Malaysia thanks Indian delegation for anti-terror briefing, reaffirms peace commitment
The Speaker reaffirmed Malaysia's commitment to peace, and thanked the delegation for the briefing on India's approach in dealing with terrorism at large, it said.
The delegation, led by JD(U) MP Sanjay Kumar Jha, met with Speaker of the House of Representatives, Parliament of Malaysia (Dewan Rakyat), YB Tan Sri Dato' (Dr) Johari bin Abdul and briefed on India's unwavering policy of zero tolerance towards terrorism, and sought cooperation of Malaysian parliamentarians in the collective fight against terrorism, the High Commission of India here said in a X post.
Kuala Lumpur, Jun 3 (PTI) Malaysia on Tuesday reaffirmed its commitment to peace as it thanked an all-party parliamentary delegation from India for the briefing on New Delhi's approach to combatting terrorism.
The delegation also met with the Parliamentary Special Committee on International Relations and International Trade, chaired by YB Wong Chen, Member of Parliament and Chairman of Parliamentary Special committee on International relations and International Trade, and briefed about the heinous terrorist attack in Pahalgam and highlighted India's zero tolerance policy towards terrorism.
'Discussions focussed on ways to cooperate in the collective fight against terrorism,' the Indian mission said.
The delegation held a 'productive meeting' with representatives of the Southeast Asia Regional Centre for Counter-Terrorism (SEARCCT) led by Datin Paduka Nur Ashikin Mohd Taib, Director General of SEARCCT, here.
It elaborated India's steadfast and principled position of zero tolerance towards terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, especially in light of the recent cross-border terrorist attack in Pahalgam, the High Commission said in another X post.
SEARCCT's role as a regional centre for promoting counter-terrorism initiatives, and its role in India-Malaysia Joint Working Group on Counterterrorism, was highlighted by Jha.
'Discussions centred around regional synergy through SEARCCT, particularly in legal frameworks, counter-terror financing, community resilience, as well as promoting studies on the ways to address cross-border terrorism,' the mission said.
Apart from Jha, the delegation includes Aparajita Sarangi (BJP), Abhishek Banerjee (TMC), Brij Lal (BJP), John Brittas (CPI-M), Pradan Baruah (BJP), Hemang Joshi (BJP), former external affairs minister Salman Khurshid, and former ambassador Mohan Kumar.
The delegation to Malaysia is one of the seven multi-party delegations India has tasked to visit 33 global capitals to reach out to the international community to emphasise Pakistan's links to terrorism.
Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated after the Pahalgam attack, which claimed 26 lives.
India carried out precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in the early hours of May 7, following which 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. PTI SCY SCY
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
8 minutes ago
- The Wire
Priests Oppose UP Govt's Plan to Set up Trust For Management of Vrindavan's Banke Bihari Temple
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Government Priests Oppose UP Govt's Plan to Set up Trust For Management of Vrindavan's Banke Bihari Temple The Wire Staff 7 minutes ago Priests from the Goswami sect have been managing the temple since the last few hundred years. Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh. Photo: Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh government's decision to set up a trust for the management of Banke Bihari Mandir in Vrindavan has sparked opposition from priests in Mathura who has termed the move of the BJP government in the state as 'anti-Brahmin.' 'It was because of the penance of our ancestors that God had appeared here. The temple became revered under their supervision, but the government is now taking it over on the pretext of regulating its management,' said Tarachand Goswami, the former chairman of the temple on Wednesday (June 4) reported The Telegraph. Another priest, Vishnu Goswami accused the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath-led government of deliberately trying to snatch the livelihood of Brahmins. Last week, the state government had cleared an ordinance that paved the way for setting up the Shri Banke Bihariji Mandir Nyas Trust. The trust is entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the management of the shrine and its everyday rituals. Priests from the Goswami sect have been managing the temple since the last few hundred years. Some Goswami priests have said that if the government didn't review its decision to take over the temple's management, they will take away the idol, which they say was installed by their ancestors in 1864. A government that confiscates temples cannot be secular. The government is constantly trying to regulate religion with an ulterior motive. The government appears against the Goswami tradition and wants to have its official priests,' said Swami Avimukteshwaranand, the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath in Uttarakhand who has been staying in Mathura since last few days. The government has said that the trust is essential for the construction of a Banke Bihari Corridor around the temple at a cost of Rs. 500 crore. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Fifth Acting DGP in a Row: Why Uttar Pradesh Still Lacks a Permanent Police Chief Interview | 'National Leadership Will Decide on Alliance But UP Congress Is Focusing on All 403 Seats' Days After Cow Vigilante Rampage in Aligarh, Forensic Report Belies Beef Allegations 'They Would Have Abused Vyomika Singh Too if They Knew She was a Dalit': Senior SP Leader's Dig at BJP UP: Over Two Dozen People Arrested for 'Anti-National' and 'Misleading' Posts on Operation Sindoor Row Over Army Statement That India's Air Defence System Shielded Golden Temple From Pakistan's Strikes Karnataka Temple Trust Issues Apology to Muslims After BJP MLA's Inflammatory Speech Temple Politics and Attack on Migrants Are Escalating Tensions Between Bengal and Odisha Andhra: N. Chandrababu Naidu and His Ministers – Including 8 First-Time MLAs – Take Oath View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
The Print
13 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)
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
'There was no need to ask us to stop': Shashi Tharoor reacts to Rahul Gandhi's 'Narender, surrender' jibe at PM; watch video
Rahul Gandhi and Shashi Tharoor (R) NEW DELHI: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor offered a measured response to party colleague Rahul Gandhi 's controversial "Narender, surrender" jibe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi , asserting that domestic political differences should not overshadow India's unified stance abroad. Speaking in Washington, where he is leading an all-party parliamentary delegation, Tharoor diplomatically navigated questions about Gandhi's remarks that accused PM Modi of capitulating to US President Donald Trump during a the recent standoff. 'In a democracy, and this is normal, parties will contend, criticism will be expressed, demands will be made, points of view will be laid out. We are not here on a party political mission. We are here as representatives of a united India,' Tharoor said. 'I often point out to my interlocutors that we have five political parties amongst my seven MPs. We have three religions, we have got seven states... it's an incredible cross section reflective of India's diversity. There is an old saying that our political differences stop at the edge of the border. Once you cross the border, you are an Indian and your other allegiances come second,' he added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Probably a bad dream': Stage 4 cancer at 30 and how this millennial is navigating through it CNA Read More Undo Tharoor dismissed concerns over intra-party criticism overshadowing the delegation's mission. 'I think, frankly, when one is doing the nation's service, I don't think one needs to worry too much about these things,' he said. Referring to a recent statement by fellow Congress leader Salman Khurshid, Tharoor added, 'I noticed that my friend Salman Khurshid has asked the question, 'Is it so difficult to be a patriot in our country these days?' And I think anybody who considers that working in the national interest is some sort of anti-party activity really needs to question themselves rather than us. I honestly feel at this point in time that we are focused on a mission here, and we don't really need to spend too much time worrying about what is said or not said in the heat of the moment by various individuals. Because for us, the focus really is on this much larger and more important message.' On the matter of US mediation in India-Pakistan tensions, Tharoor reiterated India's firm stance. 'I am not necessarily having to address this issue because I am not here to stir up any sort of complication with the White House. We have enormous respect for the American presidency,' he said. 'I think we don't know exactly what his folks said to Pakistan. We didn't need persuading by anybody. We were clear — there was no need to ask us to stop because we had said: you hit us, we will hit back, and if they will stop, we will stop. We said that on the first day, we said that on the last day. They may have talked to Pakistan, but that is between them and Pakistan.' Tharoor's remarks come after Rahul Gandhi, while addressing a rally in Bhopal, alleged that Prime Minister Modi had acted on a cue from US President Donald Trump during a military standoff. 'As soon as Trump signalled from there, picked up the phone and said, 'what are you doing Modi ji? Narender, surrender'...and Modi ji obeyed Trump's orders with 'Ji Huzoor',' LoP had said. Former Congress president also invoked the memory of the 1971 Indo-Pak war, saying, 'Back then a phone call had not come but the US had sent its 7th fleet, weapons, and an aircraft carrier, but Indira Gandhi didn't surrender and said she would go by national interest.' He further alleged that the BJP and RSS were habituated to 'writing surrender letters' since India's independence. The BJP, in response, accused Gandhi of insulting the armed forces and undermining the success of Operation Sindoor with his comments.
