&w=3840&q=100)
‘Saw Sofiya Qureshi…': Journalist demolishes Bilawal Bhutto's ‘Muslims demonised in India' rant at UN
Countering his assertion about the Muslim population in India, a foreign journalist said that he had personally followed military briefings of India during Operation Sindoor, which was being headed by a Muslim army official, Sophiya Qureshi read more
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), speaks during the launch of the Awami Muashi Muahida (public economic manifesto) in Larkana, Pakistan, January 16, 2024. (Photo: Reuters)
Pakistan's former foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto received a tough rebuttal at the UN headquarters in New York after he claimed that Muslims are being 'demonised' in India following the Pahalgam attack of April 22.
Bhutto is in the US with a Pakistani delegation to hold meetings with UN Secretary-General António Guterres, General Assembly President Philemon Yang, and Security Council President Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett.
Countering his assertion about the Muslim population in India, a foreign journalist said that he had personally followed military briefings of India during Operation Sindoor, which was being headed by a Muslim army official, Sophiya Qureshi.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
At UN, Bilawal Bhutto claimed that Indian Govt is demonising muslims in India after Pahalgam Terror attack in Kashmir.
A foreign Muslim Journalist replied that as far as he recalls Indian muslim military official was conducting the briefing for India's Operation Sindoor.… pic.twitter.com/4AwdrUuN0j — Incognito (@Incognito_qfs) June 4, 2025
The briefing for Operation Sindoor was conducted by two senior female officers, Colonel Sofiya Qureshi from the Indian Army's Corps of Signals and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, a helicopter pilot with the Indian Air Force, alongside Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri.
'Setbacks in UN…'
Bhutto admitted that Pakistan's efforts to raise the Kashmir issue at the UN have faced significant setbacks.
'As far as the hurdles we face within the UN and in general, as far as the Kashmir cause is concerned, that still exists,' he said during a press conference.
The Pakistani leader also sought dialogue with India, saying, 'Pakistan would still like to cooperate with India to combat terrorism we can't leave the fate of 1.5 or 1.7 billion people in the hands of non-state actors and terrorists for them to decide at a whim that two nuclear armed powers will go to war and this is the new normal of the new abnormal that the Indian government is trying to impose on the region.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
What is Canada's Bill C-3? How will it help Indian-origin residents, 'lost canadians'?
Canada amends its Citizenship Act to making Canadian citizenship easier to obtain. Canada decided to amend its Citizenship Act, widening the scope of who can become a Canadian citizen in a relief to many Indian-origin residents at a time when Indians are facing hard times in the US owing to the crackdown of the Donald Trump administration. Bill C-3 would allow a Canadian parent who was not born in Canada to pass on citizenship to children born abroad beyond the first generation. This would be applicable to even child adopted abroad and beyond the first generation. But the parent must have a substantial connection to Canada which means he or she must have stayed in Canada for cumulative 1095 days, three years, before the birth or the adoption of the child. The bill would also benefit 'lost Canadians', a term that refers to those who lost Canadian citizenship or were denied a Canadian citizenship before due to certain provisions of the former citizenship law. "Most cases were remedied by changes to the law in 2009 and 2015. These changes allowed people to gain Canadian citizenship or get back the citizenship they lost. Despite this, additional amendments are needed to include other categories of 'Lost Canadians' and their descendants who did not benefit from the 2009 and 2015 changes," the government said. "Bill C-3 will restore citizenship to remaining 'Lost Canadians,' their descendants and anyone who was born abroad to a Canadian parent in the second or subsequent generations before the legislation comes into force. This includes people who lost their citizenship as a result of requirements under the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act," it said. The present citizenship law has a first-generation limit which means a Canadian parent can only pass on Canadian citizenship to a child born outside Canada if the parent was either born or naturalized in Canada before the birth of the child. Because of this limitation, Canadian citizens who were born outside Canada and obtained their citizenship through descent cannot pass on citizenship to their child born outside Canada, and cannot apply for a direct grant of citizenship for a child adopted outside Canada.
