Choice of de-escalation is with Pakistan: Misri
His comments at a media briefing came amid heightened tensions between the two countries.
Operation Sindoor: Follow LIVE updates on May 8, 2025
Mr. Misri said escalation started from that side (Pakistan) with the April 22 Pahalgam attack in which 26 people, mostly tourists, were killed.
'Our approach is not to escalate the situation, we only responded to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack,' he said.
On de-escalation of the situation, Mr. Misri said, 'Pakistan escalated the situation, we only responded. Choice is with Pakistan.' He said at the UNSC meeting, Pakistan opposed mention of the role of terror group The Resistance Force (TRF) when it had already claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack.
The Foreign Secretary also said the retaliatory actions of Pakistan are impacting civilians, referring to firings along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir.
'Pakistan's reputation as the centre of global terrorism is rooted in various terrorist attacks across the globe,' Mr. Misri, flanked by Wing Commander Vyomika Singh and Colonel Sofia Qureshi, said, adding Pakistan has been pursuing cross-border terrorism against India for decades.
He said India's action on Wednesday (May 7, 2025) was restrained and it was confined to terrorist infrastructure.
In retaliation for the Pahalgam terror attack, Indian armed forces early Wednesday (May 7, 2025) carried out missile strikes on terror targets including Bahawalpur, a stronghold of the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) terror group.
Also Read | Government advises OTT platforms to stop streaming Pakistan-origin content
On Thursday (May 8, 2025), the Defence Ministry said the Pakistani military tried last night to target Awantipura, Srinagar, Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar, Kapurthala, Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Adampur, Bhatinda, Chandigarh, Nal, Phalodi, Uttarlai, and Bhuj but these attempts were foiled and a Pakistani air defence system was destroyed in Lahore.
Mr. Misri also said Pakistan was deliberately creating roadblocks over the years on the Indus Waters Treaty issue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
12 minutes ago
- First Post
Pakistan's war on women: Honour killings expose a nation built on misogyny
For countless women, Pakistan is no longer a country to live in, but a graveyard that buries their voices, their dignity, and their very existence Every year, between 300 and 1,000 women are executed by their own families in Pakistan under the pretext of honour. Image: X/@iMaryammm The recent brutal murders of Arak and Sheetal are not isolated tragedies; they are the latest entries in Pakistan's long catalogue of bloodletting carried out in the name of honour. While governments in Islamabad posture about morality and sovereignty, the reality is this: Pakistan has become a slaughterhouse for women, where patriarchal violence is not only tolerated but embedded in the fabric of society and shielded by state institutions. Every year, between 300 and 1,000 women are executed by their own families in Pakistan under the pretext of honour. These are not crimes of passion; they are premeditated executions. And they happen with such frequency, such brazenness, that they expose Pakistan for what it is: a state incapable of protecting half its population and unwilling to confront the barbarity it shelters. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The killings of Arak and Sheetal are horrifying, but they are also predictable. They happened in a country where misogyny is weaponized, where women who dare to love, marry, or simply make choices of their own are punished with death. Pakistan has normalized this slaughter to such an extent that it barely registers as shocking anymore inside its borders. Instead, honour killings are treated as 'family matters,' excused by police, and whitewashed by local media using euphemisms like 'tragedy' or 'dispute.' Murder is softened into culture. Violence is disguised as tradition. Pakistan likes to paint itself as a victim on the world stage, forever crying about conspiracies from India, America, or foreign lobbies. But the real enemy of Pakistan is Pakistan itself. No outside force orders fathers, brothers, or husbands to strangle, burn, or shoot their daughters and sisters. No foreign conspiracy instructs police to look the other way, or courts to allow murderers to walk free under so-called forgiveness laws. These are Pakistani crimes, born of Pakistani traditions, sanctioned by Pakistani cowardice. The much-celebrated 2016 legal reforms supposedly 'closed loopholes' that allowed killers to escape punishment. Yet years later, nothing has changed. Families still shield perpetrators. Jirgas and tribal councils still bless honour killings as acceptable justice. Politicians still play to the misogynistic gallery, afraid to challenge the same patriarchal structures that keep them in power. Laws in Pakistan are theatre; the stage props look modern, but the blood on the floor is real. Murder Disguised as Tradition The deaths of Arak and Sheetal make clear what Pakistan's rulers refuse to admit: women in this country live in a permanent state of siege. Their bodies are not their own. Their choices are treated as threats. Their existence is conditional upon obedience to a code that sees them as property. To step outside that line is to sign one's own death warrant. And when that death comes, the killers are rarely punished. Pakistan's honour killing crisis is not a side issue or a cultural quirk. It is central to how the state operates—through fear, violence, and the crushing of dissent, whether political or personal. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Just as Baloch voices are silenced by enforced disappearances, just as journalists are intimidated into submission, women are murdered to enforce obedience. Honour killings are not random crimes but instruments of control. Yet Pakistan has the audacity to call itself a democracy, a land of values, a country of pride. Where is the pride in the corpses of women dumped in shallow graves? Where is the honour in strangling daughters because they chose whom to love? Where is the morality in a state that passes laws it never enforces, that pretends progress while presiding over medieval brutality? A Graveyard for Women The truth is harsh but undeniable: Pakistan is not merely failing its women—it is destroying them. A nation where hundreds of women are killed every year with impunity cannot be called a civilised state. It is a patriarchal fortress built on blood and silence. And yet, Pakistan's rulers still try to deceive the world. They hold up reforms, quote statistics selectively, and tell the international community that things are improving. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, women like Arak and Sheetal are being executed behind closed doors. For every case that surfaces in the media, dozens more are buried, literally and figuratively, in the darkness of rural villages or urban slums. The global community must stop indulging Pakistan's excuses. Enough of the handshakes, the aid packages, the polite acceptance of empty promises. Every dollar given to Islamabad, every speech that praises its progress, is complicity in this violence. Arak and Sheetal will soon be replaced by other names—different women, same story. The killings will go on. The police will shrug. The politicians will preen. The mullahs will remain silent. And Pakistan will continue to bleed its daughters, one by one, while claiming to defend honour. But there is no honour in murder. There is only shame, and it belongs entirely to Pakistan. Pakistan has reached its lowest depths. A state that cannot protect its women inside their own homes offers them no place of safety anywhere. In this land, every wall becomes a prison, and every street a threat. For countless women, Pakistan is no longer a country to live in, but a graveyard that buries their voices, their dignity, and their very existence. As the late scholar Nawal El Saadawi once said, 'The home, the family, and the state are often the most dangerous places for women.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Nowhere does that ring truer than in Pakistan. Tehmeena Rizvi is a Policy Analyst and PhD scholar at Bennett University. Her areas of work include Women, Peace, and Security (South Asia), focusing on the intersection of gender, conflict, and religion, with a research emphasis on the Kashmir region, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump says no imminent plans to penalise China for buying Russian oil
US President Donald Trump said on Friday he did not immediately need to consider retaliatory tariffs on countries such as China for buying Russian oil but might have to "in two or three weeks." Trump has threatened sanctions on Moscow and secondary sanctions on countries that buy its oil if no moves are made to end the war in Ukraine. China and India are the top two buyers of Russian oil. The president last week imposed an additional 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods, citing its continued imports of Russian oil. However, Trump has not taken similar action against China. He was asked by Fox News' Sean Hannity if he was now considering such action against Beijing after he and Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to produce an agreement to resolve or pause Moscow's war in Ukraine. "Well, because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that," Trump said after his summit with Putin in Alaska. "Now, I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now. I think, you know, the meeting went very well." Chinese President Xi Jinping's slowing economy will suffer if Trump follows through on a promise to ramp up Russia-related sanctions and tariffs. Xi and Trump are working on a trade deal that could lower tensions - and import taxes - between the world's two biggest economies. But China could be the biggest remaining target, outside of Russia, if Trump ramps up punitive measures.
