Senators laud armed forces' victory over India
Balls of flame rise from cannons fired at Peshawar's Karnal Sher Khan Stadium on Friday, marking the Day of Gratitude held to celebrate Pakistan's historic response to a series of Indian attacks. PHOTO: APP
The senators on Friday lauded Pakistan's armed forces for giving a befitting response to enemy's aggression and condemned the "fascist and expansionist agenda" pursued by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The house, which met here with presiding officer Sherry Rehman in the chair, continued discussion on the ongoing tensions with India. During the session, Senator Dinesh Kumar, who belongs to the Hindu community, announced Rs5 million donation for the families of the martyrs.
At the outset of the session, Opposition Leader Shibli Faraz from the PTI complained against the ruling party lawmakers. He said that the session had been called to discuss the Indian aggression, but some senators spoke against PTI leader.
PML-N parliamentary leader Irfan Siddiqui, while responding to Faraz's objection, said that no one should talk about any leader. He told the house that on three occasions during the Thursday's session, he stopped the senators from speaking against anyone.
"Yesterday, I told my party member that we cannot talk on May 9, let's talk only on May 10. It is not appropriate for us to insult leaders in the House," he said. Siddiqui said India was an enemy of democracy. "Modi has shown the Indian people's nefarious designs of attacking Pakistan."
He praised the people for maintaining unity. "Pakistan's forces gave a befitting reply to the enemy and India is left wondering how its planes were shot down. The most positive aspect of India's aggression and Pakistan's glorious victory is that we and the opposition are on the same page."
Participating in a debate Senator Ali Zafar said that the recent Indian aggression had once again proven that Pakistan remained resilient, united and fully capable of defending its sovereignty against any form of aggression.
"China stood by us, and even neutral states began to question India's narrative and acknowledged Pakistan's responsible behaviour," he added. He proposed a joint parliamentary committee to monitor water issues and ensure national preparedness in future conflicts.
Nasir Abbas said that Modi was a fascist leader and the 'butcher of Gujarat', whose politics were rooted in hatred and bigotry. "His failed attempts to crush the Kashmiri people and provoke regional conflict have backfired," he said. (WITH INPUT FROM APP)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
India's role in South Asia: time to honour Delhi Agreement
The writer is a public policy analyst based in Lahore. She can be reached at durdananajam1@ Listen to article South Asia, with its intertwined histories and complex relationships, remains one of the most volatile regions in the world. The 1974 Delhi Agreement, signed between Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, was envisioned as a step towards lasting reconciliation, one that would help the nations move beyond historical grievances and forge a path toward cooperation. However, decades later, rather than fostering regional stability, India has positioned itself as the dominant power, often at the expense of Pakistan. From perpetuating the terrorism narrative to influencing Bangladesh's policy against Pakistan, India's approach has largely contributed to the fragmentation of South Asian unity. The latest military standoff between India and Pakistan, which erupted in May 2025, was yet another reminder of the fragile peace between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. The conflict began after India launched missile strikes on Pakistan, citing retaliation for an April 22 terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that left 26 people dead. Pakistan denied any involvement, but India proceeded with Operation Sindoor, targeting alleged militant infrastructure deep within Pakistani territory. Pakistan responded with Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos, striking Indian military sites in a show of force. The skirmishes escalated further, with both sides engaging in drone warfare, marking a new chapter in their military confrontations. The conflict ended with a US-brokered ceasefire, but the damage - both physical and diplomatic - was already done. The depiction of Pakistan as a perpetual antagonist gained momentum after the Kargil War, when India aggressively pushed the idea that Pakistan was solely responsible for regional instability. Following the 2008 Mumbai attacks, this narrative reached new heights, with India successfully framing Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism in international forums. This rhetoric served multiple purposes. Firstly, it justified India's refusal to engage in third-party mediation over Kashmir, despite Pakistan's repeated calls for international arbitration. Secondly, it enabled India to diminish the legitimacy of the Kashmiri freedom movement, recasting it as a product of Pakistan-based extremism rather than a genuine struggle for self-determination. Thirdly, it created an atmosphere in India that fostered hostility, ensuring that any peace initiatives would be met with suspicion or outright rejection by the Indian public. Beyond its own borders, India actively exported this narrative to Bangladesh, a country with historical grievances against Pakistan dating back to 1971. India played a significant role in ensuring that Bangladesh remained firmly within its sphere of influence, cultivating an anti-Pakistan sentiment that has led to strained relations between Dhaka and Islamabad. Under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's Awami League government, Bangladesh increasingly aligned itself with India's position. One of the most visible manifestations of this was the controversial war crimes trials that had targeted pro-Pakistan elements. However, the political landscape in Bangladesh underwent a dramatic transformation in 2024 when mass protests and military intervention led to the