ON MAY 8, 1999, Captain Iftekhar of the 6 Northern Light Infantry was sitting in an isolated post with a junior officer, Lance Hawaldar Abdul Hakim, and 12 other Pakistani soldiers.
They noticed a few Indian shepherds grazing their animals some distance away. The soldiers went into a huddle to figure out how to deal with the situation.
The Pakistanis were armed to the teeth and it was not difficult for them to apprehend the civilians. But Iftekhar decided against it because capturing them would mean sharing their limited ration with the shepherds.
He allowed them to return.
That was a mistake the Pakistani soldiers would go on to regret.
The shepherds left the area only to return with Indian soldiers, who scanned the area with their binoculars, and later they also quietly returned.
But that was not the end of the story. It was the beginning of a bloody war between the Asian neighbours, both armed with nuclear weapons. The theatre of military exchange was Jammu and Kashmir, claimed by both India and Pakistan.
Soon after the Indian soldiers left, a Lama helicopter of the Indian Airforce (IAF) appeared on the horizon. It was flying so low that Iftekhar could see the badges on the shoulders of the pilot.
Retired colonel of the Pakistani army, Ashfaq Hussain, recalls his conversation with Iftekhar. He told the BBC: “I have met Captain Iftikhar personally. He told me that the next day, two Lama helicopters of the Indian Air Force came to the same spot again and fired on Pakistani positions. Captain Iftekhar sought permission from his bosses to return fire on the Indian choppers, but permission was denied, thinking that the action would alert the Indians and give away our positions.”
Indian political leadership clueless about KargilLocal Indian army commanders believed the Pakistanis had made big inroads into Indian territory, but they thought they would handle it at their level without informing the political leadership.
Manvendra Singh, whose father Jaswant Singh was foreign minister when the Kargil war broke out, is a leader of India’s Congress party. He recalled: “One of my friends used to work at the military headquarters in New Delhi. He rang me up and said he wanted to meet me urgently. When I went to his home, he told me that there was something disturbing going on at the Kargil border. The whole unit had been sent to a difficult area by helicopters. At that time he had no idea whether the infiltration belonged to the terrorist groups or Pakistani army. I came back home rather late and went to sleep.
“Early in the morning the next day, I told my father. He rang the then defence minister, George Fernandes, who cancelled his planned tour to Russia and immediately called a meeting of senior military officers at Army headquarters.”
Purpose was to isolate India from SiachinThe question arises as to why Pakistani soldiers secretly occupied the Kargil heights soon after the Lahore summit between India and Pakistan?
The former Indian army chief, General Ved Prakash Malik, said: “One of the military objectives of the Pakistani army intrusion was to recapture a part of the Siachin glacier, to cut off vital Indian communication links to this area and thus disrupt its control.
“Pakistani army chief General Pervez Musharraf did not like the fact that India pre-empted the Pakistani plan and occupied the snow-covered, no man’s land, in Siachin in April 1984. At that time, Musharraf used to be a major. He himself tried to have this place vacated, but could not succeed.”
When Dilip Kumar lambasted Nawaz SharifWhen the Indian leadership realised the enormity of the situation they were flabbergasted. India’s prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee immediately rang his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif. Former Pakistani foreign minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri has given details of the exchange in his memoirs, Neither a Hawk Nor a Dove.
Kasuri wrote: “Vajpayee told Sharif, ‘you have treated me shabbily after having invited me to Lahore’.
While he had been received in Lahore with such warmth, Pakistan had wasted no time in occupying Kargil heights.
Sharif replied that he was not aware of what Vajpayee was saying, but promised to get back to him after talking to army chief General Pervez Musharraf.”
At this point, Vajpayee told Sharif to speak to somebody who was sitting next to him. Sharif was astonished to hear the voice of Dilip Kumar, the legendary Indian film star, telling him: “Mian saheb, we did not expect this from you, since you have always claimed to be a great supporter of peace between India and Pakistan. Let me tell you as an Indian Muslim, that in case of tension between the two countries, the position of Indian Muslims becomes very insecure and they find it difficult to even leave their homes.”
