Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said the two sides, along with China, committed to continued dialogue after seven days of negotiations in the western Chinese city.

The parties agreed to address key issues in bilateral relations, with terrorism identified as the central concern affecting ties.

“The three parties agreed to explore a comprehensive solution to the issues in the relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and clarified the core and priority issues that need to be addressed,” Mao said at a regular press briefing in Beijing.Both Afghanistan and Pakistan pledged they would not take actions that could “escalate or complicate the situation,” according to the Chinese readout.

Afghanistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Abdul Qahar Balkhi said the talks concluded in a “constructive atmosphere,” focusing on security, bilateral relations and regional stability.

Writing on X, he thanked Beijing for facilitating the discussions and expressed hope the process would build trust and enhance cooperation.There was no immediate comment from Pakistan on the outcome of the talks.

The discussions were convened after fighting that began in February escalated into what Pakistan described as “open war,” including airstrikes inside Afghanistan, among them in the capital Kabul.

According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the conflict has displaced about 94,000 people, while roughly 100,000 residents in two Afghan border districts have been cut off from assistance since the violence began.

Despite the talks, Afghan officials have continued to accuse Pakistan of cross-border shelling, while Islamabad has long alleged that Afghanistan provides safe haven to militants, including the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, an insurgent group allied with the Afghan Taliban.

Kabul denies the operations.

The quake hit at 8:42 p.m. local time (1612 GMT) at a depth of 186 km, with its epicentre in Badakhshan Province, according to the United States Geological Survey.

Afghanistan’s health ministry said the fatalities occurred in the Gosfand Dara area of Kabul Province, where a single family was buried under the impact of the tremor. “Eight members of a family died as a result of the earthquake,” ministry spokesman Sharafat Zaman said in a statement.

He added that a child, estimated to be around two years old, survived but was injured. The country’s disaster management agency confirmed the child had sustained injuries during the incident.

Journalists reported that the tremors were felt in Kabul and other parts of the country, though no immediate wider casualty figures were released.

Afghanistan lies along the seismically active Hindu Kush region, where the Eurasian and Indian tectonic plates converge, making earthquakes a frequent occurrence.

The latest quake follows a series of deadly seismic events in recent years, including an August tremor that killed more than 2,200 people in eastern Afghanistan after devastating remote mountain communities.

The cabinet has ordered a 30% reduction in fuel and electricity consumption across government offices, alongside suspending certain staff training programs and halting the procurement of new vehicles, ships and aircraft. Decorative lighting for public celebrations has also been banned as part of broader conservation efforts.

Authorities said shopping malls and retail outlets would close earlier than usual, while office timings have been curtailed to limit overall energy demand in the country of more than 170 million people.

The measures come as Bangladesh grapples with heavy reliance on imported energy, which accounts for approximately 95% of its fuel needs. Officials are seeking alternative energy sources and arranging $2.5 billion in external financing to sustain essential imports.

The crisis has been exacerbated by global energy market volatility linked to ongoing geopolitical tensions, putting pressure on the country’s foreign exchange reserves and raising concerns over energy security.

The attacker was believed to be targeting a nearby police station but struck a civilian residence before reaching the intended site, said Muhammad Sajjad Khan, a local police official. The blast caused significant casualties among residents inside the house, he added.

The death toll was confirmed by Bannu assistant commissioner Ikramullah Khan, who said the injured had been shifted to nearby medical facilities.

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack. However, suspicion is likely to fall on Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, which has intensified attacks in the region in recent years, frequently targeting security installations.

Bannu lies in a volatile region bordering areas that were formerly part of Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal belt, long affected by militancy and counterinsurgency operations.

Pakistan has repeatedly accused neighboring Afghanistan of failing to eliminate militant sanctuaries used to plan cross-border attacks, an allegation denied by the Taliban authorities in Kabul.

Senior officials from both countries are participating in the discussions, which are being facilitated by China as part of efforts to broker a negotiated settlement between the neighbours, long linked by security ties but increasingly at odds over militancy and cross-border attacks.

The talks are expected to focus on securing a ceasefire and reopening key border crossings to restore trade and travel flows, according to sources cited in earlier reports, signalling an attempt to stabilise economic and civilian movement disrupted by months of hostilities.

“Our efforts for talks will continue despite the problems that will keep coming,” a Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesperson said during a regular media briefing, underscoring Islamabad’s position that dialogue remains the primary channel for de-escalation.

