‘Geopolitically uneducated’: Kanwal Sibal hits back after Hina Rabbani Khar’s remarks

A social media exchange between former Pakistani foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar and former Indian foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal has reignited debate over the geopolitical significance of the Indo-Pacific concept following reports that the Donald Trump administration has restored the name of the US Pacific Command.

The discussion began after reports emerged that the US administration had decided to revert to the original Pacific Command designation, reversing a 2018 decision taken during Trump's first term to rename it as the US Indo-Pacific Command.

Reacting to the development on social media platform X, Khar questioned why the reported change had generated concern in some quarters. She argued that a country's relevance and prestige should not be tied to how the United States chooses to name its military commands.

In her post, Khar suggested that nations should derive their importance from their own decisions and actions rather than from external narratives or attempts at strategic framing. She also expressed hope that the region would move beyond what she described as efforts to seek relevance through narrative-building and fears of emerging rivals.

Moneycontrol reported that her comments drew a strong response from Sibal, who described the remarks as reflecting a misunderstanding of the broader geopolitical context behind the Indo-Pacific framework.

According to Sibal, the Indo-Pacific concept is rooted in the strategic linkage between the security of the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean. He argued that the framework emerged in response to China's expanding maritime influence in the western Pacific and concerns among regional powers such as Japan. He added that the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, provides an institutional structure to the concept.

Sibal noted that the decision during Trump's first presidency to rename the US Pacific Command as the US Indo-Pacific Command was intended to send a clear strategic signal about Washington's regional outlook. Any decision to revert to the previous name, he argued, naturally invites scrutiny regarding its geopolitical implications.

He said countries such as China, Japan and Australia would closely examine the strategic thinking behind the move, particularly because Beijing has consistently opposed both the Indo-Pacific framework and the Quad.

Sibal maintained that analysing the significance of such a change was a legitimate exercise in strategic assessment rather than a question of prestige or symbolism. He criticised what he described as superficial commentary on the issue, arguing that military and geopolitical concepts should be understood in the context of regional security dynamics rather than dismissed as matters of perception.

The exchange highlights differing perspectives on the significance of the Indo-Pacific construct, which has become a central element of strategic discourse in the region over the past decade amid shifting power balances and growing competition between major powers.