ousting of Sheikh Hasina. The uprising, fueled by public dissatisfaction with her government's authoritarian policies and economic mismanagement, culminated in her exile to India. With Hasina gone, Bangladesh has taken significant steps to mend its relations with Pakistan, marking a new chapter in regional diplomacy. The new Bangladeshi leadership has actively sought to rebuild ties with Islamabad, recognising the mutual benefits of economic and strategic cooperation. Trade agreements have been revisited, diplomatic channels reopened, and a renewed sense of partnership has emerged. This shift has not only strengthened Pakistan-Bangladesh relations but has also challenged India's long-standing influence over Dhaka. India's influence over Bangladesh was evident in its support for Hasina's government, particularly in the controversial war crimes trials that targeted pro-Pakistan elements. India actively encouraged Bangladesh to distance itself from Pakistan, reinforcing the idea that Pakistan was the perpetual antagonist in South Asia. Moreover, India's economic and military dominance left Bangladesh with little room to maneuver independently. Trade agreements, defence collaborations and diplomatic pressure ensured that Bangladesh remained within India's sphere of influence, often at the expense of its relations with Pakistan. However, with Hasina's removal, Bangladesh has begun to assert its independence, signaling a shift away from India's shadow. India's strategy of isolating Pakistan and asserting its dominance in South Asia has reached a breaking point. The recent military conflict demonstrated that Pakistan is capable of defending itself, and India's aggressive posturing has only fueled instability. The Delhi Agreement was meant to foster cooperation, not perpetuate hostility. If India truly wishes to be a responsible regional power, it must abandon its antagonistic approach and engage in genuine dialogue. Confidence-building measures, such as reopening diplomatic channels, restoring trade relations and allowing third-party mediation, could pave the way for a more stable South Asia. Instead of using neighbouring countries as a tool to weaken Pakistan, India should encourage regional unity based on mutual respect and shared economic interests. India's role in South Asia has largely been defined by its desire for dominance. By fueling anti-Pakistan sentiment and leveraging neighbouring countries as a tool for regional influence, India has perpetuated instability rather than fostering cooperation. The time has come for India to rethink its strategy and embrace diplomacy over aggression. Honouring the 1974 Delhi Agreement would be a step in the right direction — one that acknowledges the shared history of South Asia while paving the way for a future built on peace and mutual respect. The region's prosperity depends not on rivalry, but on the ability of its leaders to recognise that cooperation, not conflict, is the way forward.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Khawaja Asif declares Simla agreement a 'dead document'
Listen to article Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has declared the 1972 Simla Agreement 'dead' in the current geopolitical context, stating that Pakistan has effectively returned to the 1948 position regarding Kashmir, and the Line of Control (LoC) should now be viewed as a ceasefire line. In an interview with a private television channel on Wednesday, the minister said that while the Simla Agreement had initially committed both India and Pakistan to resolving disputes bilaterally, that framework had collapsed due to unilateral Indian actions in recent years. '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, referring to the UN-mediated cessation of hostilities in the first India-Pakistan war. 'Going forward, these disputes will be dealt with multilaterally or internationally.' He also cast doubt over the status of other bilateral arrangements, stating that "whether the Indus Waters Treaty is suspended or not, Simla is already over." Commenting on regional tensions, Asif said the threat of war with India remains present. 'Pakistan does not desire war, but if it is imposed on us, the response will be even stronger than before,' he warned. The minister touched upon post-conflict developments, stating that Pakistan had emerged as a strengthened defensive power after its past wars with India. "We have become a defensive force. Orders for our JF-17 Thunder fighter jets are coming in," he said, highlighting Pakistan's growing defence capabilities. Also Read: 'Ready but not desperate' for talks with India: Dar On the issue of Afghan refugees, Asif reiterated that Afghans should now return to their homeland. 'Afghans must settle in their own country. They have no loyalty to our soil,' he remarked, adding that the time had come to address this issue firmly. The defence minister also highlighted the issue of tax evasion in the country, stressing that billions of rupees are lost to tax theft annually. 'We must plug this leakage and divert these funds towards national defence,' he concluded.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Military notes; Indo-Pak conflict: deterrence, pre-battle manoeuvres
