Pakistan Admits to Backing Terror Groups: Tensions Escalate After Pahalgam Terror Attack, Protests Sweep India
In a shocking revelation, Pakistan's Defence Minister Khwaja Asif admitted that the country had supported terrorist groups for decades, calling it a "mistake" made to serve the United States and the West. Speaking candidly in a recent interview with Sky News's Yalda Hakim, Asif acknowledged the consequences of this long-standing strategy, adding that Pakistan "suffered for it."
He further raised concerns by warning of a possible 'all-out war' with India.
Nationwide Outrage in India Following Pahalgam Attack
The Defence Minister's statement comes just days after the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, which claimed innocent lives and sparked a wave of anger across India. Citizens, civil groups, and organizations responded with powerful demonstrations.
In Hyderabad, Muslims at Mecca Masjid wore black armbands during prayers to protest the recent terror attack. They marched on the streets, shouting slogans like 'Pakistan Murdabad' and 'Hindustan Zindabad' to show their anger and support.
Traders in Delhi organized a protest march, and over 100 markets shut down on Friday following a bandh called by the Chamber of Trade and Industry (CTI).
The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) held strong demonstrations in the national capital.
In Kolkata, too, members of the Muslim community wore black armbands during Friday prayers to protest the heinous act.
At Jama Masjid, worshippers held a protest after Juma Namaz, condemning the violence.
Popular singer Arijit Singh cancelled his April 27 Chennai concert in solidarity with the victims.
Cross-Border Reactions and Rising Tensions
Meanwhile, tensions have flared on both sides of the border. Videos have emerged online showing protests in Pakistan, following India's move to suspend the Indus Water Treaty—a major diplomatic response in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack.
Reports indicate that Pakistan is on high alert, as the Modi government has vowed a decisive and unprecedented response against the conspirators behind the attack.
As the situation continues to evolve, India has made its position clear.
This is a developing story. Stay tuned for verified updates as the situation unfolds.
Here's what he said:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC grants bail to Uttarakhand man jailed for interfaith marriage, says ‘state can't object…they married as per wishes of parents'
Granting bail to a man booked under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, the Supreme Court last month held that the state cannot have any objection to the man's interfaith marriage as the couple married 'as per the wishes to their respective parents'. The Supreme Court relief by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, in an order on May 19, comes after the man, Aman Siddiqui, spent nearly six months in jail, for consensually marrying a Hindu woman in a wedding voluntarily arranged by the families and consented to by the parties involved. Siddiqui's counsel had told the apex court that 'the families voluntarily decided to arrange the marriage of the appellant with the lady. However, soon after the marriage certain persons and certain organizations seemed to have objected to the marriage'. This led to an FIR being lodged at Rudrapur police station in Uttarakhand on December 12, 2024, against Siddiqui, two days after his wedding on December 10. Siddiqui's parents were also booked, but they were later granted anticipatory bail. Siddiqui's counsel also told the Supreme Court bench that if granted bail, Siddiqui and his wife would reside separately from their families and 'continue to live peacefully without any hindrance'. Even as the state opposed the bail plea, the bench recorded in its order, 'We observe that the respondent – State cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes to their respective parents and families. In the circumstances, we find that this is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted…'. A day after his wedding was conducted in accordance with Hindu rituals, Siddiqui was made to sign an undertaking by his wife's cousin brothers, assuring that he would not cause 'any kind of physical and mental harm' to her and that he would not force 'in any manner either physically and mentally to convert her to other religion'. The undertaking further stated that his wife would be 'independent to practice Hindu Religion' and 'free to follow all the Hindu Tradition with full freedom' and that Siddiqui would not interfere in her religious faith. The Uttarakhand High Court had rejected Siddiqui's bail plea on February 28. Before the high court, Siddiqui had submitted that his mother was a practising Hindu married to a Muslim man and had not converted. He further said that he too followed his mother's religion, including his parents performing a thread ceremony for him. The high court was also told that Siddiqui's father had separated from his joint family 'so that the applicant's (Siddiqui's) mother could comfortably follow her customs and rituals of Kumaoni Hindu family'. Meanwhile, the state had alleged that Siddiqui had suppressed the religion of his father. The high court had ultimately refused to grant bail.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
No, India Is Not Israel, And Pak Is Not Palestine
In the immediate aftermath of the April 2022 Pahalgam terror attack - where Indian civilians were targeted in a region long destabilised by cross-border militancy - an old but deeply flawed analogy began circulating with renewed vigour: that India is becoming Israel, with Pakistan being touted as the new 'Palestine'. This comparison, invoked by a range of commentators from populist influencers to academic quarters, attempts to overlay the Middle Eastern fault lines onto South Asia. However, while superficially tempting, this analogy is strategically misleading, historically untrue, and morally hazardous. At its core, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a struggle between a militarily dominant state and a stateless people living under occupation. It is defined by asymmetric power, a denial of sovereignty, and ongoing territorial annexation. India and Pakistan, by contrast, are both fully sovereign states that emerged from a negotiated partition of British India in 1947, each with their own internationally recognised borders and UN memberships. The bilateral conflict, especially over Kashmir, stems not from a denial of statehood but from unresolved territorial claims. Pakistan's continued insistence on linking Kashmir to Palestine flattens these distinctions and obfuscates the history of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism across Indian territory - from Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir to episodic destabilisation in India's Northeast. Equating Pakistani actions with Palestinian resistance also undermines the moral and strategic integrity of the Palestinian cause. It erases the fact that, unlike Palestinians under occupation, Pakistan has used its sovereign apparatus to sponsor and shelter groups involved in acts of terror. This deliberate state complicity - acknowledged even by global institutions - makes Pakistan an aggressor, not an aggrieved actor. Minorities, Democracy, and Statehood One of the more dangerous simplifications of the analogy lies in the misrepresentation of internal minority politics in both regions. It is true that India is facing criticism over recent communal tensions, polarised discourse, and policies perceived as marginalising Muslims. However, equating that with the condition of Palestinians under occupation ignores the difference between a flawed democracy and an apartheid state structure. In India, Muslims remain an electorally significant, constitutionally recognised group whose cultural, linguistic, and religious institutions are protected under law. Their political presence - though under strain - remains visible. From Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the country's first Education Minister, to Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, one of India's most beloved Presidents, the leadership and legacy of Indian Muslims is historically well-anchored. In contemporary times, figures like Asaduddin Owaisi, a staunch government critic, and Salman Khurshid, a senior Congress leader with no constitutional post, were both part of an all-party delegation sent abroad to brief international counterparts in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. Their inclusion, despite being politically oppositional, signals a rare bipartisan consensus on matters of national security. Contrast this with Pakistan, where Ahmadiyyas are constitutionally barred from calling themselves Muslims, and Shias are frequently targeted in sectarian violence. The state's own structures are often complicit in marginalising non-Sunni groups, with blasphemy laws regularly weaponised against minorities. These are not merely social biases but systemic exclusions - legally and politically embedded. Meanwhile, in Palestine, the question is not one of minority rights within a sovereign state but of basic human existence under foreign occupation. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live without freedom of movement, due legal process, or political autonomy. Lumping these distinct contexts together does violence to the nuance required to address each problem on its own terms. Terrorism, Occupation, and Policy India's security doctrine has consistently emphasised that its conflict is not with the people of Pakistan but with its military-intelligence apparatus and its use of terrorism as statecraft. From the insurgency in Kashmir and the Khalistani separatist movement in Punjab to arms flowing into the Northeast in the 1980s and 1990s, India's internal challenges have often traced back to external sponsorship. These were not acts of a stateless community demanding dignity but the result of a neighbour using irregular war to destabilise a regional adversary. Israel, by contrast, has often responded to Palestinian armed resistance with disproportionate force - demolishing homes, bombing refugee camps, and applying collective punishment policies. These actions have generated global concern about human rights violations, and rightly so. However, attempts to map these punitive actions onto India's counter-terror operations obscure the scale, nature, and intent of both countries' military strategies. What makes the analogy particularly hollow is India's long-standing commitment to the Palestinian cause. Even under the Modi government, which has expanded strategic ties with Israel, India has repeatedly reaffirmed its support for a two-state solution and spoken against occupation at UN fora. Far from mimicking Israeli policy, India has walked a diplomatic tightrope - deepening bilateral defence relations with Israel while maintaining principled solidarity with Palestine. Conflating these divergent positions is not only analytically lazy but diplomatically counterproductive. It risks damaging India's credibility in the Global South, especially at a time when New Delhi seeks to position itself as a mediator and developmental partner in multilateral spaces. More importantly, it insults the Palestinian struggle by associating it with Pakistan's agenda of using terrorism and religious nationalism as tools of foreign policy. Reject Lazy Analogies Both the Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan conflicts demand global attention. But attention should not mean abstraction. The occupation of Palestine is a human rights crisis rooted in land, displacement, and statelessness. The India-Pakistan dynamic, while also involving land and identity, is situated in a very different matrix: of two sovereign nations, one of which has routinely used terrorism to internationalise what is essentially a bilateral issue. Sympathy for the Palestinian cause should not be hijacked to justify flawed analogies that exonerate state complicity in South Asia. Nor should India's legitimate counterterrorism operations be lumped with settler-colonial violence. Doing so only weakens both struggles - reducing history, diplomacy, and suffering to hashtags. In times of polarisation, strategic clarity is not just a virtue, it is a necessity. India is not Israel. Pakistan is not Palestine. And equating them does justice to neither the complexity of history nor the urgency of peace. (Ashraf Nehal is an author, analyst and columnist, who writes on South Asian geopolitics, climate action and world affairs. He was a former PM Young Writing Fellow)
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
NHAI criticised for not ensuring NH 66 is free of potholes before monsoon in Mangaluru
The Tollgate Horata Samithi, Surathkal, has decried the apathy of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in ensuring National Highway 66 between Surathkal and Nanthoor becomes pothole-free before the onset of monsoon. 'NHAI has written the foreword for the highway death series with the tragic death of Surathkal Janath Colony resident Ashraf on the night of June 9, at Panambur,' claimed Samithi convener Muneer Katipalla. 'Riding a two-wheeler, Ashraf encountered a deep crater on NH 66 at Panambur and fell down. He was crushed by a tanker trailing that was behind his two-wheeler. Ashraf leaves behind his elderly mother, wife and children.' Communal deaths counted It appears only communal murders are counted in the coastal region while deaths on the highway remain unaccounted for, Mr. Katipalla regretted. Despite the Samithi repeatedly demanding restoration of the Surathkal-Nanthoor stretch of NH 66 before the onset of every monsoon, the NHAI does not act, thereby causing the deaths of several motorists every year. When the Samithi organised a peaceful dharna with their demands urging the elected representatives to act, the police booked an FIR against them while caution notices were pasted at night by the police on their doors. Member of Parliament Captain Brijesh Chowta, who should have been proactive in addressing this issue, has instead joined the bandwagon of those indulging in 'murder politics' in Dakshina Kannada district, Mr. Katipalla said. Sharing the stage with people who deliver provocative speeches to incite violence, the MP was also a part of the delegation of BJP leaders, including R. Ashok, B. Y. Vijayendra, and D. V. Sadananda Gowda, who 'threatened' the district administration that was struggling to restore peace in the district. With the onset of the monsoon, the NHAI might not be able to carry out repairs on the highway, and no one knows how many people would lose their lives in the coming days. Asking the MP not to follow in the footsteps of MLAs D Vedavyasa Kamath and Y. Bharath Shetty, Mr. Katipalla urged Capt. Chowta to take immediate steps to ensure the highways remain pothole-free. 'Potholes on highways do not discriminate between Hindus and Muslims,' he said.
