Greece Fully Backs India's Fight Against Terror In Talks With Kanimozhi-Led Team: Sources To News18
Last Updated:
Sources indicated that Greece welcomed New Delhi's boycott of countries aiding terrorism against India
During their series of meetings in Athens, Greece, an all-party delegation led by DMK MP Kanimozhi secured strong support from the Greek government in India's fight against terrorism, said sources. Greece endorsed India's boycott of countries like Turkey, which had supplied arms and ammunition to Pakistan for its terror activities, they added. Greece and Turkey have a complex relationship due to historical and territorial conflicts.
The Kanimozhi-led team also includes Rajeev Rai (Samajwadi Party), Mian Altaf Ahmad (Jammu and Kashmir National Conference), Brijesh Chowta (BJP), Prem Chand Gupta (Rashtriya Janata Dal), Ashok Kumar Mittal (Aam Aadmi Party), and former envoys Manjeev S Puri and Jawed Ashraf as part of a diplomatic outreach to highlight India's stance on terrorism.
Sources indicated that Greece welcomed New Delhi's boycott of countries aiding terrorism against India. It also expressed condolences for the Indian lives lost in the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack and supported India's response. Greece assured India of its solidarity in exposing Pakistan's support for terrorism on global platforms, said sources.
During its stay, the Indian delegation interacted with Greek authorities and think tanks, discussing the history of India and Pakistan, the Pahalgam terror attack, and Operation Sindoor, which targeted terror hubs in Pakistan. It explained why the operation is currently halted and incomplete.
The delegation's trip began in Russia, followed by visits to Slovenia and Greece. Its next destination is Riga, Latvia, with the final stop in Madrid, Spain. The team is scheduled to return to India in the first week of June.
Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
First Published:
May 30, 2025, 01:21 IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Shehbaz Sharif seeks Donald Trump's mediation as India's delegation corners Pakistan in US
Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called on US President Donald Trump to facilitate dialogue with India as New Delhi continues to ramp up its efforts to expose Islamabad's role in cross-border terrorism that necessitated Operation Sindoor. Addressing an event at the US embassy in Islamabad, Shehbaz Sharif praised Donald Trump for his role in helping de-escalate the situation with India, a claim New Delhi has publicly denied. He also urged Washington to facilitate a comprehensive dialogue between the two nuclear neighbours, news agency ANI reported. The Pakistan PM was repeating the plea made by former foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, who had claimed that Trump "deserves credit" for helping facilitate the cessation of hostilities between the two nations. "On 10 different occasions, he has taken credit for facilitating the ceasefire between India and Pakistan – and rightly so. He deserves that credit because it was his efforts that helped make the ceasefire possible. So, if the US is willing to help Pakistan in maintaining this ceasefire, it is reasonable to expect that an American role in arranging a comprehensive dialogue would also be beneficial for us," Bhutto had said. India has consistently rejected third-party mediation on bilateral issues with Pakistan, including the Kashmir issue. The Indian delegation, led by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, on Operation Sindoor visiting the US – one of seven such teams sent by the GOI – has said that Washington has understood India's position that there can be no talks with a gun pointed at the head. "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 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 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," said Shashi Tharoor, who is leading the all-party delegation to the United States. Tharoor also slammed the Pakistani side for making claims that it was as much a victim of terrorism as India was. "This (Pakistan) delegation is going around saying we are also victims of terrorism, we have lost more lives to terrorism than India has. We turn around and say- Whose fault is that? As Hillary Clinton famously said 10 years ago. You can't breed vipers in your backyard and expect them to bite only your why they (Pakistan) are now getting terrorists attacked by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, but who created the Taliban from which the Tehrik-i-Taliban broke off? We all know the answer to that, so let Pakistan look inside it and let it do some serious interior reflection before it goes around pleading innocence and deniability and everything else," the Congress MP added Echoing that sentiment, BJP MP Tejasvi Surya, who is also a member of the delegation, said that Pakistan speaking of peace was like the devil quoting the scriptures. "Bhutto has been calling his delegation a peace delegation, and it is quite ironic that the Pakistani delegation is speaking the language of peace. It's like the Devil quoting from the scriptures. For a country that is trying to create fake heroes by promoting failed generals to field marshal, they don't know what true leaders look like. Pakistan has been surviving on cheap Chinese imports, including military hardware, which spectacularly failed on the battlefield.. So perhaps it is hard for them to digest high-quality, high-calibre military hardware as well as strong democratic leadership on the other side of the border," he said.
