Pakistan ‘A Master of Denial,’ India Merely Responding To Terror Attack: Dr. Shashi Tharoor

Summary

Dr. Shashi Tharoor, Indian Congress leader, discusses India's response to terrorism and the tensions between India and Pakistan. He emphasizes India's restrained retaliation against Pakistani-backed terrorism, arguing that India only responds in self-defense. Tharoor criticizes Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism and its refusal to acknowledge evidence of its involvement in attacks on India. While expressing that India does not seek war, he asserts that Pakistan must stop its provocations. Tharoor suggests international pressure, particularly from China, could help de-escalate the situation. He also stresses India's unity in facing the crisis and its commitment to defending its sovereignty.

Takeaways

• 😀 India is not seeking war with Pakistan but will respond if provoked by terrorism or military actions.
• 🛑 India's military actions have been described as calibrated and precise, targeting known terrorist bases and avoiding civilian casualties.
• ⚔️ India has repeatedly emphasized that any escalation is a result of Pakistan's provocations, not an initial act of aggression from India.
• 🕊️ Dr. Shashi Tharoor asserts that India is a status quo power and does not desire to annex territory or escalate conflicts.
• 💥 Despite accusations of civilian casualties, India justifies its actions by stating that the targets were known terrorist bases, not civilian infrastructure.
• 💬 Pakistan has denied involvement in various terrorist attacks, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks, but India points to circumstantial and intelligence evidence.
• 🌍 India does not seek international mediation but wants Pakistan to stop sponsoring terrorism and cease hostilities for peace to prevail.
• 💡 The name of India's military operation, 'Operation Sindur,' symbolized the emotional impact of the terrorist attacks and reflected the tragic loss of innocent lives.
• 📊 Tharoor critiques the notion of equivalence between the two nations, emphasizing that India adheres to a no-first-use nuclear policy, while Pakistan has implied its willingness to use nuclear weapons.
• 🕵️‍♂️ Tharoor warns that while India has exercised restraint, Pakistan’s continued provocations could lead to further escalation, with the potential involvement of global powers like China and the United States to influence peace.
• 🤝 Despite political differences within India, there is a strong consensus on standing with the government in national defense and rejecting terrorism as a means to resolve disputes.

Q & A

What was India's response to the terrorist attack and how did it differ from Pakistan's reaction?

India's response was a measured and precise act of self-defense, targeting only known terrorist bases and avoiding civilian casualties. Pakistan, however, responded with overreactions, including artillery shelling and the use of drones and missiles, escalating the conflict.

What does Dr. Shashi Tharoor say about Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism?

Dr. Tharoor suggests that Pakistan has a long history of sponsoring terrorism, pointing to past incidents like the Mumbai attacks and the sheltering of Osama bin Laden. He claims that Pakistan frequently denies its involvement in terrorist activities despite circumstantial evidence.

How does Dr. Tharoor describe India's stance on the conflict with Pakistan?

India is described as a 'status quo' power, focused on its economic growth and national development. It does not seek territorial gains from Pakistan but simply wants to defend itself against terrorism. India has no desire for war, and only reacts when provoked.

What is the significance of the name 'Operation Sindur' as explained by Dr. Tharoor?

The name 'Operation Sindur' is emotionally significant as it refers to the vermilion mark that married women wear on their foreheads. Dr. Tharoor explains that it symbolizes the loss of innocent life, such as that of a newlywed woman who was widowed during the terrorist attack in Pahalgam.

What evidence does Dr. Tharoor offer to support India's claim that Pakistan sponsors terrorism?

Dr. Tharoor highlights circumstantial evidence and intelligence intercepts, pointing out that Pakistan has consistently denied its involvement in terrorist attacks, such as the Mumbai attacks, and has sheltered known terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

Why does Dr. Tharoor believe that diplomacy with Pakistan is currently unfeasible?

Dr. Tharoor argues that past diplomatic efforts have been undermined by Pakistani-sponsored terrorist attacks. India is unwilling to engage in talks with Pakistan while it continues to support terrorism, viewing Pakistan's actions as a barrier to meaningful dialogue.

How does Dr. Tharoor view the potential role of international powers in de-escalating the conflict?

Dr. Tharoor suggests that international powers, such as China and the United States, could play a role in de-escalating the situation. China, in particular, could influence Pakistan due to its strong economic ties with the country, while the U.S. could urge restraint from both sides.

What is India's stance on the use of nuclear weapons in the conflict, according to Dr. Tharoor?

India maintains a 'no first use' policy regarding nuclear weapons, meaning it would not initiate a nuclear strike. Dr. Tharoor contrasts this with Pakistan, which has implied a willingness to use nuclear weapons first, creating a dangerous asymmetry between the two nations.

What does Dr. Tharoor predict for the future of the India-Pakistan conflict?

Dr. Tharoor predicts that Pakistan has the power to de-escalate the situation by halting its provocations. If Pakistan continues its military actions, India will retaliate, but ultimately, he hopes the situation will be defused without further conflict.

How does Dr. Tharoor describe the unity within India regarding the conflict with Pakistan?

Dr. Tharoor emphasizes that there is unanimous support across the Indian political spectrum for the government's actions in defending the nation. Even the opposition Congress party stands in solidarity with the government, despite domestic political differences.