Latest news with #pre-Modi
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Unlike Congress, BJP has come down hard on terror
Vivek Katju's jibe at Union minister Hardeep S Puri ('Mapping continuity and a shift', IE, June 21) is unbecoming of a seasoned diplomat and gratuitously seeks mischief. Katju twisted and misinterpreted Puri's use of the phrase 'theatre of the absurd'. Puri, when asked about Operation Sindoor and India's bid to diplomatically isolate Pakistan in the aftermath of Pahalgam, said: 'It is a different ballgame now… Earlier, you allowed Pakistan to use terror as an instrument of state policy… You would take whatever they said at face value and have negotiations with them … The pre-Modi era of dealing with Pakistan was a theatre of the absurd. After the 26/11 (Mumbai attacks), did you retaliate? What did you do? The language used then was 'thoda sa hot pursuit ho gaya'. This time, it was not Balakot and just one strike. We went hundreds of kilometres inside and hit terror infrastructure… The beauty of the current situation lies in the message. In 22 minutes, we gave a befitting response.' It is clear from context that Puri was referring to the widely held view that the UPA government's response to terrorist attacks in the 2000s, particularly 26/11, was weak to the point of being farcical. Katju's claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's earlier outreach to Pakistan was also a 'theatre of the absurd' is disingenuous and superficial. The political contexts are too far apart. It is also disingenuous to suggest that efforts to build bridges with Pakistan in the past, irrespective of the political party in power, can be treated alike. It was in poor taste to suggest that an accomplished diplomat's remarks are careless merely because he is now a politician. To provide some much-needed context, 'Puri the politician' — to borrow Katju's words — has publicly stated that he joined the BJP because he agreed with its national security views. Puri, before he was a minister, served in the IFS from 1974 to 2013, mostly under Congress-led governments. It is no secret that India's response to terrorism during that period was inadequate. Many civil servants, including myself, felt that India's handling of terrorism in the 1990s and 2000s — culminating in the horror of 26/11 — was at best insufficient, at worst an abdication of duty. The arguments for 'strategic restraint' were difficult to digest, not only for Puri but for many of us. 'Puri the politician' has emerged from the experiences of 'Puri the diplomat', who witnessed firsthand India's failure to prevent terror attacks or deter asymmetric warfare. A stellar professional, Puri defended India's interests and extracted what space he could for a strategically restrained India. But that does not mean he must endorse the defensive postures that defined that era. Until 26/11, under the UPA, India faced at least seven major terror attacks: Delhi (October 2005 and September 2008), Mumbai (July 2006), Samjhauta Express (February 2007), Hyderabad (August 2007), Jaipur (May 2008), and Ahmedabad (July 2008). These were linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and ISI-backed groups, striking at the heart of our cities. More than 2,000 citizens were killed between 2005 and 2008 due to cross-border terrorism. The 26/11 attacks shattered India's image as a secure nation. The response — widely documented — was incoherent. The then cabinet secretary, in his book, cited a fragmented security apparatus that failed to respond coherently. The then foreign secretary and later national security adviser concluded after 'sober reflection' that 'more was to be gained from not attacking Pakistan than from attacking it'. Yet, it is hard to see what was gained, or to credibly argue that any favourable developments were contingent on it. To those on the outside, India appeared to be a soft state. Let us also not forget that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's foolhardy joint statement with then Pakistan prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani at Sharm el-Sheikh in 2009 effectively shifted the Balochistan issue from a problem of Pakistan's own making to one allegedly fuelled by India in international eyes. It was against this litany of missteps that the minister underscored the Modi government's contrasting approach. PM Modi came to office in 2014 with a vision of integrating South Asia into a cooperative space where trade was enhanced and regional problems were resolved collectively. This aligned with the 'Neighbourhood First' policy introduced by the UPA in 2008, demonstrating foreign policy continuity — a notable tradition in Indian statecraft. The aim was peace through reduced cross-border terror. The attempts to build ties with Pakistan stemmed from this logic. However, the Pathankot attack in