All parties must come together to take strong, united steps against terrorism: Waris Pathan
Mumbai: In wake of the deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) national spokesperson Waris Pathan, condemning the attack in the strongest terms, called for a united national front against terrorism, urging all political parties to set aside their differences and take decisive action to combat the growing threat of terrorism.
Talking to IANS, Waris Pathan said: "I strongly condemn the terrorist attack in Pahalgam. No words are enough to express the horror of what happened. Innocent tourists, families enjoying a peaceful trip, were targeted simply based on their names and religions. This is an act of sheer brutality. These ruthless terrorists who took the lives of 26 innocent people must be punished in a way that shakes even their masters."
He emphasised that the time for symbolic gestures has passed.
"This is not the moment for lip service. India demands justice. The government must act. If intelligence reports suggest Pakistan's involvement, then we must respond firmly. There can be no forgiveness for such a heinous act," he asserted.
Pathan also raised questions about the security arrangements in Pahalgam.
"Over 2,000 tourists were present in the area. Where was the military? Where were the check posts? A woman said her brother was alive for over an hour after being shot - if help had come in time, he might have survived. This points to a serious lapse in both intelligence and emergency response. Accountability must be fixed,' he said, urging the media to press the government for answers.
Highlighting recent changes in troop deployment, Pathan said: "I was listening to an interview with a retired Colonel who said that 1.5 lakh troops have been reduced from there. How can such a thing happen when we know Kashmir remains a terror target?"
Importantly, he cautioned against politicising religion in the aftermath of the attack.
"This is not the time for communal politics. Reports indicate that some of those who helped rescue victims were Muslims. One such man, Syed Adil Hussain who lost his life trying to save others. Terrorism does not see religion, and our response should not either. All political parties must come together to take strong, united steps against terrorism," he stressed.
On India's diplomatic steps following the attack - suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, closure of the Integrated Check Post at Attari, and reduction in diplomatic staff, Pathan said: "These are important moves, but we need to go further. We must completely sever ties with those responsible. If a neighbouring country keeps sending terrorists across the border, why should we maintain any relations with them? Let us unite and destroy terrorism from its roots."
He also reacted to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement that India will pursue terrorists "to the ends of the Earth". While Pathan acknowledged the urgency shown by the Prime Minister, who cut short his Saudi Arabia trip to return to India, he also called for more direct communication with the Indian public.
"When I saw PM Modi returning and holding an emergency meeting, I thought action would follow immediately. His anger was visible. But then he made a statement from Bihar - people are wondering if this was linked to the upcoming elections. I believe it would have had more impact if he had addressed the nation directly. Still, his commitment must now translate into real action," he said.
Pathan further reiterated the need for national unity.
"This is a matter of national security. Every Indian is affected. All Indians and political parties must unite. The time for words is over. This is the time for action. We must act now, decisively and together, to ensure such attacks never happen again," he maintained.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
32 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Pakistan's defence minister calls Simla Agreement a ‘dead document', says LoC now a ceasefire line
Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has declared the 1972 Simla Agreement a "dead document," asserting a return to the 1948 position on Kashmir and questioning the relevance of other bilateral agreements. This statement follows escalating tensions after a terror attack in Pahalgam, prompting retaliatory strikes by Indian forces across the Line of Control. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Simla Agreement is 'dead', says Asif Past rhetoric on Simla Agreement and growing tensions Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Recent escalation after Pahalgam attack India's retaliatory strike In a provocative statement against India, Pakistan's Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, has called the 1972 Simla Agreement a 'dead document' that is no longer relevant. Speaking in a televised interview on Wednesday, Asif stated that Pakistan has effectively returned to the 1948 position on Kashmir, and the Line of Control (LoC) is now a ceasefire line, not a formal his remarks, Asif said the bilateral framework between India and Pakistan has collapsed. 'The Simla Agreement is now a dead document. We are back to the 1948 position, when the United Nations declared the LoC a ceasefire line following the ceasefire and resolutions,' he said. He added, 'Going forward, these disputes will be dealt with multilaterally or internationally.'The Defence Minister also questioned the status of other India-Pakistan agreements. 'Whether the Indus Waters Treaty is suspended or not, Simla is already over,' Asif is not the first time Pakistani leaders have made remarks about the Simla Agreement. Over the past few years, Islamabad has signaled discomfort with the bilateral framework. Last month, it announced the suspension of Shimla agreement and also threatened to suspend it after India's decision to abrogate Article 370 in August 2019, which removed the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan has repeatedly raised the issue in international forums, even as India has maintained that all matters concerning Jammu and Kashmir are strictly Simla Agreement, signed in 1972 after the Indo-Pak war of 1971, binds both countries to resolve their disputes through bilateral means. India has consistently reiterated that Kashmir is a bilateral issue, rejecting any third-party between the two countries escalated recently following a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, in which several Indian tourists were killed. India blamed Pakistan-based terror outfits for the Pahalgam response to the Pahalgam attack, the Indian armed forces conducted precision strikes across the LoC, targeting terror launchpads.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Pakistan's defence minister calls Simla Agreement a ‘dead document', says LoC now a ceasefire line
Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has declared the 1972 Simla Agreement a "dead document," asserting a return to the 1948 position on Kashmir and questioning the relevance of other bilateral agreements. This statement follows escalating tensions after a terror attack in Pahalgam, prompting retaliatory strikes by Indian forces across the Line of Control. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Simla Agreement is 'dead', says Asif Past rhetoric on Simla Agreement and growing tensions Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Recent escalation after Pahalgam attack India's retaliatory strike In a provocative statement against India, Pakistan's Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, has called the 1972 Simla Agreement a 'dead document' that is no longer relevant. Speaking in a televised interview on Wednesday, Asif stated that Pakistan has effectively returned to the 1948 position on Kashmir, and the Line of Control (LoC) is now a ceasefire line, not a formal his remarks, Asif said the bilateral framework between India and Pakistan has collapsed. 'The Simla Agreement is now a dead document. We are back to the 1948 position, when the United Nations declared the LoC a ceasefire line following the ceasefire and resolutions,' he said. He added, 'Going forward, these disputes will be dealt with multilaterally or internationally.'The Defence Minister also questioned the status of other India-Pakistan agreements. 'Whether the Indus Waters Treaty is suspended or not, Simla is already over,' Asif is not the first time Pakistani leaders have made remarks about the Simla Agreement. Over the past few years, Islamabad has signaled discomfort with the bilateral framework. Last month, it announced the suspension of Shimla agreement and also threatened to suspend it after India's decision to abrogate Article 370 in August 2019, which removed the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan has repeatedly raised the issue in international forums, even as India has maintained that all matters concerning Jammu and Kashmir are strictly Simla Agreement, signed in 1972 after the Indo-Pak war of 1971, binds both countries to resolve their disputes through bilateral means. India has consistently reiterated that Kashmir is a bilateral issue, rejecting any third-party between the two countries escalated recently following a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, in which several Indian tourists were killed. India blamed Pakistan-based terror outfits for the Pahalgam response to the Pahalgam attack, the Indian armed forces conducted precision strikes across the LoC, targeting terror launchpads.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Dissecting the myth of China's control over the Brahmaputra
In recent days, discussions around water sharing and regional water security have taken a new turn in South Asia, especially following India's decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan after the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22. Against this backdrop, Assam's Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma addressed concerns surrounding the Brahmaputra River, emphasising the importance of understanding its natural flow and reassuring the public about India's water sovereignty. His remarks, grounded in hydro-statistics and regional data, challenge false narratives that suggest China could disrupt water flow significantly, highlighting that the Brahmaputra largely depends on Indian monsoons and tributaries, not upstream sources. This article underscores that even a hypothetical reduction in Chinese water contribution would unlikely harm India; instead, it might help mitigate annual floods in Assam. As the region faces severe flooding due to monsoons, India must emphasise resilience and infrastructure over fears of upstream interference. These insights reflect a deeper understanding of the river's geographical and climatic realities, underscoring its strategic independence and the importance of fact-based policy-making in regional water management. The Brahmaputra is known as the Yarlung Tsangpo in Tibet. Pakistan, historically reliant on the Indus waters, is now attempting to stoke fears about India's water security through the Brahmaputra, asserting that China's actions could threaten Indian stability and sovereignty. There is an inherent myth in this as there is misrepresentation of a comprehensive hydro-geographical data. The Brahmaputra is primarily a rain-fed river system, with only approximately 30-35 per cent of its flow coming from China, mostly through glacial melt and rainfall that happens in the Tibetan region which is scanty. This covers the base flow of the river but the majority of the river's water — about 65-70 per cent — arises within India itself, thanks to the monsoon rains that pour over the Northeast's hilly terrains and the numerous tributaries feeding the river. The Brahmaputra's flow at key points exemplifies India's water independence. At the Indo-China border, near the Tuting region in Arunachal Pradesh, the flow rate is around 2,000-3,000 cubic metres per second. During the monsoon season, as the river enters Assam's plains, the flow swells to an impressive 15,000-20,000 cubic metres per second. These figures underscore that the river's strength and volume are predominantly sustained within India's climatic and geographical domain. India, thus, does not depend on upstream water flow from China to sustain its water needs. This information points out that even in a hypothetical scenario where China reduces its contribution — an unlikely event given that China has never officially threatened or signalled such an intent — the impact on India's water security would be minimal and potentially beneficial. Reduced flow could mitigate the devastating floods that annually ravage Assam and the northeastern region, displacing hundreds of thousands and destroying livelihoods, as floodwaters inundate low-lying areas. This counterintuitive point highlights the fact that India's water system is resilient and primarily driven by monsoon rains and local tributaries. The irony is that while fears over China's potential water withdrawal dominate discussions, the region is currently grappling with an acute flood crisis. Several parts of Assam and the greater Northeast are experiencing floods well above the danger level, driven by heavy monsoon. India's flood mitigation strategies should be aligned with this reality, focusing on improving infrastructure and resilience rather than worrying about threats that are largely hypothetical. In fact, if China were to modify its water flow, it could potentially alleviate some of these flood risks, as excess water often results from uncontrolled monsoon runoff and not upstream flow restrictions. Pakistan has exploited the Indus Waters Treaty over decades and benefited disproportionately from water access, enabling its agricultural and industrial development at India's expense. India could not build any infrastructure as it was bound by the treaty even to water states like Kashmir. With India now reclaiming its sovereignty over water resources, the narrative of dependency is being challenged robustly. Sarma asserted that the Brahmaputra is powered by our geography, our monsoon, and our civilisational resilience — elements intrinsic to India's natural environment and identity. But the discourse must move beyond mere water politics and look for a rational, fact-based approach to regional water governance and geopolitics. The writer is a Clinical Associate Professor (Research) and Research Director at Bharti Institute of Public Policy, Indian School of Business (ISB). He teaches sustainability at ISB. He contributes to IPCC reports and has recently been selected as the Lead Author of the IPCC's upcoming report on Cities and Climate Change
