Latest news with #PahalgamMassacre
Economic Times
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
India-Pakistan aftershocks: Five strategic reflections to win the story
Not Against Pakistan, But Against Terror and Its Architects Live Events Narrative Warfare Is the Next Frontier Nepal's Silence Was a Diplomatic Miss Why Doesn't Pakistan's Public Speak Out? A Third Front Is Emerging, and this is looking alarming! (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel What came as a surprise to all of us in South Asia, is the sudden promotion of General Asim Munir as Field Marshal for having 'defeated' India in this conflict. He has thus increased his hold on the political, social and economic fields in Pakistan. Furthermore, considering the dislike of the Pakistani people for their politicians, they are perhaps happy to support Munir as the defacto ruler of Pakistan. His continuation in power will mean a regular conflict with India under their 'bleed India by 1000 cuts doctrine'. Thus they will use this path to remain in power and continue with the false perception of claiming one looks at India's recent military response to Pakistan's Military-backed terror groups in this context, it has exposed deeper lessons for its strategic posture. While the battlefield may have yielded clear tactical success, the war of narratives, regional and global diplomacy, and long-term threat perception revealed key gaps. In this article, we distil five critical key takeaways and areas that require more serious thinking. These go beyond the immediate military gains; the episode offers deeper lessons on diplomacy, strategic communication, and regional geopolitics. As the dust settles, India must go beyond reaction and embrace a 360-degree or a no-box approach to security, diplomacy, and strategic be clear - India's action targeted terror infrastructure and those protecting it, not the Pakistani people. This distinction is vital. Our conflict is with those who perpetuate violence, primarily elements within the Pakistan military and its proxies who are also designated as terrorist groups under UN Security Council's Resolution1267 Sanctions namely, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). To this geometry lets add a new faction which is yet to be designated as one by the same committee: The Resistance Front (TRF) who claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam Massacre and not the ordinary citizens. Even though they retracted soon after under the obvious pressure of the Pakistani Pakistan military benefited the most from this conflict, especially after General Asim Munir's inflammatory April 16th speech which invoked the 'two-nation theory'. It issued a veiled war call, which effectively served to protect whatever little the military was holding and to renew its mandate to dominate the Pakistani populace. Unfortunately, this nuance was won in Pakistan's national discourse, which predictably portrayed the conflict as a patriotic victory making Gen Munir a hero, which resulted in his odd promotion to a Field India must persist in making this distinction clear, especially to the international community and Pakistan's civil society that it's not 'an era of war but there would be zero tolerance towards terror'. Also amplify a narrative that decoupling the Pakistani populace from its military establishment may open future doors for peace and prosperity. Not to be missed, is that many Pakistani Punjabis claim their heritage from Rajputs and Jats and speak in Punjabi language, which negates the theory that Pakistanis are descendants of Arabs and claim of 'victory' despite clear losses on the ground exposed a major Indian vulnerability: communication strategy. While India acted within the framework of Article 51 of the UN Charter and showcased operational superiority, it faltered in shaping the global and domestic discourse and warfare is no longer secondary, it is central to 21st-century conflict vis-à-vis military combat. India must build a comprehensive, integrated communications doctrine that spans traditional diplomacy, digital engagement, and media strategy. Without a timely, fact-based, and emotionally intelligent narrative, operational success risks being obscured by adversarial have been able to raise the issue of terrorism at the UN, BRICS and SCO, including our Prime Minister's demand for an international convention at the UNGA. This demand should be escalated with pamphleteering about the Pakistan military's conspiracy in promoting disturbances, both within and no one has criticised Pakistani terrorism but just terrorism. One hopes that the ensuing seven global trips by all Party delegations from India to engage in the required communication with friendly countries would tilt the scales. We are aware that countries would respond on the lines of their national interest, rather than what we may wish them to may recall that among the twenty-six innocent lives lost in the Pahalgam massacre was also a Nepali tourist, which should have generated regional condemnation if not global. Yet Kathmandu remained diplomatically mute. Whether this was due to internal caution or a failure on India's part to engage proactively, the outcome reflects a missed 'neighbourhood first' policy needs sharper execution. Moments like these demand swift, behind-the-scenes diplomacy to build regional consensus against terrorism. A coordinated South Asian stance on cross-border terrorism is in our collective has