"US Has Understood That India...": Shashi Tharoor On Ties With Pakistan
New Delhi:
The US has clearly understood India's position that there can be no dialogue with Pakistan with a "gun pointed at our head", Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has said.
Mr Tharoor, who is leading an all-party delegation to the US to brief key stakeholders on Operation Sindoor, also dismissed Washington's claims that its trade diplomacy played a major role in averting a conflict between India and Pakistan.
He was speaking at an interaction session at the National Press Club in the US on Wednesday when he made the remarks.
"I think the US has understood for some time now that India has a very clear position that there will be no talks with a gun pointed at our head. It's not that we can't talk to Pakistan. I was joking the other day, we can speak all the languages they can speak and we're very happy to dialogue with them in any of those languages," the Lok Sabha MP from Thiruvananthapuram said when asked about Washington's role in encouraging talks between India and Pakistan.
"The problem is we will not dialogue with people who are pointing a gun at our heads," he added.
#WATCH | Washington DC | "I think the US has understood for some time now that India has a very clear position that there will be no talks with a gun pointed at our head... The problem is that we will not deal with people who are pointing a gun at our heads. I mean frankly, if… pic.twitter.com/iEJStb0Ic4
— ANI (@ANI) June 4, 2025
Mr Tharoor, who heads the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, explained that "if your neighbour unleashes his Rottweilers to bite your children and in fact to do worse to your children and then says let's talk, you think he's going to talk to them until he either unleashes those Rottweilers or locks them up in a kennel or puts them to sleep?"
"It's as simple as that. You're not going to talk to people who are pointing guns at your temples. It's not going to happen," he said.
India has repeatedly said that any engagement with Pakistan will have to be "bilateral". It has also said that it will not engage with its neighbour on issues such as trade or the Indus Waters Treaty as long as the latter supports cross-border terrorism.
On India's expectations from the ongoing US visit, Mr Tharoor said: "We aren't really here to negotiate outcomes. That's the job of the government. Our job is to enhance understanding, to clarify our position and to explain if there are any questions or misapprehensions on the part of our interlocutors, we'd be very happy to address them."
"We're just saying, this is our position, we want you to understand, and if you have any questions, we'll answer them, but that's it. We're not asking them to do anything other than to understand our point of view, to express their solidarity and to stand with us if it happens again. I mean, we have no illusions," he added.
#WATCH | Interacting with the Indian diaspora in Washington, DC, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says "...There's been a very wide, impressive cross-section of legislators who met us, spoken to us. I must say our purpose in coming was actually very simple. Lay out what we've been… pic.twitter.com/PfLBpSPHUF
— ANI (@ANI) June 5, 2025
The Congress leader said the delegation is not seeking anything specific from the US visit. "It's not that we've come here saying, would you do this for us? That's not what this is all about and that's true by the way in every country we've been to," he said.
Referring to India's attack on terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir under Operation Sindoor - carried out in retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack - last month, the Congress leader said: "These buildings we've destroyed and the terror camps can be built again in six months, nine months, who knows? The problem is, if they think they can keep doing this to us, they've got another thing coming because we are not going to take it. If they hit us, we will hit them back."
He added that India wants the world to understand "not only what just happened, but what could happen again if Pakistan does not control these elements on its soil".
Terrific to see you again @RepRoKhanna! We are grateful for the strong support of the #IndiaCaucus in the House of Representatives! https://t.co/Zq3wNAVW6i
— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) June 4, 2025
The Congress leader refuted US President Donald Trump's claims of preventing a possible war between India and Pakistan using trade.
"That's not the impression I have. It is a public record that there were calls coming from various foreign ministers to our foreign minister, to our national security advisor, and the US was amongst the most active in this regard and that Secretary Rubio spoke to his Indian counterpart, (S) Jaishankar....At one point, Mr Vance, the Vice President called our Prime Minister. So, there were a lot of calls being made and that's true also the foreign ministers of the UAE, of Saudi Arabia, France and so on. Many countries were concerned," he said.
