"Sent out strong message against terror": All-party delegation led by Sanjay Jha returns to Delhi after global outreach
New Delhi [India], June 4 (ANI): The all-party parliamentary delegation led by JD(U) MP Sanjay Kumar Jha arrived in Delhi on Tuesday after concluding a multi-nation visit aimed at bolstering international support against cross-border terrorism.
The delegation visited Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and Indonesia as part of a global outreach initiative. This diplomatic outreach follows Operation Sindoor, launched on May 7 as a decisive military response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists, which claimed 26 lives.
Speaking to reporters upon arrival, Sanjay Jha said, 'The message to send an all-party delegation was that the whole country is united on the issue of terrorism. Everybody spoke in one voice against it and condemned the Pahalgam incident. The way India attacked the terrorist hideouts with precision and did not harm the common citizens was appreciated and praised. We urged that action should be taken against Pakistan by the FATF (Financial Action Task Force). The delegations have sent out a strong message against terror.'
CPI-M MP Dr John Brittas also spoke to mediapersons and echoed similar sentiments, stating, 'It was supposed to be very comprehensive discussions we had with the different sections of people in 5 countries, and we could successfully underscore the stand of India. India is a victim of terror, and Pakistan is a perpetrator... All these meetings turned out to be very successful.'
Speaking to reporters, BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi said, 'It was heartening to find that everybody appreciated the stand of India on cross-border terrorism and they all came forward to denounce the approach of Pakistan as far as creating unrest in India is concerned, as far as the killing of innocent people is concerned. Everybody agreed to the fact that Pakistan nourishes, nurtures and promotes terrorism.'
'Already, different political parties have representation in the delegation. I don't think there is any need for a special session of Parliament. But of course, the senior leaders of the setup will decide. But I can only say that there is no need for it. We would be going for the monsoon session of Parliament very soon,' she added.
Furthermore, BJP MP Brij Lal shared the same sentiments, stating, 'We went to 5 countries... We also told them the importance of Sindoor... We also told them that we are a peace-loving country, and we won't accept cross-border terrorism, and we will take it as an act of war and act accordingly.
Menawhile, the delegation, led by JD(U) MP Jha, included BJP MPs Aparajita Sarangi, Brij Lal, Pradan Baruah, Hemang Joshi, TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, CPI-M's John Brittas, and Congress leader Salman Khurshid, among others.
After the visit, Sanjay Kumar Jha emphasised that the delegation was returning 'very satisfied' and the job that the Indian Government entrusted to them was accomplished to a 'great extent.'
BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi asserted that the purpose of their visit has been fulfilled.
'I would say that I feel enriched at the end of 13 days of massive touring in five countries. We started the tour on May 21. Today is June 3, and we are heading towards India. We are looking forward to going to our motherland. But I would say that the purpose with which we had come has been fulfilled in my mind,' she said.
The BJP MP mentioned that their purpose was to convey to these countries about Pakistan's support for terrorism.
'We started in Japan, and then went to the Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, and Malaysia. Of course, the responses of the governments in five different countries were different from one another, I must say. We have come here with a purpose. We wanted to convey India's stand on cross-border terrorism to these countries. We wanted to tell them that there was zero tolerance for terrorism. We wanted to tell them that Pakistan has been nurturing, promoting, and nourishing terrorism. Therefore, in all the countries we interacted with, we requested to put in a word for Pakistan and tell them that this has to stop. Pakistan has been a habitual offender. It has been creating problems for all of us over time, and that is why we have met a cross-section of people,' Sarangi said.
'We spoke to a couple of people, a couple of societies, a couple of associations, and we are returning delighted. I think the job entrusted to us by the government of India has been accomplished greatly,' Aparajita Sarangi said.
Another member of the delegation, Communist Party of India (Marxist) MP John Brittas, termed their visit a 'successful' one.
'It has been a successful trip to the five nations. We met many sections of society. We could convey the message of India about what happened and how cross-border terrorism affects us. We understand that they appreciate that India wants to be on the path of peace and progress,' Brittas said.
Former Indian Ambassador to France Dr Mohan Kumar, a member of the all-party delegation led by JD(U) MP Sanjay Kumar Jha, said the takeaway was that there was unanimous and universal condemnation of terrorism.
'We just concluded this visit to five countries...I can confidently say... all our interlocutors appreciated an all-party delegation. It was accepted that India spoke in one voice, that is the one takeaway. The second takeaway is that there was a unanimous and universal condemnation of terrorism. There was support for India's action and condolences for victims (of the Pahalgam attack). We have conveyed clearly to them that it was not our choice to have a war and that we were merely responding to the horrific terrorist attacks,' Kumar told ANI.
BJP MP Hemang Joshi said that they placed strong emphasis on the issue of cross-border terrorism and the proxy war that Pakistan continues to wage against India.
'In Indonesia and Malaysia, where the Muslim population is comparatively larger, we met political leaders and delegations from various parties. We also engaged with delegations of Islamic scholars, who jointly stated that terrorism and violence have no place in Islam. All these countries want to move forward in peace. They expressed that India has every right to take a stand in the fight against terrorism. All widely appreciated Operation Sindoor,' Joshi said.
'Throughout this delegation, we never looked at political parties. For these 15 days, we represented India as 'Team India' and spoke with one voice on behalf of the country,' he asserted.
The delegation's tour includes stops in Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, and Singapore, underscoring India's commitment to regional peace, security, and development. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
19 minutes ago
- Hans India
7 Maoists surrender in Dantewada
Dantewada: Seven Maoists, two of them carrying cash rewards on their heads, surrendered in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh on Friday, a police official said. The cadres turned themselves in before police and CRPF officials citing disappointment at the growing differences within the outlawed CPI (Maoist), the harsh forest life and the movement's hollow ideology, he said. The official identified the surrendered cadres as Juglu alias Sundum Kowasi (23), Dasha alias Burku Podiam (26), Bhoja Ram Madvi (48), Lakhma alias Suti (26), Ratu alias Othe Kowasi (25), Sukhram Podiyam (25) and Pandru Ram Podiyam (45). "Juglu and Dasha carried a bounty of Rs 50,000 each. The surrendered Naxalites were involved in incidents like damaging roads, cutting trees, putting up Naxalite banners, posters and pamphlets during 'bandh' called by Maoists.
The Wire
20 minutes ago
- The Wire
After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Security After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself Sanjiv Krishan Sood 4 minutes ago While India's armed response to the Pahalgam massacre was swift and strategically effective, the deeper questions about intelligence failures, foreign policy and the sustainability of retaliatory doctrine remain unresolved. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now If Operation Sindoor began as a limited attack on nine locations linked to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the Pakistani response prompted the Indian defence forces to undertake a number of actions aimed at Pakistan's military establishment. Through precision strikes on militant infrastructure, followed by carefully calibrated aggression, the Indian Air Force and Army degraded key assets while preventing any substantial damage to our own military or civilian infrastructure. The response to the massacre at Pahalgam carried out by terrorists linked to Pakistan was measured but resolute. It was aimed as prompting Islamabad to reassess its state policy of harbouring and sponsoring terror. India's declaration that all acts of terrorism will now be treated as acts of war marks a significant shift in doctrine. That said, six weeks after the Pahalgam tragedy and nearly a month since the cessation of hostilities, several critical questions remain unanswered by both our security and political leadership. The first is whether Operation Sindoor achieved its stated objectives. The Prime Minister, in a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting, gave the armed forces a free hand to destroy the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. On the nights of May 6th and 7th, nine terrorist camps were reportedly neutralized, and numerous militants killed. But can we truly say the infrastructure has been dismantled? Is the deterrent strong enough to prevent future attacks? The evidence doesn't inspire confidence. Since the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air strikes following Pulwama, Pakistan-based terrorists have continued to strike at Indian targets. Pathankot, Kathua, Udhampur, and other places have seen terror attacks even after high-profile retaliatory actions. Supporting terrorism in India appears to be entrenched in Pakistan's state doctrine. The reported decision of the Pakistani government to offer financial aid to the families of slain terrorists and rebuild destroyed camps signals no intent to step back. More troubling is the international silence. Aside from muted support from Russia, India has struggled to garner vocal backing from major global powers. In contrast, Pakistan received overt support from China and Turkey—both of whom extended diplomatic cover and material support, including drones and modern aircraft used during the brief conflict. Despite a two-week window before striking the terrorist camps, India failed to shape global opinion or present a compelling narrative. This diplomatic vacuum echoes the aftermath of Balakot, when Pakistan successfully projected its version of events internationally. The all-party delegations India dispatched to