January 2016 was the final straw, hardening the PM's stance on Pakistan. (It is also worth noting that the attack was planned before Modi's surprise trip to Pakistan — thus undermining the ironic significance that Katju wishes to confer on the trip.) Since then, PM Modi's shift from conciliation to decisive action has been clear. The scale and publicity of the 2016 surgical strikes, the 2019 Balakot airstrike after Pulwama, and now the simultaneous destruction of terror targets deep inside Pakistan after Pahalgam all underline this transformation. Each action was measured, non-escalatory, and focused on terrorist infrastructure, while signalling growing costs to Pakistan's establishment. India has evolved from a nation fearful of unattended bags in public places to one where susceptible youth think twice before aligning with extremist outfits. National security crises are ultimately a test of political mettle. Prime Minister Modi's actions show a leader making rational, resolute decisions in critical national security moments — unlike the UPA era, marked by weakness and incoherence. Puri's interview, in my view, was candid, engaging, and characteristically direct. To attempt to generate controversy here is to exaggerate beyond reason. The writer is a former diplomat
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
‘Iran Hit Israel Hard': Bombshell By Trump Not Tehran; Shocking Admission At NATO Meet
Union Minister Puri Drops Truth Bomb: Calls Pre-Modi India's Terror Response 'Theatre of the Absurd' Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri delivered a powerful global appeal. Calling the 1985 bombing a "dastardly act of aviation terror", Puri urged the international community to shut down all channels of terror financing, deepen India-Canada cooperation in intelligence sharing, and confront radicalisation within diaspora circles. Puri reflected on India's historic leniency in expecting "better sense" from perpetrators and denounced the "theatre of the absurd" pre-Modi era of dealing with terrorism. Recalling India's long struggle—from Kashmir to Mumbai to Punjab, he said terrorism is not a past threat, but a present danger. Standing alongside the Irish and Canadian leadership, Puri said the world must act not in solemn mourning alone, but through collective, proactive action against extremist ideologies and violence.#kanishkabombing #hardeepuri #aviationterror #indiaagainstterror #terrorfinancing #khalistanextremism #canadaindia #flight182 #stopterrorism #globalunit #toi #toibharat #bharat #breakingnews #indianews 5.1K views | 1 day ago
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Union Minister Puri Drops Truth Bomb: Calls Pre-Modi India's Terror Response ‘Theatre of the Absurd'
/ Jun 24, 2025, 10:39AM IST Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri delivered a powerful global appeal. Calling the 1985 bombing a "dastardly act of aviation terror", Puri urged the international community to shut down all channels of terror financing, deepen India-Canada cooperation in intelligence sharing, and confront radicalisation within diaspora circles. Puri reflected on India's historic leniency in expecting "better sense" from perpetrators and denounced the "theatre of the absurd" pre-Modi era of dealing with terrorism. Recalling India's long struggle—from Kashmir to Mumbai to Punjab, he said terrorism is not a past threat, but a present danger. Standing alongside the Irish and Canadian leadership, Puri said the world must act not in solemn mourning alone, but through collective, proactive action against extremist ideologies and violence.#kanishkabombing #hardeepuri #aviationterror #indiaagainstterror #terrorfinancing #khalistanextremism #canadaindia #flight182 #stopterrorism #globalunit #toi #toibharat #bharat #breakingnews #indianews
Indian Express
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
What Hardeep Puri got right – and wrong – about India's response to Pak-sponsored terror
In an interview published in this newspaper on May 10, Union Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas Hardeep Puri stoutly — and correctly — defended Operation Sindoor and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's current Pakistan policy. The Pahalgam terrorist attack was dastardly and designed to destabilise India's social harmony. It had to be dealt with an iron hand. Modi did so. In the process, he sent a message to India's western neighbour and the international community that India would no longer tolerate Pakistani terrorism. Instead, it will combat it through the use of effective kinetic action. Modi's current Pakistan policy and actions have the support of the Indian people. This was demonstrated in the nation endorsing Operation Sindoor. The seven all-party delegations, which travelled to over 30 countries, conveyed India's resolve that Pakistani