Asim Munir fires back: Pakistan needed no China or Turkey, says India's ‘axis' claim is fiction, 'shoddy camp politics'
Operation Bunyanum Marsoos
are irresponsible and factually incorrect and reflect a chronic reluctance to acknowledge indigenous capability and institutional resilience developed over decades of strategic prudence.'
He called India's attempt to drag other states into the fray a cheap trick. 'Naming other states as participants in the purely bilateral military conflagration is also a shoddy attempt at playing camp politics,' Munir said, brushing off talk of a bigger nexus as just spin.
A blunt warning
Munir didn't stop at a denial. He promised a punishing response to any future strike. 'Any attempt to target our population centres, military bases, economic hubs and ports will instantly invoke a deeply hurting and more than reciprocal response,' he said. For him, the battlefield isn't decided by imported gear or catchy headlines. It's grit and discipline that matter. Or as he put it, 'Wars are not won through media rhetoric, imported fancy hardware, or political sloganeering, but through faith, professional competence, operational clarity, institutional strength and national resolve.'
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You
Dubai villas | search ads
Get Deals
Undo
India's charge: A hidden 'unholy' axis
India doesn't buy it. Lieutenant General Rahul R Singh, the Deputy Chief of Army Staff, laid out what he called the real picture. At a defence event in Delhi, he said, 'China is able to test its weapons against other weapons, so it's like a live lab available to them. Turkey also played an important role in providing the type of support it did.' According to Singh, China fed Pakistan live updates of Indian troop positions while Turkish drones filled the skies. His blunt verdict: India faced not one enemy, but three.
How it began
Operation Sindoor wasn't born in a vacuum. On 22 April, militants attacked tourists in Pahalgam, Kashmir. India blamed Pakistan. On 7 May, India struck back, hitting terrorist camps in Pakistan-held territory. What followed was four days of drones, missiles and artillery fire — some of the fiercest exchanges between the two since Kargil. It ended, officially, when both Director Generals of Military Operations agreed to stop on 10 May. India claims its strikes were so punishing that Pakistan had no choice but to sue for peace.
Live Events
Beijing keeps its distance
Caught in the middle of the allegations, China plays it safe. When pressed, the Chinese foreign ministry said only, 'China and Pakistan are close neighbours enjoying traditional friendship. Defence and security cooperation is part of the normal cooperation between the two countries and does not target any third party.' Not exactly a denial, not quite an admission either.
Behind the denials and threats is an old rivalry that refuses to stay quiet. Pakistan, once again describing itself as the region's 'net security provider,' still faces whispers about terror safe havens. India, meanwhile, is wary of an axis forming around its borders. For all the new weapons and fresh alliances, the script feels familiar.
This clash might have ended with a handshake between the two Director Generals of Military Operations, but the story is far from over. Pakistan continues to deny any link to the Pahalgam attack, even as India says the safe havens remain. Munir's tough words fit the old script: Pakistan as the regional stabiliser, India as the aggressor. On India's side, the claim is simple — the battlefield is bigger than the Line of Control and so are the players.
