No one's forgotten Pakistan sheltered Osama: India after US' Pakistan praise
Representative image
NEW DELHI: As American authorities laud Pakistan's counterterrorism efforts, India said Thursday that no one has forgotten that Pakistan gave shelter to
Osama Bin laden
and its role in the Mumbai attacks.
Government also reminded the US that the man who helped locate Osama Bin Laden is still in a Pakistan jail.
"The record of what Pakistan actually is, is very clear. We all know the Pahalagam attack is only the most recent example of cross-border terrorism. I would remind you that only recently the conspirator of 26/11 Tahawwur Rana was extradited from the US," said MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal.
Rana had helped key conspirator David Headley plot the Mumbai attacks (26/11) in 2008 and was recently extradited by the US to India.
"Obviously, none of us have forgotten that Pakistan gave shelter to Osama Bin Laden. It is significant that the person - Dr Shakil Afridi - who helped locate Osama bin Laden is still imprisoned by the Pakistani military," he added.
The official was responding to questions about US Central Command (CENTCOM) commander General Michael Kurilla remark that Pakistan was a "phenomenal partner in the world of counterterrorism".
Kurilla also said the United States has to have a relationship with Pakistan and with India, and noted that it cannot be a "binary switch" where Washington cannot have ties with Islamabad if it has relations with New Delhi.
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
In battle of the delegations, real story lies in what went unsaid
In the aftermath of their recent military clash, rival delegations from Delhi and Islamabad converged on various global capitals, each aiming to shape elite opinion, win sympathy, and control the post-crisis narrative. Having witnessed some of the exchanges in London firsthand, the diplomatic duel across briefing rooms, think tanks, and diaspora events was as revealing for what was unsaid as for what was spoken. Messaging starts with messengers The difference in delegation profiles was notable. India's all-party parliamentary mission carried symbolic weight and cross-party legitimacy, including senior figures like Ravi Shankar Prasad and Pankaj Saran. Pakistan's team leaned more on technocrats and veteran advocates of global engagement, such as Sherry Rehman and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. India's group projected cohesion and resolve; Pakistan's aimed to influence narratives and broaden appeal. India's cautious case India's delegation framed Operation Sindoor as part of a broader shift: limited cross-border retaliation to terrorist acts as policy, not aberration. They emphasized terrorism as a global threat whose response merits international understanding—not moral equivalence. The delegation linked India's counterterrorism struggle to challenges faced by Western democracies, with Pakistan as a common denominator. In my observation, Indian representatives appeared quietly frustrated that while many countries expressed sympathy after Pahalgam and tacitly accepted India's right to act, few explicitly condemned Pakistan. Though confident in their message, their delivery often felt restrained. In think tanks, the tone was formal, even stiff; diaspora engagements were reportedly more fiery. Though most accepted the delegation's basic premise, some observers noted the irony in Delhi resisting calls to frame Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a shared threat but now seeking solidarity on Pakistani-based terrorism. Crucially, the delegation faltered when pressed on domestic radicalization. Two of the Pahalgam suspects were reportedly Indian nationals. Asked how New Delhi planned to prevent disillusionment turning to violence, the only response was that 'things today are better than in the 1990s.' This was a missed chance to demonstrate nuanced understanding of the challenge. Other inconsistencies emerged. India's representatives rejected 're-hyphenation' with Pakistan, yet much of their messaging focused on Islamabad. While stressing the quarrel was with Pakistan's military, not its people, questions about suspending the Indus Waters Treaty complicated that briefings took place inside the High Commission, with diaspora members complaining to me that they thought too much political outreach was aimed at UK politicians of Indian heritage. Playing it safe has a certain logic, but may have limited engagement with new or skeptical audiences. Pak's polished—but problematic—pitch If India played it safe, Pakistan opted for smooth. Their delegation turned up at major think tanks eager to engage and keen to appear misunderstood. With assistance from lobbying professionals, their narrative was tightly crafted for European audiences: Pakistan sought peace through dialogue, emphasising Kashmir as the 'unfinished legacy of Partition,' terrorism, and water. Pakistan said it wanted talks, a neutral investigation into Pahalgam, and accused India of refusing cooperation or prove culpability. This narrative of peace sat uneasily beside claims of military success and personal attacks on Indian leaders. Critique of Indian media spin might have bolstered believability had it not been accompanied by other factual distortions: legal sleight-of-hand over Kashmir, misreadings of UN resolutions, and claims that India admitted culpability for terrorism in most convincing moment came on the Indus Waters Treaty, where the stark picture painted of the consequences struck a chord, even if significant action has yet to follow. A key question remains: what was the objective? If persuasion abroad was the objective, the reliance on longstanding misrepresentations made it a difficult sell to informed audiences. If the goal was domestic signaling, that focus likely came at the expense of deeper foreign engagement. Simpler sell, harder ask Ultimately, the Indian delegation framed all terrorism as emanating from Pakistan; Pakistan