A Perilous Rant: Pakistani Senator Palwasha Khan’s Speech is an Unashamed Support for War and Terrorism

In a world where peace has never been more tenuous and diplomacy a rarer commodity, Pakistani Senator Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan’s incendiary April 29 speech to Pakistan’s Upper House was tantamount to a call to war. Released on the heels of the horrific Pahalgam terror attack, which murdered 26 civilians in Jammu and Kashmir, her statement was not merely tone-deaf—it was outrageously inciting, immensely irresponsible, and a gruesome valorization of terror. This is not rhetoric; this is state incitement.

Her remarks, veiled in religious fanaticism and nationalist braggadocio, don’t only break diplomatic protocols; they jeopardize regional peace outright. By invoking the Babri mosque, a topic ingrained in the internal history of India, Khan has effectively staked Pakistan’s military claim to sovereign Indian land. Her declaration that “the foundation brick of the new Babri mosque in Ayodhya will be laid by Pakistan Army troops, and the first azaan will be announced by Army Chief Asim Munir” is not only an attack on India’s national pride but also on the concept of peaceful coexistence in South Asia.

The basic question here is this: what moral, historical, or legal right does Pakistan have to make such a statement about Indian land? Pakistan was created from British India in 1947. It was given its own land, its own government, its own ideological state—apparently for Muslims who desired an independent homeland. If that reasoning is to hold, then on what perverse principle does Palwasha Khan now claim that Pakistan has business to complete in India?

Pakistan received what it insisted on in 1947. But it keeps instigating communal disturbances in India by directly and indirectly assisting terror groups. This India fixation is not strategic; it’s pathological. Senator Khan’s words smell of the same attitude that brought about partition—a refusal to live together, a propensity to resolve conflicts by force, and a dangerous synthesis of religion with militarism.

Her speech follows days after the Pahalgam massacre—a cold-blooded act of terror in which 26 innocent Indian civilians were killed. For a sitting senator to give a speech that implicitly rationalizes such violence is not only shameful but approaches criminal complicity. This is not political speech; this is the encouragement of terrorism masquerading as nationalism and religious identity.

Her statements that “the symbol of their power, the Red Fort of Delhi, will witness bloodshed” are not hyperbole—these are a call to violence, an act of genocide. It’s nothing less than terrorism being made mainstream in Pakistan’s parliamentary corridors. If this is the PPP’s ideological line, then it must be taken to task internationally.

Khan’s reference to Hugo Chávez and her weird comment on suspending bodies from trees are not only tacky—they are threats against the principles of international humanitarian law. A country that claims to wage war for peace cannot have such bile vomited within its most representative legislative forums.

She also tries to play on religious identities in the Indian military by implying that Sikh troops will not fight against Pakistan, since it is “the land of Guru Nanak.” That’s not only polarizing—it’s ignorant. The Indian Army is a secular organization where troops serve with national pride regardless of religion. The notion that Pakistan can play on religious identity to break India’s military is a delusional threat.

Khan’s admiration for Gurpatwant Singh Pannu—a self-declared Khalistani extremist and separatist—is a new low. Pakistan’s patronage of Khalistani activism has been an open secret across the decades, and this praise is yet another indication that portions of the Pakistani state are actively engaged in destabilizing India by reviving separatist feelings.

By encouraging a person who regularly incites violence and division in India, Senator Khan has further undermined Pakistan’s hypocrisy on terrorism. On the one hand, it presents itself as a victim of extremism. On the other hand, it extols extremist elements when they are aimed at India.

In one particularly disconcerting moment, Senator Khan asserted, “We are not wearing bangles,” associating femininity with vulnerability—an egregious exercise of misogyny for which she deserves condemnation by right. To correlate violence and masculinity with strength and courage and cast war-mongering in a brave light is reflective of the strongly patriarchal and regressive nature of mind that still drives Pakistan’s politics. The international community, particularly organizations such as the United Nations, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), must sit up and take serious notice of this evolution. When the elected representatives and state actors start glorifying terror, supporting separatists, and using violence against other sovereign countries, it becomes more than a bilateral problem—it turns into a global threat.

The United Nations has appropriately urged restraint between Pakistan and India. But restraint has to be exercised out of a sense of justice, not urged from a victim whose assailant is touted in parliamentary discourse. If Pakistan wants to be seriously considered as a responsible international player, it needs to condemn such irresponsible talk and prosecute those who indulge in hate and terror.

India has, time and again, shown restraint despite grave provocations. But there is a limit to patience. The threats to the Red Fort, to Ayodhya, and to India’s sovereignty will not be forgotten. Senator Palwasha Khan’s speech is not a slip of the tongue—it is a clear expression of a dangerous mindset that romanticizes violence, idolizes extremism, and weaponizes religion.

It is time for Pakistan to decide: does it wish to be a state that is devoted to peace and progress, or would it like to become a nation ruled by warmongers whose dreams of conquest are grounded not in reality, but in delusion and devastation?

India will protect its sovereignty. And the world has to decide now—whoever is for peace, and whoever is for terror?