MyVoice: Views of our readers 9th May 2025
Actual perpetrators remain scot-free
War has never done justice to any country; it is always devastating and causes irreparable loss. The fierce Operation Sindoor attack and catastrophic damage to nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and POK can really be a matter of pride for some. However, there are other things to consider. The million-dollar question is whether we could kill the real culprits, the ones responsible for the Pahalgam massacre. How will the Union Government justify the killing of 15 during Pakistan army shelling in Poonch and Tangdhar on that very night Operation Sindoor had taken place? A war should be averted at any cost.
Dr. Sunil Chopra, New Upkar Nagar, Ludhiana
An Indo-Pak war can be devastating
Though flare-ups between India and Pakistan are nothing new, India's Operation Sindoor has notably been more aggressive than the military actions launched by Delhi against Pakistan in 2016 and 2019. It is an uncomfortable moment not least because both India and Pakistan possess a considerable stock of nuclear weapons. Over the last few years, the belief that countries do not go to war has disappeared. India has rightly said that it launched missiles and air strikes on nine sites across Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir targeting 'militant positions' based on credible intelligence inputs. The sharp escalation comes after last month's deadly militant attack on tourists in Pahalgam pushing tensions between the nuclear armed rivals to dangerous new heights. War will certainly spoil the economy and normal situation in India. International mediation is essential to ensure that the current confrontations does not reach a point where nuclear escalation risks come into play. Careful diplomacy from trusted interlocutors can help bring the two countries back from the brink.
P. Victor Selvaraj, Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli- 627002
Need to strengthen internal security
India responded firmly, forcefully and decisively through operation Sindoor targeted and decimated nine nerve centres of terror camps in Pakistan and POK killing 70 plus terrorists in response to the anger which gripped India after the Pahalgam attack does not end here. In fact, it could be the beginning of a new confrontation if Islamabad fails to take credible measures to check the activities of terror outfits operating on its soil. The terrorists and their handlers have paid a heavy price. New Delhi's message to Islamabad is unambiguous and a reiteration that any future aggression by Pakistan will not go unanswered because military option is only one part of a broader, long-term strategy. Although the blood of our countrymen has been avenged in action, we still must safeguard and strengthen our internal security to ensure that pilgrimage events like Amarnath yatra progress smoothly and safely because Pakistan has no remorse about the targets it chooses.
K.R. Srinivasan, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad--3.
Oppn should rally behind Centre
The Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge the other day charged that an intelligence report was sent to Prime Minister Narendra Modi three days ahead of the Pahalgam attack because of which he cancelled a scheduled trip to Kashmir but still left the tourists vulnerable. This is no time for political parties to throw brickbats at one another. This is a time of grave national crisis, which calls for political parties, irrespective of affiliation to lend unconditional support to the government's efforts to fight cross-border terrorism which Pakistan has made its favourite national pastime.
Dr. George Jacob, Kochi
Caste-census must be an apolitical exercise
Conducting a caste-based census is no big achievement. Instead, the focus must be launching a development project and to make it accessible to every section of the society and even more importantly ensure participation of underprivileged and disadvantaged sections. The announcement made by the government is not yet clearly founded. If the intention behind it is sincere and aimed at public welfare, it should be welcomed and appreciated in every way. And if its purpose is political, it will inevitably face condemnation.
Abdus Subhan, Begusarai, Bihar
Stay safe from social media fraudsters
A Mumbai woman was defrauded of ₹67.15 lakh in a share market scam. The victim was lured into a fake trading scheme via WhatsApp and persuaded to transfer money across multiple bank accounts. Although social media provides a wonderful platform to interact with others, users should be careful. Sometimes alerts lead to unimaginable loss. Nowadays, the fraudsters are very active and create fake IDs on social media to lure the gullible people into a fake trading scheme.
Abdullah Jameel Azmi, Azamgarh (UP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Pak hikes defence spending by 20% in budget amid tense relations with India
Pakistan on Tuesday increased its defence budget by 20 per cent, allocating PRs. 2,550 billion (USD 9 billion) for the fiscal year 2025-26, amid tensions with India. Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb presented the PRs. (Pakistani Rupees) 17,573 billion worth federal budget for the fiscal year 2025–26 in the National Assembly. He also presented the budget document as a finance bill in the National Assembly. In his speech, the minister said that the government has 'decided to allocate PRs. 2,550 for the defence of the country'. He didn't provide any further details about the defence spending as traditionally the defence budget is not discussed by the parliament. Last year, the government allocated PRs. 2,122 billion for defence, reflecting a 14.98 per cent increase over PRs. 1,804 billion budgeted for the fiscal year 2023-24. 'This budget is being presented at a historic time when the nation showed unity [and] determination,' the minister said at the start while mentioning the recent Pak-India conflict. 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 on May 7. The on-ground hostilities from the Indian and Pakistan sides that lasted for four days 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 defence sector expenses are the second-biggest component of the annual expenditure after the debt payments. The government allocated PRs. 8,207 billion for debt servicing, which constitutes the single biggest expense. The increase in the defence expenditure is expected to get the broad support of the lawmakers during the budget debate and voting on the finance bill. Aurangzeb also announced a 4.2 per cent GDP growth target for the economy which is higher than the 2.7 per cent achieved in the current year ending on June 30. He said that debt and interest servicing would cost PRs. 8,207 billion. Other key expenses include PRs. 971 billion for civil administration, PRs. 1,186 billion for subsidies, PRs. 1,055 billion for pensions and PRs. 1,000 billion for the Public Sector Development Programme. He said that the target for inflation was 7.5 per cent and the fiscal deficit target was 3.9 per cent as the government also announced to contain the deficit and achieve a primary surplus. The minister said that the government has set an ambitious tax collection target for the Federal Board of Revenue at PRs. 14,131 billion, an 8.95 per cent increase from last year's goal. Aurangzeb said that the main success of the government was that inflation was reduced to 4.7 per cent in the outgoing fiscal whereas it was 29.2 per cent two years ago, while the government achieved a current account surplus of USD 1.5 billion. He said the forex reserves will touch USD 14 billion by the end of the year and remittances were expected to reach USD 38 billion.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Will eventually come back to haunt you': Jaishankar gives blunt warning after Pahalgam attack; asks 'why Laden felt safe in Pakistan?'