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
No one needed to tell India to stop, didn't need any mediation: Tharoor on Op Sindoor
India respects American presidency but New Delhi has "never wanted to ask anyone to mediate" and no one needed to tell us to 'stop', Congress MP Shashi Tharoor said, amid repeated claims by US President Donald Trump of his role in the recent conflict between India and Pakistan . "All I can say is that we have enormous respect for the American presidency and the American president. All we can say for ourselves is that we have never particularly wanted to ask anyone to mediate," said Tharoor, the leader of the all-party parliamentary delegation which arrived here on Tuesday afternoon and began its packed day of meetings with lawmakers and government officials on Wednesday. During an interaction at the National Press Club here on Wednesday, Tharoor stressed that India had no real difficulty in speaking the same language as the Pakistanis. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Also Read: NDA govt devoted to welfare of poor, committed to building self-reliant India: PM Modi "As long as they use the language of terrorism , we will use the language of force. That doesn't require a third party," he said. Live Events The delegation comprising MPs Sarfaraz Ahmad, Ganti Harish Madhur Balayogi, Shashank Mani Tripathi, Bhubaneswar Kalita, Milind Deora, Tejasvi Surya, and India's former ambassador to the US Taranjit Sandhu, arrived from India in New York on May 24, and travelled to Guyana, Panama, Colombia and Brazil before arriving in Washington, the last leg of the tour to convey India's stance following the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor . Tharoor said if Pakistan were to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism, "we can talk to them". "If they take serious actions to show they want to restore normal relationships with us, we can certainly talk to them again without needing an intermediary." "So it's not in any way a negative comment about the goodwill of people. During this conflict, as I said, in any case, India didn't need persuading to stop. No one needed to tell us to 'stop', because we were telling them the moment Pakistan stops, we're prepared to stop." "So if they, in turn, told the Pakistanis, 'you better stop, because Indians are willing to stop', and that was what they did, then that's a wonderful gesture on their part vis-a-vis Pakistan," Tharoor said. He added that "all we can say is that in our conversations, some of these things didn't come up". Also Read: Surely he's aware Pahalgam terrorists still not brought to justice: Congress on PM Modi's J&K visit Noting that he was saying this in a "constructive spirit", Tharoor said: "We have an enormous respect for the US, and we have a much more important, valuable strategic partnership with Washington that we wouldn't want to jeopardise over a matter of detail. We are interested, talking at the moment about a number of areas of cooperation, interested in enhancing all of that. So small matters can go by, and we can focus on tomorrow." Tharoor was responding to a question about India's response to the constant claim by Trump that he mediated in the conflict between India and Pakistan. He was also asked if this is a question the Congress party continues to ask back in India, and party leader Rahul Gandhi commented that Prime Minister Narendra Modi "surrendered" after receiving a phone call from Trump. Delegation member Deora said: "As far as the political question is concerned, I would like to express my admiration for Tharoor. I've known him for a long time. He always puts country before party." Surya, responding to Deora's comment, said: "Absolutely." In response to a question on what role the US had in encouraging talks between India and Pakistan, Tharoor said: "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." "India can speak all the languages that Pakistanis speak. The problem is that we will not dialogue with people who are pointing a gun at our head. You're not going to talk to people who are pointing a gun at your temples. It's not going to happen," Tharoor said. Also Read: BJP MP Nishikant Dubey slams Congress for "surrendering country's pride" by agreeing to Non-Attack Agreement with Pakistan Addressing reporters at a press conference at the Indian Embassy, Tharoor said that every time anybody asked, "and that includes on the Hill", if India would talk to Pakistan or if mediation would help promote dialogue, "our answer is very clear. We cannot talk to people who are pointing a gun at our head." "If your neighbour attacks your children with their attack dogs and then says, 'let's talk', will you talk to them until they put away the attack dogs?" Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, with India carrying out precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in the early hours of May 7. Pakistan attempted to attack Indian military bases on May 8, 9, and 10. The Indian side responded strongly to the Pakistani actions. The on-ground hostilities ended with an understanding of stopping the military actions following talks between the directors general of military operations of both sides on May 10.
