The High Commissioner underscored the precision and moderation of India’s response to the April 22 terrorist attack, noting that the original escalation was done by Pakistan when they killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam.
He clarified that India did not strike Pakistan’s military establishment or national infrastructure, aiming to avoid military escalation.
“The original escalation is Pakistan’s sponsored terror groups’ attack on our civilians in Pahelgam on April 22… Our response thereafter was precise, targeted, reasonable, and moderate. It was focused principally and solely on terrorist infrastructure,” the High Commissioner said.
“We did not strike the Pakistmilitary establishment, we did not strike national infrastructure, and we made it abundantly clear that the object of this exercise was clearly to avoid military escalation. The fact was actually acknowledged in a left-handed way by the Pakistani side in terms of their official statements, which said that the airspace hadn’t been violated and that no military establishments were attacked,” he added.Doraiswami pointed out that the images shared by Pakistan itself depicted well-known terrorism infrastructure sites associated with groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizbul Mujahideen.”The images that they put out themselves – these were at places well known and identified for many, many years as central points in the terrorism infrastructure of Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen, well-known parts of that infrastructure,” he stated.
Regarding Pakistan’s claim of downing Indian fighter jets, Doraiswami questioned the credibility of such assertions.
“You had the (Pakistani) Defence Minister on your show and he said that the evidence for that was on social media and by that yardstick today’s media all over India has reported the shootdown of two Chinese-made fighter jets and an F-16,” he remarked.
He suggested that Pakistan could have used such claims as an “off-ramp” to de-escalate but continued escalating instead.
He further probed the rationale behind Pakistan’s retaliation, drawing parallels to Pakistan’s handling of evidence related to the investigation of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, where substantial information was provided but allegedly used to “hide their tracks”.
“If you go all the way back to 2008, to the Mumbai terror attacks, where a substantial amount of information and material and material evidence was provided to the world and to Pakistan, which made the same generous offer of cooperation, all they’ve used it for is to hide their tracks and to take away fundamentally what are assets of their deep state,” he stated.
On the concern over the China factor, as it was the leading weapons provider for Pakistan, Doraiswami expressed confidence, noting China’s relationship with India and the measured statements from the Chinese foreign office.
“I don’t see why we should…the Chinese have a relationship with us also… Statements from their foreign office have been, by the broad metrics of the reactions elsewhere,” he said, adding that it is for Pakistan to decide whether to use defence imports for self-defence or to attack other countries.
“This has been the problem even with materials supplied by the UK or by the US in the past. Essentially, it’s been taken on the guise of fighting terror,” he noted.