various countries gained limited traction, mostly among nations with marginal influence on global affairs. This stands in sharp contrast to India's success in 1971 and during the Kargil conflict in 1999, when it managed to effectively justify its actions and rally international opinion. Why the shift? The present government's handling of foreign policy and communication strategy deserves closer scrutiny. That brings us to the ceasefire itself. By May 10th, Indian forces reportedly had the upper hand. Yet it was the US president who first announced the ceasefire, followed by India's own foreign secretary. President Trump's repeated claims of having mediated the ceasefire raise uncomfortable questions. Has India, which long resisted international mediation and stood firmly for bilateralism, allowed itself to be hyphenated with Pakistan once again? While the decision to end hostilities may have been strategically sound, it was an anti-climax for a public whipped into a frenzy by media speculation and political rhetoric. Talk of reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and total victory created unrealistic expectations. The actual motivations for the ceasefire remain speculative. It may have been American pressure, given the escalatory risks between two nuclear powers. Or it could have been India's own calculation—that sufficient punishment had been meted out, and further escalation would only risk unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly in areas like Poonch and Rajouri. The safety of civilians in border areas is another glaring concern. While cities were issued alerts, conducted blackouts, and prepared for contingencies, residents living within range of Pakistani small arms and artillery fire were left dangerously exposed. Civilian deaths and property destruction in border towns were substantial. The state must ensure compensation and future protection for these vulnerable populations. The economic implications of conflict also merit discussion. India, now a $4 trillion economy, has far more to lose than Pakistan in a prolonged war. With vast developmental needs and social infrastructure demands, even short conflicts strain national resources. A quick resolution to conflict is, in this sense, in India's own interest. But that only makes the need for a coherent and sustainable response doctrine even more urgent. Our new policy of equating terror attacks with acts of war raises critical strategic questions. What is the threshold for retaliation? Would attacks outside Kashmir trigger the same response as those within? Does the number of casualties factor into the decision? Can every incident justify cross-border action without risking long-term regional stability and international isolation? Notably, India's responses have escalated over time—from Uri to Balakot to Sindoor. Where does this trajectory end, especially with a politically unstable and militarily erratic neighbour? The potential for future Chinese involvement further complicates matters. India's strategic community must urgently engage with these questions. Yet, above all, the most urgent question remains: how was the Pahalgam massacre allowed to happen in the first place? Why did our intelligence agencies fail to detect preparatory activity? How did they miss the apparent increase in satellite imagery demand for Pahalgam in February? Such lapses are inexcusable—they cost 26 innocent lives at Pahalgam, and many more in the conflict that followed. These intelligence failures are not isolated. They follow a disturbing pattern seen in Pulwama, Pathankot, Udhampur, Kathua, Mumbai, and other attacks. Yet accountability remains elusive. Why was there no security detail at such a high-profile tourist site? Who in the chain of command failed—the SP, DIG, IG, or DG? Are our forces overly fixated on protecting politicians and VIPs at the cost of ordinary citizens? Some may argue that providing security everywhere is impractical. But complete absence of police presence at a known tourist destination is indefensible. Did complacency set in after the abrogation of Article 370 and the successful state elections, leading officials to believe that the threat had passed? And finally, why do these tragedies keep recurring? Has any impartial inquiry been conducted into past lapses? Have recommendations been implemented? The public has a right to know whether lessons are being learned, or merely filed away. These questions may sound rhetorical. But unless they are asked, addressed, and acted upon, we risk reliving the same tragedy. The lives lost at Pahalgam demand more than patriotic fervour and retaliatory strikes. They demand introspection, accountability, and a strategy that looks beyond the immediate headlines. Sanjiv Krishan Sood was additional director general of the BSF. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Modi's Search for Global Solidarity Rings Hollow Amid Rising Domestic Intolerance in India Eight Days, Nine Rallies, Six States: Tracking PM Modi and Operation Sindoor as Campaign Ammunition Gandhi's and Modi's Reflections on 'Sindoor' Are Poles Apart Modi Says 'Not Blood, Hot Sindoor' Flows In His Veins In First Public Address Since Op Sindoor Why a Special Session of the Parliament is Critical to Discuss the Disclosure Made by CDS Chauhan 'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court From Flowers to Sarees, A Story of PM Modi's Communication Imagery Post-Operation Sindoor By Calling For the Boycott of Foreign Goods, Modi Contradicts Himself Facing Pushback, Derision and Anger, BJP Says News of Sindoor Distribution Plans 'Fake' View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
For a $5 trillion economy, India must embrace cutting-edge tech
