High Commissioner, what was your initial response upon hearing about the terrorist attack in Pahalgam?
It is a very reprehensible and barbaric killing. Since I have had, in my previous capacities, some association with our relationship with our western neighbour, my mind went back to a number of those terrorist attacks which have unfortunately been mounted on India from across the border – namely, the Pakistan-sponsored Parliament attack in 2001, the horrific attacks in Kashmir, and the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai in which more than 160 people, including Australians, lost their lives.
I also thought of the Bali bombings in 2002 and 2005, because the nature is very similar – the 88 Australians who were unfortunately killed were there for enjoying at a tourist place. Similarly, Pahalgam was also a tourist place; 23 million people have visited Kashmir for tourism in the last year alone. The only difference here as compared to Bali was that the victims were singled out based on their religion, and shot point blank in front of their families – even children were not spared – and the families were then exhorted to take back the message. The Pahalgam terrorist attack was clearly aimed at driving a communal divide and pulling down the booming tourism economy of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
What makes India confident that these terrorists were directed from Pakistan? Is there any evidence India can share to support this claim?
Even before we claimed anything, on 22 April, an outfit called The Resistance Front (TRF) had claimed responsibility for this gruesome terrorist attack. Perhaps not satisfied with claiming it once, they claimed it a second time on 23 April.
By that time, perhaps the ramifications of the scale of this attack, the anguish it had provoked in India, and the condemnation it had evoked the world over, was evident to the handlers of these terrorist attacks and the terrorists who carried it out, so TRF retracted the claim.
I don’t know if you have followed it, Pawan, but the claims related to TRF and Pahalgam terrorist attack were also amplified by the social media handles, for example, of the Lashkar e Taiba, of which TRF is a front organisation.
Lashkar e Taiba, as you know, is a terrorist organisation banned by the United Nations. This is not the first time we’ve heard of this resistance front. In our submission to the United Nations Committee which monitors these organisations and the sanctions on them – called the 1267 Committee – the Government of India had said that there is this entity called the TRF, which is a front for the LaT, and they are involved in terrorist attacks on India. So this is the first set – these people claiming it, but then retracting the claim, something like a mea culpa, Chor ki dadi me tinka, as we say in Hindi.
But we also knew about this resistance front from before, all related to the attack itself. We of course have understanding about the communication notes of the terrorists with their handlers and supporters back in territory under Pakistan’s control.
Our intelligence agencies have worked out how this attack shaped up. Related to all this is the track record of Pakistan, at the global hub of terrorism, not only directed against India. Unfortunately, we have borne the brunt of it, but also many other countries in the world, and an untold number of people have suffered from the terrorism emanating out of Pakistan.
But High Commissioner, while India calls it out as terrorism coming from Pakistan, do you think the rest of the world also calls it out as such – or do they need to do so louder and clearer, after seeing what happened less than a month ago in India?
Pawan, that’s a very good question. Two things – one, within 24 hours of the terrorist attack, certainly on the very next calendar date 23 April, the Prime Minister of Australia Anthony Albanese, who was in intense election campaign at that time, called Prime Minister Modi, taking out time from his election campaign, and condemned the terrorist attack. There was no ambiguity there.
So also Foreign Minister Penny Wong, and a number of global leaders, countries friendly to us, close to us geographically.
There was general condemnation of the terrorist attack, the manner in which it was conducted, and the message it wanted to send.
This afternoon I have spoken to my friend Prime Minister @narendramodi to offer my condolences on behalf of Australia following the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir.
The horrific loss of life of innocent civilians is an act of senseless violence which has shocked the world.…— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) April 23, 2025
At the same time, the second aspect is, that in many places, and I’m sorry to say in some segments of the media and discussions, we have seen a hesitation to call them out as terrorist attacks – not only with regard to the Pahalgam terrorist attack, but other terrorist attacks which took place in India in the past.
