Latest news with #LahoreDeclaration
India Gazette
a day ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
Pakistan betrays peace efforts time and again: All-party delegation member SS Ahluwalia
Freetown [Sierra Leone], May 31 (ANI): BJP leader SS Ahluwalia, who is part of the all-party delegation led by Shiv Sena MP Shrikant Shinde, on Saturday reflected on Pakistan's repeated betrayal, citing the Kargil War following the Lahore Declaration during former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's reign. Speaking at an interaction with the Indian diaspora in Freetown, Sierra Leone, the BJP leader reflected on India's persistent efforts to foster peace with Pakistan, noting that the neighbour only indulges in terrorism against India and not through conventional war, just to weaken the country. 'Former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee used to say that it's the geography that Pakistan is our neighbour and we cannot change it, but we can bring the change and can make Pakistan our friend. That's why during the Lahore Declaration, he travelled to Lahore by bus; but what happened after that - Kargil happened... Time and again, we try to have an agreement and send a message of peace, but Pakistan always betrays us. Pakistan doesn't indulge in a conventional war with us but terrorism, as it wants to weaken us,' Ahluwalia stated. His remarks, delivered as part of a broader diplomatic mission by an all-party delegation, were echoed by delegation members BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj and BJD MP Sasmit Patra, who emphasised India's firm response to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism through Operation Sindoor, reflecting the country's increasingly assertive stance on the global stage. Swaraj emphasised India's transformed approach following the Pahalgam terror attack, noting that there was a 'paradigm shift' in how India handles Pakistan's sponsored terrorism. 'This is the new India that doesn't stop, it doesn't bow, and it doesn't forgive. It's the new India that has brought a paradigm shift and said that we will give a befitting reply... We are capable enough to do whatever is needed to do against the Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, but we know that terrorism is not a regional issue but a global issue, and hence, these all-party delegations are travelling to different nations for a diplomatic mission,' Swaraj said. BJD MP Sasmit Patra also added an emotional narrative, recounting how the terrorists only killed the husbands and left the wives so that they could tell what happened to them there. Patra noted that following this, Operation Sindoor took place, which targeted nine terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), killing more than 100 terrorists in the process. 'Sometimes, when we come together in this sense of solidarity... This sense came about on April 22 after Pahalgam... A terrorist comes across, asks the husband his religion, he says his religion and the terrorist shoots him. The wife turns around and asks, 'Kill me as well; why should I live?'... The terrorist turns around and tells that lady, 'I will not kill you. Go and tell this to your government.' She told, and then Operation Sindoor came. We went and struck them inside Pakistan. This is the new India... Believe that this is the new India and you are the face of the new India,' the BJD MP said. The delegation led by Shinde also includes BJP MP Atul Garg and Manan Kumar Mishra, Indian Union Muslim League's ET Mohammed Basheer and former Ambassador Sujan Chinoy. The delegation aims to brief international partners on India's response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack and its broader fight against cross-border terrorism while engaging with leaders. (ANI)
India.com
a day ago
- Politics
- India.com
Pakistan Betrays Peace Efforts Time And Again: All-Party Delegation Member SS Ahluwalia
BJP leader SS Ahluwalia, who is part of the all-party delegation led by Shiv Sena MP Shrikant Shinde, on Saturday reflected on Pakistan's repeated betrayal, citing the Kargil War following the Lahore Declaration during former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's reign. Speaking at an interaction with the Indian diaspora in Freetown, Sierra Leone, the BJP leader reflected on India's persistent efforts to foster peace with Pakistan, noting that the neighbour only indulges in terrorism against India and not through conventional war, just to weaken the country. "Former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee used to say that it's the geography that Pakistan is our neighbour and we cannot change it, but we can bring the change and can make Pakistan our friend. That's why during the Lahore Declaration, he travelled to Lahore by bus; but what happened after that - Kargil happened... Time and again, we try to have an agreement and send a message of peace, but Pakistan always betrays us. Pakistan doesn't indulge in a conventional war with us but terrorism, as it wants to weaken us," Ahluwalia stated. His remarks, delivered as part of a broader diplomatic mission by an all-party delegation, were echoed