Latest news with #ZulfikarAliBhutto
New Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Pakistan's perfidy front and centre in foreign capitals
Let me start on a deeply personal note. My father, the late V N Tewari, was a nominated member of the Rajya Sabha. A professor of comparative modern Indian literature, a poet and an author, he conceptualised and vigorously espoused the concept of Punjab, Punjabi and Punjabiyat—the syncretic ethos of Hindus and Sikhs living together in harmony. This was a direct philosophical, ideological and conceptual challenge to Pakistan, that by the 1980s had made Punjab the first frontier in its strategy of bleeding India with a thousand cuts by trying to create communal discord between Hindus and Sikhs. My father was assassinated on April 3, 1984 at our home in Chandigarh. My mother, a Jat Sikh, would have died with him that fateful morning as she grappled with his assassins, except for the fact that my father's killers had run out of bullets. They had expended all of them on him. Faith-based executions such as his started in Punjab way back in the 1980s—from the standard playbook of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence. Conceived on January 24, 1972 at the Multan Conference convened by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the strategy to bleed India with attrition was the modus vivendi Pakistan adopted to avenge the humiliation meted out by India to the West Pakistan Army in Bangladesh. Pakistan wanted nuclear weapons at any cost in order to use them as a shield while it operationalised the proxy war it had envisioned against India.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Pakistan wanted a 48-hour operation, we shut it down in 8: CDS Anil Chauhan on how India foiled Pak's plan
Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan on Tuesday revealed that Pakistan's military was aiming to cripple India within 48 hours through escalated cross-border strikes during Operation Sindoor . However, India's swift and targeted response forced Islamabad to seek de-escalation within just eight hours. 'On the 10th of May, at about 1 am, their (Pakistan's) aim was to get India to its knees in 48 hours,' Chauhan said during a lecture at a university in Pune. 'Multiple attacks were launched and in some manner, they have escalated this conflict, which we had actually hit only terror targets... Operations which they thought would continue for 48 hours, folded up in about 8 hours and then they picked up the telephone and said they wanted to talk,' he added. General Chauhan underlined that the mindset behind Pakistan's actions was not new. He traced it back to 1965 when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto , Pakistan's former Prime Minister and President, told the United Nations Security Council that his country would wage a 'thousand-year war' against India. 'In a 1965 speech to the UN Security Council, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto declared a thousand-year war against India,' the CDS said. 'Recent remarks made by Pakistan Army chief General Asim Munir were reminiscent of those previously propagated against India by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto,' he added. Also read: Pakistan follows a 1000-year war policy against India, says CDS Anil Chauhan Live Events Asim Munir's playbook inspired by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto CDS Chauhan also accused Munir of 'spewing venom against India' just days before the massacre in Pahalgam, where 26 civilians were shot dead in cold blood. Describing the April 22 Pahalgam massacre , General Chauhan said, 'What happened in Pahalgam was profound cruelty towards the victims because all of them were killed with head shots in front of their families and their children and they were shot in the name of religion... which is kind of unacceptable to this modern world.' He said the incident triggered 'huge revulsion' in society and revived memories of past terror attacks India has endured. 'This was not a single act of terror against India. Western nations may have had one or two acts of terror… India has been a victim of maximum terror acts, almost 20,000 people have been killed,' the CDS stated. He added that the core principle behind Operation Sindoor, which followed the Pahalgam killings, was that 'state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan has to stop.' Indian forces remain unfazed and ready General Chauhan emphasised that India's armed forces remained unfazed despite the initial setbacks in the operation. 'India's professional forces have not been impacted by losses,' he said. He explained that both India and Pakistan had built significant new capabilities, but not all had been tested in real combat scenarios. 'There is always an element of risk into it, but as they say, you cannot succeed if you don't take that type of risk. We knew that we have a better counter-drone system.' India did suffer early losses in the air campaign, including fighter jets, Chauhan confirmed over the weekend. 'What I can say is on May 7, in the initial stages, there were losses,' he told Reuters TV — the first official confirmation from a senior defence leader. While Pakistan claimed it had downed six Indian aircraft, including three Rafales, General Chauhan categorically denied this. 'That is absolutely incorrect,' he said in interviews to Reuters TV and Bloomberg TV during the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. He did not disclose the number of jets lost but said the Indian Air Force learned from early mistakes. 'The good part is that we are able to understand the tactical mistake which we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and flew all our jets again, targeting at long range.' By connecting the current crisis to Bhutto's decades-old vow at the UN, General Chauhan painted a picture of continuity in Pakistan's strategy toward India — a long-term, ideological hostility built around state-backed terror and military provocation. But with Operation Sindoor, Chauhan said India had sent a clear message that such provocations would meet with swift and strategic retaliation — even in the face of risk.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Pakistan follows a 1000-year war policy against India, says CDS Anil Chauhan
