After four days of war-like tension, the two nuclear neighbors India and Pakistan agreed to stop military operations on May 27, and dialogue between the two armies has also started. However, India has launched 'Operation Kelar' to trace and prosecute terrorists involved in Pahalgam, who are targeting only terrorists.

On April 9, 26 Indians, including a Nepali citizen, were killed in a terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Anantnag district of Jammu and Kashmir, India, to which India's counter-attack was natural.

India strikes terrorist hideouts, caches and terrorist routes. India claims that about 80 terrorists of Lashkar-e-Taiva, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahideen were killed. From the Pakistani side, some Indian citizens were killed when they were attacked from the border. 

India is much stronger in terms of military power and strategic resources than Pakistan. But violence and war will eventually weaken both. Moreover, as India has emerged as one of the powerhouses of the multipolar world with a continuous economic growth of around 6 percent, war naturally damages the economy. Pakistan, caught in economic crisis, is not in a position to sustain a war. Similarly, Pakistan, which has received crisis relief assistance from the International Monetary Fund for 24 times, received one billion dollars more in this May alone. 

In that sense, this step of a break in each other's military operations is welcome in any sense. This proposal to stop military operations was made by Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations with his Indian counterpart. But what is interesting is that US President Donald Trump emerged as the messenger of the ceasefire. Notifying the world through an 'X' that the two countries had agreed to a cease-fire through his mediation, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio then issued a statement agreeing to the agreement, initiated overnight by Vice President JD Vance. That is, they claim that it was successful only because of American mediation. 

India categorically rejected the American mediation and informed that there was an agreement between the two countries and no one had a role in it. Pakistani Prime Minister Sehwaz Sharif expressed his gratitude to President Trump. Why Trump has shown haste to take credit for mediation that India did not ask for has become a subject of separate analysis. But now both New Delhi and Islamabad should jointly identify the terrorists and launch an operation to eliminate them. For that, the Pakistani government and its army should give confidence that they are against terrorists through action. 

While the situation of dialogue is emerging in South Asia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accepted the proposal sent by Russian President Vladimir Putin for a one-month ceasefire. According to that, although there was no meeting between the leaders of the warring parties in Istanbul, Turkey, there was a direct dialogue at the global level, which is positive. Similarly, there is a temporary pause in the 'tariff' war between China and the US. On May 29, the United States is ready to reduce the unnatural tariffs imposed on China, according to which the United States has reduced the 145 percent tariff to 30 percent and China has reduced it from 125 percent to 10 percent. Its conclusion is that the solution is not in war, but in dialogue. After a

i.e. a show of power, a series of murderous violence, a seasonal cultivation of nationalist politics, the rulers reach a point where one would have taken the initiative to put the context of dialogue, dialogue and peace. Many wars are also the product of internal political compulsions.

When the popularity of ultra-nationalist politics comes, there is also a situation where alleged and fake nationalists easily fall under its cover. Right now, as protectionism, strong nation, dominance of hard power including military power, even in the innovators of Machiavellian ideas, a whimsical ruler like Trump has emerged, there will be such chaos and uncertainty. If the goal is to produce results in elections, the process is meaningless. This politics is guided by the strategy of becoming a ruler anyway. These traders are falling into the trap of not being able to transact in the world. 

is the current emerging or re-establishing war and tension trend in the world – 'gunboat diplomacy'. From India-Pakistan's ammunition war to Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine, or any idea of ​​grabbing the territory or taking important minerals from someone who is threatened by a powerful ruler, all the ideas are guided by this 'gunboat diplomacy'.

battleship dialogue 

Basically, it is a part of 'muscle diplomacy' in which strategic, commercial, military interests are addressed by naval power. In the 19th century, especially during the European empire, especially the British colonial period, warships were sent to attack relatively weak maritime nations in order to capture trade, expand geography, and increase political influence.

Countries that are rich in minerals, strategically located, that have important sea lanes, keep warships close to their shores to maintain control over them so that a weaker nation is willing to compromise with a stronger nation rather than risk that tragedy. The East India Company, which entered India to trade, ruled there in the same way.

Its basic character is to keep armed big ships near the sea coast of the targeted country and pressure them to meet their illegitimate demands, if they do not use force and threaten them. It is used to colonize, establish empires, expand geography and control trade routes. In this, naval or military conflict is declared, but before that, the weaker nation is forced to surrender by force. The ultimate goal of the display of military power is to address the interests of the strong over the relatively weak, which is publicized in the name of treaties and agreements. 

This relation of warship diplomacy is similar to the 'Sea Power Theory' of the naval strategist Thayer Mahan in the 1890s. His work entitled 'The Influence of Sea Power on History' contains the essence of warship diplomacy, in the sense that it is now only repeated but expanded. In other words, the idea that the one who seizes the sea route, controls the world power is becoming dominant. This theory of geopolitics gives more importance to access and control of sea than land, air. The current tensions in the world's strategic sea lanes were created by this gunboat diplomacy. The purpose is not to fight a war, but to gain control, but when missiles, fighter jets and submarines become the basis of threats, they cause war. 

'chokepoint' control 

In today's geopolitical scenario, we have already said that the maritime security force has a major importance. But the broad dimensions of modern warship diplomacy now include not only naval power, but also warships, submarines, and sophisticated missile systems. That is, to implement the policy of controlling the resources by threatening force, spreading its terror, and using all the technologies developed in it. The superpower America, its rival China and other powers are currently expanding their influence in strategically important maritime and land routes.

means they are trying to control the 'chokepoint'. It is a narrow waterway or land route, which is of strategic importance and through which large quantities of merchant ships or goods move. As such routes are limited and short, any problems there can have a major impact on the global supply chain. Now these 'chokepoints' have turned into the focal point of world power struggle. 

Let's look at some examples. A proxy war between Iran and America is seen over the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's five major chokepoints. Located between Oman and Iran, it connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian and Indian Oceans, from which about 20 percent of the world's oil is exported. Oil producing countries export to China, Japan, India and other countries. The supply chain itself is affected if this area, which is subject to 'gunboat diplomacy', is disrupted.

Similarly, another important 'chokepoint' is the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia, which connects the Indian and Pacific oceans. About 25 percent of the world's trade, this strategic route is in the center of strategic interests of China, India, America, Japan and other countries. Supposedly, if the conflict with the US escalates and its Asian partners gain control, China is also looking for alternatives. China is anxious to reduce its dependence on it, which it interprets as the 'Malacca dilemma'.

The area where the US is currently conducting airstrikes is the Bab el Mandeb Strait, where Yemeni rebel groups are constantly attacking maritime cargo. This route, connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden between Deboti and Yemen, is important for Europe-Asia oil and cargo traffic. The region has always been unstable due to Yemen war, terrorism and sea piracy. US control of the Panama Canal became an old issue. There are other such land routes. 

President Trump's current policies or the counter policies of Chinese President Xi Jinping are directly related to world control. The marine area has been used the most for that. The influence of China and Iran, who have targeted the US, is over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has repeatedly threatened to shut it down as tensions with the US escalate. The US Navy is permanently deployed to maintain security here. 

Nepal is not directly affected by any power's direct pressure and control over any strategic water or land route. But Nepal is also affected when the disruption caused by tension and terror affects the global supply chain. On the one hand, there is a need for easy access to the sea, on the other hand, there is also a need to demonstrate pragmatism based on comparative strategic advantage in control efforts there. Nepal opposes all kinds of terrorism, the land of Nepal is against any country