Hans India
12 minutes ago
- Hans India
Political Storm Erupts Over Chidambaram's Comments On Pahalgam Terror Attack Origins
Senior Congress politician P Chidambaram found himself at the center of a heated political controversy on Monday after defending his recent statements about the Pahalgam terror incident, which he claimed were being deliberately distorted through a coordinated misinformation effort. The veteran leader pushed back against accusations from the Bharatiya Janata Party, who alleged he was providing unwarranted support to Pakistan's position on terrorism. In a social media post on X, Chidambaram expressed frustration over what he described as selective editing and misrepresentation of his comments from a recent television interview. He criticized those spreading misinformation as the "worst kind" of trolls who deliberately suppress complete recorded interviews, extract isolated sentences, silence specific words, and present speakers in a negative light to serve their political agenda. The political firestorm began following Chidambaram's interview with The Quint, where he raised questions about the government's assertions linking Pakistan to the devastating April 22 attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam region. The assault resulted in 26 fatalities, with the majority being innocent civilians caught in the violence. During the interview, Chidambaram challenged the official narrative by questioning whether authorities had successfully identified the perpetrators or determined their origins. He suggested that the attackers could potentially be domestic terrorists rather than foreign infiltrators, emphasizing the absence of concrete evidence supporting claims of Pakistani involvement in the deadly incident. The BJP responded with fierce criticism, accusing the opposition Congress party of compromising national security interests and aligning with Pakistan's official stance on terrorism. Party officials characterized Chidambaram's remarks as providing undeserved legitimacy to Pakistan's denials of involvement in cross-border terrorism. Amit Malviya, who leads the BJP's information technology cell, used social media to condemn what he viewed as Congress's pattern of defending Pakistan following terrorist attacks. He questioned why Congress leaders consistently appeared to advocate for Pakistan's position rather than supporting India's security forces in their fight against state-sponsored terrorism. The criticism intensified when BJP Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey escalated the rhetoric by labeling the entire Congress organization as traitorous. Speaking to the ANI news agency, Dubey referenced various allegations against Congress leadership, including claims about Rahul Gandhi's interactions with China's Communist Party and unsubstantiated corruption charges, while praising Prime Minister Modi's leadership as an obstacle to what he characterized as Congress's anti-national agenda. Another BJP parliamentarian, Deepak Prakash, echoed similar accusations, claiming that Congress was aligning itself with those who oppose India's interests and warning that the Indian population would never forgive political leaders who undermined national security. Several prominent Congress representatives rallied to defend Chidambaram against the mounting criticism, arguing that the BJP was attempting to deflect attention from its own shortcomings in addressing terrorism effectively. They characterized the attacks on Chidambaram as a deliberate diversionary strategy designed to avoid accountability for security failures. Congress MP Manickam Tagore specifically pointed to what he described as the BJP's failure to properly execute Operation Sindoor, suggesting that the governing party was using the controversy to distract from more substantive issues surrounding the Pahalgam attack and the government's counter-terrorism efforts. He emphasized Congress's unwavering support for India's armed forces in their ongoing battle against terrorist threats. Veteran Congress leader Pramod Tiwari raised pointed questions about the investigation's progress, highlighting that three months after the attack, the perpetrators remained unidentified. He questioned the government's effectiveness in tracking down those responsible for killing what he described as the husbands of 26 women, criticizing the administration's handling of the security situation in Kashmir as potentially harmful to national interests. The controversy also drew commentary from outside the Congress-BJP divide, with Shiv Sena (UBT) Member of Parliament Priyanka Chaturvedi offering criticism of Chidambaram's position. Drawing on his extensive experience as a former Home Minister and cabinet member in multiple portfolios, she argued that his comments were inappropriate given the well-established pattern of Pakistani involvement in similar attacks over several decades. Chaturvedi referenced the initial claim of responsibility by The Resistance Front (TRF), which was subsequently withdrawn, and noted Pakistan's advocacy for such groups in international forums like the United Nations as clear evidence of the source of terrorist threats facing India. She maintained that the origins of such attacks should be obvious given historical patterns and Pakistan's documented support for militant organizations operating in the region. The debate reflects broader tensions over how political parties approach discussions of national security and terrorism, with opposition parties seeking to hold the government accountable for security failures while governing parties demand unity in facing external threats. The controversy also highlights the challenges of maintaining productive political discourse on sensitive security matters without compromising either democratic debate or national solidarity in confronting terrorism. As the political storm continues, both sides appear entrenched in their positions, with Congress defending its right to question government claims and demand accountability, while the BJP maintains that such questioning undermines national security and provides comfort to hostile foreign actors. The resolution of this controversy may depend on whether new evidence emerges regarding the Pahalgam attack or whether political attention shifts to other pressing national issues.
