Pahalgam Attack Was On Country, Not Government: Javed Akhtar On Op Sindoor Delegations
New Delhi:
Members of the opposition being part of the outreach delegations to various countries following Operation Sindoor is a welcome step because the Pahalgam terror attack was not carried out on the government, but India as a whole, noted lyricist and scriptwriter Javed Akhtar has said.
In an over 30-minute discussion at NDTV's Creators' Manch on Friday, Mr Akhtar also spoke about where the real power centre in Pakistan lies and the row over the casting of Pakistani actor Hania Amir in Diljit Dosanjh's film 'Sardaar Ji 3'.
Asked if including leaders like the Congress' Shashi Tharoor and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi in the outreach delegations was a calculated move by the government, the lyricist said in Hindi, "The Pahalgam terror attack was not on the government, it was an attack on the country. So everyone in the country will go. Among the people (who were part of the delegations) are some who keep attacking the government. But when it comes to the country, we are all one... the other issues are internal ones and we will keep talking about them internally," the lyricist said.
Mr Akhtar said Mr Tharoor is very articulate and he was happy the Congress leader led one of the delegations, because he has diplomatic experience at the United Nations. "This is an issue that concerns the country, and that's when everyone is one. That is how it should be. This is not about a political party," he said.
On the relationship between India and Pakistan, Mr Akhtar said it feels like this is the worst phase because it is a fresh wound, but pointed out that the 1965 war and the Kargil war had also happened.
"Each time, the government in Pakistan tries to wash its hands of what's happening and claims it wasn't involved. In 1948, they said tribals had entered Kashmir; during the Kargil war, they said they did not know who had gone there. Similarly, in Pahalgam, they said they did not know anything about the attack. This is nothing new, it's what they do," he said.
'Not A Monolith'
The lyricist stressed, however, that no country is a monolith and crores of people in Pakistan want friendship with India, but this does not suit the country's government, army and right wing.
"It suits the common people there, and why won't it? India is such a big market, it has great universities, a rich culture... so young people from there will want to come here and work... in the entertainment industry and the corporate sphere. Businessmen would also want to collaborate with Indian businesses, how are all of them benefiting from strained ties? They only lose because of this," he said.
Mr Akhtar said even the US knows where the real power centre in Pakistan lies and that democracy in the country is a sham.
"Those who benefit are the right wing in Pakistan, because their existence depends on hatred for India and the country's army, because it'll have to stay in the barracks if there is no confrontation with India. Even when the American president wanted to talk to Pakistan, he could have spoken to the president or prime minister, but he knew where the real power lies, so he called their army chief Asim Munir. This made it clear that their democracy is a sham and the army rules the country. So, how will good relations with India suit them?" he pointed out.
The lyricist repeated that it would not be in India's interest to treat Pakistan as a monolith. Indians, he said, should encourage people in Pakistan who admire and love India.
Diljit Row
On the row over the casting of Pakistani actor Hania Amir in Diljit Dosanjh's 'Sardaar Ji 3', Mr Akhtar said it was pointless because the movie had been shot earlier. "How was he to know? Pakistan will not lose money (because of this), our countryman will... Laws can't be applied retrospectively... The Censor Board and the government should look at this sympathetically. They can say it shouldn't happen again," he suggested.
One way of bettering the relationship between the countries when things weren't as bad as they are now, the scriptwriter said, would have been for artistes from both sides to make movies with the involvement of the governments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Imtiaz Ali defends Diljit Dosanjh, praises his deep patriotism amid 'Sardaar Ji 3' controversy: ‘Usmein desh bhakti ka jazba bhara hua hai'
Filmmaker Imtiaz Ali defended Diljit Dosanjh amid backlash over 'Sardaar Ji 3' for acting with Pakistani actress Hania Aamir. Imtiaz praised Diljit's deep patriotism, emphasizing casting isn't the actor's choice. Diljit explained the film was shot when the situation was stable, with overseas release decided later by producers. Diljit Dosanjh is currently facing criticism for acting alongside Pakistani actress Hania Aamir in 'Sardaar Ji 3'. The Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) condemned both Diljit and the film's producers, leading to the decision to release the movie exclusively in international markets. Filmmaker Imtiaz Ali has stepped forward to defend the actor amid the ongoing controversy. Imtiaz Ali Praises Diljit's Patriotism During his conversation with NDTV, Imtiaz said, 'I can't say much on the row, but since I know Diljit, I can say that us mein deshbhakti ka jazbaa poora bhara hua hai. He is a son of the soil. You can see at all his concerts, he shows up with the Indian flag.' Genuine and Authentic Patriotism The filmmaker highlighted that Diljit is genuine and does not engage in any form of pretense or fakeness. He emphasized that Diljit's actions are sincere and not influenced by anyone else. At the conclusion of his concerts, Diljit consistently expresses his pride in his Punjabi identity while holding the Indian flag, demonstrating his authentic patriotism. Clarifying Casting Decisions Addressing the controversy surrounding Hania Aamir's casting in 'Sardaar Ji 3', Imtiaz pointed out that actors are not responsible for casting choices. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Зачем на ночь сжигают лавровый лист? Undo While he was unsure of the exact details, he affirmed that Diljit possesses 'immense love for his country.' He added that those who truly perceive Diljit's inner truth will understand his genuine patriotism. Diljit Dosanjh's Response to the Controversy In a previous interview with BBC Asian Network, Diljit addressed the controversy around Hania Aamir's casting in 'Sardaar Ji 3'. He explained that when the film was made and shot in February, the situation was stable and everything was proceeding smoothly. He noted that many factors are beyond their control and revealed that the producers decided to release the film only overseas, as it would not be viable for an Indian release now. Diljit emphasized that a significant investment was made in the film, and at the time of production, there were no such issues.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