terrorism will be met by force. The fact that both government and opposition party MPs travelled together showed the determination of the Indian people against Pakistani terrorism. This said, it is obvious that Puri the politician has overtaken Puri's earlier avatar as an outstanding diplomat. Puri, the diplomat, would never have made this sweeping comment: 'The pre-Modi era of dealing with Pakistan was a theatre of the absurd'. There are several problems with Puri's formulation. The foremost is that it ignores the evolution of Modi's Pakistan policy. It is an undeniable fact that Modi sincerely decided to normalise ties with Pakistan. To do so, he went beyond the policies and actions of those who, according to Puri, dealt 'absurdly' with Pakistan. These included not only non-BJP PMs but also Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He led the country in quashing the Pakistani intrusion into Kargil in 1999. However, after an interval of a few years, he again sought to improve ties with Pakistan and went to Pakistan to attend a SAARC summit in 2004. Vajpayee also went ahead with the Lahore visit of February 1999 despite a terrorist attack on its eve. Modi began his innings as PM, demonstrating a genuine desire to establish cooperative relations with Pakistan. This led him to invite then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his 2014 oath-taking ceremony. The Pakistani generals were furious with Sharif's decision. They got the LeT to launch an attack on the Indian Consulate General in Herat days prior to Modi's swearing-in. Its purpose was to embarrass Modi and compel Sharif to call off his India visit. It was the alertness of an Indian security guard that prevented a major terrorist incident. Modi's meeting with Nawaz Sharif in Delhi in May 2014 led to a decision to renew the bilateral engagement. Certain obstacles created by the Pakistan army prevented that from occurring. Modi, however, persevered. He met Sharif on the sidelines of the SCO summit at Ufa in July 2015. The two leaders agreed that their National Security Advisors would meet to discuss terrorism. The Ufa Joint Statement was silent on Jammu and Kashmir. The Pakistani generals told Sharif that an exclusive meeting on terrorism could not happen. Modi relented. The National Security Advisors, along with the Foreign Secretaries, met in Bangkok in early December 2015. They apparently discussed some bilateral issues in addition to terrorism. A few days after the Bangkok meeting, the late External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj went to Islamabad to attend a meeting on Afghanistan. On its sidelines, India and Pakistan decided to begin a Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue which would address contentious issues, terrorism, cooperation mechanisms and humanitarian matters. To cement this process, Modi paid a historic stopover visit to Lahore on Christmas Day 2015 and to greet Nawaz Sharif on his birthday and also felicitate him on the marriage of his granddaughter. The Pakistan generals could not countenance that they were being ignored in this process. Within 10 days, they sponsored the Pathankot airbase attack. Modi did not break off the engagement after the Pathankot attack. He tried to rescue the process. In this quest, he also allowed a Pakistani investigation team, which included an ISI officer, to visit Pathankot. Bearing in mind that none of Modi's predecessors had ever agreed to such a visit, what does Puri think of it? Was it 'absurd' that despite the Pathankot attack, Modi sought peace with Pakistan? Indeed, if Modi's predecessors had overlooked earlier terrorist attacks and did not want relations to break did Modi not act similarly after the Pathankot attack? Indeed, the fact is that Modi showed far more flexibility towards Pakistan than his predecessors had done and if the late Sati Lambah is to be believed, he sought backchannel communications with Pakistan in 2017 too. It was only after the Uri attack that Modi first authorised and publicised kinetic action. The Pulwama terrorist attack of 2019 led Modi to abandon the traditional Indian paradigm of dealing with Pakistan, which he had himself followed for over two years after becoming Prime Minister. In 2019, he took the historic decision to make fundamental constitutional changes regarding J&K. Pakistan reacted stupidly, and bilateral ties were downgraded. It was gradually from 2016 to Operation Sindoor that Modi demonstrated the shift in India's approach towards Pakistan. He has to be given credit for this, but the fact that he pursued for over two years what Puri unfortunately calls the 'theatre of the absurd' cannot be denied. Perhaps, in future, Puri the politician's statements, especially when they dwell on recent history, will be tempered by the experience of Puri the diplomat. The writer is a former diplomat