Pakistan has also acknowledged China’s role in facilitating the engagement, describing Beijing as an important global actor whose diplomatic efforts are complementary to regional stability initiatives.

Tensions between the two countries have escalated sharply since late 2025, with Islamabad accusing the Afghan Taliban authorities of harbouring militants from Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, an insurgent group it says is responsible for attacks inside Pakistan.

The Afghan Taliban has rejected those allegations, maintaining that militancy within Pakistan is an internal issue and denying any official support or sanctuary for the group.

The two countries share a 2,600-kilometre border that has historically been porous and contested, and recent fighting has marked a significant deterioration in ties that had initially shown signs of alignment following the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul in 2021.

Deoband’s embrace of the Taliban foreign minister is dangerous — but also offers an opening.

Amir Khan Muttaqi, Foreign Minister of the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan and a senior figure in its political and ideological leadership, has recently completed a six-day visit to India — an episode loaded with meaning.

From his informal ban on female journalists, to the cancellation of his Agra leg, and his carefully choreographed stop at the Vivekananda Foundation. Yet, it is his visit to Dar ul Uloom Deoband, the theological heart of South Asian Deobandi Islam, that has invited sharpest scrutiny.

For years, Indian Muslims — particularly those aligned with the Deobandi school — have tried to draw a distinction between “their Islam,” described as democratic and egalitarian, and the Taliban’s brutal, patriarchal regime. Muttaqi’s pilgrimage to his ideological fountainhead has challenged that narrative.

When the Taliban’s foreign minister visits Deoband, and the seminary receives him with honor, it becomes almost impossible to sustain the claim that the Taliban are merely “misguided” Muslims. Why, then, should men who have subjugated women and silenced dissent be treated as heroes?

What emerges instead is a chilling recognition: the Taliban are not a deviation from Deobandi Islam according to the seminary, but one of its most literal political manifestations.

The confusion within India’s religiously-inclined Muslim intelligentsia over how to respond to this visit is telling — and repetitive. Some rush to rationalize it as “cultural diplomacy” or a gesture of goodwill in the national interest, strangely bringing the Muslim right and the Hindu right onto the same page.

Others recoil in discomfort but stop short of open criticism. Deoband’s endorsement of Muttaqi symbolically affirms the very doctrines that have justified gender apartheid, banned girls from education, and institutionalized moral policing across Afghanistan.

This moment is not merely about Afghanistan; it reflects a moral crisis within Indian muslims as well — a refusal to confront its own regressive solidarities under the pretext of religious kinship. The spectacle of Deoband greeting Muttaqi with reverence reveals the unbroken theological thread linking the 19th seminary to the taliban led theocratic governance.

Deoband’s embrace of the Taliban foreign minister is dangerous — but also offers an opening. If the Taliban truly draw their ideological legitimacy from Deoband, then Deoband carries a moral responsibility: to humanize that ideology, to insist that justice and compassion, not repression, define Islam.

The seminary has a proud history of standing against colonial injustice and for India’s freedom. Can it now stand for Afghan women denied education, or men imprisoned for thought?

If Dar ul Uloom Deoband wishes to remain relevant in a plural democracy, it must decide where it stands — with democracy, gender justice, and education, or with those who burn books, bury dissent, and blind the future of half their population.

If the international community allows these narratives to disappear in silence, it becomes complicit in its own oppression, it claims to abhor.

Four hours. Seriously? That’s what justice boils down to now in Bangladesh? Just four measly hours of parole for Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed. Dragged through handcuff by malicious charges and failed to say goodbye to a dying mom they hadn’t met in almost a year.

Did they have adequate time for travel, attending the funeral, and returning to jail? Did anyone even stop to think what a single hour with her mom meant to Rupa?

Her mother spent her last days begging for her daughter’s release, but sure, let’s pretend that’s not the headline in Bangladesh. 

Did anyone in power spare a thought for the wreckage left behind? Punishing a Professional journalist on murder charges she had no stake on. Not just playing with her career, her family, her honour and the life of her recently deceased mother. Who will take responsibility for the death of her mother? 

A heartbreaking conversation with Rupa’s friend

Ms. Charlotte Jacquemart, a respected Swiss journalist, criticized the ongoing detention of Bangladeshi journalists Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed. Her statements are direct and deeply personal, underscoring what she describes as a tragic situation impacting not only the journalists but also their families and professional circles.

Both Rupa and Ahmed have been incarcerated for ten months. During this period, they have not been granted access to proper legal representation. Jacquemart, who has a close professional and personal relationship with Farzana Rupa, noted that multiple requests for bail have been denied, even as Rupa’s mother’s health deteriorated. The lack of release prevented Rupa from providing care or support during this critical time her mother needed. 

The consequences of their detention extend beyond the prison walls. Their families, particularly minor children, are left without financial or emotional support. Jacquemart highlighted that the absence of adequate medical treatment for Rupa’s mother—stemming from the journalists’ inability to intervene—ultimately resulted in a tragic loss, as confirmed by medical professionals.

On one occasion, authorities allowed the journalists four hours of parole to visit Rupa’s dying mother. However, logistical process meant three hours were spent in travel by prison van, leaving just one hour to see her mother’s dead body.

Jacquemart asserts that the case violates both international human rights standards and Bangladeshi constitutional guarantees, specifically regarding press freedom. She also criticized the Bangladeshi Interim leadership of Noble Laureate Yunus, alleging a targeted campaign against critics—including journalists, lawyers, activists, and minorities—while convicted criminals and terrorists are released.

In her concluding remarks, Jacquemart called on Western governments to reconsider their support for the current Bangladeshi administration, suggesting that the leadership prioritizes personal power and targeted retribution over the welfare of the Bangladeshi people or adherence to democratic principles.

Why was Rupa arrested?

Farzana Rupa’s professional trajectory was anything but ordinary—she made a name for herself by tackling high-stakes, controversial topics head-on. As principal correspondent and anchor at Ekattor TV, she played a pivotal role in shaping coverage of major political controversies and social issues in Bangladesh. Her leadership extended to hosting critical debates and shedding light on human rights abuses, which inevitably attracted both public attention and, regrettably, threats from more radical groups.

Her investigative work on cases like the Pohela Boishakh sexual assaults and interviews with polarizing figures such as Taslima Nasreen garnered international recognition. This visibility, while elevating her professional profile, also exposed her to significant personal risk. Rupa was known for open support for Prime Minister in exile Sheikh Hasina during the turbulent July protests of 2024, coupled with her readiness to challenge those in power, placed her squarely in the spotlight following the change in government.

Subsequently, both she and her husband faced arrest, charged with incitement to murder, and were held without bail. Many Political observers interpret these developments as part of a broader, politically driven effort to suppress independent journalism in Bangladesh.

Rupa’s tears to the UN

Farzana Rupa made urgent appeals to the United Nations while she was detained, but, frankly, there was no timely intervention. Her family paid the price. Her mother had passed away. Will the UN acknowledge any responsibility for a loss that perhaps could have been avoided? Given that Rupa couldn’t be present, advocate for medical care, or even offer basic comfort, one must wonder about the effectiveness of these international mechanisms.

The situation raises a larger issue: will this tragedy prompt any real reflection or policy change, or will it simply fade from attention, with Rupa’s unanswered appeals lost in the noise? The lack of response speaks volumes about the current state of international accountability.

A cruel crossroad in Bangladesh

The narratives around Rupa and Ahmed highlight a deep crisis in Bangladesh – a powerful mix of political alienation and human rights degradation. Individuals become collateral damage to state strategies to nullify dissent; Their bodies and psyche serve as dark reminders of the severe cost of Journalism in an increasingly authoritarian means. Government tactics, remnants of authoritarian regimes around the world, show a worrying model of governance based on the oppression. 

Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed are like symbols. They are faces that marked a scenario of overwhelming darkness. They force us to examine not only their unfortunate circumstances, but to confront the systemic injustices that permeate Bangladesh’s political scenario. Their stories are a call of duty to global citizens, reminding them that true democracy cannot exist when dissent is criminalized.

If the international community allows these narratives to disappear in silence, it becomes complicit in its own oppression, it claims to abhor. A collective awakening for twin tragedies, though deeply personal, illuminates a much greater evil: the erosion of human dignity by another Noble laureate. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Turkey’s propaganda media front, TRT World, has spearheaded anti-India narratives, peddling full-blown pro-Pakistani propaganda

Pakistan PM Shahbaz Sharif is meeting Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan TWICE in ONE month, post the Pahalgam terror attack and after #OperationSindoor.

This not only reveals the true nature of their alliance but also EXPOSES their transnational alliance against India!

