CC-Transcript

• 00:00Where do we go from here? Are we inching closer to a war between the two countries? Well, thank you for having me on your show. As Linda, I would say that what is important is to know that there has been a major terrorist attack in India. A number of people have been killed for no other reason than being at the wrong place at the wrong time and having the wrong religion as far as the perpetrators of terrorism is concerned. Now, this what we are seeing today is that the reaction to those to that terrorist attack. But this is not an isolated case. Pakistan has used terrorism as an instrument of its policy for many decades now. You would recall in 2008, we had the horrendous Mumbai attack that killed a number, a very large number of civilians all across Mumbai. It included American and Israeli nationals. And then in 2019, there was the Pulwama attack in which a very large number of, you know, our security forces were were killed. And at that time, there was international outrage. I think the United States and many other countries were very firm that India had the right to defend itself. And so we had a hiatus. You know, terrorism stopped for some time. And we thought that Pakistan had sort of, you know, withdrawn from its policy of using terrorism to advance its interests as far as India was concerned. But this attack, I think, has as sort of brought back the same concerns that Pakistan is using terrorism. The sense in India is that unless you are able to retaliate, unless there is suitable deterrence, that Pakistan will continue to use terrorism and increase the scope of the use of terrorism as part of its policy. And I think that is something that we cannot allow. And what you are seeing today is really a consequence of that action that I think has but has led to, you know, a number of reactions, including Pakistani attempts at act, you know, diverting right attention by opening fire on the line of control. I just want to put it out there. Harsh that Pakistan has denied responsibility for the attack. And we’ve seen reaction from Prime Minister Modi. Pretty strong words from him. Let’s take a listen to what he had to say. I say to the whole world, India will identify, track and punish our study and our backyard. We will pursue them through that and our. Harsh. What will shape India’s response? We know that both sides have retaliated in terms of diplomatic measures they’ve taken. They’ve issued threats to to to each other. What will shape India’s response from here? So I think the Prime Minister has made it clear that, you know, those who are terrorists and those are sponsors of terrorism will be will be pursued. They will not be spared. How would that policy on boards have to be seen? You know, countries respond to terrorism in different ways in the wake of 911, the United States, you know, attacked two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan. And I think, you know, Israel has both taken its own steps against terrorism. Many countries across the world have responded very strongly here. We are saying that we will go after terrorists and those who sponsor them and that it is infrastructure wherever they exist. If there are, you know, camps that train and support terrorists and, you know, help them cross over the border, then those camps will be targeted. So it is it is if you take the last incident that Pulwama in 2019. India’s policy was to attack some of the camps that were harboring terrorists who were to be sent across the border to perpetrate acts of terrorism. There was it was a limited strike. This time, I think the response, you know, would be in different ways. But I think India will choose this time and place. It would not necessarily be knee jerk. And what is important is that it has to be a salutary lesson that terrorism will not be and that it cannot be an instrument of a foreign policy. But I guess the question is really what’s the threshold? I mean, if you talk about the response in 2019, 2016, it will be no less than what we saw them. Is that a fair assumption? Absolutely. I think, you know, it is not a question of proportionate response. It’s a question of what dissuades those who planned such terrorist actions from this in the future. I mean, that the chief of army staff of Pakistan made a very telling speech a few days before the terrorist attacks saying Kashmir with that juggler. And he made a number of statements. And I and that gave a sense that Pakistan was planning something on these lines to order out of the terrorists have been identified as residents of Pakistan. Are there enough indications to, you know, say that they are members of what is the Lashkar e Taiba, one of the most wanted terrorist groups proscribed by the U.N. Security Council? And from all intents and purposes, you know, the way this was organized, planned and orchestrated, the terrorists have been supported and sponsored from across the border by the deep state in Pakistan. And from that perspective, I think, you know, those who are in the know will absolutely pinpoint their targets and would make sure that, you know, but this sort of policy, as I said, will not be. So how the response will come is not is not it’s not possible to see it, but it has to be, you know, a suitable deterrence. Right. That would not encourage such actions. What do you make of the timing of the attack? Harsh, because it came at a time when, you know, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance was actually in the country for the first time, and it is not the first time that such an attack has happened when a key U.S. figure is in the country. Back in 2000, just a day, I think less than 24 hours before the arrival of Clinton to the country, we saw attacks as well. You’re absolutely right. I recall when President Trump visited India in 2020, I think it was February 2020. There were, you know, communal violence broke out in certain parts. You know, certain suburbs of the capital seemed to be orchestrated and seem to be designed to attract attention or distract attention from that important visit. This time, the immediate, you know, I would say possibility of a provocation for the fourth terrorist attack might have been the visit of Vice President Joe events. It’s an important visit from the United States. And the idea was to was to not only garner attention, but to show that there were vulnerabilities in India. At the same time, I think on a longer term perspective. There is a sense that the success of India’s what is the in mainstreaming Jammu and Kashmir and the people of Jammu and Kashmir understanding that there was a peace dividend, that they were also stakeholders in that process and with the with the vast number of tourists coming into Kashmir, more than 20, 20 million tourists visit Kashmir in 2023, 2024. Every Kashmiri was a stakeholder in that process. So all of these, I think I mean, these actions are designed to prevent. And it has I mean, because tourists have stopped going to genuine Kashmir. And that has, I think, been a very great motivation. Besides, of course, India’s own growth, economic growth and development and the fact that India could benefit from a plus one policy. Today, I will also say that Pakistan is the proxy. The Russian foreign minister admitted that a proxy to do the dirty work for the world. He talks about doing the dirty work for the United States, for the UK today they’re doing the dirty work by other northern neighbour. So the issue is that they are, I think, proxies and they are there to, I think, act as a spoiler out there. Their utility, you know, lies and acting as spoiler in ensuring that things don’t work and Europe to actually pay them off to ensure that they don’t do these things. Harsh. Of course, we know Pakistan will say otherwise, but what do you make of India’s intelligence gathering? Why has it been so difficult for India to actually catch and secure those people responsible for the attack? So 23.6 million tourists visited Jammu and Kashmir last year. And if you can imagine, that number of 65,000 foreign tourists as well. So that number of tourists spreading across, you know, the other valley sitting across Jammu, it’s difficult to protect each and every individual. And I think a lot of tourists were lulled by the fact that it was it seemed to be, you know, Kashmir seem to be returning back to the days in which people could bu exist. And what and, you know, even Pakistan would understand that there was no, you know, sanctity, there was no benefit to, you know, using terrorism as an instrument of policy that they seem to be coming around to the fact that you could, you know, you could abjure terrorism by the policy. And so these tourists, I think a lot of them by sense of I mean, you know, being being completely comfortable with their surroundings. So what I’m trying to say is it’s difficult to predict each and every tourist. It’s difficult for security forces to be in every place. And, of course, you know, you also count on the fact that, you know, there was much less support for any such actions within Kashmir. But clearly, this was an act that was planned and perpetrated from across the border. Harsh. Yes.