Latest news with #Pakistani-based
Time of India
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
In battle of the delegations, real story lies in what went unsaid
In the aftermath of their recent military clash, rival delegations from Delhi and Islamabad converged on various global capitals, each aiming to shape elite opinion, win sympathy, and control the post-crisis narrative. Having witnessed some of the exchanges in London firsthand, the diplomatic duel across briefing rooms, think tanks, and diaspora events was as revealing for what was unsaid as for what was spoken. Messaging starts with messengers The difference in delegation profiles was notable. India's all-party parliamentary mission carried symbolic weight and cross-party legitimacy, including senior figures like Ravi Shankar Prasad and Pankaj Saran. Pakistan's team leaned more on technocrats and veteran advocates of global engagement, such as Sherry Rehman and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. India's group projected cohesion and resolve; Pakistan's aimed to influence narratives and broaden appeal. India's cautious case India's delegation framed Operation Sindoor as part of a broader shift: limited cross-border retaliation to terrorist acts as policy, not aberration. They emphasized terrorism as a global threat whose response merits international understanding—not moral equivalence. The delegation linked India's counterterrorism struggle to challenges faced by Western democracies, with Pakistan as a common denominator. In my observation, Indian representatives appeared quietly frustrated that while many countries expressed sympathy after Pahalgam and tacitly accepted India's right to act, few explicitly condemned Pakistan. Though confident in their message, their delivery often felt restrained. In think tanks, the tone was formal, even stiff; diaspora engagements were reportedly more fiery. Though most accepted the delegation's basic premise, some observers noted the irony in Delhi resisting calls to frame Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a shared threat but now seeking solidarity on Pakistani-based terrorism. Crucially, the delegation faltered when pressed on domestic radicalization. Two of the Pahalgam suspects were reportedly Indian nationals. Asked how New Delhi planned to prevent disillusionment turning to violence, the only response was that 'things today are better than in the 1990s.' This was a missed chance to demonstrate nuanced understanding of the challenge. Other inconsistencies emerged. India's representatives rejected 're-hyphenation' with Pakistan, yet much of their messaging focused on Islamabad. While stressing the quarrel was with Pakistan's military, not its people, questions about suspending the Indus Waters Treaty complicated that briefings took place inside the High Commission, with diaspora members complaining to me that they thought too much political outreach was aimed at UK politicians of Indian heritage. Playing it safe has a certain logic, but may have limited engagement with new or skeptical audiences. Pak's polished—but problematic—pitch If India played it safe, Pakistan opted for smooth. Their delegation turned up at major think tanks eager to engage and keen to appear misunderstood. With assistance from lobbying professionals, their narrative was tightly crafted for European audiences: Pakistan sought peace through dialogue, emphasising Kashmir as the 'unfinished legacy of Partition,' terrorism, and water. Pakistan said it wanted talks, a neutral investigation into Pahalgam, and accused India of refusing cooperation or prove culpability. This narrative of peace sat uneasily beside claims of military success and personal attacks on Indian leaders. Critique of Indian media spin might have bolstered believability had it not been accompanied by other factual distortions: legal sleight-of-hand over Kashmir, misreadings of UN resolutions, and claims that India admitted culpability for terrorism in most convincing moment came on the Indus Waters Treaty, where the stark picture painted of the consequences struck a chord, even if significant action has yet to follow. A key question remains: what was the objective? If persuasion abroad was the objective, the reliance on longstanding misrepresentations made it a difficult sell to informed audiences. If the goal was domestic signaling, that focus likely came at the expense of deeper foreign engagement. Simpler sell, harder ask Ultimately, the Indian delegation framed all terrorism as emanating from Pakistan; Pakistan framed it as emerging from Kashmir. The narratives didn't just clash—they barely shared the same terms of reference. As performative exercises providing content for domestic media, both probably succeeded on their own terms. In the battle to move international opinion, outcomes were uneven. India may have achieved more, but it also had the easier task — framing terrorism as a universal threat aligns with European security narratives. Pakistan, by contrast, asked outside actors to invest political capital in corralling New Delhi back to the negotiating table — a much harder sell. Yet neither side escaped contradiction. India's claim to strategic clarity was weakened by deflection on domestic aspects of terrorism in Kashmir. Pakistan's message of peace was blunted by triumphalism and tired tropes. In diplomacy, silence often speaks louder than words. In London last week, the most telling signals were what each side omitted, ignored, or performed for the audience they believed mattered most. Ladwig III is a senior lecturer at the department of War Studies, King's College London
India Gazette
11-06-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
