Indian and Pakistani ‘dueling' delegations land in Washington
Delegations of both Indian and Pakistani diplomats and politicians have arrived in Washington to meet with US officials and present their side of the recent conflict between the two countries.
India's delegation led by Shashi Tharoor, an MP for the opposition Indian National Congress party, landed in Washington on Wednesday to present its case about the terrorism allegedly emanating from Pakistan.
'Tomorrow almost they will be in Washington, while we are in Washington on the same date. So there's going to be perhaps an increase in interest because there are two dueling delegations in the same city,' Tharoor said in an interview with the news agency ANI.
New Delhi has sent seven teams to over 30 countries to counter what it perceives as poor press coverage about the confrontation with Islamabad. External Affairs ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India wants the world to 'hold Pakistan accountable' for what he claimed was 40 years of cross-border terrorism against India.
An MP from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) party told the Press Trust of India that the delegations sent across the world will convey India's message of 'zero tolerance against terrorism' and the 'propaganda they (Pakistan) have been doing since 1947.'The Pakistani delegation, which is led by former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, was tasked by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to 'expose Indian propaganda,' state-run Pakistan Radio reported in May.
It traveled to Washington on Wednesday after concluding a two-day visit to the UN headquarters in New York, where it accused India of 'unilateral aggression' and dismissed India's claims about Islamabad's links to the terrorists behind the Kashmir attack. The delegation also proposed that the Pakistani and Indian intelligence agencies could work together to 'decrease' terrorism in South Asia.
#WATCH: The world is less safe after the Pakistan-India standoff, even with a ceasefire, as the threshold for full-scale conflict between two nuclear states has risen, says ex-FM Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari at OIC envoy meeting in New York.https://t.co/DXw0PjBMH1pic.twitter.com/DltHXyPk2J
New Delhi, however, maintained it will only engage in talks with Islamabad after it takes concrete action against terrorism. 'If Pakistan is as innocent as they claim to be, why do they give a safe haven to wanted terrorists?... Why are they able to live peacefully, to conduct training camps...and radicalize further people, to equip arms and get people to practice their arms and Kalashnikovs...,' Tharoor told the PTI agency before heading to Washington.
The escalation between the two neighbors began on May 7, when India launched Operation Sindoor against what it called terrorists in Pakistan. This was in response to the terrorist attack in India's Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory in late April that killed 26 tourists. Islamabad denied any involvement in that attack. After a brief but fierce military standoff, a ceasefire was announced on May 10. US President Donald Trump took credit for playing a role in the ceasefire, a claim that New Delhi rejected.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump-Musk Big Bro bust-up: Ignore the noise, focus on the signal
Two very rich and very powerful and very big American egos have had a very public and very loud cat fight. US President Donald Trump, arguably the single most powerful politician in the world, and his now former 'buddy-in-chief' Elon Musk, certifiably the single richest oligarch on (for now) this planet, have 'torched' (Wall Street Journal) their occasionally exuberant bromance of almost a year in a 'stunning' (Bloomberg) and 'spectacular' (New York Times) finale of fiery mutual recrimination. Say what you will about oligarchic techno-capitalism, but it can be entertaining. Using their own social media platforms, Musk and Trump have gone after each other with brutal reputational attacks, griping of the 'You owe me!' – 'No, you me!' variant, and high-value threats to do each other economic and political damage. The key trigger for the blow-up was what Trump calls his 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which is currently making its way through Congress. For, Musk – despite his lucrative government contracts a deficit hawk, whose own DOGE cost-cutting effort has just frustratingly failed – the same tax bill is a 'disgusting abomination.' Musk claims that he is greatly concerned over America's exploding and unsustainable national debt. Since Trump's Republican majority in the Senate is small, Musk's open support for the bill's vocal opponents there is a real political embarrassment for the White House at least, if not even a serious threat. US sovereign debt, moreover, is a real and very serious problem with dire economic and geopolitical implications; and estimates put the costs of Trump's bill at 3.3 trillion additional debt over the next ten years: Musk has a factual point. Yet there also is the fact that Trump's Big Beautiful Bill foresees cutting subsidies for buying Musk's Tesla cars (among other EVs), amounting to an estimated loss of $1.2 billion for Tesla. It can be complicated in that place between conservative ideology, pure and simple, and the unrelenting will to milk the public for yourself and your shareholders. Musk also 'revealed' – if that is the word – that Donald Trump features on the client list of the sinister financier, pedophile, mass sex criminal, and most likely intelligence-connected elite blackmailer Jeffrey Epstein, who conveniently committed suicide in a Manhattan jail in 2019. To make it count, Musk, as if returning to his former Centrist political self, suggested impeaching Trump and founding a new party to contest the great blusterer's grip on 'the 80% in the middle.' Liberal Tesla drivers: Maybe you can love your car again. Even if the share prices of its manufacturer are tanking. Trump shot back by warning Musk that his 'billions' in government contracts could melt away like the snows of yesteryear, which made Musk threaten to stop carrying US astronauts into orbit, that is, in effect – since the volatile oligarch is America's de facto monopolist – shut down space for the US. That, according to the Washington Post, constituted a 'serious threat to NASA and Pentagon programs.' Slow claps, Washington, for letting 'the Market' handle national security. All in all, quite a reality show: noisy, no holds barred, and pretty indecorous. A dignified display of manly self-control and mature gravity at the empire's top this was not. But, then again, it's the US late-imperial 'elite,' so the bar of the truly sensational is really high – or low, depending on how you look at it. The whole battle-not-so-royal may or may not blow over. Both Trump and Musk clearly have much to lose from a prolonged war against each other, financially and politically, and both are not only card-carrying egomaniacs but also ruthless, selfish pragmatists. There are already signals that Musk, for one, may want to wind down the confrontation again: he has relented regarding the astronauts and made some semi-conciliatory noises. Between the president's growing reputation for 'TACO' (Trump always chickens out) and Musk's proven ability to knuckle under when the price is right (in Brazil and toward Israel-while-committing-genocide, for instance), the two would-be alpha males might still find a way to share. Yet things will never be as before. For one thing, by losing their cool, Musk and Trump have ended up showing each other three things that neither of them will forget: Just how volatile they both are (I know: surprise, surprise…); that Elon is no sacrosanct exception for Donald and Donald isn't one for Elon either: everyone can always end up on the menu; and, finally, that both can think quickly – really as if they had been doing so for quite a while already – of the nastiest way to hurt the other. If Musk and Trump do make up, think of it as a movie star marriage sticking together after both spouses have badly, publicly cheated and also tried to ruin each other, financially, career-wise, and reputationally. And now let's take a step back. For, ultimately, the Big Bro Bust-Up is most interesting if we look at it as if we were historians a few hundred years from now in the future: What does this quarrel tell us more generally about America at this stage? First of all, it simply confirms what we all know already: The US is not a democracy by any stretch of the (reasonable) imagination but an oligarchy and plutocracy. Votes count much less than money because money produces the votes. Musk has been commendably explicit about his belief that it was his massive financial support that made Trump win; and one of Trump's worries in the whole rumble is that Musk might not only withdraw future funds from his camp – already promised but not yet paid out – but also invest them elsewhere. Second, as of now at least, the American oligarchy/plutocracy is not under pressure 'from below.' Objectively – to use a term long beloved by Marxists – Americans have every reason to rebel and shake off both Trump and Musk and then some. But, sadly, tension and conflict are generated inside the elite, not by 'the masses.' And third, the US elite is and remains absolutely, ruthlessly amoral and immoral, indeed quite evil: Here is a major falling out between the biggest oligarch and the president, and it's about taxes, the deficit, profits, ego, and personal advantages. Not about, for instance, the fact that the US has, according to Israel, by now delivered 90,000 tons of arms and ammunitions to the Israeli apartheid state while the latter has been committing the Gaza genocide. Indeed, Musk has never withdrawn his support for Israel, while Trump has reached the same level of complicit depravity as his predecessor Joe Biden. America: The world sees your priorities. And it won't forget.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump and Musk go from hugs to insults
US President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, who just months ago celebrated the Republican candidate's election victory together, have exchanged insults, accusations and threats. Their relationship has followed a familiar trajectory: over the years, many of Trump's associates have gone from working closely with him to a public falling out. This is how the tech entrepreneur threw his wealth and clout behind Trump's re-election campaign, took a proverbial chainsaw to perceived excesses in government spending, and later turned against the president and his signature spending bill. Musk first unequivocally endorsed Trump for a second term in July 2024, after a shooter almost killed the GOP contender during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. In the months leading up to the election, he spent an estimated $200 million securing the candidate's victory through a political action committee he created for the purpose. But their relationship stretches back years. During Trump's first term in office, which began in January 2017, Musk sat on a White House business advisory group, but quit later that year after the administration decided to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. In 2022, Musk said it was time for Trump 'to hang up his hat & sail into the sunset' and blamed the Democrats for targeting him, arguing they had pushed him to seek office in order to insulate himself from legal problems. The remark reflected the tech entrepreneur's broader dissatisfaction with what he called 'the party of division & hate.' That same year, Musk purchased Twitter, a social media platform that at the time was the de facto public square for US national politics, whose management he accused of stifling conservative voices. The new owner reinstated Trump's account, which had been suspended in January 2021 for allegedly posing a risk of incitement of violence in the wake of the Capitol Hill riot, and otherwise changed moderation rules. Critics claim Musk saturated the platform with 'misinformation' and hate speech. Musk also blasted then-President Joe Biden's immigration policy, which he said amounted to keeping the southern border 'open' and decried failing to repatriate illegals as a ploy to increase the Democratic Party electoral base. Trump made the promise of mass deportation of such immigrants a key part of his campaign. In January 2025, Musk was appointed to lead the newly-created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the Trump administration, with a mandate to review federal spending and cut exuberant or suspicious projects. Critics called Musk's approach reckless and damaging, while Trump declared DOGE a 'very big success' and an example of his administration's no-nonsense treatment of red tape. In February, Musk gladly brandished a chainsaw at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which had been given to him by Argentina's President Javier Milei, a similarly-minded politician, as a symbol of the efforts. Musk got embroiled in several controversies while working for the government. Claims that he threw a Nazi salute during an inauguration event were largely written off by the president's supporters as partisan attacks. Musk's criticisms of senior officials in countries which were traditional US allies, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's now-former Chancellor Olaf Scholz, were downplayed by officials. Behind closed doors, however, he reportedly clashed with senior cabinet members. In March, the New York Times claimed that the DOGE chief had criticized US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy for not firing enough staff members in their departments. Trump dismissed the report as 'fake news.' Nevertheless, signs of the growing rift mounted. Days before his seemingly amicable departure from DOGE, Musk told CBS News he was 'disappointed' with the 'big, beautiful bill' – the centerpiece of Trump's second term agenda currently pending approval by the Senate. This week, Musk derided the spending proposal as a 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled … disgusting abomination.' The Trump-Musk 'bromance' seemingly imploded over several hours on Thursday, after the president accused the Tesla CEO of going after the legislation out of personal spite. 'He only developed the problem when he found out we're gonna have to cut the EV mandate,' Trump told journalists in the Oval Office. The billionaire pushed back on X, accusing Trump of lying about the bill and lacking gratitude for his backing on the campaign trail, which Musk asserted secured the victory. Trump doubled down on his Truth Social platform, declaring that Musk 'just went CRAZY' and threatening to withdraw government contracts from his businesses. In response, Musk accused Trump in an X post on Thursday of covering up his alleged complicity in the sex offences of late financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, suggesting the president could be impeached for it. He also threatened to jeopardize NASA's manned space program by decommissioning the Dracon family of spacecraft operated by his company SpaceX. Musk has since indicated that he would be taking a couple of days to cool off, while White House insiders reportedly suggested a possible truce was being arranged. Some Democratic officials have suggested that Musk could switch sides, while others expressed a sense of satisfaction at his downfall. Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez claimed 'these two huge egos were not longed for being together in this world as friends,' and the breakup was long overdue.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump threatens to sanction both Russia and Ukraine
US President Donald Trump has signaled that Washington could impose sanctions on both Russia and Ukraine if the conflict between the two nations does not come to an end. Trump has thus far declined to commit to new sanctions on Russia, despite weeks of pressure from European leaders, saying only that he would act when the time felt right — and that moment had not yet come. He has also expressed concern that levying new restrictions could jeopardize peace talks between Moscow and Kiev. During a meeting at the White House with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Thursday, Trump said he would decide when to act if it became clear that a peace deal could not be reached, noting that 'it's in my brain, the deadline.' He suggested he'd be willing to apply restrictions on both Russia and Ukraine, warning that 'we'll be very, very, very tough, and it could be on both countries to be honest.' 'You know, it takes two to tango,' the US president added. Trump likened the Ukraine conflict to 'two children fighting in a park.' He also said a sanctions bill moving through the US Senate would be 'guided by me,' but suggested it might be better to let Russia and Ukraine continue fighting 'for a while' before 'pulling them apart.' The US president was referring to legislation backed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime Russia hawk and Trump ally, that would impose a 500% tariff on countries that buy Russian energy, uranium, and other raw materials – measures aimed chiefly at India and China. Trump's statement comes as Kiev has ramped up attacks on Russian territory, including a UAV strike on several Russian airbases and recent acts of railway sabotage in Bryansk and Kursk regions, which claimed the lives of seven people and left scores injured. Moscow has accused Kiev of orchestrating a series of violent incidents aimed at undermining peace talks. Russia has also claimed that Trump is receiving 'filtered' information about the Ukraine conflict from those pushing Washington toward supporting Kiev. Moscow has repeatedly stressed that it is carrying out strikes on Ukrainian military-linked installations in response to Kiev's increased drone attacks on Russian civilian targets. In a previously unannounced phone conversation on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin informed his US counterpart that Kiev's recent attacks were intended to derail direct talks with Moscow, the second round of which took place in Istanbul on Monday. Revealing details of the phone call, which he described as 'a good conversation,' Trump said that the Russian president 'did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.'
