Latest news with #HarpreetBajwa
New Indian Express
08-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
‘Don't confront, consult with state governments'
Punjab Governor and Chandigarh Administrator Gulab Chand Kataria highlights the rising trend of religious conversions in Punjab as a serious concern that requires urgent attention. In a conversation with Harpreet Bajwa, he stresses the importance of constitutional harmony and advocates for dialogue over confrontation between constitutional authorities. Excerpts: The Supreme Court has recently outlined the powers and timeline for governors to decide on bills passed by state legislatures. Your take on this? The Constitution clearly states that if the governor finds a bill passed by the legislature inappropriate, they may return it for reconsideration. However, if the legislature passes the bill again, the governor is constitutionally bound to give assent, unless there is a clear legal issue. In such cases, the governor can refer the matter to higher authorities. Sometimes, when there is a conflict between the interests of the State and the Centre, it may take time to seek legal opinion. In such situations, consultations with state-level legal experts and discussions with the Union government may be necessary, which can cause delays. Such confrontational scenarios are rare and do not arise ideally. Everyone, including the governor, must act by the Constitution. Also, legal provisions allow for the bill to be referred to the President if necessary.
New Indian Express
20-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Any escalation will be the end of Pakistan as nuke bluff called out: Former Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba
Former Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba, who was also the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, tells Harpreet Bajwa that the nuclear bluff of Pakistan has been called out and that any nuclear escalation will be end of Pakistan. Excerpts: How do you assess Operation Sindoor's execution? If you look back from 2016 and 2019, the horrific Pahalgam incident of selectively killed Hindu men in front of their family members made it a religious issue. The government of the day had to take action. In my opinion it was the right action. It was executed well by the three services. I am given to understand it was a tri-services operation. The strategic messaging and signalling has changed. Pakistan's escalation following the strikes on their terrorist infrastructure was thwarted. And the ensuing counter-strikes on Pakistan air bases and other infrastructure, in my opinion, was an excellent military operation. You say messaging to Pakistan has changed. How? How long? For 36 years, Pakistan has been using infiltration and terrorism under the garb of nuclear umbrella and they have been saying they are immune to any counter-action. Over the years we have tried joint investigations of incidents, but there has been no way ahead and no cooperation from Pakistan. I am saying strategic messaging has changed because the Prime Minister's address to the nation and his speech at the Adampur air force station clearly laid out new red lines and that it is now just a pause and in case there is any other terrorist incident there will be consequences for Pakistan.
New Indian Express
19-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Operation Sindoor an emphatic message showing both our political will and military capability: Gen VP Malik
CHANDIGARH: General VP Malik, former Army Chief who led India to victory in the 1999 Kargil War, spoke to Harpreet Bajwa of The New Indian Express on Operation Sindoor. He said the use of terrorists has long been an integral part of Pakistan's DNA, ethos, and military doctrine. Regarding its nuclear threats, he added that Pakistan now understands any misadventure could lead to its complete destruction. Excerpts from the conversation: The Indian armed forces successfully executed Operation Sindoor. How do you view it? See, it had become necessary to take action against Pakistan because they have been continuing the proxy war for a long time and they crossed a red line in Pahalgam. I call it a red line — after that, we had to take action. So, we took very strong action, and this time the approach was a whole-of-nation effort. It wasn't just the armed forces; we began with political and diplomatic steps. We initiated action on the Indus Water Treaty, which is both an economic and political tool. Then we launched Operation Sindoor, a kinetic action. We had already taken earlier steps like the surgical strikes in 2016 and Operation Balakot, yet they continued. This time, a much stronger response was necessary to send a clear message. I see Operation Sindoor as very successful — a firm and emphatic message demonstrating both our political will and our military confidence and capability. When you were the Army chief, the Kargil War took place. What is the difference now and then? There was a significant difference at that time—not just politically, but militarily as well. They had come under the garb of jihadis. Initially, they claimed to be jihadis, and it took us some time to realise that they were actually Pakistani army personnel. So, we were reacting to a situation that had already landed in our lap. The conflict took place in high-altitude mountainous terrain, making the operation extremely difficult. We had to operate with shortages of weapons and absolutely no intelligence. The conditions were entirely different in terms of terrain and the equipment we had. What truly stood out in the Kargil War was the courage—shaurya, veerta—the sheer bravery of our Army. Another key point is that during Kargil, we were still cautious. Although we were capable of going across the Line of Control, we were restrained. The Cabinet at that time had imposed a clear condition: do not cross the Line of Control. It was a defensive restriction, not a proactive stance. But this time, politically, the armed forces were given full freedom—and that freedom has been effectively utilised. We must also not forget that today we are much better off as far as our technology is concerned. The capability we have built over the last 25 years is important. What is the difference at the western front then and now? That time we kept it as a limited war and this time also it is a limited war. That time the limited war meant we remained in J&K and we were fighting over a front of 160 kilometres. It was a defensive war, the objective and mandate given to us was throw them out but without crossing the Line of Control. But the mandate given this time was to go and hit all the terrorist camps and their headquarters. The way innocent tourists were selectively massacred in Pahalgam, it appears that it was a complete intelligence failure. What are your comments? This matter needs to be investigated. I am sure some inquires must be going on and it has not been made public. To some extent you can consider it a lack of intelligence. I do not want to point figures at anybody until the inquiry report is out.