'What happened in Pahalgam was profound cruelty' Live Events 'India's forces not impacted by losses' 'They wanted India on its knees in 48 hours' (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan on Tuesday said Pakistan has pursued a long-standing, hostile posture towards India rooted in the ideology of a 'thousand-year war', first articulated by its former prime minister and president Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1965.'In a 1965 speech to the UN Security Council, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, former Prime Minister and former President of Pakistan, declared a thousand-year war against India.' He noted that recent comments made by Pakistan Army chief General Asim Munir 'were reminiscent of those previously propagated against India by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto," said General Chauhand while delivering at a lecture at a university in added that Asim Munir, Pakistan's Army General, 'spewed venom against India' just days before the deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, which left 26 civilians dead. He said the thinking behind Operation Sindoor—India's counter-terror operation—was rooted in the understanding that 'state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan has to stop.'Chauhan described the massacre in Pahalgam as a deeply disturbing act of terror, in which the victims were killed in front of their families.'What happened in Pahalgam was profound cruelty towards the victims because all of them were killed with head shots in front of their families and their children and they were shot in the name of religion... which is kind of unacceptable to this modern world,' he said.'This caused a huge revulsion in the society. There was a kind of hatred. It revived memories because this was not a single act of terror against India. Western nations may have had of one or two acts of terror… India has been a victim of maximum terror acts, almost 20,000 people have been killed,' the CDS the resolve of India's armed forces, Chauhan said, 'India's professional forces have not been impacted by losses.'He emphasised that India's military capabilities had been built with calculated risks and foresight.'Both nations (India & Pakistan) had tried to build different kinds of capabilities, so obviously there was an inherent amount of risk into this. None of the capabilities that we had acquired had actually been into the battlefield. There is always an element of risk into it, but as they say, you cannot succeed if you don't take that type of risk. We knew that we have a better counter-drone system," he fresh details on the timeline and aftermath of the conflict that followed the Pahalgam massacre, the CDS said, '...On the 10th of May, at about 1 am, their (Pakistan) aim was to get India to its knees in 48 hours," he attacks were launched and in some manner, they have escalated this conflict, while we had actually hit only terror targets., he operations which they thought would continue for 48 hours, folded up in about 8 hours and then they picked up the telephone and said they (Pakistan) wanted to talk, said the Chief of Defence Staff.
The Print
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Print
Pakistan has no natural tendency to be democratic. Rule of Islam is the priority
So let us see whether these beliefs about Pakistan are true, or merely our own confirmation biases in action, where we evaluate others by our own standards and historical experience. It is my belief that you cannot judge an Islamic state by any standard except the one set by Islam's history. Three other statements made about Pakistan are equally worth questioning. One, Pakistan is a failed state. No state is a failed state unless it is totally incapable of using power to achieve its basic aims. This is far from being the case in Pakistan. Another half-truth is that the country has no self-definition beyond hatred for 'Hindu India'. And yet another assumption, which we have now begun to question, is that religion cannot be a basis for statehood. We started saying this after we helped create Bangladesh, but now we are back to square one, for the post-Hasina Bangladesh government is Islamist and effectively anti-India. We now have two Pakistans to confront, not just one. One of the enduring myths Indians are told about Pakistan is that the real hurdle to peace is its army, which is a state above the state. It is the Pakistani Army that needs to use terror as state policy against a stronger India, and this, in turn, enables the army to retain extraordinary power. That the Pakistani Army chief was recently elevated to the rank of Field Marshal after an indifferent performance in the short, near-war with India seems to reinforce this statement. Victory or defeat, the army will rule. Let's start with the frequently made statement—partially in jest—that other countries have an army, but in Pakistan, the army has a country. There is surely some truth to this, but we must consider other explanations too. Ask yourself, was the Pakistani state any different at the time of Partition, when its army, then run by British Generals, decided to use tribal forces to overrun and take over Jammu & Kashmir? Did a democratically elected Zulfikar Ali Bhutto have any different notions about India than its rapidly Islamising army under Zia ul-Haq? An alternate hypothesis would be that Muslim majority states have no natural tendency to remain democratic or secular, because Islam puts religion above the state, umma (a global community of Muslims) above the nation-state. In the imagined existence of an umma, the existence or non-existence of a state like Pakistan is immaterial. What matters is whether the state, or states, are under the rule of Islam. So, when secular historians point out that Islam does not provide a template for national unity, they are partly wrong. In Islam, a legitimate state must merely follow the sharia; so whether we have one Islamic state or 100, the umma remains one in theory. And this situation does not change whether it is an army that rules or a theocracy (with some notable exceptions). Neither of them is willing to accept the normal checks and balances that apply to any functioning democracy. This is why, despite having lost almost all wars with India and behaving brutally with its own insurgencies in Balochistan, the army is still the most popular institution in Pakistan, with 74 per cent approval ratings. The most important aspect of Islam (as with the Communists) is the acquisition of power, and hence it does not matter whether the person wielding the power is a mullah or a soldier, or someone who combines both functions. So when Field Marshal Asim Munir declares himself to be a believer in the two-nation theory, he is only validating his right to rule over all Muslims in Pakistan. Also read: Pakistan cyber attacked India right after Pahalgam. How govt acted against it Who rules an Islamic country? The ideological underpinnings of Islam start with the Prophet, who combined the roles of political, religious and military head of the community in Medina. His successor Caliphs followed the same policy. Unlike Christianity, which, after repeated clashes between church and state, accepted a bifurcation of sovereignty based on whether something belonged to the temporal sphere or the religious, in Islam, there is no such separation. In both Pakistan and Bangladesh, the military has often dumped the elected government, and the military uses religious authority to remain in power. Among Muslim-majority countries that have had short or long spells of military rule—Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Yemen and Turkey (before Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Islamist party came to power). Even the most benign of Muslim states, Indonesia, had a general, Suharto, as its president for nearly three decades. The rest are either theocratic (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) or ruled by Muslim monarchs. And Nigeria, which is evenly divided between Muslims and Christians, has seen military dictatorships. Boko Haram, one of the most brutal terrorist organisations in the world, wants to turn it into a full-blown Islamic state. Some rulers may be liberal and some conservative, but the idea that the head of the state must represent religious authority is key in Muslim majority states (no doubt, with some honourable exceptions). Malaysia is somewhere in between. Islam is the official religion, but it gives guaranteed political spaces to its minorities as long as they don't threaten Islamic supremacy. The second part of the statement is vital, for it does not imply equal treatment for all religions. A Pew Research survey on Muslim attitudes to Sharia law in 39 countries (India was not surveyed, for some strange reason) found an overwhelming majority of Muslims favouring Sharia. By implication, one can conclude that—since Sharia needs to be imposed from above, by a ruler who has to be Muslim and proclaims Islam as the state religion and sets up laws to align with Sharia—the people who want Islamic law may not object to any ruler who promises them the same. Whether they wear the robes of clerics or military uniforms does not matter. In India's neighbourhood, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have 82-99 per cent of the population supporting Sharia. In Bangladesh, support was 82 per cent, which explains why even with a friendly Sheikh Hasina in place (before last August's student-led coup), the de-Hinduisation of Bangladesh continued. It is the nature of society that determines democracy and inclusion, not whether it is an army running the show or clerics or some more secular dictator. Nothing else can explain the steady decline of Hindus in Bangladesh from 22 per cent after Partition to under eight per cent now. Even when the ruler may be mildly secular, its polity is definitely not on the same page. Also read: India-Pakistan conflict exposed the real danger — China Pakistan will always be a problem The second point, that Pakistan is a country without a positive self-definition, is equally unimportant. Reason: Hatred is a strong binding force for nationhood. It gives the rulers and the population enormous ability to withstand economic deprivation. This is the main reason why Bhutto said that he would eat grass in order to fund the country's efforts to build a nuclear bomb. Hatred for the 'other' is one of the most powerful motivators. In our own Mahabharata, we can note how Ashwatthama's hatred for the Pandavas—for using subterfuge to kill his father Dronacharya in the Kurukshetra war—motivated him to kill almost the entire Pandava clan in the stealth of night. This happened even after the war had formally ended with the killing of Duryodhana. This is why Aman ki Aasha can never trump Pakistani hatred of India. The third point relates to Pakistan's status as an Islamic state, created as a redoubt to strengthen Islam against 'Hindu India'. This idea, too, has its roots in Islamic history, where the Prophet, when he was weak, chose to establish a regime in Medina, where he fused religion with military and political power. Once he gained in strength, he could take over Mecca without a fight, after abrogating the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, a 10-year peace treaty he had signed with the Meccans. Peace is useful only when you are weak. Pakistan, to note a scholarly work by Venkat Dhulipala, was about 'Creating a New Medina' for undivided India's minority Muslims. A Medina is always temporary, and meant to provide a sanctuary to build your strength till you are ready to take on your enemy. Two Medinas or three do not make this template irrelevant to understand what Pakistan is all about. The mere creation of Bangladesh did not enable the country to embrace secularism or pluralism, as it is now becoming apparent. For the future, it also implies that Balochistan may also become another Islamist country once it achieves freedom from Punjabi-ruled Pakistan. We must, of course, support the freedom movement to weaken Pakistan, but we should not be naive enough to believe that it implies a win for secularism in the end. As far as Pakistan is concerned, India has to reckon with the possibility that even if, at some point, its army were to be cut down to size, that country's enmity to 'Hindu India' will not cease. Terrorism could remain a way of life in Pakistan, either as one country or in truncated form, especially since terrorists are integrated into the army and civil society. A smaller Pakistan will become even more prone to foisting terror, since its army can no longer defeat India. What a truncated Pakistan will give us is a brief reprieve. Pakistan, as one unit or many mini-Pakistans, will continue to remain a problem for India, and possibly the world, under army rule or civilian rule. Also read: Asim Munir just stole his 5th star & has nothing to show for it. It'll make him desperate, dangerous Open up for reinterpretation So, what hope is there for peace in the future? The answer lies with thinking and questioning Muslims, who have been intimidated into silence by jihadi elements. It is only when ordinary Muslims start openly questioning the basic tenets of Islam and modifying or reinterpreting them for the modern era that jihadism will start shrinking. It is worth noting that global Islam closed the doors to ijtihad—the use of reason to interpret sacred texts—nearly 10 centuries ago, after briefly trying to begin the process during the 10th and 11th centuries CE. The age of Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd (Avicenna and Averroes to western writers), which dawned when Islamic armies ruled parts of Europe and came in touch with Greek philosophy, died by the end of the 11th century, when Al-Ghazali and the Asherite movement closed the gates to ijtihad and declared the Quran as not subject to revisionist and reason-based interpretations. These trends and the victory of non-reason are brilliantly captured in Robert R Reilly's book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis. The revival of reason and tolerance needs the wider Muslim polity to end this continuing intellectual suicide. Things will change when Muslims reopen ijtihad. The starting point will be reached when they openly disown the idea of the umma as a brotherhood only of Muslims, or that the kafir is undeserving of equal rights. In India, Muslims must see other Indians, especially non-Muslims, as part of their core umma. The word kafir must be outlawed, for it is does not just mean non-believer, but someone worth dehumanising, and made actionable under the law as a put-down. Till then, we must judge Pakistan or any Islamist nation only in the context of Islamic history and experience. And be ready to defend ourselves. R Jagannathan is former Editorial Director, Swarajya. He tweets at @TheJaggi. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
India Gazette
26-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Congress' Pawan Khera lashes out at
New Delhi [India], May 26 (ANI): Congress leader Pawan Khera on Monday launched a sharp attack on Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey for citing former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to criticise the Congress party. In a post on X, Khera pointed to past instances where BJP leaders, including LK Advani and Jaswant Singh, had publicly praised Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. Khera further challenged Dubey's historical claims, accusing him of being a 'broker-turned-pseudo-historian.' In his X post, he wrote, 'Nishikant Dubey quoting Bhutto to attack Congress. Who is giving respectability to Pakistan leaders? But it is no surprise since Mr. Advani and Mr. Jaswant Singh had publicly praised and lauded Mr. Jinnah; Mr Modi got ISI to investigate the Pathankot airbase terror attack.... And this broker-turned-pseudo-historian should know that Sardar Swaran Singh and Mr. Bhutto had six rounds of talks in 1963, but all in India and Pakistan. Not in a 'neutral site' as was mentioned as part of the ceasefire on May 10th 2025, by Dr. Jaishankar's friend, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.' Earlier today, BJP leader Nishikant Dubey shared a declassified 1963 telegram from the US State Department, alleging that former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, were responsible for decisions that led to territorial concessions to Pakistan. In his X post, he wrote, 'Iron Lady Indira Ji and her father Nehru Ji. After the illegal occupation of Kashmir by Pakistan in 1948, again under the pressure of mediation by America and Britain, continuous meetings were held between 1962 and 1964 between the Minister of the Indian government, Swaran Singh, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Read this paper carefully, India had already decided to give back to Pakistan the territory forcibly occupied by Pakistan in Poonch and Uri. The matter did not stop at this; the entire Neelam and Kishanganga valley in Gurez was made the international border along with the Line of Control. The sole reason for India's problems today is the Congress's hand. But with whom?' According to Dubey, India had agreed to return territories in Poonch and Uri, forcibly occupied by Pakistan. It was prepared to designate the entire Neelum and Kishanganga valley in Gurez as the international border along the Line of Control. The document, dated February 9, 1963, details discussions between Indian Foreign Minister Swaran Singh and Pakistan's Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, held under the mediation of the US and Britain, amid Cold War geopolitical pressures. The telegram, sent from Karachi to the US Secretary of State, reveals that India had considered conceding strategic areas like Poonch, Uri, and the Kishanganga Valley to Pakistan as part of a potential settlement. It notes India's reluctance to agree to a vote in Jammu and Kashmir, citing concerns over territorial control, while Pakistan insisted on a full-state vote, leading to a deadlock. The document also highlights U.S. concerns about the risk India took by deviating from the voting framework and the potential for further escalation if no agreement is reached. (ANI)