India shocked at Pakistan's new UN counter-terrorism role
Rajnath Singh has questioned the Security Council's decision to appoint Islamabad as vice-chair of its anti-terror panel Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh has expressed shock and disappointment over the United Nations Security Council's (UNSC) decision to appoint Pakistan as the vice-chair of its counter-terrorism committee. In a public address on Tuesday, Singh questioned the intentions and policies of international organizations in light of the move. Last week, the UNSC appointed Pakistan as vice-chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee consisting of 15 nations. "Its land has been used as a refuge by global terrorist organizations. There, terrorists like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar roam around openly, and senior officers of Pakistan Army attend the funerals of terrorists," Singh said. "Now, the same country is expected to lead the global community against terrorism. This raises serious questions on the intentions and policies of the international system." India and Pakistan have fought four wars since the countries gained independence from British rule in 1947. Their most recent military standoff began on May 7, when India launched strikes against suspected terror targets in Pakistan-controlled territory. New Delhi said the strikes were conducted in response to a terrorist attack in Pahalgam in India's union territory of Jammu and Kashmir in late April that killed 26 people, mostly tourists. The Resistance Front, believed to be linked to the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility for the attack, but later denied it. Islamabad also denied having any involvement in the Kashmir attack. Pakistan retaliated to India's May 7 strikes, and after intense fighting over the next few days, the two nuclear-armed nations announced a ceasefire on May 10. On Tuesday, India's defense minister also called on the international community to cease funding Pakistan, claiming that the money ultimately supported the infrastructure of terrorism. He advocated for the international community to exert strategic, diplomatic, and economic pressure on Pakistan to compel it to address terrorism. Singh suggested that if Pakistan was unable to take action against terrorism within its own territory, it should consider seeking assistance from India. He said the Indian armed forces possessed the capability to conduct counter-terror operations on both sides of the border.
India Gazette
26-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
"Purpose of visit to convey seriousness of terrorism to French interlocutors": Former Dy NSA Pankaj Saran
Paris [France], May 26 (ANI): Former Deputy National Security Advisor Pankaj Saran, who is part of the all-party delegation to inform nations about Pakistan's links to terrorism, said the visit is aimed to convey to the French interlocutors that 'state sponsorship of terrorism' is dangerous and affects all countries. In an interview with ANI, Saran called it imperative that nations like India and France 'cooperate with each other,' as the India-France relationship rests on some very 'solid fundamentals,' including intelligence sharing to security cooperation, to the fight against terrorism. 'I think the purpose of our visit is to convey to the French interlocutors the seriousness of the problem of terrorism, international terrorism, state sponsorship of terrorism and to remind them that this problem is live, it is dangerous and it affects all countries and it is therefore imperative that countries like India and France, which are multicultural democratic common values have to cooperate with each other and the good thing is that the India-France relationship rests on some very solid fundamentals, including not just culture or trade or economic, but some of the most important dimensions of the relationship relate to intelligence sharing, to security cooperation, to the fight against terrorism, against radicalization, extremism, etc. So, there is a very solid foundation,' he said He spoke on how India has suffered due to terrorism for long and mentioned the new normal in India, 'that terrorism and its sponsors will have to pay a price.' 'The fact is that India has suffered for too long and the cycle of terrorism is something which is very difficult to live with for India and to accept the fact that this is in fact India's fate that every few years we will absorb a terrorist incident. We will absorb loss of innocent lives and that we have to live with this reality. This is not the normal. The attacks and then the counter response by India, specially the counter response, the basic message of the counter response is that there is a new normal now in India that terrorism and its sponsors will have to pay a price. And if you look at the record of the way India has been a victim, and if you look at the record of how all of this has been documented even in the Security Council Resolutions 1267, particularly, it is extraordinary. It is not India saying all of this. It's the world body, the Security Council, which has recognised there are names and names and details of Pakistani-based leaders, groups. There's a whole literature out there, so the fact that Pakistan has become and is and remains the source of this terrorism is something which is not what India alone is saying. So these are some of the messages which we will bring across,' he added. He said that Indian delegation will meet parliamentarians, members of the French media, representatives of think tanks and the government and emphasise India's position. He said that members of the delegation will also meet even those who have doubt regarding India's stance and mentioned that they are looking forward to a 'very frank, forthright and productive exchange.' On purpose of the meetings in France, Pankaj Saran said, 'I think the purpose of this visit is to reach and talk to a wide cross section that includes parliamentarians, members of the Senate, members of the French media, representatives of think tanks, and of course the government. So, we will meet a lot of people cutting across, even those who have some doubts about the Indian position, about they have questions to ask. We are going to be here to answer those questions, to talk to them.' 