India hits back at Pakistan over terror accusation
India has rejected Pakistan's accusation that it was behind a deadly terrorist attack in North Waziristan District earlier that day, calling the claim "false and malicious," according to a statement from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. This comes after Islamabad accused New Delhi of sponsoring terrorism following an attack on Saturday morning in Pakistan's northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province which borders Afghanistan.
In the attack, a suicide bomber rammed an explosives-laden vehicle into a military convoy, followed by indiscriminate firing. The Pakistan Army said 13 soldiers were killed and three civilians injured, including two children. AFP news agency initially reported, citing the authorities, that 29 civilians were injured in the attack.
Hours after the incident, the Pakistan Army's Inter-Services Public Relations wing issued a statement accusing India of backing the terrorists: "In a cowardly attack, planned and orchestrated by the terrorist state of India and executed by its proxy Fitna al Khwarij, a Security Forces convoy was targeted today in the general area of Mir Ali, North Waziristan District."
It went on to say: "The security forces of Pakistan, in step with the nation, remain steadfast in their resolve to eradicate Indian-sponsored terrorism from the country, and such sacrifices of our brave soldiers and innocent civilians further reinforce our unwavering commitment to safeguarding our nation at all costs."
In another statement, the Pakistan Army said Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir visited Corps Headquarters in Peshawar, the capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where he was briefed on the security situation and ongoing counterterrorism operations.
Media reports earlier indicated that the Pakistani-based Taliban faction, the Hafiz Gul Bahadur group, claimed responsibility for the bombing.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has long been a point of contention between Pakistan and Afghanistan, with Islamabad often blaming the Taliban for providing safe haven to outlawed militant groups that stage attacks on security personnel and civilians.
In March 2024, five Chinese workers and their local driver were killed in a suicide bomb attack in the province. Pakistan identified the attacker as an Afghan national and claimed the attack was planned in Afghanistan.
READ MORE: From bunker bombs to Nobel dreams: Trump's war for peace
Islamabad previously accused New Delhi of supporting militants and separatist movements in the province of Balochistan, where terrorist attacks are also frequent. India has rejected these claims, accusing Pakistan of funding cross-border terrorism, including the April 22 attack on civilians in Kashmir that led to a military and diplomatic standoff between the neighboring states in May.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Taking the bull by its horns
Mumbai's finance community often comes together in ballrooms of five-star hotels and valorises the Indian investor. The financially influential community often speaks in words tinged with nationalistic pride about the continuous increase in registered investors. In 2024-2025, up to 2.09 crore Indians were registered as investors. This number was just 38.5 lakh in 2019-20, before the pandemic. That's a five-fold increase. The suit-clad mutual-fund managers and stock analysts say that this is a reflection of the average Indian's trust in the potential of the nation. Terms like 'financial inclusion' and 'economic democratisation' are often used. In July 2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which regulates the capital markets, alleged that Jane Street, an American trading firm, had manipulated the derivatives market, a segment of the financial market. Derivatives are a set of financial products that lock the prices of stocks or indices (groups of stocks such as Nifty 50), for a future date. SEBI halted Jane Street's operations until it paid ₹4,843.7 crore, the profit that the firm had allegedly made. Now, the matter is under investigation. India is the largest derivatives market in the world. In June this year, Reuters quoted the Futures Industry Association as saying that the country 'made up nearly 60% of global equity derivative trading volumes of 7.3 billion in April'. It also said that at least six global trading giants 'are ratcheting up their presence' in India. In September 2024, SEBI brought out a report stating that the aggregate losses from 2022-2024 in the derivatives market were to the tune of ₹1.8 lakh crore. 'Despite consecutive years of losses, more than 75% of those who lost continued trading in F&Os (futures and options, a part of the derivatives market),' the report stated. While there are many reasons for this, analysts say that people look at F&Os for quick returns, since the contracts expire on a weekly or monthly basis, unlike stocks, which are long-term investments. Pump and dump Jane Street, which began operations in 2000 in New York, had a net trading revenue of $10.4 billion as of June 2025, as per Bloomberg, the business news network. Its website claims to have five offices and over 3,000 employees, trading in 45 countries (India is not listed). Nuvama Wealth Management was a company executing Jane Street's trade in India. It is now under the scanner of the Income Tax Department. In April 2024, SEBI carried out an analysis of 'the alleged unauthorised use of their (Jane Street) trading strategies in Indian options markets' and asked the National Stock Exchange to monitor it. Later that year, SEBI issued a circular announcing a series of policy steps to address problems in the derivatives market. These included overtrading in index options on expiry days (Thursdays). Options are financial contracts, a type of derivative. The buyer is simply purchasing the 'option' to buy an underlying asset at a fixed date at a certain price. 'Call options' expect prices to rise, and 'put options' expect prices to fall. SEBI alleged that Jane Street pumped up the price of Bank Nifty — which consists of stocks of 12 large banks — by buying them in the morning. Seeing this, other traders would also buy in, further pushing up the price. The company would simultaneously buy put options on the same stocks/index, which other traders were unaware of. Towards the end of the day, Jane Street would dump the stocks, profiting from the resultant fall. Complexity and drive The complexity of the derivatives market makes it difficult to navigate even for professional traders like Preeti K. Chhabra, founder of Surat-based Trade Delta, a trading firm. 'After having studied the entire subject thoroughly, and trading for nearly one and a half years, I realised that this is a game where nobody knows 100%,' says Chhabra, who started her derivatives trading firm in 2018-19 after almost two decades of working in stock brokerages. Ms. Chhabra began with a capital of ₹90 lakh and lost about half of it in the first few months, she says. Following the loss, she took a year's break to understand the instrument better before she got back to it. She is among the many traders in India who execute futures and options trades for their clients. Social media platforms and even messaging apps like Telegram are rife with futures and options courses for children. In fact, on the days when the Bank Nifty dipped, analysts online gave different reasons for this, not citing possible market manipulation, SEBI said, in its order. Financial influencers are major contributors to financial market education and investment. Street oversmart With a spurt in online trading apps, which charge low commissions, during COVID-19 in 2020, many, including the youth, began accessing financial markets. The entry of new investors at this time drove a bull rally that lasted about four years before the slump to current levels began in September 2024. Bodies like the Association of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI) say that increasing financial literacy and awareness is the reason behind the proliferation. The awareness of financial instruments, however, does not translate into an understanding of markets. In its 2024 report, SEBI said that 43% of the people who had lost money were below the age of 30, and 93% of the people in this age group lost money trading in derivatives. Akshay Chinchalkar is the head of research at Axis Securities and actively writes on the professional-networking platform LinkedIn about market trends. He feels that there is too much information out there, which makes it difficult to separate the knowledge from the noise. 'It makes us ponder whether the sheer volume of analysis directly leads to consistent, profitable F&O trading for everyone,' he says. The Association of National Exchanges Members of India said in early August that it's studying ways of helping people move away from derivative trading. One of the suggestions they made was to increase the barriers to entry, so that uninformed or undercapitalised traders don't lose on a gamble. Markets like South Korea and Singapore have such barriers, the association said at a media briefing. SEBI has taken certain measures to control the enthusiasm, like doing away with weekly expiries of derivative contracts for all indices except the main Nifty 50 and the 30-stock Sensex, expecting that this would reduce speculatory trading. This means that contracts need to be held for longer periods in all other indices. However, a SEBI study showed that 91% of individual traders continued to lose money even after reforms. This was down from 93% before the Jane Street episode.
Time of India
2 minutes ago
- Time of India
Pakistan's Ayub Khan sought US help to annexe Kashmir after Indus Treaty in 1960
A new book reveals Ayub Khan's attempt to gain US support for capturing Kashmir after the Indus Waters Treaty. Khan linked water rights to territorial claims. He warned that US aid to India would be wasted without resolving the Kashmir issue. Kennedy offered a compromise, but Khan insisted on securing water resources. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Following the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960, the then Pakistani President Ayub Khan sought US President John F Kennedy 's support to capture Kashmir from India, a new book on the treaty has 'Trial by Water: Indus Basin and India-Pakistan Relations ', author Uttam Sinha, an expert on international water issues and IDSA senior fellow, recounts how, in July 1961-months after signing the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)-Khan arrived in Washington, already bristling over America's generous aid to a reception in his honour at Mount Vernon, tastefully arranged by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, Ayub's displeasure was clear. In protest, he had suspended CIA's covert flights from airbases in East Pakistan, which supported Tibetan rebels, as well as U-2 flights over China from West Pakistan.A private garden walk with Kennedy thawed the frost. Ayub agreed to reopen the airbases; Kennedy, in turn, promised that the US will not supply any military equipment to India, according to the later in the Oval Office, Ayub, like a campaign general, spread out maps to press Pakistan's security concerns. The first showed Indian troop deployment-of the 1.5 million soldiers, only 15% faced China, while 85% were positioned against Pakistan. The second detailed 80,000-90,000 Afghan troops on the western border, armed with Soviet-supplied equipment. The third mapped Pakistan's thin defences against both neighbours. Throughout, Ayub insisted that without Kashmir, "Pakistan would be up the gum tree" if attacked from India or Afghanistan, Sinha pointed out in his and his advisers doubted the alarmism but recognised Kashmir as the litmus test of Indo-Pak peace. Kennedy proposed a compromise that the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru might accept. Ayub's answer was calculated. India could keep Jammu, but Pakistan needed "some miles" across the Chenab to secure water resources . His logic was simple-if the Indus Treaty gave Pakistan rights to the western rivers, and those rivers flowed from Kashmir, adjoining territories should belong to suggested Nehru, politically spent and out of touch with Kashmiris, was now ready for settlement. Without resolving Kashmir, he warned, US aid to India was wasted. Kennedy countered that US assistance was aimed at keeping India free from communist influence, not to buy loyalty, Sinha pointed out in his the meeting closed, Ayub made one final ask-if Kennedy's effort to sway Nehru during the latter's planned November 1961 Washington visit failed, and Pakistan returned to the UN over Kashmir, would the US back it?"Yes," Kennedy replied - an episode that, as the book makes clear, showed how deeply water and territory were entwined during the Cold War era's South Asian book also recalls how Nehru faced internal criticism over the IWT. He was described as an umpire in a cricket match-was how one MP described the PM during a fiery Lok Sabha debate on the treaty in November and December 1960. The charge, recorded in the book, captured the frustration of parliamentarians who believed India was giving away too much, too the treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, and debated in the House on November 30, the mood was anything but celebratory. Criticism came from across the political spectrum, including even the Congress benches. Ashok Mehta of the Praja Socialist Party famously called it a "second partition."
Economic Times
2 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Pakistan's Ayub Khan sought US help to annexe Kashmir after Indus Treaty in 1960
A new book reveals Ayub Khan's attempt to gain US support for capturing Kashmir after the Indus Waters Treaty. Khan linked water rights to territorial claims. He warned that US aid to India would be wasted without resolving the Kashmir issue. Kennedy offered a compromise, but Khan insisted on securing water resources. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Following the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960, the then Pakistani President Ayub Khan sought US President John F Kennedy 's support to capture Kashmir from India, a new book on the treaty has 'Trial by Water: Indus Basin and India-Pakistan Relations ', author Uttam Sinha, an expert on international water issues and IDSA senior fellow, recounts how, in July 1961-months after signing the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)-Khan arrived in Washington, already bristling over America's generous aid to a reception in his honour at Mount Vernon, tastefully arranged by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, Ayub's displeasure was clear. In protest, he had suspended CIA's covert flights from airbases in East Pakistan, which supported Tibetan rebels, as well as U-2 flights over China from West Pakistan.A private garden walk with Kennedy thawed the frost. Ayub agreed to reopen the airbases; Kennedy, in turn, promised that the US will not supply any military equipment to India, according to the later in the Oval Office, Ayub, like a campaign general, spread out maps to press Pakistan's security concerns. The first showed Indian troop deployment-of the 1.5 million soldiers, only 15% faced China, while 85% were positioned against Pakistan. The second detailed 80,000-90,000 Afghan troops on the western border, armed with Soviet-supplied equipment. The third mapped Pakistan's thin defences against both neighbours. Throughout, Ayub insisted that without Kashmir, "Pakistan would be up the gum tree" if attacked from India or Afghanistan, Sinha pointed out in his and his advisers doubted the alarmism but recognised Kashmir as the litmus test of Indo-Pak peace. Kennedy proposed a compromise that the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru might accept. Ayub's answer was calculated. India could keep Jammu, but Pakistan needed "some miles" across the Chenab to secure water resources . His logic was simple-if the Indus Treaty gave Pakistan rights to the western rivers, and those rivers flowed from Kashmir, adjoining territories should belong to suggested Nehru, politically spent and out of touch with Kashmiris, was now ready for settlement. Without resolving Kashmir, he warned, US aid to India was wasted. Kennedy countered that US assistance was aimed at keeping India free from communist influence, not to buy loyalty, Sinha pointed out in his the meeting closed, Ayub made one final ask-if Kennedy's effort to sway Nehru during the latter's planned November 1961 Washington visit failed, and Pakistan returned to the UN over Kashmir, would the US back it?"Yes," Kennedy replied - an episode that, as the book makes clear, showed how deeply water and territory were entwined during the Cold War era's South Asian book also recalls how Nehru faced internal criticism over the IWT. He was described as an umpire in a cricket match-was how one MP described the PM during a fiery Lok Sabha debate on the treaty in November and December 1960. The charge, recorded in the book, captured the frustration of parliamentarians who believed India was giving away too much, too the treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, and debated in the House on November 30, the mood was anything but celebratory. Criticism came from across the political spectrum, including even the Congress benches. Ashok Mehta of the Praja Socialist Party famously called it a "second partition."