framed it as emerging from Kashmir. The narratives didn't just clash—they barely shared the same terms of reference. As performative exercises providing content for domestic media, both probably succeeded on their own terms. In the battle to move international opinion, outcomes were uneven. India may have achieved more, but it also had the easier task — framing terrorism as a universal threat aligns with European security narratives. Pakistan, by contrast, asked outside actors to invest political capital in corralling New Delhi back to the negotiating table — a much harder sell. Yet neither side escaped contradiction. India's claim to strategic clarity was weakened by deflection on domestic aspects of terrorism in Kashmir. Pakistan's message of peace was blunted by triumphalism and tired tropes. In diplomacy, silence often speaks louder than words. In London last week, the most telling signals were what each side omitted, ignored, or performed for the audience they believed mattered most. Ladwig III is a senior lecturer at the department of War Studies, King's College London
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Smelling cash in the space race
Space has an odour. Visitors to the Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, US, can smell it by pressing a button to inhale a puff of air that smells of space. Space is airless by definition, but the workaround is essential because we can't inhale 'space' without fatal consequences. Despite this logical complication, the experience is evocative and surprising. Space smells of long-distance travel. It smells of Indian highways far from big cities. It smells like the world did long ago on the railways, when almost everyone travelled without air conditioning. But hereafter, space could smell a little different. From the beginning of the space race, it has smelled of Cold War rivalry, military-industrial complexes and technology-based diplomacy. These metallic notes will remain; but from here on, space will also smell overwhelmingly of commerce, of paper money. Gold is economically and chemically stable. It has no smell, unlike space. The countdown of the Axiom-4 mission to the International Space station has been aborted twice but soon, astronauts from India, Poland and Hungary could be back in space after 40 years and more. In anticipation, their national media have already declared it to be a turning point for their domestic space programmes. But the composition of the Axiom-4 mission also indicates that the whole world has passed a turning point. The crew led by American Peggy Whitson will be taken to orbit on Elon Musk's commercial Dragon launch vehicle, and the project is a collaboration between NASA, the European Space Agency, ISRO and the Houston firm Axiom Space, whose most ambitious project is the first commercial space station. The purpose of the collaboration is to facilitate a range of commercial activities in space, from scientific research to space tourism. Space is about to be opened up commercially, just like the world was opened like an oyster by the European Age of Exploration. About 40 years ago, when India, Poland and Hungary last sent their citizens into space, it was a domain where national governments showed off their technological prowess to compete for geopolitical gains. These three countries made a place for themselves in space under the aegis of Interkosmos, a Russian state programme launched in 1967 to help satellite nations of the USSR and other socialist nations like Afghanistan and Cuba reach space. Non-aligned nations Syria and India were also under its umbrella.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
UK's child sex abuse scandal: PM Keir Starmer orders national inquiry into 'grooming gangs' after report, Musk criticism
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Saturday announced a national inquiry into the UK's decades-long child sex abuse scandal involving grooming gangs, reversing his earlier stance in light of a new report and mounting public pressure, including from US tech billionaire Elon Musk. The decision follows the findings of an independent audit by Louise Casey, who had initially believed a national-level probe was unnecessary but changed her view after reviewing the scale and nature of the abuse. 'She has come to the view that there should be a national inquiry on the basis of what she has seen. I have read every single word of her report and I am going to accept her recommendation,' Starmer told reporters en route to the G7 summit in Canada. The scandal centres on gangs of mostly Pakistani men who targeted and abused thousands of vulnerable white girls, many from disadvantaged backgrounds or in state care. The abuse occurred in towns such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, and Bristol over nearly four decades. Previous investigations found that police and local authorities often failed to act, allegedly due to fears of being labelled racist. The matter gained international traction earlier this year after Musk, owner of the X platform, accused the UK government of failing to adequately address the issue. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Addition Hills: Scholarships You Can Apply For (Start Now) College Scholarship | Google Search Search Now Undo On Saturday, Musk responded to news of the inquiry saying he was 'glad to hear this is happening.' Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had tasked Casey with a 'rapid audit' in January. Sky News reported Saturday that Casey's findings will indicate that vulnerable white British girls were 'institutionally ignored' by authorities. Criticism of the delay came from Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, who accused Starmer of dragging his feet. 'I've been repeatedly calling for a full national inquiry since January,' she said. 'Many survivors of the grooming gangs will be relieved that this is finally happening. But they need a resolution soon, not in 10 years' time.'