So the guns are silent, for now. But whether you believe Munir or Singh, there's one truth no one can deny: the next spark is never too far away.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
1993 serial blasts: Bombay HC says Abu Salem's 25-year jail term prima facie not over yet
The Bombay High Court on Monday prima facie observed that gangster Abu Salem, who has been sentenced to life imprisonment in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case, has not completed 25 years of incarceration to qualify for remission of his sentence. Salem has claimed that he has completed nearly 25 years in prison as per extradition treaty between India and Portugal and therefore he should be given a tentative date of release from jail. The HC admitted Salem's plea seeking remission and premature release from jail argued through senior advocate Rishi Malhotra and advocate Farhana Shah 'As per the Supreme Court judgment, it is recorded that the date of arrest is October 12, 2005. On completion of 25 years of incarceration, the central government is bound to exercise the powers of remission and release the applicant. Prima facie, it is clear that the 25 years of incarceration is yet to be completed,' a bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil observed and admitted the plea. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh for Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sought dismissal of Salem's plea stating that honouring the 25-year period mentioned in assurance will arise only when the 25 years were to expire, which will happen on November 10, 2030. The MHA said that it would abide by the period of 25 years at an appropriate time subject to remedies, which may be available. Salem, who was transferred from Taloja Central Prison in Navi Mumbai to Nashik Central Prison last year, was extradited to India from Portugal on November 11, 2005. He was placed under arrest on November 24, 2005, and subsequently tried for the offences he had been charged with. In September 2017, Salem was convicted in the Mumbai serial blasts case. Two years earlier, in 2015, he had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1995 murder of Mumbai-based builder Pradeep Jain. On July 11, 2022, the Supreme Court observed that the central government was bound to advise the President to exercise his powers of remission to release Salem after he completes 25 years in prison, in accordance with the sovereign assurance given by the Indian government to Portugal at the time of his extradition. However, the court declined to extend any special privilege to commute or restrict the sentence imposed on him. In October last year, Salem argued before the special court designated under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) that he had neared 25-year term and same included time spent as an undertrial and later as a convict, along with nearly three years of remission he was entitled to under prison rules. In December, 2024, the special court rejected Salem's claim, after which he approached the High Court. The MHA's affidavit in response stated that the plea was 'entirely misconceived, baseless and is based on a misplaced understanding of law'. The Centre further said that the petitioner should approach the SC for further clarification as it would be the appropriate forum. The MHA said that the petitioner's calculation was 'not correct' and he has 'attempted to combine two separate conviction periods undergone in separate cases to arrive at a conclusion' that he completed a conviction period of 24 years and nine months on December 31, 2024. However, the MHA in its May, 2025 affidavit claimed that till March 31, 2025 he had served 19 years, 5 months and 21 days. The HC will hear the plea in due course.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
40 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Delhi High Court rejects Celebi's plea against revoked security permit
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed Turkey-based company Çelebi Airport Services Private Limited's plea challenging the Indian government's decision to revoke its security clearance. The court said that 'once national security considerations are found to exist, it was not for the Court to 'second guess' the same.' 'As per settled law, once national security considerations are found to exist, on the basis of which the security clearance has been cancelled/revoked, it is not for the Court to 'second guess' the same,' the order said. Justice Sachin Datta upheld the revocation of security clearance of the Turkey-based firm by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) in the interest of national security. On perusal of the relevant information, it transpires that there are compelling national security considerations involved, which impelled the Indian government to revoke the security clearance, the court said. 'While it would not be appropriate for this Court to make a verbatim reference to the relevant information/inputs, suffice it to say, that there is a necessity to eliminate the possibility of espionage and/or dual use of logistics capabilities which would be highly detrimental to the security of the country, especially in the event of an external conflict,' the order said. The court further noted that impelling geopolitical considerations, impinging upon the safety of the country, were also involved. '…the executive wing and not the judicial wing has the knowledge of India's geopolitical relationships to assess if an action is in the interest of India's national security,' the order stated. There was a considerable body of judicial dicta to the effect that the State is well within its rights to take pre-emptive measures to protect and preserve national security, the single-judge bench of the High Court said. 