Latest news with #AparnaPande
India Gazette
17-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
"India not alone, Pakistan backed only by traditional allies": Research Fellow Aparna Pande
Washington DC [US], May 17 (ANI): Addressing the global reactions to the recent tensions between India and Pakistan, Aparna Pande, Research Fellow and Director of the India Initiative at the Hudson Institute, emphasised that India did not face international isolation. In an interview with ANI, Pande dismissed the narrative that the world supported Pakistan over India, noting that while traditional allies like China and Turkey backed Pakistan, most countries, including the United States and Gulf nations, called for de-escalation and refrained from supporting Pakistan. Pande said, 'The way this crisis came out, only countries supporting Pakistan were its traditional allies. China has its strategic interest in Pakistan. Turkey has been a steadfast ally and partner of Pakistan for decades. But in other parts of the world, like the Gulf, which have strong economic relations and historical relations with Pakistan, they did not support Pakistan. The Saudis were trying to mediate and de-escalate. The United States, European countries, and most other Asian countries wanted a de-escalation because they didn't want nuclear-armed neighbours to go to war. But none of them came on Pakistan's side.' She further said, 'I have a problem with those who portray this as if the world was on Pakistan's side and India was left alone. No, it wasn't. India's strategic and economic cloud, its relationship with the United States, Gulf Arab countries, Japan, Australia, all of them remain intact today as they were on April 22 or on May 6.' Pande also said that India's intention was never to escalate conflict but to target terror camps in response to attacks. 'India, right from the beginning, stated very clearly it has no desire to escalate. All India was doing was striking against the terror camps. It had no desire to go for a long-term war with Pakistan. All India wanted to do was send a message to the terror infrastructure and those who support those terror groups that India will respond if there is a terror attack. If a country like the United States, with which India has a strong strategic partnership, can convince Pakistan not to escalate, then India would be fine with that,' Aparna Pande said. She added, 'The challenge is that India has a different view from the United States. India does not accept mediation. If India seeks to resume talks with Pakistan, it will be India offering talks to Pakistan. India would be fine with having a conversation with Pakistan, but not forced by an external mediator. India is saying they never wanted escalation, but any talks between Pakistan will be based on what India will put on the agenda. It will not be by some other country or organisation.' India carried out precision strikes through Operation Sindoor on May 7 on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and PoJK in response to the Pahalgam terror attack last month, in which 26 people were killed. India also effectively responded to subsequent Pakistani aggression and pounded its airbases. India carried out surgical strikes in 2016 on terror launch pads across LoC and an aerial attack on a terror camp in Pakistan in 2019 in response to ghastly terror attacks. (ANI)
India Gazette
17-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
"Tensions with Pak "on repeat" since 1989; India's response to terrorism shifted since 2016": Research Fellow Aparna Pande
Washington DC [US], May 17 (ANI): Amid tensions between India and Pakistan, Aparna Pande, Research Fellow and Director of the India Initiative at the Hudson Institute, said that tensions between the two countries follow a familiar pattern that has been 'on repeat' since 1989. She emphasised that every few years, a terrorist attack, often in Kashmir, triggers a fresh wave of heightened tensions. She noted that periodic terror attacks often trigger escalations between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. Pande also pointed out that since 2016, India's response to such attacks has changed. In an interview with ANI, Pande said, 'This is a cycle on repeat, a film which has been happening every few years since 1989. Every few years, there's a terror attack, primarily in Kashmir. Tensions escalate. Because they are nuclear-armed neighbours, the world gets involved and seeks to de-escalate. From 2016, the only change has been that India has decided to respond to these attacks rather than absorb them and use strategic restraint.' She added, 'In 2016, 2019 and 2025, we saw Indian responses in different degrees. India's desire has always been to use a punitive response that is not escalatory. However, when Pakistan responded this time, it did lead to an escalation, this time more than in 2019. Then the global community, especially the United States, came in.' She further said that India's response to terrorism from Pakistan has shifted since 2016, highlighting that instead of relying only on diplomacy, India has started taking direct action against terror groups across the border. On being asked about India's response to Pakistan's terrorism, Pande told ANI, 'It shows that since 2016, India is no longer using the old policy, which used to be strategic restraint or diplomatic measures to target or isolate Pakistan and to get the global community to condemn Pakistan on terrorism.' 'From 2016, India's policy appears to be that. India can strike at terror groups, and there is a space for escalation on a conventional level without it becoming war. Secondly, India will respond to any terror attack by targeting the terror infrastructure across the border in Pakistan. Third, the Indian government, the top brass of the military, is planning and strategising for how India needs to prepare for future terror attacks, because the China-Pakistan relationship is deeply integrated, which means that India needs to be able to integrate its air defence system to be ready for the next war on all borders,' Pande said. India carried out precision strikes through Operation Sindoor on May 7 on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and PoJK in response to the Pahalgam terror attack last month, in which 26 people were killed. India also effectively responded to subsequent Pakistani aggression and pounded its airbases. India carried out surgical strikes in 2016 on terror launch pads across LoC and an aerial attack on a terror camp in Pakistan in 2019 in response to ghastly terror attacks. (ANI)