devastated Pakistan itself for a long time. For instance, the Rawalpindi school massacre in 2014, in which more than 130 children were killed brutally, remains a tragic marker of this shared trauma. Similarly, the 2009 Lahore police academy attack, and 2016 Lahore Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park bombing killing many innocent children and civilians is devastating and the list goes on. Yet, there is a conspicuous absence of public empathy from Pakistan when India suffers, though some people did speak silence stems from decades of militarised indoctrination and a political narrative that legitimises violence against India. Hillary Clinton's warning still resonates: 'You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours.'India must engage with Pakistan's civil society, diaspora, and intellectual class to foster a counter-narrative that challenges the status quo. Empathy must be reintroduced into the regional discourse. But first, Pakis' need to stand in one-voice against homegrown India remains vigilant on its western and northern borders, a third vector of strategic concern is emerging in the east. Just in the wake of the recent conflict, a Turkiye-backed group in Bangladesh circulated a map of 'Greater Bangladesh', incorporating Indian territories in Assam, Meghalaya, and West incendiary remarks from a retired Bangladeshi Major General followed on his Facebook profile, and we quote 'If India attacks Pakistan, Bangladesh should occupy the seven states of Northeastern India'.All these reflect ideological vulnerabilities and external influences that could destabilise India's eastern frontier. Turkiye, Azerbaijan, China and Pakistan are increasingly operating in a coordinated ideological axis. India must urgently recalibrate its diplomacy with Dhaka, enhanced intelligence-sharing, and public diplomacy will be key to neutralising this threat. The goal must be clear: preserve regional stability and prevent fringe elements from dictating national conclusion, Pakistan's economic fragility, water stress, and internal insurgencies may tempt its military establishment to externalise internal failures through adventurism. Meanwhile, global powers like the U.S. continue to view Pakistan as a strategic lever due to its location, despite Islamabad's consistent export of instability and must, therefore, invest not just in kinetic capability but in resilience, regional and global partnerships, and narrative dominance. The next war may not be over land or airspace or underwater but over perception, psychology, influence, and as Operation Sindoor continues the message is simple: India will not invite a war. But if it is forced upon us, we will not only defend our borders, but we will win the expressed are personal. The Authors work for CUTS International, a 42-year old global public policy, research and advocacy group with regional offices over four continents.
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
India-Pakistan aftershocks: Five strategic reflections to win the story
What came as a surprise to all of us in South Asia, is the sudden promotion of General Asim Munir as Field Marshal for having 'defeated' India in this conflict. He has thus increased his hold on the political, social and economic fields in Pakistan. Furthermore, considering the dislike of the Pakistani people for their politicians, they are perhaps happy to support Munir as the defacto ruler of Pakistan. His continuation in power will mean a regular conflict with India under their 'bleed India by 1000 cuts doctrine'. Thus they will use this path to remain in power and continue with the false perception of claiming victory. If one looks at India's recent military response to Pakistan's Military-backed terror groups in this context, it has exposed deeper lessons for its strategic posture. While the battlefield may have yielded clear tactical success, the war of narratives, regional and global diplomacy, and long-term threat perception revealed key gaps. In this article, we distil five critical key takeaways and areas that require more serious thinking. These go beyond the immediate military gains; the episode offers deeper lessons on diplomacy, strategic communication, and regional geopolitics. As the dust settles, India must go beyond reaction and embrace a 360-degree or a no-box approach to security, diplomacy, and strategic communication. Not Against Pakistan, But Against Terror and Its Architects Let's be clear - India's action targeted terror infrastructure and those protecting it, not the Pakistani people. This distinction is vital. Our conflict is with those who perpetuate violence, primarily elements within the Pakistan military and its proxies who are also designated as terrorist groups under UN Security Council's Resolution1267 Sanctions namely, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). To this geometry lets add a new faction which is yet to be designated as one by the same committee: The Resistance Front (TRF) who claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam Massacre and not the ordinary citizens. Even though they retracted soon after under the obvious pressure of the Pakistani military. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Vietnam: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo The Pakistan military benefited the most from this conflict, especially after General Asim Munir's inflammatory April 16th speech which invoked the 'two-nation theory'. It issued a veiled war call, which effectively served to protect whatever little the military was holding and to renew its mandate to dominate the Pakistani populace. Unfortunately, this nuance was won in Pakistan's national discourse, which predictably portrayed the conflict as a patriotic victory making Gen Munir a hero, which resulted in his odd promotion to a Field Marshal. Now, India must persist in making this distinction clear, especially to the international community and Pakistan's civil society that it's not 'an era of war but there would be zero tolerance towards terror'. Also amplify a narrative that decoupling the Pakistani populace from its military establishment may open future doors for peace and prosperity. Not to be missed, is that many Pakistani Punjabis claim their heritage from Rajputs and Jats and speak in Punjabi language, which negates the theory that Pakistanis are descendants of Arabs and Turks. Live Events Narrative Warfare Is the Next Frontier Pakistan's claim of 'victory' despite clear losses on the ground exposed a major Indian vulnerability: communication strategy. While India acted within the framework of Article 51 of the UN Charter and showcased operational superiority, it faltered in shaping the global and domestic discourse and perception. Narrative warfare is no longer secondary, it is central to 21st-century conflict vis-à-vis military combat. India must build a comprehensive, integrated communications doctrine that spans traditional diplomacy, digital engagement, and media strategy. Without a timely, fact-based, and emotionally intelligent narrative, operational success risks being obscured by adversarial propaganda. We have been able to raise the issue of terrorism at the UN, BRICS and SCO, including our Prime Minister's demand for an international convention at the UNGA. This demand should be escalated with pamphleteering about the Pakistan military's conspiracy in promoting disturbances, both within and without. Surprisingly, no one has criticised Pakistani terrorism but just terrorism. One hopes that the ensuing seven global trips by all Party delegations from India to engage in the required communication with friendly countries would tilt the scales. We are aware that countries would respond on the lines of their national interest, rather than what we may wish them to do. Nepal's Silence Was a Diplomatic Miss One may recall that among the twenty-six innocent lives lost in the Pahalgam massacre was also a Nepali tourist, which should have generated regional condemnation if not global. Yet Kathmandu remained diplomatically mute. Whether this was due to internal caution or a failure on India's part to engage proactively, the outcome reflects a missed opportunity. India's 'neighbourhood first' policy needs sharper execution. Moments like these demand swift, behind-the-scenes diplomacy to build regional consensus against terrorism. A coordinated South Asian stance on cross-border terrorism is in our collective interest. Why Doesn't Pakistan's Public Speak Out? Terrorism has devastated Pakistan itself for a long time. For instance, the Rawalpindi school massacre in 2014, in which more than 130 children were killed brutally, remains a tragic marker of this shared trauma. Similarly, the 2009 Lahore police academy attack, and 2016 Lahore Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park bombing killing many innocent children and civilians is devastating and the list goes on. Yet, there is a conspicuous absence of public empathy from Pakistan when India suffers, though some people did speak out. This silence stems from decades of militarised indoctrination and a political narrative that legitimises violence against India. Hillary Clinton's warning still resonates: 'You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours.' India must engage with Pakistan's civil society, diaspora, and intellectual class to foster a counter-narrative that challenges the status quo. Empathy must be reintroduced into the regional discourse. But first, Pakis' need to stand in one-voice against homegrown terrorism. A Third Front Is Emerging, and this is looking alarming! While India remains vigilant on its western and northern borders, a third vector of strategic concern is emerging in the east. Just in the wake of the recent conflict, a Turkiye-backed group in Bangladesh circulated a map of 'Greater Bangladesh', incorporating Indian territories in Assam, Meghalaya, and West Bengal. Similarly, incendiary remarks from a retired Bangladeshi Major General followed on his Facebook profile, and we quote 'If India attacks Pakistan, Bangladesh should occupy the seven states of Northeastern India'. All these reflect ideological vulnerabilities and external influences that could destabilise India's eastern frontier. Turkiye, Azerbaijan, China and Pakistan are increasingly operating in a coordinated ideological axis. India must urgently recalibrate its engagement. Proactive diplomacy with Dhaka, enhanced intelligence-sharing, and public diplomacy will be key to neutralising this threat. The goal must be clear: preserve regional stability and prevent fringe elements from dictating national narratives. In conclusion, Pakistan's economic fragility, water stress, and internal insurgencies may tempt its military establishment to externalise internal failures through adventurism. Meanwhile, global powers like the U.S. continue to view Pakistan as a strategic lever due to its location, despite Islamabad's consistent export of instability and terror. India must, therefore, invest not just in kinetic capability but in resilience, regional and global partnerships, and narrative dominance. The next war may not be over land or airspace or underwater but over perception, psychology, influence, and legitimacy. Lastly, as Operation Sindoor continues the message is simple: India will not invite a war. But if it is forced upon us, we will not only defend our borders, but we will win the story. Views expressed are personal. The Authors work for CUTS International, a 42-year old global public policy, research and advocacy group with regional offices over four continents.