RAW had no idea about infiltrationThe most astonishing thing was that India’s external intelligence agency had no clue about such a big Pakistani operation. Diplomat and India’s former high commissioner to Pakistan, Satish Chandra said: “The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) did not know what was happening across the border. But could they have guessed?
“The Pakistanis did not deploy any additional forces. It would be easy for RAW to guess had there been unusual troop movement on the Pakistanis side of the ceasefire line.
“I have spoken to so many people from the intelligence community. All of them told me that they had given at least 52 intelligence inputs like ammunition being dumped and small troops movement. But they also said such things happen every year.
“There was no smoking gun evidence. If Indian troops were in forward positions, they would have noticed these unusual developments. In one instance, an officer refused to obey the order of withdrawal during winter. He continued to stay there despite tough weather conditions and there was no infiltration in his area.
“The Indian army is not the watch and ward force. Its main function is to fight. The surveillance of the border comes under the jurisdiction of the BSF (Border Security Force).”
Brilliant plan by Pakistan
Despite all this, the Indian army drew criticism for its handling of the infiltration. Former Lt Gen HS Panag, who was later posted at Kargil, said: “The Pakistanis came up with a brilliant plan. They came forward to occupy the vacant Indian positions during the winter months. They totally controlled the Leh-Kargil highway, the lifeline of Indian positions at Siachen.
“Strategically, it was their big achievement. But they never thought about their next course of action. I shall go to the extent of saying that our performance was below par, even shameful, in the first month of hostilities.
“It was only after the 8 Division took charge that things started improving. No doubt it was a very difficult operation. They were on the heights and we were down the hills. There was a lack of oxygen and our preparation for aggressive mountain warfare was not up to the mark.”
Musharraf’s versionPakistan’s former military ruler Musharraf has always maintained that in his opinion, it was an excellent plan which put the Indian army under tremendous pressure.
In his autobiography, In the Line of Fire, Musharraf writes: “The brigade-size attacks were launched to secure outposts held by as few as eight or 10 of our men. These attacks gained little ground until the middle of June. The mountain favours defence.
“The Indians, by their own admission, suffered over 600 killed and over 1,500 wounded. Our information suggests the real numbers are at least twice what India had publicly admitted. The Indians actually ran short of coffins, owing to an unexpectedly high number of casualties, and a scandal later came to light in this regard.”
Capturing Tololing was the major breakthroughBut by the second week of June, things started coming under the control of the Indian Army. I asked the then Army chief, General VP Malik what the crucial moment of the Kargil operation was.
He replied: “Capturing Tololing height was the first turning point in the Kargil war for us. We never looked back thereafter. After more than three weeks of bitter fighting, Tololing Top Point 4590 was back in our hands. Here 18 Grenadiers set the stage and 2 Rajputana Rifles finished the task against overwhelming odds and at a great price. When we captured Tololing, we realised that ultimately things shall move in our direction and it was a big boost to our morale."
27 Indian soldiers were required to dislodge 1 Pakistani soldierThis war was fought across 100 kilometres where about 1,700 Pakistani regular soldiers penetrated about eight-nine kms inside Indian territory. In the operation, 527 Indian soldiers lost their lives and 1,363 soldiers were wounded.
One of the commanders of the Kargil war, Lt Gen Mohinder Puri, said: “The mountain eats troops. If the war is happening on the ground, aggressive troops should be three times the number of troops who are defending. But in the mountains, this goes up to nine times the defending troops; and in case of Kargil, up to 27 times. It means that if one enemy soldier is sitting on the heights, you have to send 27 men to dislodge him.’
Pakistan shot down two Indian jets and a helicopterMusharraf maintained until the end that had the Pakistani political leadership supported him, things would have been different.
He wrote in his memoirs, “India overreacted by bringing its air force into action. They started crossing over and bombarding the positions of the Pakistani army. This resulted in the shooting down of one of the Indian helicopters and two jet planes over Pakistani territory. Our troops exacted a very heavy toll on Indian convoy traffic, forcing the convoys to travel in the dark of night.”
Bofors guns changed the course of warIt is true that in the initial stages, the IAF did suffer setbacks, but as the conflict continued, they, along with their Bofors guns, hit Pakistani posts with deadly accuracy.
Nasim Zehra, a Pakistani journalist who has written a critically acclaimed book on Kargil, titled From Kargil to Coup – Events That Shook Pakistan, said, “Firing over 100 guns on a restricted target was like we were indeed cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. The Indians succeeded in reducing the posts to powder, using short- and long-range weapons.”
Clinton’s plane -speaking to SharifThe momentum Indian troops got in the second week of June continued until the end of July. Things became so bad for Pakistan that Sharif had to rush to Washington to seek American intervention in stopping the war.
In the early hours of July 4, at 2.30am, Sharif took off in the New York bound PIA commercial flight PK 761. The then US president Bill Clinton agreed to meet him on American Independence Day.
Both leaders first met with their aides. This meeting lasted barely seven minutes. It was followed by two-hour meeting between Clinton and Sharif. While Clinton was joined by Bruce Reidel as a note-taker, Sharif went in without an aide.
Later Reidel wrote a paper, American diplomacy and the 1999 Kargil Summit, saying that “Clinton began by telling Sharif why Kargil was a blunder and how two nuclear powers were almost at the brink of war.
“One point Sharif made to Clinton was he wanted to meet him in private. Clinton dismissed him with a wave of a hand and said he warned him on July 2 not to come to Washington unless he was ready to withdraw without any precondition or quid pro quo. If Sharif was not willing to oblige, the president said he had drafted a statement ready to issue that would pin all the blame for the Kargil crisis on Pakistan that night.”
Later, one member of the Pakistani delegation, Tariq Fatemi, admitted, “During the break between the sessions of the Sharif-Clinton meeting, we found Sharif to be a drained man. From his reaction to our words, I realised there was little fight left in him. Our team still offered a few amendments to the draft. Sharif was extremely reluctant to take them to Clinton. He admitted he had been told it was a take it or leave it situation.”
During the meeting, the TV in the room was beaming the news of the fall of the strategically important peak, Tiger Hill. During the break, Sharif called his army chief to confirm the news. Musharraf chose not to deny it.”
Rehan Fazal, a renowned senior broadcast journalist in the BBC Delhi bureau, has nearly 30 years of experience in the media industry. He produces and presents the popular show Vivechana on contemporary modern history on BBC News Hindi.
King Charles III, patron of the Royal Horticultural Society, walks through the RHS and BBC Radio 2 Dog Garden during a visit to the RHS Chelsea Flower Show at Royal Hospital Chelsea on May 20, 2025 in London, England.
This particular year at the Royal Horticultural Society’s Chelsea Flower Show, there have been two members of the Royal Family who have had roses named after them.
‘The King’s Rose’, named after King Charles III, and ‘Catherine’s Rose’, named after Catherine, Princess of Wales. Both roses have been grown by two of the most well-known rose growers in the United Kingdom.
Firstly, ‘The King’s Rose’ was cultivated by David Austin. It took around 12 years for the rose to be exactly as he wanted. Austin was trying to propagate a rose that reflected the King’s values. It was created to help support the King’s Foundation, a charity founded by His Majesty King Charles III in 1990. The main purpose of this foundation is to help communities sustain their way of living and to improve lives.
The King’s Rose is the very first rose that Austin has bred that is variegated. It is a beautiful deep pink (fuchsia) and white striped rose. It has been bred to be resistant to modern-day diseases, and its semi-double bloom allows easy access for bees to pollinate the roses. The hips are said to be a warm orange colour that provides food for birds in the winter months.
‘Catherine’s Rose’ was bred by Harkness Roses. It was named for Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. The sale of this rose supports the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity. Catherine’s Rose is a stunning floribunda, a dark rose-pink colour, with a heady scent of rose intermingled with the scent of mangoes. It gives an abundant number of blooms as well as being a great pollinator as the bloom opens.
This year, sustainability was high on the list of features in the show gardens. There seemed to be a common theme of restoration and looking at ways to re-use and recycle. Some of the exhibitors also had great products that re-used and recycled waste.
Sneeboer, a garden tool manufacturer, was one such business among many that stood out. They had managed to replace coal fires in their manufacturing process with solar power, also giving surplus back into the grid.
POTR was another business that uses plastic waste from the sea to make long-lasting, self-watering planters that are flat-packed. This means that the volume and weight are reduced, thereby reducing emissions during transit by up to 100 times.
There were, of course, many beautifully designed show gardens. Several that stood out from the norm for me personally were the following:
The Balcony Garden, which set out to show how even in the smallest amount of space available, you can support bees and biodiversity. They showed how, by just planning and planting vibrant, pollinator-friendly plants in planters repurposed from honey barrels, you can create a haven for these special bees. Also featured was the vertical planting of bee-friendly plants, which can be achieved in the smallest of spaces.
David Beckham wearing a David Austin Roses "King's Rose" speaks with King Charles III during a visit to the RHS Chelsea Flower Show at Royal Hospital Chelsea on May 20, 2025Getty Images
A show garden close to my heart was the ‘Garden of Compassion’, which was designed by Thomas Hoblyn for Hospice UK. It featured a ‘together’ bench, which was made from steam-bent timber. It was woven through the garden like a meandering stream, and could be used to sit in nature, enabling the person to feel the healing power of nature. There was the gentle, soothing sound of flowing water to help calm through reflection.
If you missed this year’s RHS Chelsea Flower Show, then make a note of the dates for next year. It takes place from 19 May, 2026 (Tuesday) until 23 May, 2026 (Saturday) at the Royal Hospital Chelsea.
The next RHS flower show for this year is the Hampton Court Palace Garden Festival.
It takes place from 1 July, 2025 (Wednesday) to 6 July, 2025 (Monday). Members of the RHS can attend on members-only days, which are 1 July, 2025 (Wednesday) and 2 July, 2025 (Thursday).
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
The growing number of working-age adults not in jobs places a huge financial burden on Britain, according to recent reports
ECONOMIC inactivity is a major obstacle to the UK’s productivity and competitiveness.
As a business owner and employer with over 30 years of experience, I have seen firsthand how this challenge has intensified as the economically inactive population approaches 10 million nationally - almost one million more than pre-pandemic.
This includes nearly three million on long-term sick leave, an all-time high since records began in 1993, representing over a fifth of all 16-64 year-olds. The good news is that within these high numbers are hundreds of thousands who want to work and could do so with proper support.
But, for any government, these numbers are alarming. Economic inactivity acts as a drag on productivity and growth, as well as creates an unsustainable benefits burden for the nation, with the combined cost of working-age incapacity and disability benefits estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to hit £76 billion by the end of the parliament.
Recent national Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) reports highlight this significant increase in inactivity. They suggest a ‘Going Dutch’ decentralised approach that has seen the Netherlands reduce economic inactivity at three times the UK rate.
Government schemes here have shown mixed success thus far, often targeting only the most accessible cases rather than tackling the more challenging, but potentially more rewarding situations. I have repeatedly heard about thriving companies struggling to fill skilled positions while growing numbers of working-age adults remain disconnected from employment.
The CSJ highlights the enormous financial burden – £28bn annually in additional welfare payments, plus lost productivity and tax revenue. Equally concerning is the erosion of workplace skills among the long-term economically inactive, creating a downward spiral that worsens over time.
The ‘Going Dutch’ approach would provide holistic, person-focused support – something difficult to deliver from Whitehall. It would devolve employment support and adult learning budgets to better respond to local needs, requiring central government to embrace the risks of devolution and engage with grassroots organisations who understand their communities best. In Norway, they have, for generations, developed what a job coach might look like to something they call a social worker, but who focuses on the need of the person, not the services of the state. And in Denmark, they have experimented with giving local areas full autonomy in service design and delivery.
Dr Nik Kotecha
The good news is these approaches would not require substantial new funding. As an advocate for local knowledge and networks, I have long supported greater devolution of skills and employment policies to regional authorities. Local authorities and councils understand our local labour markets in ways Westminster cannot. They know which sectors are growing, which communities face particular challenges and which interventions work in a local, grassroots context.
The CSJ’s recommendation to devolve responsibility for employment support and adult education makes sense from a business perspective. It would enable agile, responsive approaches that our dynamic regional economy demands, replacing one-size-fitsall national programmes with tailored interventions.
Perhaps the most crucial insight is recognising that health and employment are deeply interconnected. The growing number of people classified as long-term sick represents a failure to create appropriate pathways back to employment that accommodate health conditions. In my businesses over the years, we have found that flexible arrangements, graduated return-to-work programmes and workplace adjustments can enable many individuals with health challenges to contribute productively.
What is needed is a fundamental shift in how we view the relationship between health and work. The current system too often presents a binary choice of either ‘fully fit for work’ or ‘entirely incapable’ – when in reality, most people lie somewhere inbetween.
The skills gap in the UK is not just about worker numbers, it is about equipping people with capabilities which our evolving economy demands. In my experience, the most effective training programmes are those developed in partnership between employers and education providers. When businesses can directly shape curriculum content, specify skills needed and offer workplace experience, the results are transformative.
Economic inactivity is not just about monetary costs either, it is about community wellbeing and social cohesion. Employment provides not just income, but also purpose, structure and social connection. Companies are not just economic entities, they are social institutions that can directly strengthen their communities.
For business leaders, I call for greater engagement with local authorities and skills providers to help develop employment pathways for the economically inactive. Rather than lamenting skills shortages, we should be actively participating in creating the workforce we need.
For policymakers, I would urge bold implementation of the CSJ’s recommendations, particularly devolving employment and skills responsibilities to regional authorities.
And for our communities, I ask for a renewed recognition of work’s value, not just as a source of income and prosperity, but also as a foundation for individual dignity as well as collective prosperity.
The untapped potential represented by economic inactivity in the UK is not just a problem to solve, it is our greatest opportunity for future growth. By combining business innovation, policy reform and community engagement, we can create pathways back to employment that benefit us all.
So let’s try ‘Going Dutch’, or ‘Norwegian’, or ‘Danish’ as possible solutions to addressing our nation’s most pressing inactivity challenges.
(Dr Nik Kotecha OBE is an internationally renowned businessman, scientist, influencer and serial entrepreneur. He founded and led the inspirational growth of leading Midlands-based developer and manufacturer of generic medicines, Morningside Pharmaceuticals Ltd, and is founder and chairman of RandalSun Capital. His current global business portfolio is wide-ranging and includes investments from start-ups to patient capital, with retained interests in health, life sciences and high innovation, IPrich businesses.)
Keep ReadingShow less
Artistic depiction of Arjuna and Krishna with the chariot
Over 5,000 years ago, on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, two armies comprising tens of thousands of men were ready to begin a war. The Pandavs were led by Arjuna, a warrior whose archery skills were unbeatable. At the last minute, before the war was to commence, Arjuna put down his weapons and declared to Krishna his decision not to fight. He reasoned that the war would kill tens of thousands of people all for a kingdom. It took the whole of the Bhagavad Gita to convince Arjuna to fight.
Even after Krishna destroyed all his doubts, Arjuna asked to see Krishna in his form as a supreme God. In short, Arjuna wanted to avoid confrontation at any cost.
In 1191, Muhammad Ghouri from Afghanistan attacked the Hindu king Prithviraj Chouhan. He was defeated, but Prithviraj let him go free. Prithviraj was probably influenced in his decision by his Dharma of compassion, or in the hope that Ghouri would never attack again as his life was spared — a good example of avoiding confrontation.
It is believed by many that Ghouri had attacked many more times and had been defeated but was allowed to go free. Regarded as one of the costliest mistakes of history, Mohammad Ghouri returned with a stronger and much larger army in 1192 CE. Prithviraj was defeated. Ghouri had Prithviraj's eyes gouged out and killed him mercilessly. Islam got a foothold in India after the defeat of Prithviraj, and most of Punjab, parts of Bihar, Bengal and parts of Gujarat fell under the rule of Ghouri.
Going back to the Mahabharata, Asvathama, who fought for the Kauravas, killed all the children of the Pandavas. When he was caught by the Pandavas, they decided to let him go because he was a Brahmin. In fact, Asvathama was Brahmin only by birth. By Karma, he was a Kshatriya. The same Asvathama at a later stage fired a powerful nuclear arrow towards the pregnant Uttara.
Once again, Lord Krishna had to appear and protect Uttara. Had Asvathama succeeded, he would have obliterated all the future Pandava dynasty. Here we see the urge of the Pandavas to go by the rules of Dharma and follow a moral code. Lord Krishna himself insisted to Arjuna that in some cases, the moral rules would need to be ignored.
The first Prime Minister of India, Pandit Nehru, believed that India did not need an army at all. He reasoned that India was a land of Ahimsa and so would not need to fight anyone. In 1962, China invaded India and has since occupied 38,000 km² of the Aksai Chin region in Kashmir, which is an extension of the Tibetan plateau. One can see here again a tendency to avoid any confrontation and naively believe the other party will play fair.
In 1965, Pakistan launched Operation Gibraltar against India. It was designed to infiltrate soldiers into Jammu and Kashmir and cause an uprising. Under international pressure, the then PM Lal Bahadur Shastri went to Tashkent and signed a peace treaty with Pakistan. While there, he died mysteriously. The treaty called upon both sides not to interfere in each other's affairs. It was not worth the paper it was written on.
In 1971, another war broke out between India and Pakistan. India won the war, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. Even though India won the war, it failed to grasp any long-term gains. Indeed, Bangladesh was quick to ask the Indian army to leave once they had been liberated.
The same Bangladesh today has turned against India and is persecuting Hindus. Following the 1971 war, the then PM Indira Gandhi and Pakistan PM Bhutto signed the Shimla Agreement. Both nations committed to establish peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. Again, an agreement not worth the piece of paper it was written on. Indian forces had captured around 15,010 km² (5,795 sq mi) of land during the war but returned it after the Shimla Agreement as a gesture of goodwill.
In 1984, under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian Army launched Operation Meghdoot, a military operation to seize control of the Siachen Glacier. This operation was a pre-emptive move as it was believed that Pakistan was also planning to take control of the glacier. In spite of the Pakistani attacks, India granted it MFN (Most Favoured Nation for trade purposes) status in 1996. However, Pakistan did not reciprocate. India withdrew its MFN status in February 2019 following the Pulwama attack.
On 20 February 1999, PM Vajpayee visited Pakistan and signed the Lahore Declaration. It was hailed as a turning point in relations between the two countries. However, in a classic case of treachery, just a few months later between May and July, under the leadership of Chief of Army Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan army occupied Indian territory in Kargil. Some Indian soldiers protecting the area had their eyes gouged out.
India successfully dislodged the Pakistani occupiers. In the conflict, 527 Indian soldiers were killed and 1,363 wounded. India's Jat Regiment managed to occupy a strategically important mountain peak on the Pakistani side of the LoC near Dras, Point 5070, and subsequently renamed it Balwan.
On 24 December 1999, Indian Airlines Flight 814, commonly known as IC 814, was hijacked by five members of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. A plan to send in commandos to neutralise the terrorists did not materialise. The then PM Vajpayee agreed to release three terrorists in exchange for the release of 160 passengers.
Of the terrorists released, Omar Sheikh went on to finance one of the hijackers of the 9/11 attacks and the kidnap and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl. Maulana Masood Azhar formed Jaish-e-Mohammed, a United Nations-designated terrorist organisation. Maulana Masood was the mastermind behind the Parliament attacks in 2001, the 2016 attacks on the Indian Air Force base in Pathankot, and the killing of CRPF jawans in 2019 in Pulwama. He is responsible for hundreds of Indian deaths.
After the attack on Parliament, the then PM Vajpayee mobilised the army to attack Pakistan. Once again, due to international pressure, PM Vajpayee stopped the army which was eager to launch an invasion. LeT, the other terrorist organisation co-founded by Hafiz Saeed, is also responsible for many attacks on India.
The blasts in Delhi in October 2005 killed four people. On 11 July 2006, seven blasts ripped through trains in the evening rush hour in Mumbai. 189 people were killed and more than 800 were injured. The 26/11 Mumbai attacks in November 2008 claimed 166 lives. The terrorists held the whole country to ransom for three days.
