Will Trump use this Pakistani tool as leverage against India?
indiatoday.in -- Monday, August 18, 2025, 12:27:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, Trade Policy & Tariffs, Presidential Campaigns
US President Donald Trump hosted Pakistan Army Chief Munir in June amid Islamabad's tensions with New Delhi and his trade war. (File Image)
There is hardly any lever that the Trump White House is incapable of pulling. That's why the US' labelling of two Baloch outfits as foreign terrorist organisations and the recent bonhomie with Pakistan begs a question. Will the Trump administration try its hand at mudslinging at India on the Baloch issue? That the mud won't stick is a given, but even an attempt might have consequences, as was revealed in the Trudeau chapter.
The question, though in the "realm of speculation", as an expert put it, isn't without a background.
Pakistan has been running a smear campaign against India, without a shred of evidence, alleging that New Delhi finances the Baloch rebels. The US State Department's proscribing the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and the Majeed Brigade gives Pakistan the opportunity to bolster the narrative. It has already jumped onto it.
In the case of the US, it has shown that eagerness with the arrest of an Indian-origin person, Nikhil Gupta, and by charging a former Indian government employee, Vikash Yadav, in an alleged plot to assassinate Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun.
It was the US that gave Justin Trudeau, then Prime Minister of Canada, whatever little intel on the murder of another Khalistani, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, making him jump to accuse the government of India of involvement. Though Trudeau admitted he had no evidence, he ended up dragging down Indo-Canada ties to rock bottom.
What such mud-slinging can result in is apparent from the tattered bilateral ties. Months after Trudeau's exit by the backdoor, India and Canada are still on the repair job.
With Donald Trump as the President, America's foreign policy and ties with its partners are as unpredictable as Shillong's weather -- sudden rain on a sunny day, and then back to bright skies. Will Trump, who has resorted to extreme punitive tariffs on India, use the BLA-Majeed Brigade lever?
"Islamabad has had a history of attempting to accuse New Delhi of backing the Baloch without any evidence to support it. Given the warming ties between the US and Pakistan, the prospect of the terror labelling of these Baloch outfits being used as leverage against India cannot be ruled out," defence and strategic expert Sandeep Unnithan tells India Today Digital.
National security expert Tara Kartha says the recent US move "won't have a direct bearing on India", but adds a rider -- Trump's unpredictability.
"You can't rule out anything with Trump. I doubt if he would directly and randomly attack India. There are bureaucrats and veteran officers still in charge. While Trump is capable of anything, the administration is not," says Kartha.
Strategic expert and author Sushant Sareen doesn't believe the US, as of now, has any plans to target any India-linked individual or entity with the terror tag on the BLA and the Majeed Brigade.
He sees it more as DC's balancing act and "hyphenation" of the Baloch entities with the Lashkar-e-Taiba and The Resistance Front.
Balochistan is Pakistan's most resource-rich province. While the Punjab power centre exploited its resources for decades, it ignored its people. The Baloch have been fighting for their rights and independence since Pakistan's birth.
Pakistan, whose biggest exports have been terrorists and donkeys, has its bucket of shame full. That is why it has tried to project the fight for self-determination by the Balochis as an insurgency that is backed by India.
India has always maintained that it has no role to play in the rebellion in Balochistan, but in 2009, a duplicitous Pakistan managed to get PM Manmohan Singh to sign a statement in Sharm El-Sheikh with the mention of terrorism and Balochistan.
It has since then used the Sharm El-Sheikh joint statement to claim India's "admission" to its "role" in the restive province.
Tara Kartha, who was associated with the National Security Council Secretariat for 17 years, says that Pakistan would try to use this labelling of the BLA and the Majid Brigade by the US to bolster its false narrative of India promoting insurgency in Balochistan.
"This move by the US is an indication of Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir being received well in the White House. Munir has been coordinating with Centcom commanders, and this is a thank-you gift," says Kartha.
