Balakot airstrike may not force pakistan to stop aiding terror. but we have raised the cost gautam bambawale – the financial express e payment electricity bill mp

############

With the (surgical strikes) for the first time in 2016, and now again in 2019, what we have indicated is that the people of India have had it up to their necks in suffering from terrorist activities. Also, we have indicated — and the government can take credit for the bold and brave decision — that if Pakistan will not control terrorists, then we will go and strike them inside Pakistan. That is what has changed. A lot of people are describing it as a new template that has been brought to the table. I agree with electricity flow chart that assessment. It is no one’s case that one surgical strike, or one aerial strike, would force Pakistan to stop aiding and abetting terrorism. But we have increased and raised the costs for them to do this.

There is no doubt that it was a risky operation. But a lot of people in India are now saying that look, if Pakistan is not going to stop aiding and abetting terrorism, then we must take our own steps. These people are asking questions of our government. I think this government has only answered those questions by undertaking the surgical strikes of 2016 and the aerial strikes of 2019. I am sure the people in the government would have considered all the action-reaction scenarios, and only after assessing them astrid y gaston lima reservations would have decided to go ahead with it.

The situation then was slightly different from what it is now. When the surgical strikes took place, the Pakistanis decided to deny it. And then they were not forced to react to it either. Regarding the decision to carry out those strikes, there were a number of options on the table. I cannot reveal the details, but I am very confident that the same options, maybe a few more, were on the table this time as well.

Much before the surgical strikes took place, and may be even before the attack on Uri, I had a long chat with the then foreign secretary, S Jaishankar, during one of my visits to New Delhi in 2016. One of the things he told me was that there was something building up. He said he did not know electricity projects for class 12 what will happen or what options will the government choose, but said if some action was taken against Pakistan, one of his primary concerns was to ensure that Indians at the High Commission in Islamabad remained safe. He asked me to prepare for a situation wherein everyone working at the Indian High Commission could be locked down in a safe place. We did actually prepare for that, and when the surgical strikes took place, we spent four days locked down in a safe place within the Indian High Commission.

No, I am not saying that. My limited point is that the foreign secretary had enough foresight to visualise that we may get into a situation where the safety of the people in the High Commission in Islamabad could be at stake. He said that once he did not have to worry about the safety of Indians in Islamabad, he would be free to consider all options. So it is not that we had already decided to carry out surgical strikes before Uri. No, not at all.

Firstly, in such situations we are not looking at benefit or loss, or victory or defeat. We are not thinking in those terms at all. The fact on the ground is that there is a lot of terrorism emanating from Pakistan. And we want to do something to raise the costs, to dissuade the other country from exercising this kind of option. I also want to say that electricity in indian states the military strikes did indeed happen. We can quibble over whether 25 terrorists were killed or 200. That is something that we do not know about. But I believe that the strikes took place and were successful. That is also the most important part. That is the message. The message was not that 200 people were killed. The message was that we can undertake such an exercise to attack terrorist bases and infrastructure. And I think that message has been sent not just to the world but even to Pakistan.

The situation is not easy for China. From their perspective, terrorism is an issue that they realise is a problem across the world, including in China. The Chinese position on terrorism is very clear — they oppose it in all its forms and manifestations. On the other hand, they have this very close, tight strategic, economic, military relationship with Pakistan. Whatever they said at the time could also be due to the fact that our Foreign Minister was scheduled to go to China (for the Russia-India-China meeting). They were a little worried that she may cancel if they push too much. But the kind of reaction that came from the Chinese, even from the RIC meeting, I would say, is a step forward. It is much better for India than it has been in the past.

On the specific issue of listing of Masood Azhar as a terrorist, I think we need to be transactional with China. If there is something that we can gas in babies treatment do for China — say at the UN, there is an important election where they want us to vote for them — we should ask for a quid pro quo. I say this because last year when the grey listing of Pakistan took place at the Financial Action Task Force meeting, we were able to do this kind of transactional bargain with the Chinese. I think we can do it again. The timing is right. There is enough momentum internationally to get him listed.

I don’t think there is a deep-seated hatred for Indians among Pakistanis. The problem is that this terrorism, which is aided, abetted, supported, financed, by Pakistan, is bleeding us. That is the main thing that people in India would want to be stopped. You can discuss all kinds of things — music, literature — with gas tax in ct Pakistanis very easily, but the moment it comes to bilateral issues there is a difference of opinion. It is because there is too much emotion involved, and it goes back to the times of Partition.

Imran Khan is not the first PM to say he wants talks. There were many before him. For us, we have seen this happening before. The point is that if you want to have some sort of talks between India and Pakistan, I don’t believe that the right way to do it is to start at the prime ministerial level. This is one of the reasons gas knife lamb why we did not achieve success at the Agra talks in 2001. I would say that whenever we decide to talk to Pakistan, it should start at the lower levels. So you have to have preparatory talks at whatever level it is decided and then build up to a prime ministerial meeting.

Secondly, after the Pulwama attack, Imran Khan said ‘give us proof and we will investigate’. Once again, this is an old record that has been played many times earlier. I want to go back to 2016. The moment the Pathankot attack took place, Nawaz Sharif said the same thing. At the time, we decided to believe them. We allowed their team, which included people from the military and the intelligence, to come to India, and the government faced a lot of flak for it. We gave them all the possible proof. It didn’t go anywhere after that.

Sometimes you decide to place trust in these things. I think it was the first time in decades, if not ever, when we actually allowed a Pakistan investigation team to come. The idea was to share all the information that we have. Taking them to Pathankot was a decision at the highest levels of the government. We did not take them to sensitive parts of the base. We only allowed them access to areas that are relatively less sensitive.

The OIC has recognised the anomaly that one of the countries with the biggest Muslim population was not part of the OIC, and this is a recognition of the facts on the ground. At the same time, we should not think that suddenly the OIC has changed its position completely. This is a process. And it is a process that will unfold in the next 15-20 years. Our participation in the OIC is a turning point gas unlimited, an important inflection point in our relations with West Asia and Islamic countries.

According to the Geneva Convention, they would have had to release him at some point in time. I think the way it must have happened is that Prime Minister Imran Khan might have said that if we have to release him after a few days, why not give him up today and claim credit for it. I hope that is what has happened because it then means that he has been able to convince the military authorities in Pakistan to do this. That is relatively a good thing. I think it was a goodwill gesture, even if it came gas oil ratio for leaf blower under international pressure.

I want to make only two points. Firstly, it is incumbent on any government that has signed or is party to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to give consular access, and till today, Pakistan has not given it to us. Our whole case at the International Court of Justice is this — that you have an international law that provides for consular access and these guys have not given it. The second point is that when a military court undertakes a hearing, we don’t know what happens. We don’t know whether there was anyone to defend him. So that sort of proceeding is bad in law, and hopefully will be turned down by any international court.

You have to factor in the fact that India and China not only do not have a common boundary but we don’t even have a common line of control. When you add to that the fact that both sides have better technology, better roads, better communication… What is beginning to happen is that the militaries of India and China, which used to be fairly far apart, are now coming closer to each other. Both India and China are also conscious not to push the envelope.

We decided that static electricity review worksheet after the confrontation at Doklam, it was important to keep talking to each other. Both countries were able to talk to each other through diplomatic channels. And we agreed to have an informal summit between the leaders. The two leaders spent about eight to 10 hours together. In a formal setting, meetings usually don’t last for more than an hour or so. They were able to cover a lot of topics… It helped clear the air, clear the misunderstandings. It was not an agenda-less meeting. Certain topics were agreed for talks. They covered that and much more.