What we’re seeing today is a reflection of years of planning and collaboration. From 2018’s coordinated social media campaigns to 2022’s RToK in Sarajevo, every major anti-India narrative has been amplified simultaneously from Islamabad and Istanbul!

The Erdoğan network isn’t just diplomatic — it’s operational. Through a web of NGOs spanning continents, the Erdoğan family has built an influence ecosystem that abets everything — from Hamas to Pakistan-sponsored anti-India campaigns, including terror attacks.

Two weeks ahead of the Pahalgam terror attack, a sequence of events transpired between Pakistan and Turkey:

a. A think tank linked to Turkey’s Erdoğan family hosted a propaganda event on Kashmir.
b. TRT World interviewed a white-collared terrorist, Muzzammil Thakur, for propaganda on Kashmir.

On 9th April, Pakistani think tank CISSAJK released a report whitewashing the Pulwama terror attack and blaming India’s ruling party for “pushing South Asia to the nuclear brink.”

On 6th April, Muzzammil Thakur was also the “chief guest” at TUGVA — an organization closely linked to the Erdoğan family. Bilal Erdoğan (Erdoğan’s son) sits on the advisory board of TUGVA. TUGVA pursues the political ambitions of Erdoğan’s AK Party via its programs.

Note: TUGVA is also known for corruption allegations, promoting extremist Islamist ideology through jihadist camps, and working with Insani Haq-o-Hurriyat (IHH), which supports Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

On one hand, TUGVA hosted Muzzammil Thakur; on the other hand, he was interviewed by Turkey’s state-affiliated media and propaganda arm, TRT World. Muzzammil also shared the stage with Hamas supporter Azzam Tamimi at Ummatics Istanbul — a network founded by a Pakistani-American.

This is not the first time Turkey has abetted this anti-India figure. In 2016, TRT was the first portal to interview Muzzammil and project him as the face of resistance in Kashmir globally. It was the first time Muzzammil Thakur began receiving an international platform.

This is not a one-off or isolated instance where Turkey has abetted the Pakistani agenda globally. In fact, it has even worked hand-in-hand with Pakistan against certain countries, including India. To put things in perspective, both Turkey and Pakistan are strategic partners.

Turkey not only provides military support to Pakistan, but their alliance is marked by various aspects, including:
a. Defence deals
b. Info-war coordination
c. Military exercises
d. Technology deals

Turkey’s propaganda media front, TRT World, has spearheaded anti-India narratives, peddling full-blown pro-Pakistani propaganda — including Pakistani fake news and giving space to Pakistani faces — weaving the narrative of an alliance between India and Israel as colonial settlers.

According to a 2021 report, TRT World employed at least 50 Pakistanis out of 300-odd staff, collectively comprising correspondents, producers, and editors based in Istanbul. TRT World and Anadolu Agency are tasked with carrying propaganda favourable to the Turkey-Pakistan alliance.

Turkey under Erdoğan positions itself as a Muslim world leader, using Islamic identity to counter Western influence, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Pakistan has often aligned with Turkey’s narratives, including on Islamophobia, to resonate with global Muslim populations.

Targeting Muslim Brotherhood–targeted Countries:

Turkey and Pakistan jointly targeted countries that have also been targeted by the global radical Muslim Brotherhood — namely France, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and India.

In May 2020, #BoycottUAE trended in Pakistan after Turkish social media users promoted the hashtag. Turks were angered by the UAE’s support for Haftar’s forces in Libya (which opposed the Turkey-backed GNA) and the UAE’s ties with India.

In October 2020, Turkey and Pakistan united to push #BoycottFrenchProducts over France’s defence of free speech. Erdoğan urged Turks to shun French goods, while Pakistan’s parliament passed a resolution in 2020 backing Turkey’s call to boycott French products.

Similarly, this group also executed a slander campaign against Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). A number of pictures of the Saudi Prince with the Indian PM were recycled to suggest he was not standing up for the cause of Muslims.

As noted, Turkey supports Pakistan in several ways: endorsing its stance on Kashmir, pushing anti-India narratives like “Islamophobia,” and using diplomatic channels and state tools — including TRT World and social media — to fuel global boycott campaigns against India.

This alliance gained more visibility after the Indian government abrogated Article 370 in J&K. Turkey and Pakistan intensified coordinated disinformation campaigns on Kashmir, weaponizing tropes like ‘Islamophobia’ to malign India’s image and hinder India’s economic interests.

On August 5, 2019, after India revoked Articles 370 and 35A, while Pakistani media pushed aggressive propaganda, Turkish outlets like TRT World and Anadolu Agency were among the first international platforms to echo Pakistan’s Kashmir narrative against India.

TRT World published over 30 long stories related to Jammu and Kashmir, and interestingly, 14 of them were also recommended by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry. A word cloud and timeline of TRT World’s coverage on Kashmir is shown below.

Turkey’s state-funded Anadolu Agency amplified fake news claiming India issued 3.4 million bogus domiciles in Kashmir to alter its demography post-Article 370. The false report was widely shared by Pakistani media — later proven fake.

The first BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) call against India appeared on Facebook on August 8, 2019 — just 3 days after the abrogation of Article 370. By August 13, 2019, the Palestinian BDS Committee had released a statement amplified via Pakistani- and Turkish-aligned platforms.

Pakistan-backed accounts launched a coordinated BDS campaign targeting India using #BoycottIndia and #BoycottIndianProducts, with over 162K tweets on X — mostly from fake or new Pakistan-based handles.

In September 2019, then-Pakistan PM Imran Khan used the UN General Assembly to accuse India of “Islamophobia” post-Article 370 abrogation. That same year, Pak sympathizer CJ Werleman pushed the Islamophobia trope against India, amplified by Turkish and Pakistani networks.

Weaponizing the OIC

Pakistan and Turkey also weaponized the OIC to amplify anti-India narratives in 2020 — citing CAA/NRC and Kashmir to push claims of ‘Islamophobia’. Turkey’s Anadolu Agency, TRT World, and Erdoğan backed the line.

OIC Statement & Fake Arab Handles Campaign

In April 2020, after OIC criticized India over Islamophobia, Pakistan launched a fake social media campaign. Pak accounts posing as Arab royals unleashed a disinformation campaign (later exposed) to target India with Islamophobia.

Soft Calls for BDS Against India

In collusion, Turkey and Pakistan organized several events equating Kashmir with Palestine and called for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against India. Seminars and events were organized jointly by this alliance.

In May 2020, an event was jointly hosted by Kashmir Civitas (based in Pakistan, Istanbul, Shanghai, and Qatar), along with Turkey-based Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), to draw a parallel between Kashmir and Palestine and seek BDS against India.

Similarly, on June 29–30, 2020, Istanbul University organized an event on Kashmir attended by Pakistani ministers and convicted ISI agent Ghulam Nabi Fai among others. Masood Khan urged Turkey’s intervention in the Kashmir issue while seeking BDS against India.

To lend legitimacy to the BDS campaign against India, pro-Pakistan networks enlisted CJ Werleman to write an article on TRT World (July 2020) framing the Kashmir issue within the global BDS movement and internationalizing anti-India narratives.

A few months later, to test the waters, in September 2021, the #BoycottIndianProducts campaign trended on X — this time spearheaded by the global Muslim Brotherhood along with the nexus of Qatar-Turkey-Pakistan (QTPi).

Two months later, in December 2021, the Turkey-Pakistan nexus — including Pakistan’s Jamaat and Erdoğan-linked entities — backed by the Muslim Brotherhood nexus linked to Hamas, organized a hush-hush ‘Russell Tribunal on Kashmir (RToK)’ against India.

Major takeaway of the 3-day Tribunal: BDS Movement against India!

RToK & Erdoğan Link

Among the organizers of the RToK tribunal was the International University of Sarajevo (IUS). The president of IUS is Professor Dr. Sevgi Kurtulmuş, professor of Economics at Ankara University. Dr. Sevgi is the wife of Numan Kurtulmuş, who was Deputy PM of Turkey (2014–17), from the AKP.

IUS was founded by the Foundation for Education Development Sarajevo (SEDEF) in 2003. SEDEF is a pro-government Turkish businessmen and Islamist foundation backed by Erdoğan.

SEDEF’s constituent organization is ILIM YAYMA VAKFI, founded by Erdoğan on March 31, 1973. Bilal Erdoğan is its president.

Prior to the RToK event, IUS had never engaged with Kashmir. Yet, this Erdoğan-linked university co-organized the RToK — after months of seminars and online boycott campaigns against India. Erdoğan’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkish state media’s role in the MB-led boycott are well known.

Another key organizer of the RToK was Kashmir Civitas (KC), established in 2019 with bases in Istanbul, London, Beijing, Rome, and Toronto. Farhan Mujahid Chak is the face of KC. He is of Pakistani origin, Qatar-resident, and currently based in Canada.

A few days after RToK, UK-based firm Stoke White — whose founder Hakan Camuz is a Turkish citizen and close to the Erdoğan family — ran a smear arrest campaign against the Indian Army and India’s Home Minister, accusing India of human rights violations in J&K.

Hakan Camuz headed the UK-based Turken Foundation (2015–19), which has deep links with the Erdoğan family.

The Turken Foundation was established by two Turkish organizations: Ensar Foundation (est. 1979) and TURGEV (est. 1996 by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan). Bilal Erdoğan was once a board member of the Turken Foundation UK.

Ensar Foundation

In 2016, Ensar Foundation was involved in a child abuse scandal in Karaman, a central Anatolian town in Turkey, in a guest house run by Ensar Foundation. The foundation is known to be run by close associates of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan!

The Relationship Goes Deeper

In 2014, Camuz represented Bilal Erdoğan in a case against CNBC and David L. Philips after they exposed alleged links between Bilal and Turkey’s Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) in funding terror group ISIS. IHH is a known tool of Turkey’s intelligence agency Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı (MİT).

Camuz’s Stoke White has run legal and smear campaigns targeting countries — UAE, Saudi Arabia, India, and France — all targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey. Its cases also echo Ankara’s narrative, even demanding action against Erdoğan’s rival, Mohammed Dahlan.

On Jan 19, 2022, Stoke White launched a hit job against the Indian Home Minister and Army Chief (from Jan 2021), accusing India of genocide in Kashmir.

This was based on an “investigation” with Pakistan-based Legal Forum for Oppressed Voices of Kashmir (LFOVK). The campaign was strategically made to trend in Turkey.

LFOVK is headed by Pakistani Judge Justice Ali Nawaz Chawhan (late) and Advocate Nasir Qadri. It is pertinent to note that while SW launched a hit job against the Indian HM and then-Indian Army Chief, it was LFOVK that started the #arrestindianarmychief trend and peddled the narrative of ‘war crimes in Kashmir’ with SW.

LFK collaborates with think tanks like IPRI and IPS — both deeply tied to the Pakistan Army and ISI. Asad Durrani, ex-IPS member, was the general of Military Intelligence (MI) and ISI. These institutions were tasked by Pakistan’s Senate in 2016 to identify and exploit India’s “fault lines.”

Just two weeks ahead of the RToK in Sarajevo, LFOVK head Nasir Qadri and primary organizer Farhan Mujahid Chak (Kashmir Civitas) attended the 17th IPS Working Group on Kashmir in 2021 — joined by others including Irshad Mahmood, Tajammul Altaf, and APHC officials.

The New Narrative

As noted, there have been strong efforts to seek BDS against India, just like the BDS movement against Israel. Through boycott campaigns, hit job campaigns, and RToK, this alliance has been forging a narrative linking India and Israel.

Hence, this transnational alliance — driven by Turkey’s vision of becoming the poster boy of the Islamic world — uses Turkish propaganda fronts along with Pakistani allies to craft the India-Israel narrative. Turkey actively abets and drives these efforts alongside Pakistan through state machinery and media.

Most recently, TRT World gave a platform to Nasir Qadri, who accused India of adopting Israel’s settler-colonial tactics. During the India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025, a number of Pakistani handles also peddled the same narrative as Nasir Qadri on TRT World.

Turkey is fast emerging as a new hub for anti-India radical Islamists.

This investigative article draws exclusively from verified research conducted by DisInfoLab, a leading organization renowned for uncovering global disinformation campaigns, propaganda networks, and hybrid warfare strategies. Every event, connection, and claim outlined in this exposé is rooted in meticulously documented findings from DisInfoLab’s reports.

Pakistan’s hurried outreach to Washington for a ceasefire underscores how severely it was rattled by India’s swift and precise military campaign.

Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) on Thursday has declared India as a rising military and political superpower. Authored by Senior Research Fellow Anna Mahjar-Barducci, the report titled “India Has Emerged As A Military And Political Superpower” highlights India’s growing clout in global geopolitics, citing its successful Operation Sindoor as a pivotal moment in asserting its military might and strategic autonomy.

Operation Sindoor: A Turning Point

The report emphasizes that India’s military success during Operation Sindoor, which began on May 7 and paused temporarily on May 10, marked a seismic shift in South Asia’s strategic balance. The operation was launched in response to the Pakistan-sponsored Pahalgam terror attack, which killed dozens of civilians.

“India managed to bring Pakistan to its knees,” the report claims. “In just a few days, India struck 11 Pakistani airbases and destroyed 25 percent of Pakistan’s air force. This is a remarkable feat, especially considering Pakistan’s nuclear capability.”

According to MEMRI, Pakistan’s hurried outreach to Washington for a ceasefire underscores how severely it was rattled by India’s swift and precise military campaign. Despite diplomatic pressure, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintained a firm stance.

“We have just suspended our retaliatory action against Pakistan’s terror and military camps,” PM Modi said in a televised address on May 12. “In the coming days we will measure every step of Pakistan on the criterion that what sort of attitude Pakistan will adopt ahead.”

Political Ascendancy: India’s Battle on Multiple Fronts

Beyond the battlefield, India’s political leadership has taken center stage. MEMRI’s report credits New Delhi with successfully leading a multipronged offensive—not just against state-sponsored terrorism but also against geopolitical actors that enable and support it.

India’s stand against Turkey has been particularly noted. Ankara, under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is alleged to have provided Pakistan with Asisguard Songar drones during the conflict. This military assistance has fueled a strong backlash in India.

The “Boycott Turkey” movement, once limited to online activism, has now taken on a life of its own. “From marble yards in Udaipur to fruit markets in Pune, Indian traders and consumers are turning away from Turkish goods,” reported Indian media. The movement reflects India’s new approach: aligning economic decisions with national security interests.

India also faced off with Iran, which drew criticism for sending its deputy foreign minister to Islamabad days before the strikes. Indian media condemned the move, viewing it as a tacit endorsement of Pakistan at a volatile time.

Modi’s Doctrine: No Compromise on Terror

MEMRI’s analysis highlights Prime Minister Modi’s doctrinal shift in India’s foreign policy. By linking trade and diplomacy to a country’s stance on terrorism, Modi has signaled that India will not return to the status quo.

“We will not differentiate between the government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism,” Modi asserted. “Terror and trade cannot go together.” This statement was widely interpreted as a firm response to then-U.S. President Donald Trump’s suggestion that India and Pakistan work out trade deals in exchange for a ceasefire.

According to Mahjar-Barducci, Modi’s unapologetic approach marks a turning point. India has broken free from years of strategic restraint and has adopted a more assertive, self-assured international posture.

A Beacon for the Democratic World

The MEMRI report concludes with a sweeping endorsement of India’s position in the global order. As the world’s largest democracy, India is now seen as a vital counterbalance to authoritarian powers like China and a key player in maintaining regional and global stability.

“All those that believe in liberty and freedom are looking in awe at India,” the report says. “India is the major obstacle to China’s expansionist ambitions in Asia. It is the only country that has openly defied Beijing’s hegemony.”

Mahjar-Barducci argues that India’s rise is not just military or economic, but deeply ideological. It is emerging as the voice of democratic resistance in a time of global uncertainty.

“India is now a beacon of hope, projecting its power and determination. It is becoming the leader of the democratic world that is ready to fight for its values,” she writes.

The MEMRI report positions India not merely as a regional power, but as a central pillar of a reshaping world order. Operation Sindoor may have been a military operation, but its ripple effects have traveled far beyond the battlefield—into diplomacy, economics, and the very discourse of global power.

As the report ends on a nationalistic note—“Bharat Mata ki Jai” (Victory to Mother India)—it is clear that India’s moment on the world stage has arrived. What remains to be seen is how the world, particularly the West and China, will recalibrate their strategies in response to this rising giant.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine.

In a rare public commentary from a senior U.S. military scholar, John Spencer—executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute and coauthor of Understanding Urban Warfare—has described India’s four-day military campaign, Operation Sindoor, as “a decisive victory in modern warfare.” Writing on Wednesday, Spencer called the operation “a model of limited war with clearly defined ends,” asserting that it could redefine how nations respond to state-sponsored terrorism in the nuclear age.

Operation Sindoor was launched by India on May 7, 2025, in response to a deadly terror attack in the tourist town of Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22. The massacre, which killed 26 Indian civilians, mostly Hindu pilgrims, was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a group widely recognized as a proxy of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and backed by Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Unlike previous Indian responses, this time there was no diplomatic wait-and-see. India struck back with calibrated military action, marking a major departure from its historically cautious approach.

“This was not merely a symbolic gesture,” Spencer wrote. “It was decisive power, clearly applied.”

A New Doctrine Revealed

What makes Operation Sindoor unique, Spencer argued, is the strategic doctrine that underpinned it. While India has not formally declared the operation over, military activity has halted in what officials are calling a “stoppage of firing”—a careful semantic choice that avoids the term “ceasefire” and underscores India’s desire to retain initiative and control.

“The halt in operations is not the end,” Spencer emphasized. “It is a pause. India holds the initiative. If provoked again, it will strike again.”

According to Spencer’s analysis, India achieved four major strategic objectives:

Destroying Terror Infrastructure: Precision strikes targeted key terrorist hubs in Bahawalpur, Muzaffarabad, and Muridke—well beyond the Line of Control.

Demonstrating Military Superiority: India’s ability to launch and defend against retaliatory strikes—including a massive Pakistani drone swarm—highlighted the growing prowess of its domestically developed and internationally supported air defense systems.

Restoring Deterrence: By responding forcefully yet limiting escalation, India signaled to both adversaries and the international community that terror attacks would no longer go unanswered.

Asserting Strategic Independence: India acted without seeking Western mediation or U.N. intervention, a move that signaled its readiness to set and enforce its own red lines.

Four Days That Changed the Region

The timeline of Operation Sindoor was rapid and deliberate:

• May 7: Indian Air Force conducted nine high-precision strikes deep inside Pakistani territory.
• May 8: Pakistan retaliated with a massive swarm drone attack, largely intercepted by Indian air defenses.
• May 9: India escalated with attacks on six Pakistani military airbases and UAV coordination hubs.
• May 10: India declared a halt in operations, maintaining the ability to resume at any moment.

This sequence, Spencer notes, was textbook execution of limited warfare—a campaign designed to achieve political and strategic goals without sliding into open-ended conflict.

“This wasn’t just tactical success,” he wrote. “It was doctrinal execution under live fire.”

Modi Doctrine: “No More Nuclear Blackmail”

The boldness of India’s response also lay in its public messaging. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements during the operation signaled a sharp turn from the past.

“India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail,” Modi declared. “India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail.”

Spencer interprets this as India laying down a new strategic doctrine—one that separates nuclear deterrence from proxy terrorism, and no longer allows the threat of nuclear escalation to paralyze its counter-terror responses.

Critics of the operation—both domestic and foreign—have raised concerns about potential escalation or destabilization. However, Spencer counters that these critiques overlook the deliberate restraint India displayed.

“India retaliated forcefully but stopped short of full war,” he wrote. “That’s not recklessness—that’s control. It’s the foundation of modern deterrence.”

A Model for Limited War?

Spencer’s praise is significant not just for its content but for its source. As a leading expert on urban warfare and military doctrine, his words will likely be studied in military academies worldwide.

“In an era defined by ‘forever wars’ and cycles of violence without strategic direction, Sindoor stands apart,” Spencer wrote. “It offers a model of limited war with clearly defined ends, matched ways and means, and a state that never relinquished the initiative.”

This could have broader implications for global counter-terrorism strategy. If the international community accepts India’s precedent—that terror attacks emanating from a neighboring state will be treated as acts of war—it could signal a seismic shift in the rules of engagement for statecraft under the nuclear umbrella.

The Next Phase

What happens next remains uncertain. India has not demobilized its forces and retains a high alert status across its western front. Pakistan’s public response has been muted, likely due to the scale of its internal damage and lack of international support. Both countries have avoided crossing nuclear red lines, but the threat of further conflict remains.

Spencer ends his essay with a stark warning—and a call to attention for other democracies facing state-sponsored terrorism:

“India didn’t just respond to an attack. It changed the strategic equation.”

Operation Sindoor, he argues, will not just shape India’s national security policy—it may well influence global strategic thinking about limited war, deterrence, and the role of conventional force in a nuclear world.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine. And for Pakistan, it’s a reminder that the old playbook may no longer offer protection.

This is not just India’s victory, Spencer concludes. “This is deterrence restored. This is a doctrine revealed. And it should be studied by all nations confronting the scourge of state-sponsored terrorism.”