Forbes
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Electronic Warfare Is Key To Indian And Pakistani Military Strategies
As India and Pakistan prepared for conflict over the last month, they revealed the next evolution of intimidating war rituals that once included banging shields and intimidating dances: the deployment of electronic warfare systems. In addition to tanks and artillery, move reflects the new face of modern warfare, where combat extends into the electronic domain. As seen in the Russia-Ukraine war, EW technology has a decisive impact on the battlefield. These systems interfere with a range of electronic signals, including those used for communications, radar, and navigation. They typically block GPS signals, jam the control links to drones and missiles, disrupt ground and air communications, and weaken the radar that supports air-defense networks. By placing EW systems along the border, both India and Pakistan made a show of force while reducing the other's ability to conduct offensive and defensive operations. Tensions rapidly escalated between these two nuclear powers following the Pahalgam massacre on April 22, when 26 Indian tourists were killed in Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir by militants linked to Pakistan. India made the initial move, deploying several systems along the border. India's main EW system is the Samyukta system, which consists of 145 vehicles and covers an area of 150 kilometers by 70 kilometers. Developed domestically in 2004, the system is capable of electronic surveillance, direction finding, and jamming both communication and radar signals. India has other EW weapons in their arsenal including the Himshakti, a jamming system for mountainous terrain, and the Spectra suite, which is integrated into their Rafale fighter aircraft. Pakistan quickly responded by moving its own EW systems into forward positions. Many of its assets are Chinese-supplied, including the DWL-002 passive detection system. Unlike traditional radar, it detects and tracks airborne threats by picking up their electronic signatures. Pakistan also deployed several Chinese-made commercial-grade GPS jammers intended to disrupt Indian drones and missiles. Additionally, the Pakistani J-10C fighter aircraft carry advanced EW equipment, which reportedly disrupted the control systems on Indian Rafale aircraft flying along the border on April 29. While it may seem unusual for countries to showcase their EW capabilities in this way, such deployments are consistent with modern military doctrine. Given the long-standing hostility between India and Pakistan, both militaries have established a layered air-defense network designed to stop aircraft and missiles, as well as artillery intended to block ground advances. These defenses typically include EW systems, which are commonly used for detecting and disrupting incoming missiles and aircraft. Meanwhile, EW has become the preferred method for breaking through these layered defenses. It can interfere with the radar systems that support air-defense networks, which are then targeted and destroyed by air and missile strikes. Once the adversary's air defenses are neutralized, a military gains temporary air dominance, enabling it to carry out further missile and air strikes with minimal resistance. EW systems also disrupt communications, making it difficult for adversaries to coordinate a response, issue warnings, or mount a counteroffensive. Furthermore, the deployment of these systems carries a psychological impact. They are expensive and typically kept secret, so their visible deployment signals that a significant attack may be imminent. Both countries had their EW equipment tested on May 7, when India launched a series of air and missile strikes into Pakistan. Pakistan responded with its own set of strikes. Although the true effectiveness of these systems is unclear, both India and Pakistan have made claims that their EW systems played key roles in the conflict. The Indian military claims that they successfully jammed the Pakistani air defense systems, as reported by Times of India, allowing the Indian Air Force to strike its targets in Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan has made claims that the EW systems on their J-10C aircraft contributed to the downing of Indian Rafale aircraft. As seen in the Russia-Ukraine war, the recent India-Pakistan conflict further highlights the growing role of electronic warfare in shaping military outcomes. While aircraft and missiles carried out the physical strikes, India's offensive operations relied heavily on the effective use of EW systems. Pakistan's defense similarly leveraged its own EW systems. These systems have become essential elements of the modern battlefield, offering capabilities as important as armor and artillery.
