India-Pakistan conflict was always in conventional domain: Vikram Misri to parliamentary panel
Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told a parliamentary committee on Monday that the conflict between India and Pakistan was always in the conventional domain, and there was no nuclear signalling by the neighbouring country, sources said. The sources said Misri reiterated the government's stand that the decision to stop military actions was taken at a bilateral level, as some opposition members questioned US President Donald Trump's repeated assertions about his administration's role in stopping the conflict.
The Ministry of External Affairs, in a presentation to the Standing Committee on External Affairs which is headed by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, asserted that the initial probe into the Pahalgam terror attack revealed "communication nodes" of terrorists with their "masterminds in Pakistan".
The ministry said Pakistan's track record as terror sanctuary is well established, rooted in solid facts and evidence, and said it blames India for the killings of some individuals on its soil despite its allegations being devoid of any facts or any evidence.
It is meant to draw a false equivalence between the two counrries, the ministry said, adding that UN-designated terrorists roam freely in Pakistan and continue to incite violence against India.
When some opposition members of the committee prodded him on the US leader's repeated attempts to take centre stage, India's top diplomat quipped that Trump did not seek his consent for doing so.
Live Events
No other country, the foreign ministry in its presentation said, has "any locus standi" to comment on the issue of
Jammu and Kashmir
, a clear repudiation of the US' suggestion for mediation between India and Pakistan.
The US leader had even claimed that his country stopped a likely nuclear war that could have killed millions of people.
Several members, mostly from the opposition, raised questions related to the Pahalgam terror attack, whether Pakistan used Chinese platforms, the hostile stand of Turkiye and Azerbaijan against India, Pakistan's success in getting an IMF loan, and social media-dominated discourse on a host of issues.
An opposition member asked why the Indian government has not come out strongly to rebut Trump.
The foreign ministry, though, has made it clear in its earlier briefings that India and Pakistan agreed on the cessation of firing bilaterally, a point reiterated by Misri who noted the decision was taken at the DGMO-level talks at the request of the neighbouring country.
Replying to queries from members, Misri said the conflict between India and Pakistan was always in the conventional domain, and there was no nuclear signalling by the neighbouring country.
Tharoor told reporters after the three-hour meeting, which he said was attended by a record 24 members, that the committee unanimously expressed solidarity with Misri in the face of "unwarranted attacks" he had faced online after the two sides agreed to stop military actions.
As Misri and his family had been at the receiving end of trolls' vitriol, the committee expressed support for his good service to the nation. The committee wanted to pass a formal resolution but the IFS officer requested against it.
Some MPs, the sources said, asked if Pakistan used Chinese platforms in the conflict.
Misri said it did not matter as India hammered Pakistani air bases. To a question about Pakistan managing to secure a loan from the IMF, he said India opposed it but different countries are guided by their own interests, sources said.
To questions about Turkiye's adversarial stand against India, he said the country had traditionally not been a supporter of India and added that he did not foresee any chance of improvement in Indo-Pak ties due to the neighbouring country's continuous display of hostility.
The ministry said in its presentation that India witnessed last year alone at least 24 terrorist attacks linked to Pakistan-based terror organisations, leading to the death of 24 security personnel and 30 civilians.
"Terrorists are found to be using military grade weapons, assistance through drones, secure communication equipment, navigational aids, steel-coated bullets and assistance in infiltration through coordinated ceasefire violations by Pakistani troops," it said, seeking to establish the help provided by the Pakistani state in terror activities.
Misri was also dismissive of the opposition's criticism of External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi citing a comment by him to claim that Pakistan was informed about
Operation Sindoor
and asking how many planes India lost due to this.
The minister is being quoted in wrong context, he said, adding that a contact was made with Pakistan at the DGMO level only after the strikes on terror sites on May 7.
The meeting was attended by a number of lawmakers, including the TMC's Abhishek Banerjee, the Congress' Rajeev Shukla and Deepender Hooda, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, and the BJP's Aparajita Sarangi and Arun Govil.
The meeting's agenda was the "current foreign policy developments regarding India and Pakistan", which comes against the backdrop of the Indian armed forces carrying out Operation Sindoor to avenge the Pahalgam attack and the subsequent military actions between the two countries.
