"Pakistan is a front for China, US policy makers need to be conscious": Ex-envoy Taranjit Singh Sandhu
Washington, DC [United States], June 5 (ANI): Former Indian Ambassador to the United States, Taranjit Singh Sandhu, who is part of the all-party delegation led by Shashi Tharoor to the US, in a strong message to US policymakers, cautioned on Thursday that Pakistan is acting as a front for China and urged Washington to rethink its strategic approach in the region.
During an interaction in Washington, DC, Sandhu said, '...There is a larger geopolitical play. I don't think anybody needs to be explained that Pakistan is the front for China, and I think the US policy makers need to be conscious of that.'
The former envoy highlighted three major concerns for American policymakers; terrorism, democracy in the region, and the growing China-Pakistan nexus. 'Three important aspects which US policy makers should focus on, firstly, on terrorism, what kind of impact it has had on the United States?...' he said.
He further stressed that the Pakistan Army remained in complete control of the country, making it necessary to take a firm stance against terrorism.
'It is stated that the Pakistan Army is in full control of Pakistan. Therefore, terrorism must be curbed there. It cannot be part of or an instrument of foreign policy. The United States policymakers need to be focused on, because terrorism in the past has hit the United States, it can hit in the future,' Sandhu warned.
Sandhu touched upon democratic backsliding in the region, saying, 'The second part is on democracy. We have seen that whenever there is pressure on the Pakistan Army, it finds a convenient way of creating tensions within India...'
Earlier in the day, Ex-envoy Taranjit Singh Sandhu emphasised India's role in combating terrorism on a global scale amid escalating tensions between India and Pakistan.
The former Indian envoy underlined the global nature of the terrorism threat, saying, 'Kindly look at all those terrorists and terrorist organisations, are they friends of the United States and what kind of poison they spread about the United States?... Do keep in mind that these are the same terrorists who have threatened the United States in the past, and you have just witnessed terrorism here, and can do it in the future too. So, India is fighting the battle on behalf of the world, especially the United States.'
The delegation, which includes members from various political parties and former Ambassador Taranjit Singh Sandhu, arrived in the US following their visit to Brazil. Their mission is to brief key stakeholders about Operation Sindoor, India's diplomatic and military initiative launched in response to terrorism and misinformation after the terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir.
Operation Sindoor was launched on May 7 following the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists, which killed 26 people and injured several others. The Indian Armed Forces targeted terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, killing over 100 terrorists linked to groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizbul Mujahideen. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
15 minutes ago
- First Post
Curtis Yarvin: Blogger who called for autocratic rule in US shaping Trump policies, says report
Curtis Yarvin, a blogger known for advocating autocratic rule and criticising liberal democracy is reportedly influencing Trump's second-term policy agenda. His ideas on civil service purges and West Asia strategy are gaining traction among Trump allies like Peter Thiel and JD Vance. read more Curtis Yarvin, a once-fringe political blogger better known by his pen name Mencius Moldbug is emerging as an influential figure in shaping Donald Trump's policy agenda for a potential second term, according to a new profile published by The New Yorker. Yarvin, long known for advocating the replacement of liberal democratic institutions with autocratic rule has gained traction among key figures in Trump's orbit. His once-controversial ideas, dismissed as extreme are now reportedly informing major policy blueprints from mass firings of civil servants to radical proposals for West Asia peace. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The report details how Yarvin's writings which call for a top-down reordering of government and a deep skepticism of bureaucratic power, have caught the attention of venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance. Both men are considered central to the intellectual and strategic direction of a second Trump administration. Among the most striking parallels between Yarvin's ideas and Trump's current proposals is the concept of a sweeping purge of federal civil servants. Trump allies have proposed replacing career bureaucrats with loyalists, citing the need to 'drain the swamp', a move that reflects Yarvin's long-standing critique of the so-called 'deep state.' Equally eyebrow-raising is a reported policy proposal to transform Gaza into the 'Riviera of the Middle East', an idea that mirrors Yarvin's provocative vision for resolving intractable geopolitical conflicts through heavy-handed, top-down development schemes. The New Yorker article suggests that Yarvin's ascent is part of a broader trend: the growing influence of far-right intellectuals and online theorists in American conservative politics. Once relegated to obscure blogs and Reddit threads, Yarvin's ideas are now being openly discussed in elite conservative circles and quietly making their way into policy drafts. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Critics warn that mainstreaming such radical theories poses a threat to constitutional governance and democratic accountability. But to his supporters, Yarvin offers a bold framework for dismantling what they see as a bloated and unaccountable administrative state. The growing visibility of Yarvin and his theories underscored a major shift in the ideological arena of the American right, one that could shape the future of US governance if Trump returns to the White House.
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Time has come...': Musk hints at forming 'new political party' as feud with Trump explodes
The feud between Elon Musk and US President Donald Trump has exploded into a full-scale political war. From Musk calling for a new political party to represent the '80% in the middle,' to shocking allegations about Trump being named in the Jeffrey Epstein files, this clash is shaking up American politics. Show more Show less