'No doubt, the principles of natural justice are sacrosanct; however, it is a compelling constitutional truth that security of the realm is the precondition for enjoyment of all other rights. The State/respondents are indeed justified in taking prompt and definitive action so as to completely obviate the possibility of the country's civil aviation and national security being compromised,' the court said. In its petition to the Delhi High Court, Çelebi Airport Services had said that public perception cannot be grounds for revocation of security clearance. The ground-handling company also submitted that it had been given no reason or opportunity for a hearing. 'We have been carrying the operations for 17 years without blemish. Then we received a letter on May 15 cancelling the security clearance. We were given no reason and no opportunity for hearing. It is because of public perception that the shareholding of the company is of Turkish nationals. But public perception cannot be grounds (for revocation of security clearance). There are 14,000 employees working. The entire business goes for a toss,' Çelebi's lawyers had told the court. Çelebi had also argued that the Indian government's decision to revoke its security clearance was 'arbitrary and devoid of specific reasons.' The Ministry of Civil Aviation, acting through the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), withdrew Çelebi's clearance on 15 May 2025, invoking national security grounds. The move came amid mounting diplomatic tensions after Turkey supported Pakistan during hostilities involving Operation Sindoor. At least seven airports in the country cancelled the services of Çelebi and its subsidiaries. Çelebi challenged the contract cancellations before the High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Gujarat, besides challenging the security revocation before the Delhi High Court. While the pleas are pending in the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, the Madras High Court had in June granted interim protection to Çelebi Ground Services Chennai under Section 9 (interim protection to parties) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Background Çelebi, a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of Turkish parent company Çelebi Aviation Holding, argued that the government's order lacked any prior notice or opportunity to respond. The company described the justification as 'vague' and 'unsubstantiated,' asserting that such actions jeopardise foreign investor confidence and threaten the livelihoods of Indian employees. 'Technically, it's an Indian company. There has to be a reasonable cause. We were not given prior notice,' Çelebi told the court. The company also clarified that while it has Turkish ownership, operational and managerial control of its Indian entity is handled by an India-based team, and that it has maintained a clean track record for over a decade at major airports. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, expressed national security concerns over the firm's presence, and said, 'The enemy can try 10 times and succeed once; a country has to succeed all the time.' 'In cases of civil aviation and national security, there cannot be a doctrine of proportionality,' he added. He also submitted that the individuals employed by the company in question, who are deployed at airports, have access to every corner of the airport as well as the aircraft. 'The government had inputs that it would be hazardous in this scenario, in which the country is in, to leave this activity in the hands of this company,' he said. Mehta maintained that the revocation was rooted in concerns over national security under the Aircraft Security Rules, particularly Rule 12. Rule 12 of the Indian Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023, grants the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) the power to suspend or cancel security clearances and security programmes. Following the revocation of clearance, Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) also terminated its contracts with Çelebi, and in Mumbai, Indothai, a domestic operator, was brought in to take over the firm's ground-handling services.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
3 Maoists surrender in Phulbani
1 2 Berhampur: Three hardcore Maoists, including two women, all from Chhattisgarh, carrying a total bounty of Rs 13 lakh, surrendered to police at Phulbani in Kandhamal district Monday. The surrendered Maoists were identified as Made Beti alias Champa (30) of Dugumarka in Sukma district, working as divisional committee member (DCM), Raju Dodi alias Ajay (35) of Basaguda, and Admo Madvi alias Manju (27) of Pangud in Bijapur district, working as area committee members in Kalahandi-Kandhamal-Boudh-Nayagarh (KKBN) division of CPI (Maoist). They surrendered at the district police office in Phulbani in the presence of inspector general of police (southern range) Niti Sekhar, SP (Kandhamal) Harish BC, and commandant 127 battalion of CRPF Pankaj Verma. "The task of the surrendered Maoists was to reactivate the North-South corridor from Jharkhand to Chhattisgarh through south-central Odisha. They were working in the Maoist organisation since 2009, 2016, and 2011 respectively," said the SP (Kandhamal). The trio were involved in several Maoist-related violences in Kandhamal. The surrender of senior Maoist leaders took place after the death of two Maoist leaders, Manku and Chandan, the ACM and party member in the Maoist organisation, in the June 30 encounter at Pushungia forest. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Abiti in una casa indipendente? Ecco perché installare una pompa di calore Aira Scopri di più Undo "Regular anti-Maoist operations in the interior areas of Kandhamal, the death of two ultras in the recent exchange of fire and frustration over unethical activities in the Maoist organisation, such as sexual harassment of female cadres, extortion through intimidation, and induction of youth into the organisation by false propaganda, are some of the reasons for the trio to quit the Maoists," said the SP. They will be suitably rehabilitated under the surrender rehabilitation scheme of the govt, he said. Sekhar appealed to other ultras to shun violence and join the mainstream.