And this is what the people of India sometimes don’t understand – why some attacks are called terrorist attacks, and sometimes these are called ‘incidents’ and [their perpetrators] ‘militants’ or ‘gunmen’.
The broader point here, is that if we do not call out all terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, then what happens is that it effectively leads to a weakening in some way of the global fight against terrorism.
WATCH: Gopal Baglay on India-Pak: ‘We will not distinguish between terrorists and their supporters & won’t tolerate nuclear blackmail’ | The Pawan Luthra Podcast
Why do foreign governments and media apply a different standard when it comes to terrorism in India? Do you think India’s closest friends, especially in the QUAD, should be clearer about calling it out and where it is coming from?
Well, this is a question you have to ask them who use those terms. But in in, in my understanding, I think at the government level and not only in the public statements, the conversations we had, I had personally, during the period from 22 April, right up till yesterday, we have had very clear support from the Government of Australia, but yes, I do see that there are certain segments in many places in the world which use these double standards.
In response to this senseless act, India launched Operation Sindoor. What were the strategic objectives, and have they been achieved?
Absolutely achieved 100%. Soon after the barbaric attack the Prime Minister said that we will be bringing down the terrorist infrastructure which has supported the background terrorist attack. So Operation Sindoor was launched with the objective to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan which has over four decades supported this and similar terrorist attacks in the past. Nine targets were very carefully chosen. Our response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam was very measured, focused, calibrated and non-escalatory in nature. And despite claims in some places in the world, in social media, by certain other people in positions of authority in other places, everyone in the world now who follows these things in some serious manner, knows that those places which we chose to target have been destroyed.
Can you comment on the losses we sustained – in terms of both manpower and machinery?
The biggest loss is the 26 lives which were taken away in the barbaric Pahalgam terrorist attack, and those of our citizens killed in Pakistan’s discriminate shelling and targeting of schools, religious sites and civilians.
Our Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence have carried out detailed briefings on operational aspects. Pakistan’s nefarious attacks on our military facilities could not score any significant hit. On the contrary, India’s response overwhelmed Pakistan’s air defence and damaged extensively key air bases -Noor Khan and Rahim Yaar Khan among them, with surgical precision.
We are proud of our Armed Forces and countrymen who stood in solidarity against Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism and its unprovoked military aggression against our civilians and military facilities. We salute our brave for defending their Motherland and compatriots with their skills, sweat and blood.
High Commissioner, ceasefire is in place now, but is it truly time to breathe easy?
What I can tell you, is that terrorists and their supporters cannot breathe easy. After Operation Sindoor, they know that a terrorist who is working against India or intends to work against India and is preparing for it, is not safe anywhere in Pakistan.
Their supporters know this, and they know that if there is any cross-border terrorist attack on us, we will retaliate, we will go after the terrorists and their supporters. You would have perhaps seen the Prime Minister’s address to the nation on the 12 May, he has made it absolutely clear that there will be no tolerance to terrorism; we will not distinguish between the terrorists and their supporters and we will also not be cowed down by the nuclear blackmail in responding to the cross-border terrorism, because Pakistan conducts these cross-border terrorist attacks under a nuclear cover – thinking that because it has nuclear weapons, India would not hit. But since Uri 2016, it would have realised that its escalating terrorist attacks have invited a more intense response from India.
I do want to point out that the Prime Minister’s speech particularly sent a message about aggression rather than peace. Is it proof that India has had enough?
The Prime Minister’s speech – and he mentioned this in his address – was incidentally on 12 May, which was also Buddha Jayanti or Buddha Purnima, the day on which Gautam Buddha was born, attained enlightenment and also attained Mahaparinirvana. So the Prime Minister said, the path to peace is through strength: Shanti ka rasta shakti se ho kar jata hai. I think his message is absolutely very clear.
President Donald Trump first announced the ceasefire on social media, followed by official statements from India and then Pakistan. He has claimed credit for the ceasefire multiple times, even suggesting that he would mediate a settlement between the two countries. Does this shift the dynamics between India, Pakistan and the Kashmir issue?
