Despite war clouds, life remains calm in Punjab border villages
1
2
Naushera Dhalla (Tarn Taran district): Untouched by the reports of looming conflict, daily life in the border villages along the Indo-Pak international border in Punjab flows with quiet determination. The farmers work their fields, some beyond the border fence, as they always did. The routine of tending to their crops, livestock, and agricultural tasks persists, undeterred by external narratives.
On Thursday, TOI visited border villages such as Naushera Dhalla, Havelian, Chinna, Bharopal, Rajatal, and Daoke, finding life unchanged and serene.
Locals gather at village chowks, sit under trees, sip tea, and discuss daily routines. While the recent Indo-Pak war hysteria has become a topic of conversation, they contrast it with the days of
Operation Parakram
, when the Army laid landmines along the border, forcing them to evacuate their homes.
The villagers, however, expressed frustration at the portrayal of their region as a powder keg. "We only hear about this so-called 'tension' from our relatives who call us after watching the news," said Manjinder Singh, a farmer from Naushera Dhalla. "They think war is about to break out, but here we are, going about our daily chores," he said.
Eager to address the propaganda in 'fuelling war hype', Manjinder convened a discussion at Gurdwara Bhagat Jalan Das Ji, located just a few acres from the barbed fence along the Indo-Pak international border. He informed fellow villagers, who promptly gathered at the gurdwara, which also houses a 'Shivala Mandir' in its complex. "Did you see us packing bags, hoarding rations, searching for safer places, or grief on our faces? Tell the truth," said an elderly resident, Baldev Singh.
He also invited the TOI reporter for a stroll to a nearby tubewell for a clear view of the barbed fence, where Border Security Force (BSF) personnel were patrolling calmly, indicating normalcy of life in the border village.
The villagers were also quick to dismiss comparisons to past conflicts, such as Operation Parakram in 2001-2002, when evacuations were ordered to lay mines. "If there was any real threat, the BSF, Army, or district administration would have informed us by now," said sarpanch Mangal Singh. "The only instruction we've received is to harvest crops beyond the fence, which we believe is to ensure clear visibility across the border. That's routine, not a cause for alarm," he said.
Harpal Singh, while gesturing toward the fields, said that life continues to be normal for the villagers. "War isn't a game or a TV show. It brings real devastation, something the younger generation, glued to screens, doesn't understand," he said.
However, despite their irritation, the villagers also indicated their preparedness. "We're not naive. We've lived on the border all our lives and know how to handle any situation," said Shamsher Singh, who was quick to add, "There's no need to panic when nothing is happening."
Mukhtiar Singh, sarpanch of Havelian village, said villagers moved to safety during Operation Parakram, but there are no such orders so far. The panic will start once they are asked to evacuate their houses, adding that for now, life in these border villages is normal.
Jarnail Singh recalled that during Operation Parakram, massive troop deployments and extensive mine-laying severely disrupted life along the border, forcing many villagers to relocate temporarily. "To this day, no such drastic measures have been taken in the border villages of Punjab," he said.
Manjinder said that there is a strong sentiment across the nation demanding retaliation for the Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack in Pahalgam, a sentiment intensified by provocative statements from Pakistani political leaders. "Back in December 2001, after the deadly terror attack on the Indian Parliament, India mobilised troops to the Pakistan border in preparation for a potential all-out war. The operation lasted nearly 10 months, during which we were asked to evacuate, and landmines were laid along the border areas. As of now, however, there has been no such warning from the Army to evacuate villages or limit our daily activities," he said.
