India asserts, Pak deflects: Tale of two narratives in Washington after Operation Sindoor
Two important missions in a week for India: while Indian astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla is set to fly on Axiom's private space mission on June 10, another Indian expedition has just wrapped up in Washington, DC — a strategic one rather than a scientific one. Over the past weeks, in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, an all-party delegation of Indian lawmakers, diplomats, and strategic thinkers descended upon the capital of the United States.advertisementFor far too long, India's response to cross-border terrorism has been measured, calculated, and at times, at least from the West's perspective, conveniently easy to overlook. Not anymore. This time, India made it abundantly clear: terrorism will be named, sponsors will be exposed, and retaliation will not be cloaked in ambiguity.The Indian delegation's meetings weren't symbolic tick-box diplomacy. They were substantive, high-level, and unapologetically pointed. From engagements with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, senior senators from both Democratic and Republican ranks, and US Vice President JD Vance, India's presence was heavy, and its messaging, unmistakably sharp.Assert, not plead
India didn't come to plead for support. It came to assert its geopolitical standing. As the world's fourth-largest economy, a strategic partner in Indo-Pacific stability, and a responsible democracy, India arrived in Washington, DC, with a simple truth: while it exports coders, astronauts, and innovation, Pakistan, decade after decade, has exported only extremism.advertisementAt the National Press Club, where India's sharpest minds, including Dr Shashi Tharoor and Ambassador Taranjit Singh Sandhu, took the stage, the story was laid out with brutal clarity. Terror networks that operate under different banners, like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, often trace their roots back to Pakistani soil. These are not old accusations; they are well-documented facts. Osama bin Laden didn't appear in Abbottabad by accident. The killers of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl didn't just disappear — they were sheltered. The 2008 Mumbai attacks, which killed six American citizens, were orchestrated by groups that still operate openly in Pakistan today.And while India was building partnerships, Pakistan was attempting to mount a desperate diplomatic counteroffensive. A parallel delegation led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the political heir to a dynasty that symbolises both Pakistan's tragedy and dysfunction, landed in DC with a familiar playbook: downplay, deflect, and deny. But the international reception this time was different: colder, more sceptical.Notably, Congressman Brad Sherman, a senior member long involved in US-South Asia relations, used his meeting with Bhutto not to placate, but to publicly demand action against terror groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed, underlining how far Pakistan's credibility has deteriorated.Some Indian critics were quick to suggest that New Delhi's diplomatic push in the US was reactive, that it followed rather than led the narrative. They asked: Should India have preempted Pakistan's visit with an earlier engagement? Perhaps. But diplomacy is not theatre. It is momentum and memory, and come Thursday, India had seized both.advertisementAt a high-profile dinner hosted at Indian House, the symbolic epicentre of India's diplomatic presence in the US, the full weight of India's soft power was on display. Eighteen members of the US Congress, senior White House staff, and prominent members of the Western press, including Wolf Blitzer of CNN, gathered not for formality, but for frank dialogue. It was a show of respect. It was a signal of India's elevated status in the US policy ecosystem.And just when the week seemed to be winding down, India pulled one more diplomatic lever. On Friday, the delegation met with Deputy Secretary of State Landau, one of US President Donald Trump's most seasoned players, who reaffirmed US support for India's counter-terror response. This wasn't a nod. It was strategic alignment.Two nations, two narrativesWhat played out in Washington was more than a series of bilateral meetings. It was a tale of two nations, heading in opposite directions.advertisementOne, a rising democratic power, reaching for the stars, sending astronauts aboard private missions, innovating in technology, and commanding a leadership role in global South politics. The other, a failing state, ruled by dynasts and generals, addicted to strategic blackmail, and clinging to the outdated weapon of terrorism-by-proxy.One showed up with moral authority, economic weight, and strategic vision. The other showed up with excuses, blame, and a fading last name.India's message in Washington was not just about Pakistan. It was also about India's evolving posture on the world stage. New Delhi is shifting toward strategic clarity that calls out state sponsors of terror, demands reciprocal partnerships, and refuses to play second fiddle in multilateral spaces. This transformation isn't just diplomatic. It's psychological. It's a declaration that India will define its red lines, enforce its deterrents, and no longer allow narrative capture, whether in Kashmir, Kabul, or the corridors of Capitol Hill.As Shukla is preparing to float in zero gravity above Earth, India's diplomatic machinery was grounded, especially in purpose. This wasn't outreach. This was a projection. India, once described as a reluctant power, has stopped whispering. It is now speaking, and the world — especially the West — is finally listening. And Pakistan? It is running out of time, currency, and stories.(Rohit Sharma is an award-winning journalist residing in Washington DC)(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Tune InTrending Reel
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Since 1960, poll rolls being shared with parties: CEC Gyanesh Kumar
NEW DELHI: In a first but indirect rejoinder to Rahul Gandhi's allegations of enrolment of fake voters for Maharashtra polls, chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar underscored the statutory sharing of electoral rolls with all recognised political parties year after year since 1960, with a provision for them to make claims, objections and appeals. Delivering the inaugural address at the International Conference on Electoral Integrity (IDEA) in Stockholm on Tuesday, Kumar described the annual roll revision exercise in India as "the world's most rigorous and transparent", adding that it reinforced the accuracy and integrity of the electoral process. He noted that "this robust mechanism plays a vital role in upholding electoral credibility across the country, year after year". Rahul recently reiterated his charge that BJP owed its landslide win in Maharashtra last year to an unusual surge in number of voters after Lok Sabha polls. Officials in Election Commission, speaking anonymously, had dismissed the charge, saying addition of votes in Maharashtra was less than the increase in number of voters for Telangana and Jharkhand polls which were won by Congress and its allies. Congress kept up its protest, while also emphasising that EC officials had not spoken "on record". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 오스템 임플란트 받아가세요 임플란터 더 알아보기 Undo Apprising the participants - representing election management bodies (EMBs) of around 50 countries - about the massive scale of Indian elections conducted under the watch of political parties, candidates, observers and the media, the CEC said the poll panel, with over 20 million personnel, including polling staff, police forces and observers, "becomes the world's largest organisation, surpassing the combined workforce of several national govts and major global corporations and ensures that India's nearly one billion electors are freely able to exercise their franchise". Kumar traced the evolution of Indian elections over the decades, noting how the system has adapted to increasing complexity while staying rooted in constitutional values. "From 173 million electors in 1951-52 to 979 million in 2024, and from just 0.2 million polling stations in the early years to over 1.05 million today, India's electoral journey has demonstrated both institutional foresight and unmatched scale," he said. Kumar added that 743 political parties and 20,271 candidates contested elections across the country using 6.2 million EVMs. Reflecting on the inclusive design of Indian elections, Kumar said the electoral process serves first-time voters, senior citizens aged 85+, persons with special abilities, third-gender electors, and voters in the most inaccessible regions with equal care and commitment. From polling booths with a single elector to highest altitude stations like Tashigang in Himachal Pradesh, India's commitment to leaving no voter behind is reiterated as a constitutional principle rather than a logistical challenge, he said.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Asked Modi to stop Hasina from speaking, he said not possible due to social media: Yunus
LONDON: Chief adviser to the interim Bangladesh govt, Mohammad Yunus , told delegates at Chatham House Wednesday he had asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi to stop ousted Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina from 'speaking' after she fled to India but Modi replied that it was not possible because of social media. 'I said to PM Modi: 'You want to host her? I can't force you to abandon that policy, but please help us in making sure she doesn't speak to Bangladeshi people the way she is doing as the whole of Bangladesh gets very angry.' India is not doing what I asked. Modi's answer was: 'It is social media, we can't control it.' What can you say? It's an explosive situation. You can't just walk away by saying it's social media,' Yunus said. 'We want to build the best relationship with India – but somehow things go wrong all the time because of all fake news coming from the Indian press,' he said. 'Some people say it has connections with policy makers at the top. This is what makes Bangladesh very jittery. A whole barrage of things keep happening in cyber space.' Yunus said Awami League didn't need to be part of the 2026 elections as 'it isn't a political party'. He pledged to hold 'the most beautiful election ever'. 'If they can kill young people on the street, make people disappear, steal money, would you call them a political party? None of them has ever expressed remorse. For the safety of politics of this country, the nation has decided that, for time being, the activities of Awami League will be suspended until the trial is over,' he said, referring to the trial of perpetrators of violence under the Hasina regime. 'We have not banned Awami League. ' Protests marked Yunus' visit to Chatham House. 'How can he ban the Awami League? He is not even elected. He has no authority,' said one of the Bangladeshi diaspora protesters outside, chanting, 'Yunus terrorist'. One held a placard calling for the release of former Iskcon monk Chinmoy Prabhu.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
What the Harvard investigation means for the future of diversity in US higher education
A new congressional investigation into Harvard University's faculty hiring practices is drawing national attention—and raising questions about the future of diversity efforts in US higher education. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now With President Donald Trump leading a broader political campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, the Harvard case could be a turning point for how universities approach hiring across the country. Recently, nine Republican members of the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce sent a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber, alleging that the university may be violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by considering race and gender in its hiring decisions. As reported by the Harvard Crimson , lawmakers demanded documents and internal policies that relate to hiring practices, with a deadline of June 25, 2025. Focus on race and gender in hiring under legal scrutiny The investigation was triggered in part by leaked internal documents, published by conservative activist Christopher F. Rufo. These materials included a 2023 Harvard guide that encouraged faculty search committees to "consider reading the applications of women and minorities first" and give such candidates a "second look," especially when placement goals were in place. As noted by the Harvard Crimson , the guide also recommended monitoring racial and gender diversity in applicant pools. The letter also cited interview prompts reportedly used by Harvard since 2021. Candidates were asked to define diversity, explain its role in their careers, and describe challenges in diverse environments. As quoted by the Harvard Crimson , lawmakers said these practices raise serious concerns under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race or sex. A national precedent for other universities Higher education experts believe the investigation could set a precedent that pressures other US universities to revise or roll back DEI-related hiring practices. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Following a Title VII complaint filed by Andrea R. Lucas, acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Harvard Medical School removed several diversity-focused programs and quietly deleted a public pledge on inclusive hiring. The timing of the probe also follows the US Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending race-based affirmative action in college admissions. While that ruling focused on Title VI, the Republican lawmakers argued—according to the Harvard Crimson —that "the principle of equal treatment under the law certainly applies to Title VII as well." More scrutiny likely as politics meets policy With multiple investigations already underway into Harvard's conduct, including probes into campus antisemitism and research ties with China, lawmakers appear poised to increase pressure on elite institutions. As the Harvard Crimson noted, this marks the reemergence of the House Education and the Workforce Committee as a powerful force in congressional oversight. For many in academia, the Harvard investigation is not just about one university—it may be a signal of shifting legal standards and political realities for higher education across the US.