News18
11-05-2025
- Business
- News18
When Terror Has A Sugar Daddy
Last Updated: The West's historical support for Pakistan has only emboldened its aggressive behaviour In a perverse twist of international diplomacy, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) disbursed $1 billion to Pakistan on May 9, 2025, just weeks after the horrific Pahalgam massacre, where Pakistan-backed terrorists slaughtered 26 tourists in Kashmir. Reports indicate the United States leveraged this bailout to pressure Pakistan into a ceasefire with India, announced on May 10, effectively rewarding a state accused of sponsoring terror. This financial lifeline, unlikely to be repaid given Pakistan's $130 billion external debt, underscores a troubling pattern: Western support sustains Pakistan's destabilising actions, undermining global counterterrorism efforts and emboldening a regime that threatens regional and international security. Pahalgam Massacre: A Brutal Wake-Up Call On April 22, 2025, the serene Baisaran valley, three miles from Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, became a scene of unimaginable horror. Seven Pakistan-based terrorists, violating a ceasefire, attacked tourists with automatic weapons, killing at least 26 people—mostly Indians—and injuring over three dozen. The assailants targeted non-Muslims, forcing captives to recite Islamic prayers and checking men for circumcision to identify victims. Described as India's worst terrorist attack in over a decade, the massacre drew comparisons to Hamas's October 2023 attack on Israel due to its calculated brutality. India swiftly attributed the attack to Pakistan, citing its history of supporting groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba. The Indian government condemned the massacre and launched investigations, but the international response was lackluster. Some Western nations called for restraint from both sides, a stance critics argue equates India's defensive measures with Pakistan's aggression. This muted reaction set the stage for the controversial IMF decision that followed. On May 9, 2025, the IMF approved a $1 billion disbursement to Pakistan, part of a $7 billion bailout programme initiated in September 2024. This decision came amid escalating tensions, with Pakistan launching drone and missile attacks on Indian targets following the Pahalgam massacre. India protested vehemently, with Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri arguing the funds could finance state-sponsored terrorism. Despite these concerns, the IMF proceeded, bringing total disbursements to $2.1 billion. Reports suggest the U.S. played a pivotal role in linking the bailout to a ceasefire, announced on May 10, 2025 (India-Pakistan Ceasefire). Sources indicate U.S. officials pressured Pakistan, making the $1 billion contingent on halting hostilities. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif celebrated the bailout, claiming it thwarted India's 'high-handed tactics". This sequence—terror attack, financial aid, ceasefire—implies Pakistan was rewarded for its aggression, a move that incentivizes further violence. Pakistan's economic fragility, with $130 billion in external debt and $15 billion in foreign reserves covering just three months of imports, makes such bailouts critical. Yet, the lack of stringent conditions raises questions about accountability, especially given Pakistan's history of misusing aid. Western Complicity: A Historical Pattern The West's financial support for Pakistan is not new. From 1951 to 2011, the U.S. provided $67 billion in aid, much of it military-focused. Post-9/11, $20 billion in defense trade, including F-16 jets, bolstered Pakistan's capabilities, yet reports indicate 70 per cent of $3.4 billion in military aid from 2002-2007 was misspent. The 2011 discovery of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, near a Pakistani military academy, exposed Pakistan's duplicity. Despite this, aid continued, sustaining a state accused of harboring terrorists. This pattern persists. In 2024, Pakistan received significant Western support, even as it faced accusations of supporting groups like the Haqqani network, which targets U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The IMF's 25th bailout to Pakistan, including the recent $1 billion, ignores its poor track record, with India arguing these funds enable terrorism. Media Bias: Obscuring the Truth Western media's coverage of the India-Pakistan conflict often exacerbates the issue. Outlets like the BBC and CNN frequently adopt a neutral stance, framing India's counterterrorism actions as equivalent to Pakistan's provocations. Post-Pahalgam, some reports described India's retaliatory strikes as escalations, downplaying Pakistan's role (Kashmir Attack). This false equivalence misleads global audiences and shields Pakistan from scrutiny. Pakistan's Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) effectively shapes narratives, amplifying allegations against India while Western media rarely highlights Pakistan's human rights abuses, such as those against Baloch or Hindu minorities. This skewed reporting influences policy, as seen in the IMF's decision to proceed despite India's protests. Global Stakes: Pakistan's Terror Threat Pakistan's terrorism is a global concern. Beyond India, groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, supported by Pakistan's ISI, have destabilized Afghanistan and attacked Western targets. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, combined with its political instability, heightens risks. Even allies like China face attacks from Pakistan-based groups, yet Western aid continues, often without oversight. The Pahalgam massacre and subsequent bailout highlight a dangerous cycle: economic collapse, international sympathy, funding, and renewed aggression. This cycle threatens not just India but global security, demanding a reevaluation of Western policies. Issue Western Action Proposed Change Financial Aid $1B IMF bailout, May 2025 Halt all aid until terror networks dismantled Ceasefire Role U.S. linked bailout to ceasefire Prevent aid from rewarding aggression Historical Aid $67B U.S. aid (1951-2011) Audit past aid misuse Media Coverage Neutral, equates India-Pakistan Report Pakistan's terror links accurately Global Policy Ignores Pakistan's global threat Support India's counterterrorism efforts Call for Change It's time for India to take a firm stand and demand clarity from the United States: 'Are you with us or against us in the fight against terrorism?" The U.S. must decide whether it stands with India, a democratic nation battling state-sponsored terrorism, or continues to prop up Pakistan, a country whose own defense minister has admitted to supporting terrorist groups for decades. In a recent interview, Pakistan's Defence Minister Khwaja M Asif acknowledged that Pakistan has been doing the 'dirty work" for the U.S. and the West by funding and backing terror groups, particularly during the Soviet-Afghan war and post-9/11. He called this a 'mistake," but the damage has been done, and the threat persists. Given this admission, it is unconscionable for the U.S. to continue providing financial and military aid to Pakistan. The U.S. must commit to a comprehensive strategy to dismantle Pakistan's terror infrastructure, which includes: Cutting off all aid: Immediately halt all financial and military aid to Pakistan until it verifiably dismantles its terror networks and ceases support for groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. Imposing sanctions: Implement economic sanctions on Pakistan to pressure its government into taking concrete actions against terrorism. These sanctions should target key sectors and individuals involved in supporting terrorism. Securing nuclear assets: Given the risks associated with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the U.S. and India should work with international partners to ensure these weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. This could involve diplomatic efforts to bring Pakistan's nuclear program under international supervision or other measures to guarantee their security. Supporting India's counterterrorism efforts: Provide intelligence, military, and logistical support to India in its fight against terrorism. This includes sharing real-time intelligence on terrorist activities and coordinating joint operations when necessary. Furthermore, the international community must recognize that Pakistan's stability is not worth the cost of global security. If Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism, supporting movements for autonomy or independence in regions like Baluchistan and Sindh could be a strategic option to weaken its central government's ability to wage proxy wars. The West's historical support for Pakistan has only emboldened its aggressive behaviour. By