In a move that has raised eyebrows across diplomatic circles, Pakistan has recommended US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. For many, especially in India, this gesture doesn’t just appear absurd — it looks like yet another attempts by Pakistan’s ruling elite trying to curry favor with a former benefactor in hopes of reviving a past alliance.
But this act is not just symbolic. It reflects a deeper, decades-long pattern of dependence, where Islamabad has repeatedly aligned itself with Washington — not out of shared values or common goals, but out of sheer necessity and desperation for aid, weapons, and international legitimacy.
US–Pakistan Relationship: A History of Dependence
Pakistan’s relationship with the United States has long been transactional. Since the 1950s, it has served as a frontline state for American interests, first during the Cold War and later in the so-called War on Terror. In return, Pakistan has received billions of dollars in military and economic aid — money that often went toward building its military apparatus and intelligence network, not uplifting its people or strengthening democratic institutions.
During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, Pakistan allowed the CIA to use its territory to arm and train Afghan Mujahideen fighters. These fighters, supported under the banner of “holy war,” later gave rise to the Taliban and al-Qaeda — militant groups that would go on to destabilize the region for decades.
After 9/11, the cycle repeated. Pakistan positioned itself as a key ally in the U.S.-led War on Terror, receiving over $33 billion in aid between 2002 and 2018. Yet, even as it cooperated publicly, it quietly sheltered key figures like Osama bin Laden, who was found living just miles from a Pakistani military base in 2011. Despite this duplicity, Washington kept the money flowing — unwilling to lose what it saw as a strategically located partner.
India’s Perspective: A Tale of Contrasts
From India’s point of view, this episode only highlights the stark difference in how both nations approach foreign policy. India has pursued a path of strategic autonomy — engaging with global powers like the U.S., Russia, and the EU, but always on its own terms. It values mutual respect, not dependency.
Pakistan, in contrast, seems stuck in a cycle of appeasement. Whenever its economy falters or it faces global scrutiny for terrorism links, it turns to Washington with gestures of loyalty — whether it’s offering logistics, intelligence, or now, a Nobel Peace Prize recommendation.
Pakistan’s Cry for Relevance
With its economy in disarray, international support dwindling, and political instability at home, Pakistan is looking to reposition itself on the global stage. This nomination seems less about honoring Trump and more about sending a signal: “We’re still here. We’re still useful. Don’t forget us.”
But the world is changing. Old alliances based on convenience are giving way to partnerships built on trust and accountability. Islamabad’s performative diplomacy may grab headlines, but it does little to solve its deeper issues — failing governance, radicalization, and economic collapse.
A Habitual Lapdog of Power
Pakistan’s foreign policy has long been marked by opportunism rather than principle. It has played host to jihadists when it suited the U.S., turned a blind eye to terrorism when it served its own regional goals, and now, absurdly, seeks to honor the architect of a failed peace deal.
From India’s perspective, this is not diplomacy. It’s desperation. And the Nobel Peace Prize nomination is not a sign of goodwill — it’s a reminder of just how far Pakistan is willing to go to please a former master.