by delegation members BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj and BJD MP Sasmit Patra, who emphasised India's firm response to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism through Operation Sindoor, reflecting the country's increasingly assertive stance on the global stage. Swaraj emphasised India's transformed approach following the Pahalgam terror attack, noting that there was a "paradigm shift" in how India handles Pakistan's sponsored terrorism. "This is the new India that doesn't stop, it doesn't bow, and it doesn't forgive. It's the new India that has brought a paradigm shift and said that we will give a befitting reply... We are capable enough to do whatever is needed to do against the Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, but we know that terrorism is not a regional issue but a global issue, and hence, these all-party delegations are travelling to different nations for a diplomatic mission," Swaraj said. BJD MP Sasmit Patra also added an emotional narrative, recounting how the terrorists only killed the husbands and left the wives so that they could tell what happened to them there. Patra noted that following this, Operation Sindoor took place, which targeted nine terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), killing more than 100 terrorists in the process. "Sometimes, when we come together in this sense of solidarity... This sense came about on April 22 after Pahalgam... A terrorist comes across, asks the husband his religion, he says his religion and the terrorist shoots him. The wife turns around and asks, 'Kill me as well; why should I live?'... The terrorist turns around and tells that lady, 'I will not kill you. Go and tell this to your government.' She told, and then Operation Sindoor came. We went and struck them inside Pakistan. This is the new India... Believe that this is the new India and you are the face of the new India," the BJD MP said. The delegation led by Shinde also includes BJP MP Atul Garg and Manan Kumar Mishra, Indian Union Muslim League's ET Mohammed Basheer and former Ambassador Sujan Chinoy. The delegation aims to brief international partners on India's response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack and its broader fight against cross-border terrorism while engaging with leaders.
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
After Sindoor, the writing is on the wall for Pakistan
The Pahalgam massacre of innocent tourists from India and Nepal on April 22 and its aftermath have redefined India-Pakistan relations. While attacks in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in India by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists have featured regularly, it is only in the past decade that the Union government has truly endeavoured to draw red lines. Pakistan had committed in a joint statement in January 2004 to 'not permit any territory under Pakistan's control to be used to support terrorism in any manner'. Pakistan has consistently reneged on this and the bilateralism envisaged under the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration. The egregious attack by Pakistani terrorists at multiple locations in Mumbai in November 2008, which led to scores of deaths including those of foreigners, had marked a new low in cross-border terrorism even by Pakistan's dismal track record. One would have expected India to undertake military retribution. However, the government of the day decided to stay its hand. An emboldened Pakistan, outgunned conventionally, continued to use terrorism as part of its grey zone tactics against India, just below the threshold of military conflict. That threshold has changed following Operation Sindoor. Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi has repeatedly demonstrated firm resolve in dealing with Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. India's zero tolerance for terrorism translated into military retaliation against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, with cross-border land and air strikes in 2016 and 2019, respectively. Operation Sindoor is a notch higher on the spectrum of dissuasion. In the wake of the Pahalgam massacre, Modi conveyed an unambiguous message to the perpetrators of the heinous act — that India would pursue them to the very ends of the earth. Given the public outcry, it was only a matter of time that India would take recourse to punitive military action. In the early hours of May 7, the Indian armed forces destroyed nine key nerve centres of Pakistan-based terrorist networks of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) deep inside Pakistan. The free hand given to the armed forces ensured that India's retaliation was 'focussed, measured and non-escalatory'. What followed over the next four days was a kaleidoscopic blur. Despite large-scale propaganda, concocted news and deliberate obfuscation of facts, Pakistan failed to counter the hard evidence of battlefield footage put out by India. The extensive damage inflicted by the Indian armed forces was on full display. Pakistan unleashed a flurry of drones, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), loitering