"My understanding is that in none of these calls was trade ever mentioned, not one. And certainly our information is that from our side, we gave a consistent response which corresponds to what I've just said to all of you, that we are only taking retribution for a terrorist attack, we are not interested in prolonging this conflict," he added.
Great to meet you and your @SenateForeign colleagues, @SenMcCormickPA! We greatly valued all of you finding the time for us on a busy day and expressing your solidarity with our fight against terrorism. We also appreciated your enthusiasm for greater and stronger cooperation… https://t.co/IcTZUeEByd
— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) June 5, 2025
He stressed that India has the right to defend itself.
"If Pakistan hits us, we will head back because we have a right of self-defence. If Pakistan stops, we will stop. So we didn't need persuading to stop. And that message was given regularly to everybody else who called," he said, referring to the ceasefire on May 10, after four days of military engagement between the two sides.
"I knew that some of this was actually out on the Twitter timeline of our foreign minister. So, it was an open thing that we're talking to people and letting them know we're ready to call this off any time the others do. And the others were the ones who were prolonging it. Only Pakistan had one foot on the escalator ladder, not India. In every case they initiated, we retaliated," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Scroll.in
39 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Rush Hour: RBI cuts repo rate, four arrested in Bengaluru stampede case and more
We're building a brand-new studio to bring you bold ground reports, sharp interviews, hard-hitting podcasts, explainers and more. Support Scroll's studio fund today. The Reserve Bank of India's Monetary Policy Committee cut the repo rate by 50 basis points, lowering it from 6% to 5.5%. This is the third consecutive rate cut. Central banks usually reduce repo rates to stimulate economic growth by making borrowing cheaper for individuals and businesses. This translates to lower equated monthly instalments for borrowers. The RBI retained India's growth projection for the financial year 2025-'26 at 6.5% despite global uncertainties, with quarterly estimates unchanged. Read on. The Karnataka Police arrested four persons, including an official of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru, in connection with the stampede that took place outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium. Those arrested are Nikhil Sosale, the marketing head of the cricket franchise, along with event management firm DNA Entertainment Networks' Sunil Mathew, Kiran and Sumanth. This came after Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Thursday said that the state government had ordered the arrest of representatives from the Karnataka State Cricket Association, DNA Entertainment Networks and Royal Challengers Bengaluru. A first information report was filed against the persons based on a complaint alleging that criminal negligence had led to the stampede. Eleven persons had died and several were injured in the incident on Wednesday. Fans had gathered to celebrate the team's victory in the Indian Premier League. Read on. The Congress described the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla railway line as an example of 'continuity in governance', which it claimed had not been acknowledged by Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his 'perennial desire for self-glory'. The statement came ahead of Modi inaugurating the Chenab bridge on Friday. The world's highest railway arch bridge is part of the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla rail link. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that the project was sanctioned in March 1995 when Congress' PV Narasimha Rao was the prime minister and that it was declared a national project in 2002 by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The contract for the Chenab bridge was awarded in 2005, Ramesh said, adding that several segments of the project had been inaugurated by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government.
Scroll.in
39 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Scroll Adda: How fact checkers fight IT cell disinformation
Play India is drowning in fake news. And much of it is produced by its own political parties. Dedicated so-called IT cells supported by highly paid consultants push disinformation on social media with the aim of converting voters to their point of view. This isn't limited to elections. Disinformation is warping Indian society itself. The past decade has seen an explosion of hate, a significant part of which has been powered by fake news. The first line of defence against this tsunami? Fact checkers. To understand how they battle this scourge, Scroll's political editor, Shoaib Daniyal, speaks to Alt News co-founder Pratik Sinha on the first episode of Scroll Adda. In a wide-ranging conversation, Sinha explains the toll disinformation has taken on India — and on his own mental health.
