to give out an olive branch to India as a token of peace or a white flag. But tomorrow, if public backlash is a little too much...at that point in time, Pakistan can say Bilawal is not part of the government."
However, acknowledging that Bilawal's statement is not entirely without significance, Major Arya said, "India should just absorb Bilawal's remark and just wait for the official statements". "If the Pakistani ministry of external affairs makes a point, then India's MEA will make a counterpoint," he added.
Ultimately, Bhutto’s extradition overture appears less a policy shift and more a calculated distraction -- a diplomatic decoy aimed at reclaiming control over a narrative slipping from Islamabad’s hands.
With the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance and India showing no signs of relenting, Pakistan finds itself cornered. An offer to hand over long-sheltered terrorists may sound conciliatory, but it lacks institutional weight and credibility -- especially when made by someone with no executive authority.
India, hardened by decades of Islamabad's duplicity, is unlikely to be swayed by rhetoric alone. Without transparency, accountability, and an unequivocal crackdown on terror infrastructure, New Delhi has little reason to re-engage.
Thereafter came the sponsorship of insurgency in Kashmir since 1989, the 1999 Kargil War shortly after former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s Lahore visit, the 2001 Parliament attack, and the 2008 Mumbai carnage despite ongoing backchannel talks.
The 2016 Pathankot airbase attack soon after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s surprise stopover in Lahore. Then came the Uri attack, the 2019 Pulwama bombing, and most recently, the April 22 Pahalgam massacre. For every olive branch, India has often found a dagger concealed behind it.
At the core of these repeated provocations are Pakistan-backed terror outfits such as Hafiz Saeed ’s Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Masood Azhar ’s Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). Both remain among India’s most wanted terrorists for their roles in fomenting unrest and orchestrating deadly attacks.
In this context, the latest remarks by Pakistan’s former foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari have raised eyebrows. Bhutto has claimed that Islamabad is willing to extradite Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar, provided India "cooperates legally."
This offer stands in sharp contrast to Bhutto’s earlier posture. Just days after India put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance, a visibly rattled Bhutto issued a combative statement: "I want to tell India that the Indus is ours and will remain ours. Either water will flow in this Indus, or their blood will."
So what explains this sudden pivot, from incendiary rhetoric to conciliatory overtures? Is it a genuine shift in Pakistan’s policy or a desperate attempt to draw India back to the negotiating table, particularly on the Indus Waters Treaty, which New Delhi suspended following the Pahalgam terror attack?
And most importantly, should India take Bhutto seriously?
Pakistan, which depends on the Indus river system for nearly 90 per cent of its agriculture, views the treaty as vital to its food and water security. As the upper riparian state, India holds significant leverage. A reduced flow could intensify economic distress and internal unrest in Pakistan.
Union home minister Amit Shah, Union jal shakti minister CR Paatil have firmly stated that the central government has developed a comprehensive strategy to halt Indian river water from flowing into Pakistan.
Dismissing Pakistan’s loud objections over the IWT, PM Modi also made it clear that "the waters rightfully belonging to India will now serve Indian interests alone".
Seen in this light, Bhutto’s statement appears to be a strategic move, deliberately ambiguous and easily retractable if no progress occurs.
"Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has no locus standi. He is not in the cabinet, he is not part of the armed forces. Yes, his father is the president of Pakistan (Asif Ali Zardari), and that's about all. So, the Pakistani army uses people like Bilwal Bhutto to make comments which can then be retracted tomorrow," Major Gaurav Arya (Retd) told TOI.
He further said: "Because the Indus Waters Treaty has been held in abeyance by India, they want to give out an olive branch to India as a token of peace or a white flag. But tomorrow, if public backlash is a little too much...at that point in time, Pakistan can say Bilawal is not part of the government."
However, acknowledging that Bilawal's statement is not entirely without significance, Major Arya said, "India should just absorb Bilawal's remark and just wait for the official statements". "If the Pakistani ministry of external affairs makes a point, then India's MEA will make a counterpoint," he added.
Ultimately, Bhutto’s extradition overture appears less a policy shift and more a calculated distraction -- a diplomatic decoy aimed at reclaiming control over a narrative slipping from Islamabad’s hands.
With the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance and India showing no signs of relenting, Pakistan finds itself cornered. An offer to hand over long-sheltered terrorists may sound conciliatory, but it lacks institutional weight and credibility -- especially when made by someone with no executive authority.
India, hardened by decades of Islamabad's duplicity, is unlikely to be swayed by rhetoric alone. Without transparency, accountability, and an unequivocal crackdown on terror infrastructure, New Delhi has little reason to re-engage.
You may also like
'Worrying disappearance': 18-year-old French national missing in Iran; 20 Europeans under detention in country
EastEnders' Samantha Womack stopped by fans with warning about Emmerdale star boyfriend
Film critic names 1942 classic 'the best Hollywood movie of all time'
Viktor Gyokeres set for awkward meeting with Arsenal star after 'steal' jibe amid £69m transfer
Baffling Antiques Roadshow moment that launched BBC investigation