munitions and missiles on multiple military targets in India but came a cropper in the face of India's Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) and counter-drone networks. The subsequent massive retaliation by India on military targets brought Pakistan to its knees, compelling its director general of military operations (DGMO) to propose a ceasefire to his Indian counterpart. PM Modi's public statements following the ceasefire have introduced a 'new normal' in India-Pakistan relations. The key point is that Operation Sindoor is on pause. His assertion that India would not differentiate between terrorist masterminds and the governments that support them is noteworthy. It could imply that any future misadventure by Pakistan-based terrorist networks could invite the wrath of the Indian armed forces on targets beyond the terrorist masterminds. The dust having settled, it is clear the nuclear dimension was not in play at any point of time. Further, India's engagement of key global partners in response to their interest in the unfolding events cannot be construed as intervention or mediation. The ceasefire was a military matter, agreed upon through military channels, following the Pakistani DGMO's initiative. For Pakistan, the writing is on the wall. Terrorism and talks, or for that matter trade, sporting and cultural ties, cannot go together just as 'water and blood' cannot flow together. It is no wonder that India has put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. Pakistan has long violated the 1960 treaty by disregarding the 'spirit of goodwill and friendship' enshrined in its preamble. Moreover, the climate crisis, demographic shifts and technological advancements in hydrological science necessitate fresh approaches. Amidst the din, American President Donald Trump's gratuitous pronouncements created ripples. There is no gainsaying the fact that India's historical rejection of a third-party role needs better appreciation in Washington. Trump may well be under pressure to project an image of a 'peacemaker'. After all, his much-publicised goal of ending the Ukraine conflict remains elusive. For India, bilateralism is a sacrosanct principle for dealing with Pakistan. Talks, if any, will have to centre on concrete and verifiable action by Pakistan to eliminate terrorist havens on its soil, and the vacation of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Amidst the din, China's role came under the lens. From providing military equipment and lethal stores and supporting Pakistan's disinformation campaign, to securing Pakistan's interests in deliberations in the United Nations Security Council, the 'all-weather' friendship was in full bloom. A small irony lies in President Trump getting the better of Beijing. As is well known, China aspires to create a putative bailiwick in South Asia. On May 7, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson inter alia expressed Beijing's desire to play 'a constructive role in easing the current tensions'. This sentiment was repeated a few days later, on May 12. In this context, Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif's attempt to ingratiate himself into Trump's good books, even if through the fiction of mediation, should prove somewhat galling to Beijing. Reining in the malevolent impulses of a subaltern and maintaining objectivity on India-Pakistan issues should have been a better choice for China. Sujan Chinoy is director general of the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA). The views expressed are personal. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 days ago
- Politics
- First Post
Is Shehbaz Sharif's ‘counter-terror' peace offer another trap for India? What history says
Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif's latest offer of peace and counter-terror talks with India comes amid fresh tensions and echoes a familiar pattern of diplomacy followed by betrayal. With recent attacks and intelligence inputs raising red flags, history offers a cautionary tale—raising doubts over whether this renewed outreach is genuine or another strategic ploy. read more In a renewed push for diplomacy, Pakistan's leadership once again extended an olive branch to India, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressing willingness to engage in comprehensive peace talks to resolve all outstanding issues, including the perennial flashpoints of Kashmir and cross-border terrorism, alongside water disputes and trade. However, India's experience offers little hope for optimism, as Pakistan's peace overtures have often been followed by actions that undermine bilateral trust and escalate tensions, with the latest remarks by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif once again raising questions over the sincerity of Islamabad's intentions and the real motives behind its renewed call for dialogue. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While speaking in Iran, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif declared, 'We want to resolve all disputes, including the Kashmir and water issues, through negotiations. We are also ready to engage our neighbour on trade and counter-terrorism.' The timing of this overture, just weeks after a sharp military flare-up following a terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir has raised eyebrows. For many in New Delhi, it evokes a familiar pattern: peace proposals from Islamabad swiftly followed by actions that undermine them. Indian officials have dismissed Sharif's remarks as little more than 'recycled rhetoric,' citing Pakistan's persistent support for cross-border terrorism. Recent intelligence inputs indicating the regrouping of Jaish-e-Mohammed operatives in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir have only reinforced New Delhi's long-held position: that meaningful dialogue is impossible while terrorism remains an instrument of Pakistan's statecraft. A historical pattern of peace overtures and subsequent betrayals Since the partition in 1947, India and Pakistan have experienced cycles of conflict and attempted reconciliation. Notably, peace initiatives have often been derailed by subsequent hostile actions: 1999 Lahore Declaration: Signed with much fanfare by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and then Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, this agreement aimed at nuclear risk reduction and fostering peaceful relations. Yet, the fragile peace quickly shattered with the eruption of the Kargil conflict just months later, a major military intrusion attributed to Pakistan. 2001 Agra Summit: High-level talks between Vajpayee and then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf collapsed without a joint declaration. India pointed to Pakistan's continued equivocation on cross-border terrorism as the primary reason for the failure. 2004-2007 backchannel talks: During the era of President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, secret negotiations reportedly came close to a consensus framework on Kashmir. However, political instability in Pakistan and the devastating 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, orchestrated by Pakistan-based militants, brought these promising discussions to an abrupt halt. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 2015 Modi's Lahore visit: An unexpected diplomatic gesture by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who made a surprise stopover in Lahore to meet Nawaz Sharif was followed shortly by the Pathankot airbase attack in early 2016, again attributed to Pakistan-based militant groups. 2019 Pulwama attack: A suicide bombing in February 2019 killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel in Pulwama, triggering India's retaliatory Balakot airstrikes deep inside Pakistani territory and escalating tensions. 2025 Pahalgam Attack: Just weeks before Sharif's current overture, a terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, resulted in 26 deaths. This incident prompted a swift and strong Indian response, including the temporary suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and the downgrading of diplomatic ties, highlighting the fragility of any peace efforts in the shadow of ongoing terror. 'Terror and talks cannot go together' New Delhi's consistent stance has been that 'terror and talks cannot go together,' asserting that a conducive, terror-free environment is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue. Reinforcing this firm stance, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar recently reiterated that the Kashmir issue remains a bilateral matter, stressing that the Indian government is willing to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan but specifically regarding the vacating of illegally occupied Indian territory in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the issue of terrorism. The persistent shadow of civil-military divide A critical obstacle to durable peace initiatives from Pakistan has often been the perceived discord between its civilian leadership and powerful military establishment. This persistent divide has historically undermined diplomatic efforts. Analysts in India often view Islamabad's calls for peace through the prism of its domestic challenges and international pressures. Pakistan is currently dealing with heavy economic headwinds with ongoing discussions with the IMF for financial assistance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the past, such periods have sometimes coincided with attempts to project a more peace-seeking image internationally, potentially aimed at garnering diplomatic goodwill or financial relief. The vast and disproportionate influence of Pakistan's military in its foreign policy also remains a crucial factor in assessing the sincerity and longevity of any diplomatic initiatives. The coming days will reveal India's official response to Sharif's latest offer. However, given the deep-seated mistrust, the recent military flare-up in Pahalgam, and India's firm stance on terrorism and PoK, a major diplomatic breakthrough remains a distant prospect. For now, Pakistan's offer is likely to be viewed not just on its face value but as part of a broader pattern requiring tangible and verifiable steps towards peace rather than mere declarations.