The BLA was labelled a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) in 2019.
In the latest move, the State Department designated the BLA and the Majeed Brigade as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO), and added the Majeed Brigade as an alias to BLA's previous SDGT designation.
This FTO designation of the Baloch outfits criminalises any material support, logistical, financial, or otherwise, to the group within US jurisdiction. It authorises the freezing of assets in the US of any individual found to be funding the BLA or the Majeed Brigade.
Can any Indian entity or individual be targeted with this FTO designation?
"In a way, this US move can be seen as a hyphenation -- the TRF, a proxy of LeT, was banned some weeks ago, and now the Majeed Brigade, a proxy of BLA, has been listed," says Sareen, a Senior Fellow with the Observer Research Foundation (ORF).
"The sanctions on the BLA and Majeed Brigade are US sanctions and applicable to the US in the main. I don't think as of now the Americans are going to target any Indian-linked individual or entity for any links with BLA," he says, adding that the sanctions won't stop the activities of the Baloch outfits.
Pakistan has lost no time in using the BLA and MB terror tags to target India.
Pakistan's Minister of State for Interior Talal Chaudhry called the ban on "Indian-sponsored terrorist organisations" and its sub-groups a "victory for Pakistan".
"The ban [was] imposed on the BLA and other terrorist organisations on the basis of the evidence provided regarding the Kulbhushan Jadhav and Jaffar Express terrorist attack," said Chaudhry, according to Samaa TV.
Jadhav was a retired Indian Navy officer who was kidnapped in Iran and brought to Pakistan. He has been framed on false espionage charges.
Baloch rebels hijacked the Jaffar Express attack in March and held around 380 passengers hostage for two days. The stalemate ended with the death of 18 Pakistani soldiers and 33 BLA rebels.
Talal's speaking of Jadhav and the Jaffar Express attack in the same breath exposes Pakistan's nefarious designs to link India to the Baloch insurgency.
"The most important dividend to Pakistan would be Indian discomfiture being a BLA financier and supporter. Pakistan can now garner better international support besides framing India as a terrorist abetter," wrote Raashid Wali Janjua, of the think tank Islamabad Policy Research Institute, on X.
The US, which has got an Indian-origin person extradited and arrested in the Pannun case and supplied dirt to Canada in the Nijjar cases, might get a new handle with the Baloch ban. Trump's recent bonhomie with Munir and trade war with India makes mud-slinging a possibility.
A defence expert, requesting anonymity, told India Today Digital that the new terror branding of the Baloch groups seems to be part of a wishlist to Trump by Munir for cooperating on the Iran front.
"Though things are in the realm of speculation, we all know where things are headed," the expert said.
Though most experts do not think that the US would use the Baloch ban against India, they also agree on the unpredictability of the Trump White House. Any mud thrown on India won't stick, but the idea itself is uncomfortable.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent article discussing the potential use of Pakistan as a geopolitical tool by the Trump administration reflects a complex interplay of international relations rooted in historical grievances, national identities, and the ongoing struggles for autonomy and justice in South Asia. The mention of the U.S. State Department's designation of two Baloch outfits as foreign terrorist organizations cannot be viewed in isolation; it is emblematic of a broader narrative that often overlooks the legitimate aspirations of marginalized groups. The Baloch people, who have long faced suppression and violence from both Pakistani state forces and external geopolitical dynamics, represent a critical case study for understanding the implications of foreign intervention in regional conflicts.
Historically, the Balochistan region has been a flashpoint of contention, with its rich resources and strategic location making it a target for both domestic and international interests. The Baloch nationalist movement has sought autonomy from Pakistan, advocating for the rights of a population that has often been neglected and exploited. The article hints at a potential narrative manipulation by Pakistan, alleging that India supports Baloch rebels, yet it is crucial to recognize that such claims are part of a broader strategy to delegitimize the Baloch struggle. This manipulation reflects a historical pattern where state actors, fearful of losing control, resort to scapegoating external forces rather than addressing internal grievances—an approach that has significant implications for international relations and social justice.