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article We continue to discuss various aspects of the recent Indo-Pakistan military standoff. Third, deterrence per se. More than a billion lives escaped Modi's madness in a closer than ever nuclear Armageddon. Besides the conventional side of warfare, the more dangerous 'nuclear parity' still overhangs South Asia perilously. With deterrence in 'conventional terms re-established', one hopes India under Modi would avoid another wasteful adventure of humiliation, and resume talks over the table, rather than in the skies and through brinkmanship. The future India-Pakistan conflict scene will no longer be unilateral. It will be dictated and decided by Sino-Pak military alliance especially in collaboration with China's Western Theater Command. And this would augment deterrence for rational players on the Indian side, if any. Pakistan's Military, in South Asia's modern history, showcased the most integrated defensive strategy and real-time coordination. And just to reiterate, in military literature, a weaker side is supposed to have won an asymmetrical contest, if it denies outright victory or the attainment of war's aims and objectives to the stronger side, which Pakistan did to a larger India. So perceptually speaking, deterrence in the Indo-Pakistan context would, henceforth, be defined by the conventional military capabilities plus nuclear arms, and the fragility of psychological threshold on both sides, as discussed in my piece, 'India, Pakistan — redefining deterrence', printed in this space on May 22, 2025. And in Pakistan's context, deterrence would remain to be fortified by the Sino-Pakistani alliance, and the resolve of Pakistan's civil and military leadership, through Islamabad's 'quid-pro-quo Plus' strategy, to never let India prevail. So, peace, the perusal of which now squarely lies with a mellowed but bellicose India that still pursues its intended water wars, would remain elusive if we do not recognise each other's capabilities, and do not engage each other with dignity, mutual respect and patience, and not with ignorance or arrogance. Fourth. The Exterior Manoeuvre. Without going into the nuts and bolts of the diplomatic war, the Indian efforts to paint Pakistan into endemically bad light and as a state sponsor of terrorism, had very few takers, regionally and internationally. Indian diplomatic overtures focused on painting itself taller by telling the world its military response was calculated and non-escalatory and that this 'new India' would respond muscularly to the so-called terrorist attacks, without wanting a wider war with Pakistan and its people. Essentially contradictory iterations. No country condemned Pakistan for the 'alleged' terrorism; none appreciated India's 'carefully calibrated' military response. The world, contrarily, was preoccupied with the IAF's French Rafael jets being shot down by PAF's Chinese J-10C fighters using PL-15 E air-to-air missiles. Even the US after some initial ambivalence from VP Vance had to forcefully intervene to affect a ceasefire, without giving India the blank cheque of unilateralism and brinkmanship. Russia, India's traditional friend, withheld the 'expected' diplomatic support for India. And Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and the entire OIC, the UN all called for restraint and then ceasefire. Major capitals responded with studied neutrality despite India sending seven diplomatic delegations to 32 countries. Beijing's signalling and posturing in support of Pakistan were overtly clear. Washington's ceasefire appeal re-hyphenated the two nuclear neighbours, to India's great chagrin. New Delhi even refused to acknowledge any US role, for which Trump had publicly taken credit. The paradox of Indian 'Exterior Manoeuvre' was laid bare, as to why was it accepting a ceasefire, irrespective of whether it was reached bilaterally (as India claimed) or under US interlocution (as Trump tweeted), if it had an upper hand militarily. During the conduct of operations, fiasco after fiasco derided New Delhi's aspirations and outsized ego. From denial to acknowledging downing of planes including Rafaeles, to persistent lies on the state and social media, greatly diminished India's shine, sheen and diplomatic weight. New Delhi's comical effort to influence the World Bank under its Indian-origin president, Mr Ajay Banga, from sanctioning loan to Islamabad failed spectacularly. The extent of India's hostility towards Pakistan permeated not only its body politics, but also its cultural elite (read Bollywood), its state behaviour; and resulted in a compulsive obsession with Pakistan, whom India's intellectual wizards proudly claim to have pushed into irrelevant ignominy. This paradox - Pakistan's irrelevance and Islamabad being an uncomfortable reality - remains unresolved and has been damaging India's 'perceived' important power aspiration and status, without pundits realising it. Fifth, The Inner Front. India whipped up its jingoist anti-Pakistan narrative in order to jell its inner front, silencing opposition, muzzling rationality and suppressing truth in the process. And it failed. The Modi Government had to launch Operation "Tiranga Yatra (tricolour journey)" for intense domestic messaging, to manipulate outcomes during Operation Sindoor. From annihilating Pakistan to dominating South Asia as the new hegemon, its efforts, however, could not convince most of its 200 million Muslims, who constitute 10.9 per cent of its population, is the world's 3rd largest Muslim population, and the largest Muslim-minority globally. Its illegally occupied Kashmir, the expected battle zone, simmers with hate, discontent and a resurgent anti-India sentiment, making operations and rear-area security a nightmare for the Indian Military. Assam, Christian Mizoram, Nagaland, the Naxalite insurgency in the 'Red Corridor', Khalistan Movement in Punjab and abroad, and other insurgencies drive wedges in the India Union. Even the Brahman-dominated decision-making elite had and have reservations on the direction secular India has taken under Hindutva-laced Modi Sarkar. Indian security sector and armed forces saw removals, arrests and demotions during the stand-off; and its population is still experiencing arrests for supporting Pakistan, as per press reports. By comparison, Pakistan's inner front jelled like it always does in a crisis with India. RAW-financed terrorism in KP and Balochistan, and the expected political uprising by some political forces against the armed forces, in hilarious formulation of Indian intelligence, failed and failed miserably. Pakistan's national will, determination, resolve and motivation across the political spectrum and across the nation was tougher and firm. Pakistan's 'relative' demographic homogeneity compared to India's heterogeneity is always an asset and a force-multiplier. Such demographic truism also permeates Pakistan's armed forces, making it a formidable fighting machine. Continues...
