China-Pakistan Nexus Equipping Terrorists In J&K With Advanced Technology: Report
'The strategic alliance between Beijing and Islamabad has created a formidable supply chain for advanced military hardware. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's 2025 report, China accounted for 81 per cent of Pakistan's arms imports between 2019 and 2023, totaling approximately $5.28 billion. This partnership extends far beyond traditional weaponry, encompassing dual-use technologies that have found their way into terrorist arsenals across Kashmir," the report in European Times highlighted.
According to the report, the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam underscored the extent of the technological infiltration in the region where security forces seized Huawei satellite phones, Chinese-manufactured GPS devices, body cameras, and encrypted communication systems from the attack site. These recoveries marked a shift from unsophisticated militant operations to coordinated, technology-driven warfare that capitalises on Chinese infrastructure and expertise.
It further mentioned that the cutting-edge network architecture enabled terrorists to coordinate in real-time, while keeping their operations secure. The operational impact, it stated, was visible during Operation Mahadev, when Indian security forces tracked terrorists using signals from a Chinese satellite phone activated in the Baisaran area. However, the elimination of three Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives, including the alleged mastermind of the Pahalgam attack, highlighted not only technology's capabilities but also its weaknesses when effectively countered.
China's engagement, the report detailed, extends beyond hardware to building a comprehensive digital infrastructure. Through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, the telecom towers operated by China Mobile Pakistan (Zong) across Pakistan-occupied Kashmir provided digital coverage that reached Indian districts, including Kupwara, Rajouri, Poonch, and Uri. This network, the report said, created multiple layers of operational support for terrorist activities.
It also emphasised that China's supply of sophisticated communication systems, surveillance capabilities, and weapons technology allowed Pakistan to deny any direct involvement while it escalated the lethality of terrorist operations. The China-Pakistan collaboration has led to several destabilising effects.
"The entrenchment of Chinese technology in Kashmir's militant ecosystem represents more than a tactical evolution; it constitutes a strategic challenge to Indian sovereignty and regional stability. The China-Pakistan nexus has created a sophisticated support system that enhances terrorist capabilities while maintaining plausible deniability for state sponsors,' the report noted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 minutes ago
- Time of India
Déjà vu in Delhi! India knows the sting of tariffs
US President Donald Trump's decision to impose punishing tariffs on India might seem unprecedented — until you flip the calendar back 36 years. In 1989, Washington tried to pry open the Indian economy by threatening tariffs, leading to a 12-month bitter stand-off between the two nations. Eventually the US backed down, but the conflict left a scar on the bilateral relationship. A look back at the Super 301 episode can help us better understand the dynamics at play today. In the late 1980s, the US was engaged in an intense trade war with Japan, its primary economic rival at the time. Washington developed an arsenal of diplomatic and economic weapons for its war including Super 301, a legal mechanism upgraded in 1988. It authorised the US President to identify countries with 'unfair' trade practices and punish them with retaliatory tariffs. Once the statute came into force, President George HW Bush did not limit its use to Japan. His administration sought to address America's rising trade deficit by using the threat of Super 301 to strong-arm several countries, including American allies like Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. Parallels with the current administration are evident. In his first term, Trump used tariffs to battle China; now he uses them on friends and foes alike. Once Washington develops a policy tool to coerce one country, it becomes all too tempting to use that tool indiscriminately and sometimes unthinkingly. It is an important facet of US hegemony, regardless of who occupies the White House. Many countries tried to avoid Super 301 by hastily cutting deals with Washington to open their markets or voluntarily restricting their exports. In June 1989, the Bush administration declared that it would target three countries — Japan, Brazil and India. New Delhi was taken by complete surprise. Its relations with Washington had been improving in the previous few years. Its trade surplus with the US was relatively paltry. Washington's two central demands, that India allow American investments and foreign insurance companies, seemed arbitrary. Unlike Japan and Brazil, India refused to even enter into negotiations with the US. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said he wouldn't let the US dictate how to run the country. American heavy-handedness sparked intense outrage in the Parliament, further tying the govt's hands politically. At the same time, the American threat of tariffs posed serious risks for the Indian economy. US share in India's exports at the time was about one-fifth, the same as it is today. India was much less dependent on foreign trade in 1989 than it is today, but it was also a much smaller and more vulnerable economy. India failed to enlist world opinion to its side. Western countries, including even Japan, agreed with Washington that India was too restrictive of foreign investments. Today, Indian diplomats looking for international solidarity against US tariff assault may discover a similar situation. Many countries may deplore Trump's ham-fisted tactics, while endorsing his goals of lowering Indian protectionism and weaning it away from Russian oil. PM VP Singh, elected in December 1989, tried to placate Washington through a tightrope act. While India continued to refuse negotiations on the two demands under Super 301, it offered concessions on other economic fronts. Americans were not satisfied with Indian offerings. In April 1990, Japan and Brazil were dropped from the Super 301 list, leaving India as the sole target. Washington issued a two-month ultimatum to New Delhi. American 'bullying' was loudly condemned by Indian media and politicians. In the end, the showdown never arrived. At the expiration of the ultimatum deadline, the Bush administration determined that following through with its threats was not worth it. It declared that while India was an 'unfair trader', it was not in American interest to take retaliatory actions. The Super 301 process against India was discontinued. The Bush administration backed down without much loss of face because Washington's trade campaign was global and India was only a small piece of it. Same remains true today. Although the tariffs are a major issue for New Delhi, they are just one battle among dozens that Trump is fighting on multiple fronts. The Indo-US relationship quickly bounced back, buoyed by alignment of certain economic and geopolitical interests. However, the Super 301 episode left a bad taste in the Indian mouth. It was yet another reminder that American power can unexpectedly become capricious and overbearing. In the last few years, many commentators have expressed befuddlement at why New Delhi resists moving closer to Washington despite its persistent conflict with Beijing. Its reticence partly stems from its fear that greater dependence on the US will leave it more vulnerable to Washington's volatile high-handedness that manifests from time to time. Trump's tariff assault has again affirmed the wisdom behind India's caution. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Five Indian-Americans charged with sex trafficking, visa fraud, forced child labor in Nebraska; details here
Five Indian-Americans have been charged in Nebraska with sex trafficking, visa fraud, and money laundering involving over $565,000 (approximately ₹5 crore) amid Trump's immigration crackdown and ongoing raids in major US cities. Ten juveniles were rescued from a labor trafficking network that compelled youngsters under the age of 12 to work long hours in filthy, dangerous, and unhygienic hotels for little to no pay, according to court filings. The US Attorney's Office, District of Nebraska, revealed the names of the Indian-Americans, which include Amit Prahladbhai 'Amit' Chaudhari, 32, Amit Babubhai 'Matt' Chaudhari, 33, Maheshkumar 'Mahesh' Chaudhari, 38, Rashmi Ajit 'Falguni' Samani, 42, and Kentakumar 'Ken' Chaudhari, 36, owned, ran, and oversaw several hotels in the state. According to the prosecution, these hotels were involved in several illegal schemes. In a press release, US state attorney Lesley Woods stated that the businesses produced significant illicit profits, and authorities seized over $565,000 in cash that may have been used in money laundering. Ten minors rescued Ten juveniles were rescued from a labor trafficking network that compelled youngsters under the age of 12 to work long hours in filthy, dangerous, and unhygienic hotels for little to no pay, according to court filings. Citing one instance, the Department of Justice, revealed that an informant went into a hotel room and discovered immigrant victims dozing on the floor while cockroaches crawled over them. 'There is no evil greater than the evil that seeks to trap, oppress, and exploit human beings for profit or pleasure,' said Woods in the statement. 'Where that evil exists, Nebraska law enforcement working together at the federal, state, and local levels, as occurred in this case, will seek it, find it, root it out, and ensure every rescued victim has an opportunity to obtain justice and freedom from their captors.' Also Read: H1-B visa hiring: Major revelation about firms recruiting foreign workers; 'Americans are not aware that…' Moreover, one of the accused is suspected of abusing the US U visa program, which is intended for victims of specific crimes who have been mistreated and want to help law enforcement with their investigations. A hotel owner allegedly orchestrated a fictitious robbery of a Brow and Lash salon in 2022 to portray another suspect as a victim of crime in an effort to obtain a U visa for her. The hotels were also allegedly utilised for narcotics trafficking, according to the complaint. The hotel owners provided security to traffickers, just as they did for human traffickers, the DOJ said. Smuggling Indian nationals According to the prosecution, one defendant spoke about the price of transporting someone from India to the US. In previous years, a number of hotel workers had crossed the Arizona border knowing they would be staying at defendant-owned hotels. Migrants were transported between Nebraska and Washington in order to illegally obtain driver's licenses, which cost around $1,000 each, as per the complaint.
The Wire
2 minutes ago
- The Wire
Explainer: The Trump–Putin Summit and its Immediate Consequences For New Delhi
New Delhi: For India, the Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage was more than a geopolitical spectacle in the frozen north. Rather, it carried immediate consequences for New Delhi's economic future. With the US having slapped punitive tariffs on Indian goods for Russian oil purchases, New Delhi watched the meeting closely, weighing whether Trump's diplomacy might ease the pressure or deepen its bind. Here is The Wire's explainer on what unfolded in Alaska on Saturday (August 16), and what it could mean for India. What exactly happened at the Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage? The day began with a carefully staged welcome at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. US President Donald Trump's plane landed shortly after 10:20 a.m., and Russian President Vladimir Putin followed about half an hour later. Just after 11 a.m., the two leaders walked out onto a red-carpeted platform marked 'Alaska 2025,' framed by four F-22 fighter jets and a flyover that included a B-2 stealth bomber. After the handshake and photo op, Trump invited Putin into his presidential limousine. The pair spoke privately for a few minutes on the short ride to the venue, a break from protocol that underscored Trump's preference for unscripted encounters. Formal talks began around 11:30 a.m. in a 'three-on-three' format. Trump sat with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Steve Witkoff, while Putin was flanked by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and adviser Yuri Ushakov. The discussions ran for nearly three hours before concluding in the mid-afternoon. At about 3 p.m., the two leaders appeared before the press to deliver short statements, but they took no questions and announced no breakthrough. Putin departed soon afterwards, while Trump left Anchorage in the early evening for his return flight to Washington. In total, Putin's first visit to US in ten years, lasted less than six hours. Did Trump manage to secure a ceasefire, or did the talks end without progress? While flying to Anchorage, Trump told a Fox News anchor on Air Force One that he 'won't be happy' if he did not get a ceasefire deal at the summit. That set expectations for the meeting, which ran for nearly three hours behind closed doors. Yet when the two leaders appeared before the press, it was clear no such agreement had been reached. Trump nonetheless struck an upbeat note. 'We really made some great progress today,' he said, stressing that negotiations were ongoing and that more meetings would follow. He did not provide details of what that progress involved. 'There were many, many points that we agreed on, most of them, I would say, a couple of big ones that we haven't quite gotten there, but we've made some headway. So there's no deal until there is a deal,' he said. Later in an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, he said that the onus was now on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to get a cease-fire deal. Putin also kept up the optimistic narrative. 'We held our talks in a constructive and mutually respectful atmosphere, and they have proved substantive and productive.' The Russian President flattered Trump by stating that the Ukraine war would not have started if Trump had been president. He also restated Moscow's demands for a 'long-term and lasting' settlement on Ukraine war – addressing the 'root causes' of the conflict, ensuring 'all of Russia's legitimate concerns' are met, and restoring a 'fair security balance in Europe and the rest of the world.' He signalled, standing next to the US President, that the roadblock lay across the Atlantic. 'We hope that Kiev and the European capitals will take the current developments constructively and will neither try to put up obstacles nor attempt to disrupt the emerging progress with provocative acts or behind-the-scenes plots.' Does the outcome make Putin the real winner of the meeting? For Vladimir Putin, the Alaska summit represented a clear diplomatic victory, one achieved without compromise. Back in Moscow, the tone was jubilant. 'The very fact of the meeting in Alaska, its tone, and its outcome represent a significant and joint success for both presidents, each of whom made a tremendous personal contribution to achieving the best possible result at this time," Konstantin Kosachyov, a chair of the foreign affairs committee of Russia's upper house of parliament, wrote on Telegram, according to Reuters. Others were more blunt. As one senior Russian policymaker told The Guardian, 'Putin gave Trump nothing, but still got everything he wanted.' The absence of new sanctions, Trump's tacit recognition of Moscow's red lines, and the symbolism of being treated as an equal to the US president all fed into the narrative of triumph. Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev also singled out Trump's refusal to escalate pressure on Moscow over Ukraine as one of the most important outcomes. He described the summit as a restoration of top-level dialogue that was 'peaceful, free of ultimatums or threats,' and noted that Putin had 'presented our conditions for ending the conflict in Ukraine … in person and in detail.' In the United States, however, the verdict was also clear that Putin had scored a PR goal. The Washington Post called the summit ' not a disaster, but it was a US defeat.' The New York Times argued that Putin had effectively achieved a major war goal. ' He has gotten out of the box of sanctioned autocrat, and was greeted by the president of the United States as a peacemaker. He has bought time. He has defused all that talk of sanctions on his oil sector. And he gave up nothing'. How did Europe and Ukraine react to the summit? European leaders, led by Germany, France, the UK, Italy and the EU, issued a joint statement reaffirming their unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and insisting that Russia could not dictate Kyiv's future ties with NATO or the EU. They pledged to tighten sanctions and maintain economic pressure on Moscow until what they described as a just and lasting peace is achieved. While leaders such as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron praised Donald Trump's initiative in meeting Vladimir Putin, they stressed that any talks must be coupled with strong security guarantees for Ukraine. Kyiv's response was more guardedly optimistic. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy welcomed Trump's proposal for a trilateral format with Ukraine included, but said European participation was essential to ensure binding guarantees. He confirmed he would travel to Washington on Monday after a 'long and substantive' phone call with Trump, noting 'positive signals' about the United States taking part in future security arrangements. Trump's post-summit remarks on Fox News, however, fuelled unease in Kyiv and in several European capitals. In an interview with Sean Hannity, he contrasted Russia's status with Ukraine's, saying: 'Russia is a very big power, and they're not' and added that Zelenskiy 'gotta make a deal.' For many European officials, this reinforced fears that Trump might pressure Kyiv into concessions without securing reciprocal guarantees from Moscow. How did New Delhi react, and what drives that stance? India welcomed the Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, framing it as a positive step toward dialogue. 'India welcomes the Summit meeting in Alaska between President Trump and President Putin,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, adding that New Delhi 'consistently advocates dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict.' He noted that India 'appreciates the progress made in the Summit'. 'India welcomes the Summit meeting in Alaska between President Trump and President Putin,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, adding that New Delhi 'consistently advocates dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict.' He also noted that India 'appreciates the progress made in the Summit.' New Delhi's response can be read as relief that the focus on dialogue creates a potential opening for India, which has been squeezed between its strategic partnership with Washington and its heavy reliance on Russian energy. That pressure intensified earlier this month when the US raised tariffs on Indian goods to 50 percent, following secondary sanctions of 25 percent on Russian oil purchases. India, the second-largest buyer of Russian crude after China, was singled out by the measures. While Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity that he would hold off on penalising China for now, the uncertainty over whether India will face continued tariffs remains. Could India gain some relief on US tariffs as a side-effect of Trump's diplomacy? Donald Trump's latest push to nudge Moscow towards a Ukraine deal has raised questions in New Delhi over whether India might see relief from the steep US tariffs imposed on Russian oil imports. The additional 25 percent duty, announced in late August, coincided with signs of Trump's growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Indian officials viewed the sanctions partly as an extension of that irritation. En route to Alaska, Trump told Fox News that India had been forced to stop buying Russian oil because of the tariffs. Former Indian ambassador to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria described the Alaska meeting as 'reassuring' for India. 'The first good news is that the meeting took place,' he told The Wire, noting there were 'no shock outcomes of trouble' and no sign of 'a complete breakdown in that relationship.' He said Trump appeared to hint at flexibility. 'There was an indication he will either give more time to India for the 25 percent sanctions… or he will reverse them, or he will give that a bigger timeline,' Bisaria said. While there was brewing backlash in Washington that Putin may have gained an upper hand, Trump may still continue to believe that he is on the right path. 'He may be hearing other voices in his ear,' he said, pointing out that while some in Trump's circle are Russia hawks, 'the MAGA base supports him ending the wars. So, there won't be an issue with them.' Bisaria, however, added that conditions in Ukraine could yet derail any opening. 'If there's a major escalation in battlefield violence, that is a danger to the process, because right now it's the most fragile,' he said. In his view, both Trump and Putin are interested in a deal, with Ukraine and Europe seeking at least the optics of being consulted.