'So, we're looking forward to a very frank, forthright and productive exchange so that when we leave, there will be a better understanding of how India thinks and what happened and what is the logic and what was the objective of Operation Sindoor and what are the problems we face because at the end of the day with India as an economy as it is. It is today much more than the past become globally significant. So, it is no longer a matter of something which is relegated to the Indian subcontinent. What happens in India affects the world. So, there is global interest in all of this. So these are some of the dimensions we talk about,' he added. Saran emphasised that the French support is 'critical'for India. He lauded the ties between India and France, which are 'based on a very high degree of trust,' adding that there is a 'very high degree of unanimity on the threats we face.' 'I think the French support is critical. I mean, if you look at the record of the relationship. It stands out as one of the few relationships which actually has had no real problems. On the contrary, it is based on a very high degree of trust because if you don't have trust, you cannot cooperate on intelligence and security and military matters, which we do. So, there is a very high degree of unanimity on the threats we face,' Saran said. 'And on the responses and on the policy options that we have, not just vis a vis the Indo-Pacific region, but including and particularly with regard to, as I told you, radicalization, counter-terrorism, extremism, and what are the threats that multicultural, multi-ethnic, open, democratic societies face and how these deviant forces try to exploit. In our case, of course, unlike the French case, we have a situation where the whole state machinery of a neighbouring country. is geared to create problems and to promote terrorism in India. So, we have a special problem. We are dealing with it. We have the capacity to deal with it on our own. We have shown it, and we will continue to deal with it. We will increase our capacities, but we also want to sensitise and seek support from our friends,' he added. The former diplomat Saran is part of the delegation, led by Ravi Shankar Prasad, which also includes BJP MPs Daggubati Purandeswari, M J Akbar, Ghulam Ali Khatana and Samik Bhattacharya; Congress MP Amar Singh, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi. The delegation aims 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 France, UK, Germany, EU, Italy and Denmark. Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor on May 7 in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 tourists were killed brutally. Indian Armed Forces targeted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK), leading to the elimination of over 100 terrorists affiliated with terror outfits like the Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen. (ANI)
Indian Express
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Grenade attack: NIA recreates crime scene at BJP leader's house in Jalandhar
A team from the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is investigating the recent grenade attack on BJP leader Manoharjan Kalia's house in Jalandhar, arrived in the city and recreated the crime scene. Kalia and his close associates confirmed the development. NIA teams, along with staff from the Division Number 3 police station, arrived outside Kalia's house with the accused, who had hurled a grenade. Kalia said, 'I was out in the city when the NIA teams arrived. Upon returning home, I learnt about their visit. They had brought the accused too.' Kalia's close associate Rajeev Walia said, 'Some NIA officers, in a vehicle with a Delhi number plate, arrived at the crime scene on Monday, along with them the accused who had thrown the grenade at the house. They asked him how the grenade was thrown. The team didn't enter the house.' The NIA team was accompanied by Jalandhar city police personnel. The NIA team remained at the crime scene for only 3 to 5 minutes. After their investigation, the officers immediately left the scene. The grenade attack on the BJP leader's house on April 7, shattered windowpanes and damaged a vehicle, but there were no reports of any injuries. Later, Happy Passian, a commander of the Khalistani terrorist organisation Babbar Khalsa International and an ISI associate, reportedly claimed the responsibility of the attack. Later, the Punjab Police claimed to have arrested main accused Saidul Amin, a resident of Amroha in Uttar Pradesh. His alleged local aides — Satish, alias Kaka, alias Lucky, a resident of Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar, and Harry, a resident of Garha Road, Jalandhar — who reportedly provided logistical support to the main accused had already been arrested. A case was registered at the Division No. 3 police station in Jalandhar. 'Now, the NIA has intensified its investigation into the matter and is trying to uncover the terrorists' network, the agency is also looking into how such conspiracies are being orchestrated between Pakistani-based ISI and Khalistani terrorists, and how local youths are being trapped in these schemes,' said a Jalandhar police officer.
