‘India already has wide support, should not have sent delegations'
Jitendra K Tuli moved to the USA in 1966 and is currently a resident of the USA. Jitendra has engineering degrees from India, France and the University of California, Berkeley. He is the President of Economic & Technical Consultants, Inc and has been involved with the Indian Politics since childhood and then got involved with the politics of the USA, Pakistan and Bangladesh. LESS ... MORE
In the recent war between India and Pakistan, the ceasefire has been implemented by both the countries. In the news media of both the countries, there have been a number of news stories, some of which are fake, related to the war and the ceasefire. Even after the ceasefire, these news are continuing.
Both countries have sent delegates to different countries to present their sides, which I feel India should have not done. As will be discussed, sending delegations is a political blunder. Before the recent war is discussed, a brief history of some of the major encounters between the two countries will be discussed.
To date there have been several major wars and encounters between India and Pakistan, all of which were started by Pakistan. In late 1947 Pakistan attacked Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). Maharaja of J&K had not yet acceded with India and his army was unable to resist Pakistan's army which captured most of J&K. The Pakistani army was about to capture Srinagar and its airport. Then J&K Maharaja acceded to India and India immediately deployed its Army and Air Force to J&K which were able to push back the Pakistan Army out of two thirds of J&K. Unfortunately, then Prime Minister Pandit Nehru, at the insistence of the Governor General Mountbatten, agreed to a ceasefire.
In 1965, again Pakistan attacked J&K. India counter responded militarily in J&K and also in Punjab. While Pakistan was able to capture a part of the Indian territory. India was able to capture much more of Pakistani territory. India's forces had reached the outskirts of Lahore. This war ended with a treaty executed at Tashkent initiated by Russia.
In 1971, Pakistan refused to honor the national assembly election results and did not allow Shaikh Mujibur Rahman, whose party Awami League, had won the election, to become Pakistan's Prime Minister. Instead, Pakistan imposed martial law in Bangladesh. Mr. Rahman and a large number of other Bangladeshis were arrested and thousands of Bangladeshis were killed. Bangladeshis were opposed to martial law and formed a Mukti Bahni which, with the help of India's Army, started a fight against Pakistan's army in Bangladesh. In response, Pakistan started a war on the Western front also which was opposed by the Indian Army. The Indian Army captured a large part of Pakistan's territory and freed Bangladesh from Pakistan's control. Pursuant to Simla agreement, India released Pakistan's army personnel captured in Bangladesh and vacated the land captured in the Western Pakistan.
In 1999, when India and Pakistan were ready to negotiate a peace deal, the Pakistan army, without the knowledge of the Pakistan government, attacked Kargil in J&K and occupied parts of the Kargil Districts. India successfully repulsed the Pakistani army from Kargil. As a result of this aggression, India refused to continue any negotiations. In 2014, India and Pakistan reached another peace agreement, which resolved all the issues including Pakistan's acceptance of J&K's status quo; Pakistan's inspired terrorists attacked Air Force bases in Pathan Kot and Uri. As a result, India refused to execute the treaty.
On August 5, 2019, India revoked Article 370 and converted J&K into a centrally controlled Union Territory. Pakistan encouraged J&K Muslim residents to start a violent retaliation against the actions of the Indian government. However, this never happened. Pakistan could not adjust to the change of the J&K status and started encouraging the terrorists to engage in the killing of the J&K residents including tourists, pilgrims, and migrant labor.
The latest attack was on April 22, 2025, when Pakistan's inspired terrorists killed 26 tourists for no reason which shook India. PM Modi issued a stern warning to Pakistan and terrorists. In the beginning, some Indians were proposing to pursue the diplomatic course of action against Pakistan. However, PM Modi and the Indian Army decided to pursue a military action against Pakistan. After careful analysis, specific targets were selected in POK and Punjab and air strikes were conducted on the night of May 7. The time between April 22 and May 7 perhaps gave sufficient time to Pakistan to prepare for a response.
As usual, claims by India and Pakistan have been exaggerated. However, the fact is that India did hit more targets and damaged more areas in Pakistan than was done by Pakistan. There is no doubt that due to the use of Chinese and Turkish drones, the extent of Pakistan's response was unexpected. This conflict has given a new life to Pakistan's army which had become very unpopular because of its treatment of Imran Khan.
Is the current conflict over now? No. Though not frequently, the cross-border firings may continue. However, Pakistan will reduce to some extent its support to the terrorist activities in J&K. The Indian government may target some terrorist residing in Pakistan as India had done in the past which I described in my article 'Tit for Tat, India's aggressive policy against terrorism' posted on January 10, 2024, in Times of India.
Pakistan's main worry is the Indus Water Treaty. Pakistan would try every means including the appeasement of the Indian government. This war as well as India's ban on all business with Pakistan and suspension of the Indian Water Treaty ('IWT') would have an adverse effect on Pakistan's fragile economy. If India reduces the water flow to Pakistan, it could cause famine type situation in Pakistan. Due to its fragile economic situation, Pakistan realized that a long-term war would seriously damage its economic situation. After claiming a victory, Pakistan approached a number of countries including the U.S. for a ceasefire. Finally, the U.S. government decided to persuade both countries for a ceasefire. The news about Mr. Trump's threat that the refusal to a ceasefire would affect trade deals with India and Pakistan, is not correct. Pakistan did not need any threat as it was very willing to a ceasefire and no threat against India would have worked. The ceasefire occurred because of calls from the US Vice President Vance to Pakistan PM Sharif and India FM Jai Shankar.
First Pakistan decided to send the delegations to a number of countries to present its version of the war and position on Kashmir and other issues. Then India also decided to send delegations of Members of Parliament to the USA and other countries to brief them about India's position and the war. India is a superpower and does not need to do any briefing. Sending delegations is a gross wastage of the taxpayer's money. The delegation will not change anything as India already has a wide support. Israel does not send delegations. Pakistan definitely needs to explain its position to the world, but India does not need to. Sending delegations got India into Pakistan's trap of reviving the Kashmir issue which the other countries have forgotten.
Some Indian leaders condemned IMF for granting loans to Pakistan and expressed displeasure about India abstaining from the IMF's voting for loan and not opposing it. IMF's rules only allow voting for a resolution or abstaining and there is no provision for voting against any resolution.
Some Pakistani sources and Indian opposition parties have claimed that Trump has placed both Pakistan and India on the same level. This is nonsense. First, India and U.S. business is at a much higher level than that with Pakistan. After India's independence, all U.S. Presidents have invited Indian Prime Ministers to White House which, with one exception, has not happened in the case of Pakistan. During his first term, President Trump imposed a unique restriction on the Staff of Pakistan Embassy in Washington, DC which prohibited them travelling more than 20 miles from Washington, DC. Such a ban on any country was unprecedented. In fact, India itself has put herself at Pakistan's level by sending delegations.
Should the current situation continue forever? Absolutely not. If Pakistan softens its rhetoric related to India and J&K and support of terrorists, India may allow visas to family members, friends, tourists, sportsmen, artists, and scholars. It may be advisable for India to open the businesses and other communication channels including medical tourism. Several rich Pakistanis use Indian medical facilities and doctors. Nawaz Sharif's wife got her knee replaced in India. If all things go well, both countries can proceed to have a normal relation with each other.
It should be pointed out that the younger educated Pakistanis do not care about Kashmir and are proud of their Hindu heritage. Many Pakistanis like Indian movies. Hopefully, one day Pakistan will shed her historical animosity toward India and a good relationship will be established between India and Pakistan.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Remaining S-400 defence system coming on time, says Russian envoy as he cites India-Pakistan conflict
Russian deputy ambassador Roman Babushkin to New India on Monday said India will receive the remaining regiments of the S-400 strategic air defence missile system by 2026, as scheduled. The S-400 missile system performed well in India's Operation Sindoor against Pakistan, intercepting Pakistani drones and missiles. There have been talks of an additional batch of the missile system. 'We heard that S-400 performed very efficiently during the situation between India and Pakistan,' Roman Babushkin told news agency PTI. Acknowledging that India and Russia have a long history of collaboration, Roman Babushkin said the air defence systems, 'according to what we are experiencing, the situation in Europe, here, this is one of the promising topics of our partnership in defence preparation in general'. "As far as my knowledge goes, the contract for the remaining S-400 units will be according to the schedule. We are open for a promotion of this partnership for the discussion of the expansion of dialogue on air defence system... I think it will be done in 2025, 2026," he added. India inked a $5.43 billion contract with Russia in 2018 for five regiments. Of the five, three have been deployed along the western and northern fronts, bordering Pakistan and China, respectively. India had received the first regiment in December 2021, while the second and third were delivered in April 2022 and October 2023, respectively. Re-christened as 'Sudarshan Chakra', the S-400 can detect, destroy hostile strategic bombers, jets, spy planes, missiles and drones at a range of 380 kilometres. Going by information shared by the Indian government, the acquisition was to be completed by 2023, The New Indian Express reported, citing unnamed sources. The S-400 system's delivery schedule got delayed due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict which affected supply chains and production, the report added. 'The S-400 Missile is a potent system in terms of its operational capability to provide a continuous and effective air defence system to a very large area. With the induction of this system, air defence capability of the nation will be significantly enhanced,' the ministry of defence had said in a statement in 2021. The S-400 system is capable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously, including aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, at varying ranges and altitudes. It consists of three main components: missile launchers, a powerful radar, and a command centre. It is capable of targeting aircraft, cruise missiles, and even high-speed intermediate-range ballistic missiles. The S-400 is seen as a major threat by NATO members due to its impressive long-range capabilities. It can engage almost all types of modern combat aircraft.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
25 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh. "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Indian Express
32 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