The Indian economy is on the threshold of crossing another milestone and becoming the fourth-largest in the world. It is a commendable achievement for a country that began its journey as an independent nation in 1947 with a meagre $33-billion economy. Decades of British exploitation left it significantly weakened and poor. The Jawaharlal Nehru government's Soviet-style central planning, while promoting heavy industries and the public sector, led to low economic growth of 3-4 per cent, pejoratively described as the 'Hindu rate of growth'. In 40 years, it could only reach the $266 billion mark. The first major leap came in 1991 when the Narasimha Rao government introduced economic liberalisation and unleashed the potential of Indian entrepreneurs. The opportunity offered by the digital revolution with the introduction of the internet was quickly seized by some of India's brightest tech entrepreneurs. The Indian economy grew manifold in the next two decades on the strength of its services economy, which contributed 60 per cent of the nation's GDP. The economy crossed $2 trillion by the time the Narendra Modi government came to power. The last 10 years have seen the Modi government giving greater emphasis to faster economic growth through programmes like Stand-Up India, Start-Up India and Make in India. The results are there to see. IMF data from May has projected that the Indian economy will overtake Japan this year, reaching the $4.19 trillion mark. Japan was once a $5.8 trillion economy but has shrunk to $ 4.18 trillion due to stagnation and slow growth rates since the 1990s. As India demonstrated promising growth, naysayers rushed forward to raise the hollow bogey of per capita income. Per capita income is determined by factors like the size of the population. India is the world's most populous country. As a result, whatever may be the size of GDP, its per capita figures are bound to remain low. No country's growth can be measured on the criterion of per capita income alone. Although the US is the world's largest economy with a $28 trillion GDP, it ranks seventh in per capita. China, the second-largest economy with $18 trillion, ranks 69. The per capita argument is worthless because even if India becomes the world's largest economy with $30 trillion, it will still be ranked 55th in terms of per capita. The only merit of this argument is that the country should be able to provide better living standards to all its citizens. In democracies, the fruits of economic growth percolate to all sections of society. This is reflected in the consumption patterns. Surveys indicate that the monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) has increased in India by more than 2.5 times in the last 10 years. Interestingly, most of this expenditure was on travel, health and education, indicating healthy growth parameters. Tourism has seen remarkable growth in the last 10 years. China still occupies the first rank in the number of domestic and international travellers. India lagged in this sector for decades due to a lack of disposable income and tourism infrastructure. But today, with the incomes of the middle class growing substantially, Indians have started travelling more. Data indicates about 2.5 billion domestic tourist visits last year. Figures for 2024 indicate that almost 29 million Indians travelled abroad marking a 30 per cent growth. All this indicates healthy economic growth, which has led to the near eradication of baseline poverty and the creation of a strong middle class with disposable income. The Modi government aspires to take the economy to further heights with targets ranging from $ 5 trillion in 2027 to $10 trillion in 2035. The current impressive growth is a result of corrective measures taken by the government. It removed parallel economy, allowed proper distribution of wealth and encouraged greater consumption. But the path from here needs to be calibrated carefully. Economies grow on the strength not just of consumption but also trade and technology. Quality, quantity and speed are the main determining factors. India and China were leading economies until the middle of the 18th century. But when the industrial revolution occurred first in England and later in America, those two countries surged ahead and became leading economic powers by the dawn of the 20th century. When automation and digitisation progressed in the last decades of the last century, China moved ahead of the curve, emerging as the second-largest economy by 2008. We are now in the post-manufacturing and post-digital era. Growth in frontier technologies will determine a country's economic future. A country of India's size and capability cannot just think perpetually in terms of catching up with the developed West and the rest. It has to, instead, think in terms of moving ahead of the curve. We missed the first two industrial revolutions as we were a slave nation at that time. We benefitted partially from the third, digital revolution of the 1980s and '90s and became a leader in sectors like IT services. But the Fourth Industrial Revolution, led by Artificial Intelligence (AI), quantum technologies, robotics, space, defence, crypto and bio-engineering calls for new thinking and new priorities. The impressive growth of the Indian economy in the last decade was largely due to the unleashing of its basic potential. The trajectory from here should be more strategic, with greater emphasis on deep-tech R&D, an area in which we lag. It is important to create a climate of hassle-free access to investments in these areas. Only then can India aspire to achieve its goal of becoming a $10 trillion economy in the next 10 years. The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP
