Latest news with #Pakistan-abetted
India Gazette
5 days ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
"Ambedkar was a great Indian, we are humbled and proud to be on premises of his home": All-party delegation led by Ravi Shankar Prasad pays tribute in London
London [UK], June 2 (ANI): An all-party Indian delegation, led by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Ravi Shankar Prasad, paid tribute to BR Ambedkar at the Ambedkar Museum in London on Sunday, describing him as a 'great Indian and a social reformer.' Prasad noted that the Indian government had purchased the house where Ambedkar once lived, and the Indian High Commission now maintains it, along with four other sites associated with his legacy, recognized as 'Smriti Sthal.' Speaking to reporters, Ravi Shankar Prasad said, 'We are pleased to be here. Dr Ambedkar lived here for two years in London. The government has bought this house, and the Indian High Commission maintains it. We offered flowers to him. He was a great Indian. All five places related to him are maintained as 'Smriti Sthal'...We are happy to be here. My respect for Dr Ambedkar as he was a great social reformer.' Former Union Minister MJ Akbar said Ambedkar's vision of a new social order and respect for every individual, challenging inconsistencies and inequalities of traditional social hierarchies, remains one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century. Speaking to ANI, Akbar said, 'Dr Ambedkar's vision of a new social order and respect for every individual, challenging inconsistencies and inequalities of our traditional social hierarchies, I think, remains one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century. Today, we feel humbled and proud that we are on the premises of the home where so much of his achievement was conceived before it was brought into practice. He is one of the great people of modern India and the least we can do to pay homage to him is remember him each day.' AIADMK MP, M Thambidurai, called BR Ambedkar a 'great man' and stated that the delegation is pleased to come here to pay its respects to Ambedkar. He noted that India is running a government based on the constitution created by Ambedkar. On paying tribute to Ambedkar, he said, 'A great opportunity as a delegation to come over here. At the same, you have the opportunity to see the memorial place of Dr. Ambedkar. He studied here, spent his time, his knowledge and everything, helped India to frame the constitution and also to uplift the suppressed people. He is a great man. In that way, we are, at the opportunity, happy to see that as a delegation, they have come over here, and it is our bounden duty to come and see the memorial in this place, and also pay our respect to Dr. Ambedkar. Therefore, the constitution has given every right, equal rights. But, India is running the government based on the constitution, democratic way, which our Ambedkar had created. But we are seeing unfortunate things happening in Pakistan, which they are not at all following the constitution and the democracy, which is an unfortunate thing.' Indian High Commission in London said that the all-party delegation recalled that one of the most outrageous examples of Pakistan-abetted and directed terror began in Mumbai on 26 November 2008, on the anniversary of the adoption of our Constitution on that day in 1949, the drafting of which was led by Babasaheb Ambedkar In a post shared on X, the Indian High Commission in London stated, 'All Party Delegation visited Ambedkar Museum in London and paid tributes to Dr. B R Ambedkar on the 75th anniversary of the entry into force of the Constitution of India. In commemorating Babasaheb's leadership and vision, they also recalled that one of the most outrageous examples of Pakistan-abetted and directed terror began in Mumbai on 26 November 2008, on the anniversary of the adoption of our Constitution on that day in 1949, the drafting of which was led by Babasaheb Ambedkar. They emphasized the resolve of Indian democracy to confront and defeat terrorism in all its forms.' Earlier, India's High Commissioner to the UK, Vikram Doraiswami, briefed the all-party delegation on India-UK ties, highlighting the strong diaspora ties and shared challenges in countering terrorism following the Pahalgam terrorist attack and Operation Sindoor. 'The All-Party Delegation was briefed by team @HCI_London led by HC @VDoraiswami on India-UK bilateral relations, highlighting the strong diaspora ties, and shared challenges in countering terrorism in light of #PahalgamTerrorAttack and #OperationSindoor.' An all-party delegation, led by BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad, arrived in London on Saturday (local time) as part of India's global outreach program to convey the country's firm stance against terrorism. The delegation landed in the United Kingdom after completing visits to France, Italy, and Denmark, where they engaged with government officials, diaspora, and other stakeholders to raise awareness about India's zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism. Upon their arrival, Ravi Shankar Prasad said, 'We are here in London. We will keep our stance on terrorism effectively, here. We believe that we will get that support here as well, the way we have received the support in those three countries.' The Indian delegation, led by Ravi Shankar Prasad, includes BJP MP Daggubati Purandeswari, Samik Bhattacharya, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi, Congress MPs Ghulam Ali Khatana and Amar Singh, former Union Minister MJ Akbar, and Ambassador Pankaj Saran is in Copenhagen. 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 in France, the UK, Germany, the EU, Italy and Denmark. (ANI)
Asia Times
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Asia Times
India's little war hands Pakistan wins on multiple fronts
The recent India-Pakistan military confrontation has reshaped domestic political dynamics on both sides of the border. While the guns have fallen silent following a hastily brokered ceasefire between the nuclear powers, the political aftershocks are reverberating across the region. Perhaps the most consequential and surprising outcome has been the unexpected reputational boon for Pakistan's until now embattled establishment, which has managed to consolidate its position amid the crisis. In stark contrast, New Delhi emerges diplomatically isolated and strategically diminished, having squandered an opportunity to both press its case against alleged Pakistan-abetted terrorism and advance regional hegemony on its own terms. Before the conflict, Pakistan's establishment was on the political back foot. Domestically, it faced growing public anger over the perceived manipulation of the February 2024 general elections. Despite intense legal and administrative pressure, candidates backed by former Prime Minister Imran Khan's party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), won the most seats as independents, signalling a powerful wave of public defiance and anger. The resulting power struggle and the formation of a strained coalition government led to widespread protests, judicial scrutiny and a media narrative increasingly critical of the country's power brokers. This was a rare and dangerous moment for Pakistan's traditionally dominant institutions. For months, the establishment had been contending with the erosion of its traditional legitimacy and deepening distrust among the populace. Then came the Pahalgam attack, a terrorist massacre of 26 innocents in Indian-administered Kashmir. New Delhi seized the opportunity, without providing conclusive evidence that the attack was Pakistan-backed, to launch a swift and escalatory response. The Narendra Modi government's reaction, charged with virulent rhetoric and jingoistic posturing, was intended to demonstrate a steely resolve. Heightened troop deployments, zooming air fighters and missile attacks dominated local media coverage. Yet this approach is now viewed as too ham-fisted and lacking diplomatic finesse. Rather than isolating Pakistan and mobilizing international support for its cause, New Delhi overplayed its hand, relying too heavily on the spectacle of military action and underestimating how global actors would respond. The Pakistani establishment, on the other hand, seized the diplomatic moment. By framing its response as defensive and measured, the Pakistan government repositioned itself as the more responsible actor in the military exchanges between the nuclear-armed powers. Pakistan's civil and military leadership emphasized restraint, national unity and the need for peace, while India's actions, however justified from its own security perspective, came across to many observers as needlessly aggressive. This narrative, fanned by fears of a possible nuclear exchange, quickly gained traction across global capitals. Diplomatically, India suddenly found itself without robust backing. The United States, the European Union and key Gulf allies issued boilerplate statements urging de-escalation from both sides that drew a false equivalence that, in effect, undermined New Delhi's core message: that it had suffered yet another terror attack sponsored from across the border. China, having armed Pakistan with the state-of-the-art aerial combat platforms, used the moment to underscore its calls for stability while quietly nudging Pakistan to play the role of regional stabilizer, a role Islamabad was only too happy to adopt with its made-in-China military kit. India's attempt to internationalize its grievances — through backchannel diplomacy and strategic media briefings — failed to gain expected traction. Instead of Pakistan being cornered, it was India that appeared diplomatically isolated. The post-attack narrative had shifted from terrorism to regional tensions. Rather than global condemnation of the militancy at Pahalgam, the prevailing international concern became regional escalation in a nuclear dyad. That shift marked a significant strategic loss for New Delhi. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the crisis has allowed the establishment to reassert its central role in national life. The military, already perceived as the guardian of the country's external security, returned to center stage. Public criticism over election conduct and political interference took a backseat to calls for unity and deference. The ceasefire, a product of swift diplomacy involving third-party interlocutors, including the United States, was presented domestically as a triumph of restraint and balance. The establishment, facing what was arguably its deepest political crisis in years, has emerged from the episode with a renewed credibility. The optics were clear: the military had not only prevented all-out war, it had solemnly protected national sovereignty and forced a regional rival into backing down — all without ceding an inch of ground. What makes this more striking is that Pakistan gained this advantage without adopting a belligerent posture. New Delhi's handling of the crisis inadvertently and ironically strengthened the institutions it had hoped to pressure and undermine through international condemnation. There are, of course, legitimate concerns in India. The Pahalgam attack was a serious security breach, and there are longstanding frustrations over Pakistan's inability or unwillingness to dismantle cross-border militant networks. But, in retrospect, India's strategic misstep was turning a security incident into a regional flashpoint — one that it could not diplomatically control. What might have been a moment for measured diplomatic pressure, smart intelligence-sharing and global consensus-building instead turned into a brief but costly conflict that in the end left India wrong-footed. The recent ceasefire may have ended the shooting, but it has exposed a new strategic reality: in a region shaped as much by perception as by raw power, diplomacy matters as much as deterrence. In this round, Pakistan's establishment understood that better — and played it to their advantage.