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
From Kargil to Operation Sindoor, India has scored its point — without escalation
'History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.' — Mark Twain No two operations are fought under similar circumstances, or fought alike. There would be many differences: the Geopolitical environment, the will of the leadership in power and new weapons and equipment, which give rise to new tactics, strategies and doctrines. India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in May 1998. The 'nuclear haves' of the world condemned it and called us 'irresponsible', 'rogue' nations. On February 21, 1999, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan signed the Lahore Declaration. They committed to 'peaceful co-existence', 'responsibility to avoid conflict keeping in view the nuclear dimension', and to 'refrain from intervention and interference in each other's internal affairs'. Three months later, even before new nuclear doctrines were evolved, Pakistan violated the LoC to occupy the heights in the Dras-Kargil-Siachen sectors. The Pakistan army used the 'jihadi façade', not its 'sponsored proxies'. Our intelligence and surveillance systems failed to detect the intrusion, which added to the political and military surprise. In Operation Vijay, the political mandate to the armed forces was to throw the enemy out of our territory, but not to cross the LoC or international border, primarily due to nuclear fears and international disapproval. In Operation Vijay, the armed forces were poorly equipped. There was no Chief of Defence Staff, nor any integrated systems like the Integrated Air Defence Command and Control System, which exist today. However, at the operational level, the Army, Navy and Air Force did manage to coordinate their activities. But when the armed forces were on top of the conflict situation, India's political leadership decided to accept Pakistan's offer of a ceasefire. Soon after Operation Vijay, I was invited to address a seminar organised by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. I made the following points. One, due to the nuclear factor, economic considerations, risk of high casualties and international pressure, there is a greater likelihood of limited conventional wars in the future. A limited conventional war would be limited in time, geographical area, utilisation of force levels or weaponry. There is space available below the nuclear threshold for such wars. Two, surprise and unpredictability are basic elements of a war. A limited conventional war does not mean limited capabilities. It refers to the use of those capabilities. Three, a war can be kept limited with credible deterrence. There is a linkage between credible deterrence, escalation dominance and escalation control. Four, in any future conflict, a synergised politico-military-diplomatic approach is essential for monitoring and continuous assessment. Ever since the Kargil War, there has been much discussion on the nature of conflicts below the nuclear and conventional war threshold. A new term, grey-zone warfare, has emerged — it is described as a form of conflict that operates below the threshold of traditional warfare, utilising a combination of military and non-military tools, including state-sponsored proxies, to achieve strategic objectives without triggering an open war. It is characterised by ambiguity, deniability, and the use of unconventional tactics like cyberattacks, economic coercion, and disinformation campaigns. Briefly, the key characteristics of grey-zone warfare are: One, aggressors employ non-military or less kinetic tools which may not justify a military response; two, actions may take years, thus reducing opportunities for decisive counter-responses; three, the aggressor evades accountability, making it difficult to pinpoint responsibility and formulate responses. In the past 25 years, Pakistan has avoided a conventional or limited conventional war. But it has continued to use its sponsored proxies (like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed) as an instrument of state policy. After the terror attack on Uri Camp in 2016, the Indian leadership, with superior kinetic capability at its disposal, dropped strategic restraint. The Army carried out a shallow 'surgical strike' across the LoC. In 2019, after the horrific incident in Pulwama, India took yet another step forward. The Air Force struck Jaish's training camp at Balakot deep inside Pakistan. As the targets were terrorist camps, these responses, although provocative, were pitched as non-escalatory. The Pahalgam attack of April 22 hurt the very soul of India. It was impossible for the Indian government not to respond. In addition to several non-military steps, Operation Sindoor, with strong political resolve and the latest defence capabilities, was launched on May 7 to destroy nine terror camps across Pakistan. India made it known that this was a measured, non-escalatory response. When Pakistan escalated the situation and targeted India's civil and military installations, Indian forces neutralised the Pakistani offensive and took the next step in escalation dominance. Eleven military installations utilised for escalation by Pakistan were destroyed with precision. And then Pakistan called for a ceasefire. It would be foolhardy to ignore the spectre of a nuclear war in the Subcontinent and assume that the nuclear factor plays no role in limited conventional or grey-zone operations. Nuclear weapons remain a significant escalatory cap that demands close monitoring of the escalatory ladder. The soldiers in us may not appreciate having to give up the opportunity to exploit and strike further when the forces are in an advantageous position. But responsible political leadership, understandably, is less prone to take a nuclear risk. Another problem here is Pakistan's nuclear bogey and attempt to blackmail. It makes the international community sit up and intervene. During Operation Vijay, US President Bill Clinton used the nuclear factor to arm-twist Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Sharif succumbed. Vajpayee did not. During Operation Sindoor, US Vice President J D Vance warned Prime Minister Narendra Modi about Pakistan's preparation for escalation. In both situations, India kept its cool, controlled escalation diplomatically and militarily, and achieved its political goal. Lesson: Escalation control requires a confident understanding of the adversary's escalation thresholds. The writer is a former Chief of Army Staff