Well, there are three aspects to the questions you asked, Pawan. The first is how the ceasefire came about. As the Prime Minister had made it amply clear in his address, this was the result of a direct conversation between the Directors General of Military Operations of India and Pakistan. I can also mention to you, that our authorities were approached on the morning of 10 May from the Pakistan side, for a conversation between their DGMO with our DGMO, the Director General of Military Operations. Now you and your readers would recall that it was the night of 9 and 10 May, in which Pakistan tried to launch some ballistic missiles, but which were intercepted. In retaliation we had hit about a dozen of their air bases and facilities, with devastating effect. And so obviously some of that had compelled the Pakistanis perhaps to reach out to us. And finally, the conversation between the Directors General of Military Operation of India and Pakistan, at the initiative of the Pakistan side, took place in the afternoon, I think around 3:30 or 335 Indian Standard Time on 10 May. And when the DGM of Pakistan offered a ceasefire, we agreed because as you know, we have only responded to the initial escalation, which was in the form of the terrorist attack and then Pakistan’s military action after that, when they launched artillery fire and drones and then escalated to it. So that’s how the ceasefire at 5:00 PM IST on 10 May came about.
This is the first aspect.
The second aspect is about dialogue between India and Pakistan.
Look, it’s not [just] today – in 2016, when the Pathankot attack took place, we had made it very clear that talk and terrorism cannot go together. And we had also said that blood and water do not, cannot, flow together. You heard the Prime Minister reiterate these principles on 12 May in his address to the nation.
The third aspect is Kashmir.
Well, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in many places in the world about Kashmir being the cause of conflict between India and Pakistan.
I do not think that is correct, either historically or conceptually or geopolitically. There are many reasons why Pakistan has had an obsession with India and to take on India militarily. Ever since its inception in 1947, it has tried to take Kashmir by force. And Kashmir, as you know, had acceded to the Union of India perfectly legally, and it was Pakistan which launched an attack – with its soldiers disguised as tribals. We reached Srinagar Valley and beyond, and our forces discovered that those were not tribals in any way, they were Pakistan soldiers.
Cut to 1999. Kargil. Pakistan’s soldiers occupied the territory. They fought the Indian forces, ultimately having to walk away from this misadventure. But you know what? They even refused to accept the bodies of their soldiers. There is enough information about this in the public domain that we had to bury the bodies of their soldiers. So here is a country, which has nefarious designs on the territory of another country, its neighbour, and has not made one, but at least four attempts, by force, by violence, by military means, to take the territory to control the territory, but has failed each time. And does not have even the courage to accept that it is its soldiers which have died in the battle with Indians. The only thing we need to discuss with Pakistan on Kashmir, is about Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, which has been in its illegal possession since 1948.
The media’s heightened coverage of the military engagement significantly intensified public sentiment, fostering expectations of a full-scale war. With the announcement of a ceasefire, public frustration shifted towards government spokespersons who had delivered daily briefings. How is the government managing public emotions while pursuing national security priorities?
While I don’t wish to comment on media coverage of the rapid developments, clearly a frenzy was built up by false propaganda in Pakistan, led from senior levels of its civilian and military establishments. Pakistan reached out to the Government of India on 10 May through bilateral official channels seeking ceasefire, to which we agreed. It has by and large held after initial violation by Pakistan late on 10 May itself, which compelled our Armed Forces to respond.
India’s democratic traditions not only allow, but encourage freedom of expression and of opinion, including against senior government functionaries. The unwarranted and shameful comments in social media by a minuscule minority of netizens however, don’t deserve to be glorified with any attention, much less any comment.
Thank you, High Commissioner, for your time. All the best to you, and salutes to our servicemen and women guarding our borders.
READ MORE: India Pakistan conflict 2025: Seeking clear direction in the fog of war
