India's new policy of resolve a strong deterrent: Former diplomat Syed Akbaruddin in Egypt
Cairo [Egypt], June 4 (ANI): India's former permanent representative to the UN, Syed Akbaruddin, highlighted the success of the all-party delegation's visit to four nations, aimed at engaging with civil society across diverse countries to strengthen India's fight against terrorism.
Speaking at the conclusion of the visit, Akbaruddin said, 'The multi-party delegation's goals were to reach out to the civil society in diverse countries. Having people from different parties in the delegation has had an impact because everybody is surprised that such a diverse country with so many differences, the people are united in countering terror...This has expanded the base of Indian diplomacy. As a country, we have come up with new terms of engagement in terms of trying to counter terrorism...Our policy of restraint is now being superseded, and we have a policy of resolve, and that is an effective deterrent. This is what we have noticed where we have engaged with people....Building of narratives is a long-term process of building and seeping into the minds of people. Such visits add to the soft power of India...'
He added that these diplomatic efforts form part of a broader strategy to enhance India's international engagement and counter-terrorism diplomacy.
The delegation's visit underscores India's commitment to counter terrorism through dialogue and cooperation with global stakeholders.
Comprising MPs from across parties, the delegation interacted with top leaders, think tanks, and opinion-makers in each country, highlighting India's unified stand against terrorism and calling for global cooperation to tackle the threat.
On Tuesday, the delegation led by Supriya Sule met Egypt's Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty in the New Administrative Capital. Abdelatty condemned the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam that claimed 26 civilian lives, stating such attacks cannot be tolerated.
Labeling the India-Egypt relationship as 'historic,' Abdelatty said, 'It was a great pleasure to receive the Parliamentary delegation from India...our relationship is historic. But, we need to further enhance our trade investment and economic relationship to match the excellent political relationship between the two countries and their leaders...our position is very clear: we condemn, in the harshest words, the terrorist attack in Kashmir. We cannot tolerate any attacks on civilians.'
The delegation, led by Supriya Sule, included Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Vikramjeet Singh Sahney, Manish Tewari, Anurag Singh Thakur, Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu, Anand Sharma, former Minister of Commerce & Industry, V Muraleedharan, Former Minister of State for External Affairs, and Syed Akbaruddin, Former Permanent Representative of India to the UN.
The delegation aimed to brief international partners on India's response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack and its broader fight against cross-border terrorism while engaging with leaders in key countries. (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Tripura CM slams Congress for Emergency, calls it ‘black chapter'
Agartala: Tripura chief minister Manik Saha on Monday criticised Congress for imposing Emergency in 1975, calling it a "direct attack" on the Constitution and democracy. Addressing a mock parliament of the party, he said the Emergency period (1975–77) was a "black chapter" in Indian history. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "We have forgotten many things, especially the days of sorrow. But one cannot live without remembering such dark times," he added. Recalling the sequence of events that led to the declaration of Emergency, Saha said, "In 1971, Indira Gandhi contested from Rae Bareli in Uttar Pradesh and won. Her nearest rival, Raj Narain, challenged the result in the Allahabad High Court, alleging misuse of govt machinery and the appointment of a gazetted officer as her election agent. On June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha declared her election null and void. " He added although Indira Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court, Justice Krishna Iyer allowed her to continue as Prime Minister but barred her from voting or holding any official position. "Subsequently, Indira Gandhi consulted Siddhartha Shankar Ray, the then chief minister of West Bengal and a renowned barrister. Pressure was mounted on President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, and finally, Emergency was declared in 1975," Saha said. He said the objective behind organising the mock parliament was to educate the younger generation about the Emergency and its consequences. "They must know how democracy was throttled. It's their responsibility to spread this awareness further," he added. Saha also recalled the situation in Tripura during the Emergency. "The then chief minister Sukhamoy Sengupta misused the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) to arrest many people, including journalists. Homes were vandalised, dissenters jailed, and press freedom crushed," he said. Drawing a contrast with the present, he said, "Today, we are witnessing what real development means. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, efforts are being made to uphold and protect the Constitution."
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Do the deal
Trade deal is in farmers' interest. Boost to manufacturing will create factory jobs, reduce pressure on farming India has eight more days to close a trade deal with Trump. A delay would be costly because US is India's largest trading partner, absorbing 18% of goods exports. Without a deal, the tariff on those goods will jump from 10% to 26%, making them costlier. US also needs a deal to crack the Indian market, and right its balance of trade. It produces mountains of soy, wheat, corn and apples that China doesn't want anymore. So, the interest is mutual. Last week, Trump hinted a deal was imminent: 'We have one coming up, maybe with India. Very big one.' FM Sitharaman responded: 'Yes, we would love to have an agreement, a big, good, beautiful one; why not?' But there are sticking points. India has 650mn people in farming – almost twice America's population – to worry about. Most of them are poor, accounting for just 18% of GDP. Easing tariffs on agriculture and dairy would hit them hard. The US demand for access to GM crops is reportedly another red line for India. Reports indicate GOI is keen to not cede ground on the question of farm tariffs. But not having a deal may be costlier long-term. For one, 10% tariff is better than 26% when you are competing against the Chinese, who are tariffed at 30% by US. A trade deal would also make India competitive vis-à-vis other low-cost producers like Vietnam and Bangladesh. It would spur foreign investment in Indian manufacturing. But the benefits go beyond economics. Given Trump's autocratic style, an overly rigid Indian stance would affect US-India engagement in areas like defence. That's why other countries have been quick to make concessions. Canada, for example, dropped its digital services tax on Sunday, after Trump made it a pretext for cancelling trade talks. India has played its cards well so far. Budget 2025 made concessions for US automobile and other imports to soften Trump before he announced tariffs. Modi had a fruitful meeting with him in Feb. Both sides are keen to boost bilateral trade to $500bn by 2030. The momentum must not be squandered. Marginal farmers need protection, but their interests might be better served with a post-deal manufacturing boom that creates factory jobs. The alternative – fewer factory jobs, sans a deal – will only increase the pressure on farming. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Maha malady
Times of India's Edit Page team comprises senior journalists with wide-ranging interests who debate and opine on the news and issues of the day. Fadnavis or Thackerays, the language drama does little to actually help the state's students Indian children would be awash in prosperity if everything done in education's name was actually about it. Maharashtra is the latest to show that, instead, such decision-making is driven by cynical politics. First the Fadnavis govt made Hindi mandatory as the third language from Class 1 to 5, then made it optional, next estranged cousins Raj and Uddhav Thackeray came together in protest, finally govt withdrew the orders, and formed a committee. Fadnavis's game to play footsoldier to the Centre and the Thackerays' to raise fading political capital, were both patently obvious, neither doing diddly squat for students. Aser 2024 (rural) reports that only 37% of children in Class 3 can read Class 2 Marathi text, moving up a meagre 3 percentage points over the last decade. Have you heard anything from the Marathi-defending political warriors about how to improve this? As for netas who are pumped up about the teaching of a third language, do you ever hear them engage with how teaching resources that fail to impart current reading goals, will deliver significantly expanded KRAs? Of course not. Macaulay is regularly flogged for feeding an inferiority complex in India. Today's language wars are inflicting greater damage on modern India. They are forcing a pauperly lens on what we have inherited in abundance. The idea that the survival of one Indian language hangs on injury to another, is translating into actual violence. It hurts migrants, it hurts national wellness. Villainising English, now a core Indian strength, does the same. There's a bizarre thought process that China's decades of double-digit growth can be copied by copying its language chauvinism. This is terribly self-harmful. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