Irish Examiner
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Why are India and Pakistan on the brink of war and how dangerous is the situation? An expert explains
India has launched military strikes against a number of sites in Pakistan and Pakistan's side of the disputed region of Kashmir, reportedly killing at least 31 people and injuring dozens more. India claimed the attacks were on terrorist infrastructure, but Pakistan denied this, and said these were civilians. India says another 10 people on the Indian side of the Kashmir region have been killed by shelling from Pakistan in the same period. The exchange comes two weeks after a terrorist attack in Kashmir killed 26 people. The group Resistance Front (TRF), which India argues is a proxy for the Pakistani-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility for the attack. India claimed that Pakistan had indirectly supported the terrorist attack, but Pakistan vehemently denies this. The escalating conflict between two of the world's major military powers has the potential to de-stablise Asia and beyond. Already, many countries around the world, including the UK, France and Russia, have made public their concerns about what happens next. How do India and Pakistan's militaries compare? India is ranked as one of the world's top five military nations by Military Watch magazine and Pakistan is ranked ninth. Both countries have nuclear weapons. Overall, India is considered to have the military edge with a bigger and more modern military force, while Pakistan has a smaller and more agile force that has been primarily focused on defensive and covert activities. While neither country has used nuclear weapons in a conflict, there are always concerns that this norm may be broken. Both countries are nuclear powers with India holding 180 nuclear warheads, and Pakistan possessing about 170. Though India has a 'no first use' policy, which it claims means the country would never use nuclear weapons first, there have been signs it is reconsidering this policy since 2019. Pakistan has never declared a no first use policy and argues that tactical nuclear weapons are important to countering India's larger conventional forces. The concern is that even if a small nuclear exchange were to take place between the two countries, it could kill up to 20 million people in a matter of days. Why are the countries fighting over Kashmir? Kashmir has been a source of tension and conflict even before India and Pakistan gained independence from the British empire in 1947. Originally the Muslim-majority Kashmir was free to accede to either India or Pakistan. While the local ruler (maharaja), Hari Singh, originally wanted Kashmir to be independent, he eventually sided with India, leading to a conflict in 1947. This resulted in a UN-mediated ceasefire in 1949 and agreement that Kashmir would be controlled partly by Pakistan and partly by India, split along what's known as the Line of Surveillance (or Line of Control). As Kashmir is rich in minerals such as borax, sapphire, graphite, marble, gypsum and lithium, the region is strategically important. It is also culturally and historically important to both Pakistan and India. Due to the region's significance and disagreement over sovereignty, multiple conflicts have taken place over Kashmir, with wars erupting in 1965 and 1999. Tensions were renewed in 2016, after 19 Indian soldiers were killed in Uri, on the Indian side of Kashmir. India responded by launching 'surgical strikes' across the Line of Control, targeting alleged militant bases. Then in 2019, a bombing in Pulwama (again part of the Indian-administered Kashmir) that killed more than 40 Indian paramilitary personnel led to Indian airstrikes in Balakot which borders Kashmir. This was the first action inside Pakistan since the Indian-Pakistani conflict in 1971 and again led to retaliatory raids from Pakistan and a brief aerial conflict. A Kashmiri villager examines the damage caused to his house by Indian shelling in Neelum Valley, a district of Pakistan-administered Kashmir on Saturday. Photo: AP/M.D. Mughal These past conflicts never intensified further in part because India applied a massive diplomatic pressure campaign on the US, the UK and Pakistan, warning against escalation, while Pakistan showed a willingness to back down. Both sides as nuclear powers (India gained nuclear weapons in 1974 and Pakistan in 1998) had an understanding that escalating to full-scale war would be incredibly risky. What will happen next? The question is whether or not cooler heads will prevail this time. The strikes by India, part of Operation Sindoor, were met with mass approval across many political lines in India, with both the ruling Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) and the opposition Congress party voicing their support for the operation. This helps Modi gain more backing, at a time when his popularity has been falling. Modi and the BJP suffered a shocking result in the 2024 election, losing 63 seats out of 543 seats and falling short of a majority in the Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament). Under Modi, India has been rapidly becoming more autocratic, another source of concern as such countries are more likely to take risks when it comes to conflict. As power becomes increasingly personalised and dissent is repressed, would-be autocrats may be more likely to take on bold moves to garner more public and elite support. An Indian paramilitary soldier stands guard on the banks of Dal Lake after loud explosions were heard in Srinagar on Saturday. Photo: AP/Mukhtar Khan Pakistan may also have reason to respond with more force to India's recent attack than in the past. Pakistan's powerful military has often stoked fears of a conflict with India to justify its enormous military budget. Regardless of the outcome, it needs a success to sell to its domestic audience. Pakistan has been de facto led by its military for decades, which also makes it more likely to engage in conflict. In spite of intervals of civilian rule, the military has always held a lot of power, and in contrast to India (where there is a wider role for a civilian minister of defence), the Pakistani military has more influence over nuclear and security policy. Both military regimes and multi-party autocracies may see conflict as a way of gaining legitimacy, particularly if both regimes think their political support is unravelling. This most recent escalation is also significant because it is the first time in the Kashmir conflict that India has struck at Punjab, considered the heart of Pakistan. Pakistan will face internal pressure to respond, settle the score and restore deterrence. Both sides have been resolute in not losing an inch of territory. The question is how quickly diplomatic pressure can work. Neither India nor Pakistan are engaged in security dialogue, and there is no bilateral crisis management mechanisms in place. Further complicating matters is that the US's role as a crisis manager in south Asia has diminished. Under Donald Trump, Washington cannot be counted on. This all makes deescalating this conflict much more difficult. Natasha Lindstaedt is a Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex. (c) The Conversation Read More Calm reported along Indian and Pakistani border after days of fighting