United News of India
42 minutes ago
- United News of India
Shashi Tharoor asked by his son about Pak involvement in Pahalgam terror attack
Washington, June 6 (UNI) Congress MP Shashi Tharoor who is leading an all-party delegation to the US, was asked a question by his son Ishan about Pakistan's denial of any involvement in the Pahalgam terror attack. Ishaan Tharoor wanted to know from his father whether any country had asked for evidence of Pakistan's involvement in the attack on April 22 and about Pakistan's consistent denial of its involvement in the attack. "Have any of your government interlocutors asked you to show evidence of Pakistan's culpability in the initial attack ? And what do you say to the repeated Pakistani denials of having any hand in the initial attack ?' Ishaan asked. Shashi Tharoor said India would not have retaliated the way it did if there was not convincing evidence against Pakistan. "I'm very glad you raised this. I didn't plant it, I promise you. Very simply, no one had any doubt, and we were not asked for evidence. But the media have asked in two or three places. Let me say very clearly that India would not have done this without convincing evidence. But there were three particular reasons I want to draw your attention to all of you. "The first is that we've had a 37-year pattern of repeated terror attacks from Pakistan, accompanied by repeated denials. I mean,Americans haven't forgotten that Pakistan didn't know, allegedly, where Osama bin Laden was until he was found in a Pakistani safe house right next to an army camp in a cantonment city. That's Pakistan. Mumbai attacks- they denied having anything to do with we know what Pakistan's all about. "They will dispatch terrorists, they will deny they did so until they're actually caught with red hands..." Shashi Tharoor said. UNI XC RB SSP
The Print
42 minutes ago
- The Print
Law doesn't ban Bakrid sacrifice, but politics thrives on pretending it does
Three direct questions are relevant in this regard: which animals are to be sacrificed on Bakrid? Where should they be sacrificed? And what should be done to the blood and carcasses of the sacrificed animals? In fact, an impression is created that qurbani not merely symbolises the violent nature of Islam—which inevitably 'hurts non-violent Hindu sentiments'—but it also crosses the acceptable boundaries of law. These popular perceptions are so powerful that one does not bother to look at the legal framework that deals with animal slaughter in general and Bakrid sacrifice in particular. The aggressive campaign for a 'Green Bakrid' revolves around the idea that this particular Muslim festival is all about killing innocent animals. The Cruelty Against Animal Act, 1960 is often invoked to legitimise the demand that qurbani (sacrifice) on the day of Bakrid—or Bakra Eid—should be made completely illegal. Which animal to be sacrificed? My book, Contested Homelands: Politics of Space and Identity, shows how Bakrid became a highly controversial festival in colonial North India. The colonial authorities evolved a legal-administrative framework to deal with the question of animal slaughter in general and the slaughter of sacrificial cows on Bakrid in particular. These mechanisms, however, placed religious practices of different communities in a binary opposition to each other while simultaneously producing a contested notion of community-space. This administrative mechanism became the guiding principle for various animal preservation laws enacted immediately after Independence. These laws were mainly related to the protection of cows and other bovine animals from slaughter, especially those that were required for the purpose of agriculture and milk production. For instance, the Central Provinces and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1951 placed a total ban on the slaughter of cows and restricted the slaughter of buffaloes, allowing it as a subject of certification by authorities, based on age and usability in the production. The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1955 completely restricted the slaughter of all categories of bovine cattle under any circumstance. The Act does not explicitly prohibit the slaughter of goats or sheep, but it does restrict the slaughter of the animals traditionally associated with the festival in Bihar. The UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 also prohibited the slaughter of cows. However, it remained silent on the slaughter of other bovines. Most importantly, these laws criminalised cow slaughter, making it cognisable (arrest without warrant) and non-bailable offence. In short, almost all the state legislations passed afterwards prohibit cow slaughter, allow restricted slaughter of buffaloes, and most importantly, keep goats and sheep outside their purview. These laws, interestingly, did not problematise qurbani on Bakrid. In other words, restricted slaughter of bovine including buffalos and other animals like goats and sheep are not prohibited for qurbani on the occasion of Bakrid. Also read: Bakrid needs a makeover. India's poor need laptops & AC, not gift of meat How should it be slaughtered? The much-talked-about Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA), 1960 does not ban slaughtering of animals. This legislation seeks to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering upon animals. It defines cruelty in the manner that includes over-loading during transportation, beating, lack of sufficient food, water, or shelter, and abandonment. The Act underlines specific guidelines in connection with slaughter of animals so that 'unnecessary pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is eliminated in the pre-slaughter stages as far as possible, and animals are killed, wherever necessary, in as humane a manner as possible.' PCA (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 also puts responsibility on the governments and associated enforcement agencies to modernise and maintain slaughterhouses and slaughtering rules to ensure painless slaughter of animals. The PCA does not recognise qurbani as a problematic act. Section 28 of the Act provides immunity for the killing of animals for religious purposes. It says: '…Nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offense to kill an animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.' It is worth noting that the religious norms practiced by Muslim communities for qurbani are very much in line with the provisions of PCA. For instance, Islamic norms do not allow the slaughter of pregnant, sick, under-age, and/or the animals with deformities. Similarly, pre-slaughter care, which includes proper feeding and drinking and allotting resting time to the animal are given adequate attention. Prevention of cruelty during slaughter, which includes quick and painless slaughter with a sharpened knife away from the sight of other animals, also corresponds to the qurbani norms. In this sense, the very act of qurbani does not contradict the basic spirit of PCA. The Supreme Court has rejected several pleas challenging Section 28 of PCA, calling for a ban on qurbani. In July 2023, for instance, the Court ruled against an appeal filed by the Gopeshwar Gaushala Samiti, maintaining the constitutional validity of the provision under the constitutional right to religious freedom. The petition argued that after the insertion of Article 51-A—which outlines the Fundamental Duties of citizens—Section 28 of PCA cannot continue as every citizen is under constitutional obligation to show compassion for living creatures. The petition was filed against an earlier Allahabad High Court order, which had already dismissed the petition in 2017 on the same grounds. Also read: These Pakistani goats are being sold for PKR 2.5 mn. They're selfie magnets at Islamabad Mandi Where to perform qurbani? There have been no specific legal provisions regarding the place of sacrifice slaughters other than colonial bye-laws followed by different municipalities. For instance, the Bye-Laws Part III of the Delhi Municipal Committee, 1957 explains: 'No person can slaughter or cause or permit to be slaughtered at any place other than a public slaughter house an animal…this rule shall not apply to an animal intended for sacrificial slaughter on the occasion of any festival or ceremony … the slaughter of such animals shall not be carried on within the sight of the public except in the case of Zabiha in localities exclusively inhabited by Muslims.' The PCA Rules 2001 also provide that animals are not slaughtered in places other than those recognised or licensed by the concerned authority empowered under the law. However, it does not make any provisions for sacrificial slaughter. In the absence of any clear, legally designated spaces for qurbani even within the Muslim-dominated areas, Bakrid has become a contested festival in legal-administrative terms. Cleanliness and hygiene, we must remember, are also a matter of concern for urban Muslim communities living in areas already lacking basic amenities, regular water supply, proper sanitation, and community centres. However, these concerns have either been completely neglected or have now been reduced to politics over cow, meat, vague notions of vegetarianism, ahimsa (non-violence) and, above all, stereotyping minority culture and identity. The question of administrative intervention required for the efficient observance of Bakrid remains unattended. Nazima Parveen is a Senior Research Fellow at Policy Perspective Foundation. She tweets @ParveenNazima. Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant)
