In an exclusive chat with Asianet Newsable, ex-Indian envoy Talmiz Ahmad slammed Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s claim that Saudi Arabia would back Islamabad against India, calling it “delusional” and unrelated to New Delhi.
The recent signing of the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan has sparked speculation across the geopolitical landscape, with particular concern in India. The agreement was inked during a state visit by Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to Riyadh at the invitation of Crown Prince and Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.
According to a joint statement issued following the visit, “This agreement, which reflects the shared commitment of both nations to enhance their security and to achieving security and peace in the region and the world, aims to develop aspects of defence cooperation between the two countries and strengthen joint deterrence against any aggression. The agreement states that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both.”
In an exclusive interview with Asianet Newsable English’s Heena Sharma, Ambassador Talmiz Ahmad, a seasoned diplomat with extensive experience in the Gulf, provided a candid analysis of the pact and its regional implications. Having served as India’s envoy to Saudi Arabia twice, as well as Oman and the UAE, Ahmad’s insights are grounded in decades of diplomatic engagement.
Khawaja Asif’s Claim: A Delusional Assertion
The interview began with Ahmad addressing the controversial statement made by Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, who claimed that Saudi Arabia would support Pakistan in the event of a war with India.
Ahmad dismissed the assertion outright:
“Pakistani Defence Minister’s statement is delusional and has no basis in reality. He’s attempting to score cheap points in a scenario where this is not called for… For the Pakistani Minister to say that Saudi Arabia will come rushing to their aid is a complete travesty and has no basis in reality whatsoever.”
Ahmad contextualised the defence pact, noting that it stems from broader regional security concerns in West Asia, particularly after Israel’s attack on Doha.
“The entire regional security order has been overwhelmed by the Israeli attack upon Doha. All six Gulf countries are extremely vulnerable and are looking for various ways in which security can be restored in the region. Pakistan has a very long association with Saudi Arabia in this regard, and therefore it is not unnatural that Saudi Arabia should turn to Pakistan in this environment of distress.”
Crucially, Ahmad emphasised that the agreement has nothing to do with India, highlighting the strength of India-Saudi relations:
“This agreement has absolutely nothing to do with India. India should not be brought into the picture. For the last 25 years, India has built very substantial ties with Saudi Arabia. These are political, economic, and strategic ties, and Pakistan has not been part of the picture.”
He recalled a personal meeting with Prince Saud al-Faisal and former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh, where the Saudi minister reiterated that India-Saudi relations would not be influenced by Pakistan:
“He had then read out a very detailed statement on Saudi Arabia’s position on a very specific issue—the Kashmir issue. Our External Affairs Minister responded: I cannot disagree with a single sentence or phrase in your presentation. This is the basis on which a political relationship was set up between India and Saudi Arabia.”
India’s Ministry of External Affairs had earlier issued a statement noting that the Saudi-Pakistan pact formalises a long-standing arrangement and that its implications for India’s national security and regional stability will be closely examined. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal emphasized:
“We will study the implications of this development for our national security as well as for regional and global stability. The Government remains committed to protecting India’s national interests and ensuring comprehensive national security in all domains.”
The Middle East Security Crisis: Beyond India
Ahmad stressed that the Saudi-Pakistan pact is primarily about regional security, particularly the fallout of Israeli actions:
“The most important development in the region is that Israel has gone rogue. It is a nation that has absolutely no limit whatsoever in terms of the mass murder and genocide that it is carrying out. With the attack upon Doha, Israel also said there is no restraint on its assault on any other target all across West Asia. Israel is seeking to assert that they are a regional hegemon. They have also made it very clear that they attach no importance whatsoever to normalisation of relations with the countries of the Gulf. And finally, they have asserted that United States is in no position to project any constraint on the Israeli assault. So I have described this situation as the collapse of a regional security order.”
He further dismissed speculation linking the pact to nuclear strategy:
“I do not believe in this scenario, any value should be attached to the nuclear factor. Nuclear weapons do not give security to any country whatsoever. Though both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, Pakistan has continued to carry out attacks upon India through cross-border terror. It does not take into account that there is any nuclear weapon in the picture.”
According to Ahmad, the pact reflects Saudi Arabia’s concern about regional instability following Israel’s aggressive moves, rather than any intent to confront India.
“As far as Israel is concerned, it has developed nuclear weapons as a deterrent in order to ensure that there is no coming together of Arab states which would threaten its existence. Those days are now gone. Israel is fully capable of looking after its own defence on the basis of weaponry provided by the Americans and there is no scenario whatsoever where there is going to be an apocalyptic assault upon Israel. Therefore, I think it is a completely misreading of the situation to bring in a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons are not a factor in terms of either deterring attack or in providing security. You have to depend on conventional elements and that is what we are looking at in the scenario at present,” Ahmad added.
The Qatar Attack: Misrepresentation by Israel
Ahmad also weighed in on Israel’s recent attack on Qatar, which it justified as a response to Qatari financial support for Hamas:
“Israel is absolutely indulging in falsehood and misrepresentation. The Hamas office has been in Qatar from 2012 with the full knowledge and approval of the Americans and the full knowledge and approval of Israel. Whatever money that has gone from Qatar to Hamas has gone through Israeli channels with full knowledge of the Israelis.”
He argued that Israel’s actions reflect a shift in regional dynamics, with Gulf countries reassessing their security arrangements.
US Role in the Region: Posturing Without Understanding
Ahmad did not spare Washington from criticism. Addressing the US demand to regain control of Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, he said:
“With deep respect to the American president, I must say reluctantly that he has no knowledge of the region, no knowledge of history or politics. He is an instinctive player. He constantly postures on the national stage to show his own people, many of whom have never read a history or politics book in their life, what a great guy I am. Look at me and say, applaud all of you. He is to my mind, a completely mindless individual who is incapable of any serious conversation on any serious issue that agitates our region. He has been making foolish statements with regard to occupying the Panama Canal, occupying Greenland, also making, these have been statements that have not shown him in a positive light and indeed many of their partners have been alarmed. Many of the policies that have emerged from Washington are part of this completely misdirected rhetoric, which has no basis in reality.”
Ahmad described US involvement as largely performative, arguing that American policies in the Middle East often lack strategic foresight:
“Coming to Bagram, I have no understanding as to why suddenly he is talking about Afghanistan. He has not mentioned Afghanistan at all. He is the architect of the American withdrawal from Afghanistan… and prepared the ground for his successor to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban. Nobody took seriously his remarks about the Panama Canal and Greenland and all that. This is a lot of posturing. This is to show that I count, that I’m important, that my arms can go very far. But look at the completely useless way the United States has managed the whole issue relating to Israel and Gaza. They should have stopped the carnage long ago.”
“If the president wants the Nobel Peace Prize, he should be focusing on bringing peace to West Asia. On the contrary, he has given a free hand to a warmonger and mass murderer. And at the same time, he talks about a Nobel Prize because of one silly thing or the other. None of these has any basis in reality. And you and I should not waste our time on it,” Ahmad added.
Rising Extremism in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: A Source of Concern
The conversation also touched on reports of extremist groups shifting bases to Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa following Operation Sindoor. Ahmad admitted limited knowledge but acknowledged the risk of instability:
“I agree with your broad contention that any movement of these extremist groups from one area to another is a source of instability and will not be welcomed by the people concerned. As it is, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is a very unstable territory. The Taliban government is a very divided house and has not been able to bring full stability to the country. Therefore, I agree this is a source of great concern and insecurity as far as that region is concerned.”