While showing an 'owner gate pass' issued by BSF for the farmers for going beyond the border fence, he said the BSF has not even stopped the farmers from going across the border fence to work in their fields, so how should we think of any emergency immediately?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
2 hours 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.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Sheikh Hasina's Party Slams 'Fascist' Yunus After Poll Announcement: 'Serves Foreign Interests'
Last Updated: Sheikh Hasina's banned Awami League accused Muhammad Yunus of spreading lies to cover up his failures and accused his government of serving foreign interests. Ousted Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's Awami League criticised Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus, accusing him of spreading lies and misinformation during his address to the nation, where he announced that Bangladesh's general elections will be held in April 2026. After immense pressure from the Army and political parties, Yunus said the next national election will be held in the first half of April 2026. He assured that his government is taking necessary steps to ensure a proper election environment, emphasising that flawed elections have been the main cause of major national crises in Bangladesh. 'We want an election that honours the sacrifices of the martyrs. One with the highest number of voters, candidates, and parties participating. Let this be remembered as the freest and fairest election the nation has seen," he said. The Awami League strongly condemned his address, saying Yunus was trying to cover up his failures by blaming the previous Awami League government and creating a false narrative of crisis. 'No Public Mandate, Economy In Ruins' Hasina's party, which was banned from contesting the elections after the former PM was ousted in student-led protests last year, said Bangladesh's economy has deteriorated under Yunus's interim regime, with industries being shut down, investment stalled and unemployment rising. It accused the interim government of rampant corruption and tax favouritism, including a tax waiver of Tk 666 crore for Yunus himself and tax exemption for Grameen Bank. 'In the name of development, they will hand over important national assets and infrastructure to serve foreign interests," it said. Furthermore, the Awami League claimed Yunus' government lacked democratic legitimacy and served foreign interests rather than those of the people of Bangladesh. It warned that several interim government members had foreign passports and would leave the country after causing irreversible damage. 'To protect our future, we must act now. There is no alternative to a united struggle by all patriots to save our country from the clutches of these vultures. If we can all stay united and continue this fight, we will, Inshallah, be able to defeat this evil, anti-national force," it said. What Did Yunus Say In His Speech? Yunus highlighted the immense public and political interest in Bangladesh's next national election, emphasising the government's role in institutional reform to prevent future crises. 'Hold your candidates and political parties accountable, demand firm pledges that the agreed-upon reforms will be passed in the very first session of the new parliament, without compromise. Demand that they never bargain away the country's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, or national dignity to any foreign power," he was quoted as saying by Dhaka Tribune. 'Ask them to lead with honesty and transparency, and to reject all forms of corruption, favoritism, extortion, syndicates, and violence," he added, promising to build a 'New Bangladesh'. First Published: June 07, 2025, 07:07 IST
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
Sheikh Hasina's Party Slams 'Fascist' Yunus After Poll Announcement: 'Serve Foreign Interests'
Last Updated: Sheikh Hasina's banned Awami League accused Muhammad Yunus of spreading lies to cover up his failures and accused his government of serving foreign interests. Ousted Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's Awami League criticised Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus, accusing him of spreading lies and misinformation during his address to the nation, where he announced that Bangladesh's general elections will be held in April 2026. After immense pressure from the Army and political parties, Yunus said the next national election will be held in the first half of April 2026. He assured that his government is taking necessary steps to ensure a proper election environment, emphasising that flawed elections have been the main cause of major national crises in Bangladesh. 'We want an election that honours the sacrifices of the martyrs. One with the highest number of voters, candidates, and parties participating. Let this be remembered as the freest and fairest election the nation has seen," he said. The Awami League strongly condemned his address, saying Yunus was trying to cover up his failures by blaming the previous Awami League government and creating a false narrative of crisis. 'No Public Mandate, Economy In Ruins' Hasina's party, which was banned from contesting the elections after the former PM was ousted in student-led protests last year, said Bangladesh's economy has deteriorated under Yunus's interim regime, with industries being shut down, investment stalled and unemployment rising. It accused the interim government of rampant corruption and tax favouritism, including a tax waiver of Tk 666 crore for Yunus himself and tax exemption for Grameen Bank. 'In the name of development, they will hand over important national assets and infrastructure to serve foreign interests," it said. Furthermore, the Awami League claimed Yunus' government lacked democratic legitimacy and served foreign interests rather than those of the people of Bangladesh. It warned that several interim government members had foreign passports and would leave the country after causing irreversible damage. 'To protect our future, we must act now. There is no alternative to a united struggle by all patriots to save our country from the clutches of these vultures. If we can all stay united and continue this fight, we will, Inshallah, be able to defeat this evil, anti-national force," it said. What Did Yunus Say In His Speech? Yunus highlighted the immense public and political interest in Bangladesh's next national election, emphasising the government's role in institutional reform to prevent future crises. 'Hold your candidates and political parties accountable, demand firm pledges that the agreed-upon reforms will be passed in the very first session of the new parliament, without compromise. Demand that they never bargain away the country's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, or national dignity to any foreign power," he was quoted as saying by Dhaka Tribune. 'Ask them to lead with honesty and transparency, and to reject all forms of corruption, favoritism, extortion, syndicates, and violence," he added, promising to build a 'New Bangladesh'. About the Author Aveek Banerjee Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : bangladesh Muhammad Yunus Sheikh Hasina First Published:
