‘Countries we visited wanted to know Trump's role (in ceasefire) … Our sense is no one took the claims seriously': Sanjay Jha

Indian Express

a day ago

The panel of MPs that visited Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore to articulate India's stand on the Pahalgam terror attack and its aftermath returned to India late Tuesday night. JD(U) working president and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Jha who led the panel speaks about the matters raised at the meetings with the representatives of these countries and what their response was. Excerpts:
What was the experience of your five-nation tour on behalf of the government?
It was a great experience. Because it was a multi-party delegation, there was a very warm welcome wherever we went. People appreciated that MPs coming from the length and breadth of the country and cutting across party lines were putting forth the nation's stand on terrorism and India's right to defend itself.
Representatives of some of these countries would even joke about our otherwise adversarial engagements in Parliament. But they appreciated that the delegation was carrying the message of 140 crore Indians speaking together on this issue.
When we were talking about how the Indian economy had become the fourth-largest in one of the meetings, the Japanese ambassador even joked that we were talking about surpassing his country.
What did you articulate on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism?
Pakistan was completely exposed as a propagator of cross-border terrorism. In all our meetings, we would recite Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir's statement on Kashmir before the Pahalgam attack. We underlined how an Army chief was speaking in such a radicalised manner. Then we talked about The Resistance Force (TRF) and it claiming responsibility for the (Pahalgam) attack. We showed evidence of its links with Pakistan. We flagged how Pakistan got a UN reference of the TRF withdrawn, highlighting its links with the organisation. We also spoke about Pakistan's involvement in the 26/11 attacks and all the evidence Ajmal Qasab's capture produced.
We also spoke about Pakistan being on the grey list of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) between 2018 and 2022, and sought support from the country representatives to put it back on the list at the next FATF meeting.
We told them not to compare India and Pakistan as the latter is a sponsor of terrorism. We told them to keep in perspective where we stand on democracy and economy and where Pakistan is, a nation run by the Army.
What was the response from these countries?
There was universal condemnation of terrorism wherever we went. Country representatives also expressed sympathy for India on the fact that it had suffered terror for so long. Interestingly, no one questioned our calibrated response to the Pahalgam terror attack. No one asked why we struck inside Pakistan. It conveyed their understanding that we have the right to defend ourselves. They were more interested in knowing how we conducted Operation Sindoor with such precision.
How did the Muslim-majority countries, Malaysia and Indonesia, respond?
In Indonesia and Malaysia, we told country representatives that Pakistan keeps bringing resolutions against India in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meetings. Since we are not part of the OIC, we told them to consider our point of view as well before entertaining such resolutions. Indonesia agreed. But Malaysia did not make any commitment. We also felt a tilt towards Pakistan in Malaysia.
Did the countries you visited have any questions to ask?
Their questions ranged from nuclear conflict precipitation and how the ceasefire was achieved to concerns about tourism in India in the wake of the Pahalgam attack. On the ceasefire, they wanted to know US President Donald Trump's role. We told them whenever a conflict happens anywhere in the world, countries make phone calls. It does not mean they mediate peace. We told them that during the Russia-Ukraine conflict even PM Narendra Modi spoke to leaders in both countries. It did not necessarily mean he was mediating in their affairs. Our sense from the conversations was that people had not taken Trump's claims very seriously. We gave them evidence of how the first call for a ceasefire was made by Pakistan.
Indonesia and Malaysia had questions on whether tourism in India was safe. We told them India is a huge country, and people were still coming in droves, even to Pahalgam.
Country representatives also had questions on the Indus Waters Treaty. We told them water and blood cannot flow together and that the preamble of the treaty mentioned 'friendship and cooperation', which was not there anymore. But, largely we argued that in the last few years India had requested to renegotiate the treaty due to climate change, demographic change, etc, but Pakistan was not responding. We also said that if Pakistan stops terrorism, the treaty can be looked at positively.
There were questions on the escalation breaching the nuclear threshold. We told them our response never factored in reaching the nuclear threshold. We told them we have a no-first-use policy. But we made it clear that we would not tolerate Pakistan's nuclear blackmail. We also conveyed India's new normal of treating every terrorist attack as an act of war.
How did the panel spend its free time?
There was no free time. We were packed from 9 am to 9 pm. Sometimes we caught late-night flights and had morning meetings in another country. We met members of parliament, think tank representatives, ambassadors of different countries and the Indian diaspora, apart from media interactions.