cutting off this lifeline and taking a clear stand against terrorism, the U.S. can send a powerful message that nations must choose between supporting terror or standing with the global community against it. U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson has already pledged full support for India's fight against terrorism, promising energy and resources to aid its efforts. It is time for the U.S. administration to follow through on this commitment and take decisive action. Conclusion top videos View all The IMF's $1 billion bailout to Pakistan, following the Pahalgam massacre and tied to a ceasefire, exemplifies a flawed Western approach that rewards terrorism with financial aid. This cycle, rooted in decades of unchecked support and biased media narratives, endangers global security. Pakistan's $130 billion debt ensures these loans are unlikely to be repaid, yet the West persists, ignoring India's warnings. It's time for accountability: cut off aid, impose sanctions, secure nuclear assets, and support India's fight. Only a united stand can dismantle the terror ecosystem Pakistan sustains, fostering a safer world. Sankrant Sanu is the CEO of Garuda Prakashan and tweets at @sankrant. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: May 11, 2025, 20:00 IST News opinion Opinion | When Terror Has A Sugar Daddy
NDTV
01-05-2025
- NDTV
Terrorists Behind Pahalgam Attack Also Killed 6 Labourers, Doctor In 2024
New Delhi: The terror module responsible for the deadly attack on tourists in Pahalgam 's Baisaran Valley on April 22, which killed 26 people, has been linked to a prior attack in 2024 in the Ganderbal district of Jammu and Kashmir, where six labourers and a doctor were killed near the Z-Morh tunnel project in Sonamarg. According to sources, both attacks were carried out by the same Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)-backed terror unit. Several operatives involved in the Pahalgam massacre had previously participated in the Z-Morh attack. One of the terrorists behind the 2024 attack, identified as Junaid Ahmed Bhatt, was killed in an encounter in December that year. Subsequently, two more operatives tied to the same group were neutralised. Intelligence now confirms that Lashkar terrorist Hashim Musa, alias Suleman, who has also been implicated in the Pahalgam killings, played a role in the tunnel attack. The Z-Morh Tunnel Attack: October 2024 The Z-Morh tunnel, also known as the Sonamarg tunnel, was attacked in October 2024, when terrorists opened fire on a workers' camp operated by a private construction company. Seven people were killed including six labourers and a doctor. The tunnel, spanning 6.5 kilometres with an additional 6.05 km of approach roads, connects Srinagar to Kargil. Situated at an altitude of 8,562 feet, it is considered a critical project for the region's year-round connectivity. Victims of the tunnel attack included Dr. Shahnawaz from Budgam, Gurmeet Singh from Gurdaspur in Punjab, Mohammad Haneef, Faheem Nasir (safety manager), and Kaleem from Bihar, Anil Kumar Shukla from Madhya Pradesh (mechanical manager), and Shashi Abrol, a designer from Jammu. All were part of the construction workforce stationed at the site. The terrorists torched two company vehicles and abandoned an INSAS rifle at the scene. Pahalgam Massacre: New Revelations The Pahalgam massacre in April 2025, among the deadliest in recent years, is understood to have been planned over several weeks. According to officials involved in the investigation, members of the Lashkar group arrived in Pahalgam on April 15, conducting reconnaissance at four tourist-heavy locations including Baisaran, Aru Valley, Betaab Valley, and a local amusement park. The group ultimately targeted Baisaran, citing lesser security deployment in the area. Intelligence gained from detained Over Ground Workers (OGWs) revealed that the terrorists stayed in the Baisaran Valley for at least two days before executing the attack. On April 22, at around 1:50 PM, they launched their assault, emerging from the surrounding pine forests. Witnesses reported that the attackers interrogated some victims, asking them to recite Islamic verses. Those who failed were shot at point-blank range. Among the 26 killed were 25 tourists and a local pony handler. Two security personnel, one from the Navy and another from the Intelligence Bureau, were also killed. The entire assault lasted less than ten minutes.