The Print
18 minutes ago
- The Print
A rejuvenated Pakistan likely to collude with China, plan a conflict with India in 5-10 years
It is empirical wisdom that since World War 2, wars of annihilation and decisive victories are passé, least of all between states armed with nuclear weapons. Hence, it is prudent to measure the outcome of wars and conflicts in psychological terms. No matter the overt rhetoric in the countries involved, their political and military leadership takes note of the outcome, which shapes their future national security strategy. As the dust settles on Operation Sindoor—a high–technology conflict between two nuclear powers with near-conventional parity—there is an intense debate on 'who won?' Both India and Pakistan have declared victory. Fired by nationalistic fervour, the public and media in both countries are in a frenzy to prove their victory in terms of the material and human cost inflicted on the other. Who won the conflict? India's political aim was to reimpose its deterrent. In other words, it sought to force compellence on Pakistan and prevent it from waging a terrorism–driven proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir or anywhere else in India. The aim was to be achieved through calibrated military operations short of a limited war and, more importantly, without violating Pakistan's nuclear thresholds, which have been formally declared. India's military aim was to conduct controlled escalatory (action-response-action) kinetic military operations—without physically violating Pakistan's ground and air space—to impose a psychological defeat by creating conditions that made the enemy's response cost-prohibitive. This strategy was to be primarily executed by the IAF to selectively destroy terrorist and military targets in Pakistan from within Indian territory. The army's air defence and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) would supplement the IAF's resources. Pakistan's political aim was to prevent India's imposition of compellence and retain its strategic autonomy. In doing so, it hoped to re-hyphenate itself with India and also bring the Kashmir 'dispute' back into international focus. Its military aim was to stalemate India by using its limited high-end military technology to defeat India's escalatory offensive operations by launching ripostes of higher intensity to make further operations cost-prohibitive. Both countries were aware of the escalatory matrix and international aversion to a conflict between nuclear powers. India's intent was to delay international intervention, and Pakistan's intent was to invite it at the earliest to stalemate India. It is clear that both sides were trying to create a situation in which the other could not respond without prohibitive losses. Both were keen to do faster cycles of 'quid pro quo plus' to achieve their political and military aims. At the same time, both sides wanted to avoid inflicting large–scale material cost and steer clear of a steep escalation. In such an environment, the side that can repeatedly and speedily complete the OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) Cycle can bring about strategic psychological paralysis—a situation in which the adversary, despite the availability of resources, cannot or fails to respond. In my previous article, I have covered the sequence and conduct of operations in detail. In a nutshell, the IAF, supplemented by the army's air defence and UAS, was able to carry out faster OODA cycles, and was successful in bringing about strategic psychological paralysis. This included precision but symbolic air/drone strikes on nine terror camps on the night of 6/7 May; absorbing Pakistan's counter air action and diagnosing the causes of the unspecified aircraft losses suffered in the air battle; successfully suppressing enemy air defence on 8/9 May; and neutralising the Pakistani UAS and missile strikes with the Integrated Air Defence Command and Control System on the three nights from 7 to 9 May. With enemy air defence suppressed, the PAF was blinded and forced to keep out of the range of S–400 and air–to–air missiles. With repeated and faster OODA Cycles, the stage had been set for the coup de grace. In the early hours of 10 May, the IAF targeted 11 airbases/radars/command and control centres across the length and breadth of Pakistan with impunity. Pakistan has now revealed that seven more targets were hit during the operation. In tune with India's political and military aims, the strikes were more about demonstrating capability than about causing material destruction or inflicting casualties. The strategic psychological paralysis was so profound that the PAF and its air defence systems failed to interfere with the operation in any manner and Pakistan's military and economic infrastructure was at the mercy of the IAF. This was the reason that Islamabad sought a cessation of hostilities. In view of the above, the damage to personnel and material was inconsequential. A crushing strategic psychological defeat had been inflicted on Pakistan. It is important to recall that in 1971, its army in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was virtually intact when it surrendered in Dhaka on 16 December. The victory was achieved by bringing about a strategic psychological collapse. Also read: China is hypocritical on IWT. Just look at how it has maximised upstream water usage Has compellence been imposed? It is clear to Pakistan's military leadership that there is space below its nuclear threshold for a technology–driven conflict. You cannot have missiles pockmarking the area around your capital city and strategic assets, and on military targets all across the hinterland, and yet believe that you have not been compelled to fall in line. Yes, compellence has been imposed on Pakistan through a strategic psychological defeat. But its longevity is contingent on India maintaining an overwhelming technological military edge, which is out of reach for Pakistan. Since the strategic psychological defeat has left its defence potential intact due to nuclear thresholds, Pakistan will always be tempted to technologically upgrade and create the capability to challenge India again. What stands in the way is its niggardly economy. With a GDP of $373 billion, this ambition will remain a pipe dream. China is unlikely to give Pakistan anything for free. It does not do so even in the case of North Korea. However, given the primordial nature of the conflict, the probability of Pakistan defying the odds remains high. There would be a serious review by Pakistan of its strategy of using terrorism as an instrument of policy. However, it is pertinent to mention that terrorism as a concept has never been deterred. Pakistan is a master of running with hares and hunting with hounds, as it did with the US from 2001 to 2021. There is also the possibility of terrorists turning rogue and operating independently. Henceforth, Pakistan is likely to carefully calibrate its proxy war to only keep the pot simmering. It may also revert to placing greater reliance on local terrorists. It is pertinent to mention that I have assessed the political and military aims discussed above based on military theory. The declared political and military aims have focused on punishing the terrorists and their backers (implying Pakistan's military). And if these were indeed the aims, then it is a cause of serious concern as, by implication, it means that the strategic outcome was by default and not by design. Also read: Beijing is calling for Ukraine de-escalation and also benefiting from a weakened Russia What India must do China is India's principal adversary in the long term, and Pakistan, a mere irritant. With China only providing indirect support and selling weaponry, India barely managed to inflict a strategic psychological defeat on Pakistan. 'By the skin of its teeth,' as I said. Imagine a situation when the collusion is more direct. India needs to formalise its National Security Strategy and the contingent National Defence Policy to rapidly transform its armed forces. This will pave the way for a military strategy that caters to threats across the spectrum of conflict. Political security doctrine, spelled out in public speeches of the leadership, has to be translated into a rational security strategy. No nation can afford to be involved in 'forever conflicts' based on the actions of a handful of terrorists. The transformation of the armed forces is an inescapable necessity to establish an overwhelming technological military edge over Pakistan and to stalemate China, that too for a conflict when both adversaries are in collusion. And for this transformation to happen, we need to first double our defence budget to 4 per cent of the GDP. The USSR beggared itself in trying to militarily compete with the US and its allies, and so will Pakistan. In Jammu and Kashmir, India must refine its 'deterrence by denial' strategy against terrorism. Both the counter–infiltration and the counter–terrorism grids in the hinterland require refinement. A limited number of terrorists are dominating the forests and the upper mountainous regions. There is no option but to extend the counter–terrorism grid to these areas. Even a cursory look at statistics tells us that India is winning in Jammu and Kashmir. The degree of violence is at its lowest. The terrorists have the initiative and can always trigger a major black swan incident. However, it must not lead to high–handedness, which would re-alienate the population. Political reconciliation must not be allowed to be held to ransom by odd terrorist incidents. Restoring statehood will go a long way in winning the hearts and minds of the locals. The probability of another conflict with a rejuvenated Pakistan with coercive collusion of China remains high. I assess that the minimum time this could take is 5 years, and the maximum, 10 years. However, if India creates the military capacity and the capability to more emphatically defeat Pakistan and simultaneously stalemate China, the conflict will be deterred. Lt Gen H S Panag PVSM, AVSM (R) served in the Indian Army for 40 years. He was GOC in C Northern Command and Central Command. Post retirement, he was Member of Armed Forces Tribunal. Views are personal. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