The article's reference to the Trudeau administration's handling of the Khalistani issue highlights a troubling trend in international diplomacy where allegations, often unsubstantiated, can have severe ramifications for bilateral relations. The Canadian Prime Minister’s accusations against India regarding the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar exemplify how political leaders can wield accusations as tools of domestic politics, often at the expense of deeper, more meaningful dialogues about human rights and justice. The lesson here is not merely about the fragility of international relations but about the ways in which marginalized communities, like the Baloch and Khalistani Sikhs, are used as pawns in larger geopolitical contests, further complicating their struggles for recognition and autonomy.
In the context of the Trump administration's erratic foreign policy, the potential for using the Baloch issue as leverage against India raises significant ethical questions. The unpredictability of Trump’s approach, as noted by defense and strategic experts in the article, underscores the dangers of prioritizing political expediency over humanitarian considerations. The U.S. has, at various points, been both a supporter and a critic of self-determination movements around the world, often choosing sides based on strategic interests rather than moral imperatives. This selective engagement with human rights issues not only undermines the credibility of U.S. foreign policy but also detracts from the genuine struggles faced by communities seeking justice and autonomy.
Ultimately, the discourse surrounding the Baloch issue is not just about geopolitical maneuvering; it is about the recognition of the rights of oppressed peoples and the necessity of supporting movements for autonomy and justice. For those engaged in political discussions, especially with opponents who may downplay the significance of such struggles, it is vital to frame these conversations within the broader context of historical injustices and the ongoing quest for social justice. By elucidating the complexities of these issues and challenging reductionist narratives, we can advocate for a more equitable international order that respects the rights of all peoples, particularly those who have been historically marginalized.
The recent geopolitical maneuvering involving the United States, Pakistan, and India is a stark reminder of the intricate web of international relations that often finds itself entangled in historical grievances and political opportunism. The article highlights the complexities surrounding the Trump administration's dealings with Pakistan amid escalating tensions with India, particularly concerning the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and its implications for regional stability. This situation is deeply rooted in historical contexts, where the narratives of nationalism, territorial integrity, and foreign intervention converge, raising critical questions about the role of the United States as a global actor.
Historically, the Balochistan issue has been a long-standing point of contention between Pakistan and India, with both nations leveraging it to suit their national narratives. Pakistan has often accused India of supporting insurgencies in Balochistan, while India vehemently denies such claims, arguing that the Pakistani government has its own internal issues that it seeks to deflect by pointing fingers at New Delhi. The U.S. involvement, especially under the Trump administration, signals a shift towards a more transactional approach in foreign policy, where alliances are formed and broken based on immediate strategic benefits rather than long-term stability or ethical considerations. This unpredictability could potentially escalate regional tensions and create further instability.
As American citizens, it is imperative to engage with these developments critically and advocate for a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy, conflict resolution, and respect for human rights. The historical precedent shows that U.S. interventions often lead to unintended consequences, such as destabilization and humanitarian crises. By promoting a narrative that values peace and mutual respect, we can counter the rising tide of aggression and nationalism. Furthermore, grassroots movements and community organizations can play a pivotal role in educating the public about international relations, emphasizing the importance of informed citizenry in shaping foreign policy.
Engaging with right-wing perspectives on this issue requires a nuanced approach. It is essential to highlight the potential repercussions of a foreign policy that relies on military and economic leverage rather than diplomatic engagement. The situation with the BLA and the implications of U.S. labeling certain groups as terrorist organizations must be framed within the broader context of national sovereignty and the right to self-determination. By presenting the argument that supporting one side over another may not only compromise U.S. values but also lead to further destabilization in regions already fraught with tension, we can foster a more constructive dialogue.
Moreover, advocating for a shift in foreign policy paradigms can be achieved through civic engagement, such as contacting elected representatives, participating in local forums, and supporting organizations that promote peaceful conflict resolution. It is crucial to demand transparency in how foreign aid and military support are allocated, ensuring that they do not exacerbate existing conflicts but rather contribute to sustainable peace. By mobilizing as informed citizens, we can challenge the prevailing narratives that justify aggressive foreign policy maneuvers and work towards a more equitable and just international order.
In conclusion, the current dynamics between the U.S., Pakistan, and India present an opportunity for reflection and action. By understanding the historical contexts and advocating for a foreign policy grounded in diplomacy and human rights, we can contribute to a more stable and peaceful world. Engaging with right-wing perspectives requires a careful balance of assertiveness and empathy, promoting the idea that true security stems from cooperation rather than conflict. As Americans, we hold the power to influence our country’s trajectory on the global stage, fostering a narrative that prioritizes peace, respect, and mutual understanding.
In light of the complexities presented in the article regarding geopolitical tensions between the U.S., Pakistan, and India, it is crucial to consider how we, as individuals, can engage and advocate for a more constructive and transparent approach to foreign policy. Here’s a detailed list of actions we can personally take to address these issues:
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Ourselves and Others:** - Stay informed about the geopolitical landscape, focusing on the relationships between the U.S., Pakistan, and India. - Share articles, research, and credible sources with friends and family to raise awareness about these issues.
2. **Support Diplomatic Solutions:** - Advocate for diplomatic engagement over punitive measures in international relations. Highlight the importance of dialogue in resolving conflicts.
3. **Engage with Local Representatives:** - Contact local and national representatives to express concerns about U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding arms sales, military aid, and trade agreements that may exacerbate tensions.
### Exact Actions We Can Personally Take
1. **Sign Petitions:** - **Petition for Peaceful Diplomatic Engagement:** - Find or create petitions advocating for peaceful resolutions to tensions between India, Pakistan, and the U.S. Websites like Change.org and MoveOn.org are great platforms to start or sign relevant petitions. - Example petition: "Support Diplomatic Solutions to U.S.-India-Pakistan Relations" (Search for similar petitions or create one).
2. **Write to Elected Officials:** - **Contact your Congressman/Congresswoman:** - Find your representative's contact details through [House.gov](https://www.house.gov/) or [Senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov/). - Example: - **Name:** [Your Representative’s Name] - **Email:** [Representative's Email Address] - **USPS Address:** [Representative’s Office Address] - **What to Say:** - “Dear [Representative’s Name], I am writing to express my concern about the current trajectory of U.S. foreign policy towards India and Pakistan. I urge you to advocate for diplomatic solutions that prioritize dialogue and cooperation rather than punitive measures that could escalate tensions. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.”
3. **Participate in Advocacy Groups:** - Join organizations that focus on peace-building and conflict resolution, such as: - **The United States Institute of Peace** (USIP): [USIP.org](https://www.usip.org/) - **Amnesty International**: [Amnesty.org](https://www.amnesty.org/) - Attend local meetings, workshops, or events focused on international relations and peace advocacy.
4. **Social Media Engagement:** - Use platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to raise awareness about the importance of diplomatic relations and to call for transparency in U.S. dealings with Pakistan and India. - Example Tweet: “It’s crucial that the U.S. prioritizes diplomacy over conflict in South Asia. Let’s advocate for peaceful resolution in the India-Pakistan relationship! #PeaceNotWar”
5. **Contact Media Outlets:** - Write letters to the editor of local newspapers expressing your views on U.S. foreign policy and its implications for international relations. - Find your local newspaper’s submission guidelines on their website.
### Conclusion
By taking these steps, we can contribute to a broader movement advocating for peace and diplomacy in international relations. Engaging with our political representatives, supporting petitions, and raising awareness through education and advocacy are crucial ways to influence policy and promote a more stable and peaceful geopolitical landscape. Together, our voices can foster a commitment to dialogue and understanding over conflict.