'Bangladesh Army Not As Radical As Pakistan's': Experts To Parliamentary Panel On External Affairs
Last Updated: The experts assured the Shashi Tharoor-led standing committee that there was no immediate cause for alarm regarding Bangladesh, especially compared to Pakistan Concerns about the radicalisation of youth in neighbouring countries were discussed during a key meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, chaired by Dr Shashi Tharoor. The discussion, focused on India-Bangladesh relations, included expert testimonies from former national security adviser Shivshankar Menon, Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (Retd), former High Commissioner to Bangladesh Riva Ganguly Das, and strategic affairs analyst Professor Amitabh Mattoo. The meeting addressed the growing apprehensions over China and Pakistan's increased engagement with Bangladesh. Several committee members expressed concern about the implications of this evolving regional dynamic, given India's already strained ties with both China and Pakistan. However, experts assured the panel that there was no immediate cause for alarm regarding Bangladesh, especially compared to Pakistan. According to the experts, the Pakistani army remains deeply radicalised, unlike the Bangladeshi army, which does not exhibit similar traits. This distinction is a key factor in assessing the strategic outlook of India's eastern neighbour. They also noted that media narratives often exaggerate the closeness between Bangladesh and India's adversaries. BJP MP Kiran Choudhry, also a member of the panel, recalled her father Brigadier Atma Singh Sejwal's contribution during the Bangladesh Liberation War, reiterating India's longstanding friendship with Bangladesh. In response to a question about Sheikh Hasina's presence in India and how it might be perceived in Bangladesh, the experts drew parallels with India's historic record of granting refuge—from the Dalai Lama to various political figures—reinforcing that this aligns with India's humanitarian ethos. Opposition MPs also emphasised the importance of enhancing bilateral engagement, particularly because states like West Bengal and Tripura share deep linguistic and cultural ties—and long, porous borders—with Bangladesh. Several members proposed increasing people-to-people exchanges, including media and journalist programmes, to deepen mutual understanding. Chairman Shashi Tharoor described the session as 'an excellent and in-depth discussion", confirming that a detailed report would be submitted to Parliament soon. 'We had first-class experts before the committee today. Members raised many important questions, and we received comprehensive responses," he said. On the politically sensitive issue of illegal migration from Bangladesh—often flagged by BJP leaders across states like West Bengal and Jharkhand—Tharoor noted that the number of such cases has 'significantly declined", based on inputs received by the committee. When asked about the ongoing water-sharing disputes and whether the issue was discussed, especially in light of West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee's concerns, Tharoor said, 'You'll have to wait for the final report to know more." The last major meeting on India-Bangladesh ties took place in December, when foreign secretary Vikram Misri briefed the committee. He addressed questions on bilateral relations and spoke at length about the reported violence against the Hindu minority community in Bangladesh.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions in win for Trump's immigration agenda
A united conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican president's efforts to expand executive power and remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to him and his the court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Judges have issued more than 40 such orders since Trump took office for a second term in administration has filed emergency appeals with the justices of many of those orders, including the ones on birthright citizenship. The court rarely hears arguments and issues major decisions on its emergency, or shadow, docket, but it did so in this courts, Barrett wrote, 'do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.'The president, speaking in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was 'amazing' and a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X that the decision is 'an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court.'Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three liberal justices, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.' This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower administration didn't even ask, as it has in other cases, for the lower-court rulings to be blocked completely, Sotomayor wrote. 'To get such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely constitutional, an impossible task,' she the ultimate fate of the changes Trump wants to make was not before the court, Barrett wrote, just the rules that would apply as the court cases groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges may still be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of a 'putative nationwide class.' Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,' said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American U.S. is amongst about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are amongst and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's have uniformly ruled against the Justice Department has argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this justices also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.- EndsMust Watch