External affairs minister S Jaishankar External affairs minister S Jaishankar , who is currently in Brussels to meet the European Union (EU) leaders, had pushed back against the international media's narrative that the India's action " Operation Sindoor " against Pakistan following the terror in Kashmir was a tit-for-tat between two nuclear-armed neighbours and questioned the presence of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. In an exclusive interview with European news website Euractiv, Jaishankar recalled the October 1947 incident when "Pakistan sent invaders" and claimed that the Western countries were very supportive of this. When asked about the international media's narrative over Operation Sindoor, Jaishankar said, "Let me remind you of something – there was a man named Osama bin Laden. Why did he, of all people, feel safe living for years in a Pakistani military town, right next to their equivalent of West Point?" "I want the world to understand – this isn't merely an India–Pakistan issue. It's about terrorism. And that very same terrorism will eventually come back to haunt you," he added. On Russia-Ukraine Jaishankar also addressed why India has not taken any side in Russia Ukraine war . He said India don't believe that differences can be resolved through war or from the battlefield. He further added that it's not for India to prescribe what that solution should be. When asked that India's being judgemental enough by refusing to take a side when Russia is clearly the aggressor, Jaishankar said, "We have a strong relationship with Ukraine as well – it's not only about Russia. But every country, naturally, considers its own experience, history and interests. India has the longest-standing grievance – our borders were violated just months after independence, when Pakistan sent in invaders to Kashmir. And the countries that were most supportive of that? Western countries." "If those same countries – who were evasive or reticent then – now say 'let's have a great conversation about international principles', I think I'm justified in asking them to reflect on their own past," he added. On new geopolitical order Jaishankar said that the multipolarity is already here. Europe now faces the need to make more decisions in its own interest – using its own capabilities, and based on the relationships it fosters globally. 'I hear terms like 'strategic autonomy' being used in Europe – these were once part of our vocabulary," Jaishankar said in an interview. On Trump and India ties Jaishakar said, "I take the world as I find it. Our aim is to advance every relationship that serves our interests – and the US relationship is of immense importance to us. It's not about personality X or president Y.' On India's relationship with China mJaishankar said that any companies are becoming increasingly careful about where they locate their data – they'd rather place it somewhere secure and trustworthy than simply go for efficiency.
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Pakistan secures key roles in UNSC committees: Should India worry?
Pakistan in early June, roughly a month after Operation Sindoor, secured key roles as an elected non-permanent member for 2025-26 in two significant subsidiary bodies of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). It is now the Chair of the 1988 Taliban Sanctions Committee (TSC, established as a distinct committee in 2011), Vice Chair of the 1373 Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), and a Co-Chair in two informal working groups of the UNSC. India, during its last UNSC non-permanent membership (2021-2022), served as the Chair of three committees — the 1988 TSC, the 1970 Libya Sanctions committee, and the 1373 CTC. While Sanctions Committees are set up to monitor and implement a specific sanctions regime against individuals and entities (such as the 1988 Committee) or states (such as the 1970 Committee), the CTC is the product of the Security Council's Resolution 1373. Adopted unanimously by the UNSC after the 9/11 terror attacks, the Chapter VII Resolution — these are binding on all UN member states — extensively laid down the responsibilities of states to counter terrorism. How did Pakistan secure these positions? What do they mean substantially? And does India need to worry? Pakistan's Chairmanship/Vice-Chairmanship of these Committees was procedurally inevitable. Each of these committees are considered 'subsidiary organs' of the Council, according to Article 28 of the UN Charter. Hence, both the 1988 TSC and 1373 CTC comprise all 15 members of the Council at any given time. By virtue of its two-year UNSC membership, any elected non-permanent member invariably takes the helm of at least one of the Council's several subsidiary bodies, at some point in their tenure. This possibility is made more inevitable statistically, since the UNSC's permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US) do not chair sanctions committees, to avoid conflicts of interest — given their significant roles in enforcing key sanctions against designated individuals and entities. For instance, the United States holds significant influence over the international financial system which is crucial for sanctions implementation. and has its own extensive unilateral OFAC sanctions on the Taliban. But it has never Chaired the 1988 Committee. However, this design of non-permanent members as Chairs has also resulted in an overburdened system. The 2018 Annual Briefing of the UNSC (by Committee Chairs) for instance, emphasised the need for 'a new system that ensures a fair distribution of chairmanships among permanent and elected members'. While this older system continues, the Council also looks to select its Committee Chairs in a 'balanced, transparent, efficient and inclusive way' — an effort explicitly acknowledged in a UNSC Presidential Note from July, 2016. Pakistan being voted as a UNSC non-permanent member from the Asia-Africa grouping in June 2024 already set it up for eventual committee chairmanships. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that the capabilities, willingness, and political positions of a state influence the decision of the Council (expressed through its President) to appoint a member as the Chair of a certain committee. It would thus seem that Pakistan has the confidence of the current Council to serve as the Chair of the 1988 Committee — and thus to hold the power to propose and prepare (with consultations) the Committee's agenda. That said, the position of Chair does not bring with it any special substantial powers, and Pakistan's space to harm India's interests is limited. Here's why. One, the 1988 Committee has had to work with a significant change in context vis-à-vis its list of sanctioned individuals and entities. Unlike in 2011, the Taliban have been Kabul's de-facto rulers for at least four years, and are working hard to gain international legitimacy. And unlike in 2022, when India (as 1988 Committee Chair) oversaw the cancellation of waivers to key Taliban leaders such as Amir Khan Muttaqi (currently Acting Foreign Minister), New Delhi now engages the same individuals directly as it attempts engagement-without-recognition with the Taliban. The group's own relationship with Pakistan has also significantly deteriorated, but remains steady, with Muttaqi meeting both Indian and Pakistani officials since August, 2021. Strictly within the context of the 1988 Committee — which oversees just over 130 Taliban-linked sanctioned individuals — the Chair's role is to monitor sanctions verification and consider modifications of the list. In any case, even without a consensus-based model, Pakistan would not be able to unilaterally push through the listing or de-listing of new individuals. Two, unlike the UNSC itself, its subsidiary bodies like the CTC, are technical bodies with an ambit to ensure implementation by member states of UNSCR 1373 and linked resolutions. A majority of the CTC's tasks, along with that of its assisting body, the Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate, are focused on building states' capacity to counter terror, offer technical assistance, and promote best practices to ensure the implementation of UNSCR 1373. The Global Implementation Surveys that the CTC conducts, show that the Committee has no role in investigating terror attacks, recommending sanctions on entities, or designating any individual or entity for terrorism. Pakistan's Vice Chairmanship of the CTC itself serves as proof of the Committee's design — one focused on working with states directly for capacity building rather than implementing punitive measures against violating parties. This is especially as Pakistan has evidently continued to violate multiple operational clauses of UNSCR 1373, including those provisions obligating states to deny safe haven to terrorists or to ensure that those involved in terrorism are brought to justice. Three, in the UNSC's subsidiary committees, Pakistan's instrument of influence has primarily been disabling and indirect — to prevent Indian efforts at designating key Pakistan based terrorists, with China's backing. This was recently evident in 2022, when India proposed sanctions on Abdul Rauf Azhar (then JeM Deputy Chief) in the 1267 Al Qaeda Sanctions committee. The proposal fell through with China the only hold out among the 15 UNSC members. On the other hand, Pakistan has limited enabling or direct influence. It holds neither the Chairmanship nor the Vice Chairmanship of the 1267 Committee, where at least 50 sanctioned individuals are linked to Pakistan. So, should India worry? Pakistan's willingness and intent to leverage UN positions for its own ends, has long been evident. However, Pakistan's Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship roles at the UNSC's subsidiary bodies do not represent a direct diplomatic threat to Indian interests at the UN. Rather, Pakistan's continued preference for cross-border terrorism as a policy instrument against India, reflects the larger structural failures of both the Council and its subsidiary committees as effective instruments to check terrorism. Moreover, the lack of substantial debate in these committees, as well as its consensus model — where every member has to agree for a proposal to go through — has been cited even by past Chairs, such as Gerard van Bohemen of New Zealand in 2016, as the 'single biggest inhibitor to Committee effectiveness'. It is Pakistan's membership in the Council as a whole — especially when it takes over the rotational Presidency in July — which presents a larger issue. In 2013, Pakistan attempted to use its rotational Presidency of the UNSC to redirect the UN's focus towards Kashmir. It also sought to gloss over its own inadequacies in countering terrorism, by successfully initiating a ministerial debate on counter-terrorism presided over by then Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, less than two years after US Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad. Again, while the UNSC Presidency does not give Pakistan any special substantive powers, there are procedural advantages which Pakistan can use to its benefit. For example, the Presidency can bolster Pakistan's ability to convene closed door/informal consultations of the Council, given the UNSC President's sole authority to convene meetings in the Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure.