India and Pakistan reached an understanding on halting all military actions on May 10.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘He's very welcome': EU woos Elon Musk after explosive split with Donald Trump, promotes ‘Choose Europe' initiative
The has opened its doors to following his dramatic public fallout with US President , a break-up that has rocked the political and business worlds on both sides of the Atlantic. "He's very welcome", European Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho said with a smile on Friday when asked if the billionaire had expressed interest in moving or expanding his businesses within the EU. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Speaking during the Commission's daily briefing, Pinho's comment came just a day after Trump expressed rare 'disappointment' with Musk, sparking a bitter exchange between the two on social media. "Everyone is very welcome indeed to start and to scale in the EU," added Thomas Regnier, the Commission's tech spokesperson, referencing the bloc's "Choose Europe" initiative that encourages startups and business expansion. The rupture between Musk and Trump had been building for weeks but erupted into full view on Thursday after Musk slammed Trump's flagship legislation, nicknamed the 'Big Beautiful Bill', as an 'abomination.' Trump hit back publicly, accusing Musk of going 'crazy' over the EV subsidy cuts in the bill and threatened to strip his companies of $18 billion worth of US government contracts. The backlash triggered a selloff in Tesla stock, wiping out more than $100 billion in market value. In retaliation, Musk vowed to shut down his company's vital Dragon spacecraft programme, though he later appeared to walk that back, replying 'OK, we won't decommission Dragon' on X. The feud turned personal fast. Musk alleged Trump was mentioned in documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, without providing evidence and endorsed a post calling for Trump's impeachment. Trump, in turn, accused Musk of 'wearing thin' and claimed he had asked the billionaire to leave his cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) just a week earlier. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Musk, who had donated $300 million to Trump's 2024 campaign, said the president would not have won the election without his support. 'Ingratitude,' he wrote on X. The clash has far-reaching implications as Musk's companies, like Tesla and , rely heavily on government contracts, and the fallout could impact legislation, tech funding, and even the broader Republican political landscape. A White House call with Musk was reportedly scheduled for Friday in an attempt to cool tensions, according to Politico. Still, with Trump threatening to terminate all government support—'The easiest way to save money in our Budget is to terminate Elon's government subsidies and contracts,' he posted on Truth Social—the rift appears far from over. For now, Europe may be waiting with open arms.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
US stock market today: Wall Street steadies as Tesla bounces back from $150bn rout, all eyes on payroll data
US stock futures edged higher on Friday as markets awaited key labour data, while shares of Tesla rebounded following signs of de-escalation in the high-profile spat between CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Tesla's stock jumped 4.2% in premarket trade, clawing back some of the steep 15% loss it suffered on Thursday after Trump threatened to pull federal contracts from Musk-led companies. The selloff had erased around $150 billion in Tesla's market capitalization, shaking investor sentiment across Wall Street, reported Reuters. Aides close to the White House have reportedly scheduled a call between the president and Musk on Friday, according to Politico, a move expected to ease tensions after the public feud rattled both markets and the administration's industrial policy. All eyes on non-farm payrolls Investors are now focused on the US Labour Department's May payrolls report, due at 8:30 a.m. ET, to assess the strength of the job market and its potential influence on the Federal Reserve's next rate decision. 'Whether it's the ISM surveys, the ADP figures, or the jobless claims, the tone is clearly one of a weakening economic momentum,' said Julien Lafargue, chief market strategist at Barclays Private Bank. This week's soft economic indicators have stoked worries of a slowdown, as trade uncertainty continues to weigh on business sentiment. The Fed is widely expected to hold interest rates steady at its next meeting, but traders are now pricing in two rate cuts by year-end, with the first anticipated in September, according to LSEG data. Markets stabilise after volatile week At 7:00 a.m. ET, Dow futures were up 112 points (0.26%), S&P 500 futures rose 20.5 points (0.34%), and Nasdaq 100 futures gained 72.25 points (0.33%). The broader market was also buoyed by gains in most megacap and growth stocks. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Amazon shares climbed 0.9%, while Broadcom slipped 2.9% after its AI chip revenue guidance missed investor expectations. Among other major movers, Lululemon shares plunged 21.1% after the sportswear brand slashed its annual profit forecast, citing rising costs linked to Trump's tariffs. Nike stock was down 1.3% in early trade. DocuSign tumbled 19.2% after disappointing Q1 results. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq both posted their best monthly gains since November 2023 in May, lifted by a softer trade stance from Trump and solid earnings across sectors. However, the S&P 500 remains about 3.3% below its all-time high set in February.