ABC News
12-05-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
The nuclear risk in the India-Pakistan conflict
Sam Hawley: When tensions flared between India and Pakistan last week, the world held its breath because both nations have nuclear weapons. And while a ceasefire has been announced by Donald Trump, it hasn't stopped the clashes in the disputed Kashmir region. Today, Aparna Pande from the Hudson Institute in Washington DC steps us through the long running conflict and explains what could come next. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Aparna, let's come to the history of this conflict in a moment. But first, last week, we saw the most expansive military conflict between India and Pakistan in decades. It was deeply concerning. Aparna Pande: Yes, it was. There were drones. There were missiles. There was an escalation, escalatory ladder that the two countries went up. There was rhetoric on both sides. And so, yes, even though both countries tried to sort of officially send a message that they didn't want to escalate, capitals around the world were concerned about an escalation between nuclear armed neighbours. News report: India says it has launched attacks on nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan administered Kashmir. Pakistan now says it is responding. News report: Pakistan's military says it's intercepted Indian missiles aimed at three of its air bases as tensions between the two nuclear powers continue to escalate. News report: Pakistan announced its retaliation after accusing India of firing at three of its military bases. Sam Hawley: All right, so there are, of course, frequent skirmishes over this disputed Kashmir territory. But just tell me what was behind this escalation. And that does date back to April the 22nd. Aparna Pande: So on April 22nd, there was a terror attack in Pahalgam. It's a tourist location in Indian-administered Kashmir. Twenty-six people were killed. They were killed by terrorists who sort of, you know, targeted them on the basis of their religion. They were asked if they were Hindu or not, and then they were killed. News report: At least 26 people were killed in the town of Pahalgam. Armed insurgents opened fire on tourists, mostly from India, but at least one was from overseas. More than a dozen remain injured. Aparna Pande: This led to an escalation of tensions because India accused Pakistan-based terror groups of this attack. The group called the Resistance Front initially claimed that they were behind it and the Resistance Front is tied to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is a Pakistan-based jihadi group. Pakistan said that there's no evidence and therefore it would not do anything. About 11 days later, on May 6th, India sent in missiles, drones and bombs and bombed nine locations, which India said were terrorist infrastructure, primarily terrorist camps. In response, Pakistan sent missiles and drones into Indian airspace and then India retaliated with missiles and drones. And so this back and forth went on for a few days. Sam Hawley: So a really serious escalation. But then comes this announcement of a ceasefire by Donald Trump on his social media site. So what's he got to do with it? Tell me why that message came from him. Aparna Pande: So it's interesting. If you go back a few decades, every time there has been an India-Pakistan war or skirmish, the US has been involved because it has leverage and influence in both countries. But historically, the American president never officially comes out and announces. It normally is done behind doors and he lets the two countries' leaders announce. I believe the reason that this happened is it escalated rapidly. Now, since 1998, when the two countries turned nuclear, there has been what is called an escalation ladder that, you know, you can stay below the nuclear radar and still escalate on the conventional military front. This time when the escalation took place, Pakistan on the third day, basically for all intents and purposes, was threatening to go nuclear. That is what the Americans saw and the American intelligence saw. Sam Hawley: The stakes are so, so high. So since that ceasefire was announced by Donald Trump, the fighting has continued. There have still been clashes, haven't there? Aparna Pande: Yes, yes, yes. So even after a ceasefire is announced, it normally takes 24 to 48 hours for the message to trickle down to the border. Also, because even before the strikes, there were skirmishes on the line of control. Even without any skirmish, there's often shelling on the line of control. So it's often been a live border. So I believe the ceasefire will last, but we will see this periodic shelling, periodic firing on the border. It takes a little while for tensions to die down in the subcontinent. Sam Hawley: Hmm. All right. Well, Aparna, let's look briefly then at the history of all of this. But just before we do, just give me a visual on a map. Where does Kashmir sit and how is it broken up? Aparna Pande: So Kashmir borders India, Pakistan and Tibet and Nepal. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947, which is part of the British Indian Empire, is divided into three parts today. One part is with Pakistan, one part is with India and another part is with China. Sam Hawley: And this is the disputed territory, though. This is, it's not settled. Aparna Pande: No, it isn't. It isn't because in 1947, there were 11 British provinces and 562 princely states. They were, each princely state was asked to join the dominion that it was territorially contiguous to. Now, Kashmir bordered both India and Pakistan and the Maharaja did not want to join either. But both countries wanted Kashmir to be a part of them for differing reasons. For Pakistan, we must remember the name Pakistan itself is an acronym which stands for Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Balochistan. And so for Pakistan, K for Kashmir is a jugular vein. Without Kashmir, Pakistani leaders have felt Pakistan cannot exist. For the Indian leaders, it's always been that Kashmir as a Muslim majority state has always represented India's secular identity. And so it should be a part of India. Now, the Pakistani army was stopped by the Indian army and where they were stopped, where they met each other and were fighting when the UN Security Council announced a ceasefire is today's line of control or international borderline. So Pakistan has what is called Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, which form Pakistan administered Kashmir. India has Jammu, the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. And then half of Ladakh, China took in 1962 and they call it Aksai Chin. Sam Hawley: Hmm. All right. So it was a rather messy withdrawal from the British. Aparna Pande: Yes, very messy withdrawal. Sam Hawley: Very messy. And of course, since then, India and Pakistan have already fought three wars over this territory. And it's manifested itself in the form of terrorist attacks as well, including that siege of the Mumbai hotels and railway stations in 2008. News report: At the historic Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, commandos moved in for the kill. They cleared the hotel room by room, hunting for terrorists and rescuing hostages. The sound of stun grenades and bursts of gunfire could be heard for several hours. Aparna Pande: So basically since 1989, every two to three years, there's a terror attack, a big terror attack inside India, which is traced back to one of these groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Hizbul Mujahideen, which have historically had support from the Pakistani military intelligence apparatus. And you'd ask me why. And the reason is that from Pakistani military intelligence point of view, Pakistan lacks conventional military superiority over India. The way to force India to negotiate over Kashmir is to put pressure on the Indian government. And these proxies of sub-conventional warfare under a nuclear umbrella has normally been the tactic to try and force India's hand to agree to a conversation and a dialogue. And so the Mumbai terror attack, the 2016 terror attack, the 2019 Pulwama terror attack, and again in 2025. We can go back in history even further to 1992 Mumbai terror attacks, but it's always sort of, it's like a film on repeat. Every two, three years, there's a big terror attack. There are tensions, there's escalation, and then the global community comes in. Things calm down. Then we wait a few years. It repeats. Sam Hawley: And the stakes are so high because both of these nations do have nuclear power. So I mean, how significant is that? I mean, what do they have? Aparna Pande: Both started, you know, building nuclear capabilities in the late 60s, early 70s. In 1974, India had its first nuclear test. In 1998, both had their big nuclear test and turned nuclear. News report: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a nationwide broadcast to announce Pakistan's entry into the nuclear world. Nawaz Sharif, fmr Prime Minister of Pakistan: Pakistan has been obliged to exercise the nuclear option due to weaponisation of India's nuclear program. Aparna Pande: Now, sort of, there's a slight difference in the two programs. On the Indian side, one, India has a no first use doctrine, which means that India will never attack another country with nuclear weapons. It will only respond to a nuclear attack. It will never initiate a nuclear attack. Second, India has a proper nuclear doctrine. And third, India has signed the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, which means that while India has nuclear material, it only has a limited number of warheads and bombs because they are basically for deterrence. They are not for use. India also signed the Civil Nuclear Treaty with the United States in 2006, 2008. And one more thing, India's nuclear program is directed at China because the two have fought a war. China sits on Indian territory and actually lays claim to a lot of Indian territory. Pakistan's nuclear program is all India-focused. They don't have a no first use. They don't have an official laid out doctrine. They have refused to sign FMCT. Finally, Pakistan has tactical nukes, those small ones which can be on the border. India doesn't. And so, sort of, you know, the escalatory ladder creates a problem. And this time round too, if Pakistan had launched even a tactical nuke, the response from India would have been full. Sam Hawley: Yeah, incredibly scary, isn't it? Aparna Pande: Yeah. Sam Hawley: Well, there has been, of course, a ceasefire reached now, Aparna, but this is not a dispute that goes away, is it? Aparna Pande: No, no, no, it isn't. Sam Hawley: How is this resolved? Aparna Pande: So, you know, do we have three, four hours to discuss that? Jokes aside, in the last 10 years, there have been no conversations or dialogues. Both countries have actually reduced their diplomatic presence. Their leaders don't meet anywhere. It is very difficult to see a path forward right now until and unless, one, this ceasefire lasts for more than a few weeks or a few months. And then after that, if the national security advisors meet up and sort of, you know, start a back-channel diplomacy, then maybe the two countries can at least resume normal diplomatic relations. You need to have normal diplomatic relations, normal trade relations, visas for your people, cricket, you know, I know you will understand the importance of that. You know, Bollywood, you know, all of those things. You need to have those people-to-people ties and those will then build a trust. Now it doesn't mean Kashmir will get resolved immediately, but I do believe if they go back to having a normal relationship, then over time, Kashmir can be discussed and maybe there can be some solution for it. Sam Hawley: Aparna Pande is the director of the Initiative on the Future for India and South Asia at the Hudson Institute, a non partisan think tank based in Washington D.C. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Adair Sheppard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. To get in touch with the team, email us on abcnewsdaily@ Thanks for listening.
