Turmoil in Pakistan & its Impact on India

What this session covered

This session examined the political, economic and security disorder in Pakistan and what it might mean for India. The format was a chaired discussion with three panellists — a retired senior police officer, a retired Army officer and a former ambassador — each of whom gave opening remarks before the chair put a series of questions to them in turn. The stated scope was the causes of the turmoil, its likely effects on India and, where time allowed, its wider regional implications.

The opening remarks addressed a set of overlapping pressures: political polarisation ahead of the anticipated elections, a severe fiscal position, the aftermath of flooding, and a worsening internal security picture associated with the TTP. One speaker placed two features of Pakistani society in the background of any assessment — the overarching role of the military and the radicalisation of society over recent decades — and suggested that soldiers were becoming reluctant to fight an adversary framing its demands in religious terms. Another speaker argued that Pakistan's difficulties are systemic rather than personal, that they cannot be resolved by a change of individual leaders, and that treating India as a permanent threat forecloses the reappraisal that would be required; the same speaker did not foresee Pakistan being allowed to fail, given international concern about a nuclear-armed state, while adding that a state can fail despite the best efforts of the international community, a possibility described as remote, and expected pressure for fiscal correction to continue. A distinction was drawn between a functioning informal economy and distressed state finances, with the observation that informal activity cannot by itself put a country on a path of development. Related points raised included the record of civil-military relations, the difficulty Pakistan now faces in dealing with a group it once cultivated, and the argument that what had been taken for strategic depth was now proving a burden.

Asked whether a change of government or a return of the opposition leadership would improve matters, the panellists were uniformly doubtful, though for different reasons. The prospect of refugee flows into India drew differing assessments: one speaker doubted that Pakistanis would seek refuge in India in any circumstances, while another accepted that economic refugees were unlikely but raised the possibility of movement should a Taliban-style administration take hold, and argued for border preparedness on the Indian side. Further discussion covered separatist sentiment in Balochistan and Sindh, conditions in Gilgit-Baltistan and the areas of Jammu and Kashmir under Pakistani control, school textbooks and educational content, and the difficulty of assessing religious change; one speaker cautioned that the vocabulary of radicalisation obscures more than it reveals and called for deeper scholarly work on theological currents in Pakistan and elsewhere in South Asia. On what India should do, one speaker identified ideological influence rather than conventional or terrorist threat as the principal concern and urged continued economic growth alongside a policy of watchfulness and diplomatic isolation. Another speaker expressly differed on the last point, arguing that a nuclear-armed country of that size cannot be isolated, that the emphasis should instead be on keeping a spotlight on terrorism, and that humanitarian channels — on detained fishermen, prisoners and border crossings — should be kept open. The chair closed by noting that Chinese lending and CPEC had not been taken up in the discussion.

Key points raised

• The discussion treated Pakistan's crisis as several simultaneous pressures — political polarisation, state finances, flood damage and internal security — rather than a single failure.
• One speaker argued that the problems are systemic and would not be resolved by any change of individual leadership; the panellists were doubtful that a new government would alter the trajectory.
• The internal threat from the TTP was discussed at length, including the argument that Pakistan now struggles to act against a group it once cultivated.
• Panellists differed on refugee risk: one doubted any flow into India, another accepted that economic refugees were unlikely but raised the possibility of flight from a Taliban-style administration and urged border preparedness.
• On India's response, one speaker prioritised guarding against ideological influence and continued economic growth; another expressly disagreed that Pakistan could be diplomatically isolated and argued for keeping humanitarian channels open.
• One speaker questioned the analytical value of the term radicalisation and called for deeper scholarly study of religious currents in Pakistan and the wider region.