India had to retaliate but PM Manmohan Singh and the Congress party decided against taking any action. One of the reasons given was that India would gain world sympathy — a classic case of avoiding confrontation at any cost.
LeT also masterminded the Uri army base attack, killing 19 soldiers in September 2016. For the first time under the Prime Ministership of Modi, India took offensive action. On 29 September 2016, teams of Indian Army Para (Special Forces) crossed the Line of Control into Pakistani-administered Kashmir to attack targets up to a kilometre within territory held by Pakistan. Around 35 to 40 Pakistani soldiers were killed or injured.
In 2010, a bomb blast in a crowded bakery in the city of Pune killed nine people and wounded 57. Through all this, ‘cultural’ exchanges were going on between the two countries. In December 2015, PM Modi made an impromptu visit to Lahore as a goodwill gesture and met PM Sharif. Unfortunately, in Pakistan, it is the military which calls the shots, not the governing parties.
After the Pulwama attack, PM Modi targeted the terrorists inside Pakistan with a missile attack. However, it seems to have had little impact on the terror groups. They carried out the dastardly act of killing 26 Hindus in Kashmir on 26 April 2025. PM Modi ordered attacks on nine terrorist hubs.
However, the mini conflict came to an abrupt end and both India and Pakistan declared a ceasefire. What assurances India received from Pakistan is not clear. Indeed, terrorists from Pakistan have already attempted two terror attacks but were neutralised by the Indian army. India could have demanded the release of Kulbushan Yadav, who has been incarcerated in Pakistan on spying charges for nine years.
Though India has always come out on top on the war front, on the negotiating table it seems to surrender all the gains with little in return. Pakistan-based terrorists have killed hundreds of Indian soldiers over the decades and got away with it.
India needs to revisit the great political master Chanakya and his treatise Arthashastra on war and peace.
(Nitin Mehta is a writer and commentator on Indian culture and philosophy. He has contributed extensively to discussions on Hinduism, spirituality, and the role of Gurus in modern society. You can find more of his work at www.nitinmehta.co.uk.)
Keep ReadingShow less
The mainstream print media in India, both in English and regional languages, has remained largely responsible and sober
MISINFORMATION and disinformation are not new in the age of social media, but India’s mainstream news channels peddling them during a time of war was a new low.
Hours after India launched Operation Sindoor, most channels went into overdrive with ‘breaking news’ meant to shock, or worse, excite.
Channels beamed blurry images of the Pakistan attack on Indian territory with nearly 400 drones last Thursday (8) night, on a loop, and news tickers announced an Indian advance into enemy territory.
They claimed a Pakistani fighter pilot had been captured alive in Punjab, only to revise it a while later to say that not one, but two were in India’s custody. Minutes later came reports of an aerial attack in Islamabad, right next to the house of Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, and claims that he had taken shelter in a bunker.
Before one could process why India, known for its restraint, would escalate tensions at this scale on just the second day of attack, the next salvo of misinformation was launched – the Indian Navy had ‘destroyed’ the Karachi port, accompanied by images of a ravaged facility.
The next report claimed Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir had been ousted in a coup and was being held in ‘custody’ (by whom was anybody’s guess). These ‘news’ items painted a picture of unprecedented aggression by one nuclear state against another.
Except, none of these stories were true. The defence press briefing last Friday (9) made no mention of captured pilots, an attack on Karachi port, or any development concerning Munir.
Indian fact-checkers debunked the videos of the Karachi port attack aired by some channels as footage from a 2020 BBC report from Gaza.
Last Sunday (11), clarity emerged when India’s director general of naval operations said that Indian battleships were stationed “with full readiness and capacity to strike select targets, including Karachi,” laying to rest speculation of an attack on the port. The Indian defence establishment also confirmed it had ‘downed’ Pakistani fighter jets, but made no mention of any ‘captured’ pilots.
The Indian news channels’ false reporting was called out by social media users within hours, prompting many to backtrack and apologise. A few also faced criticism for their warmongering – one ‘expert’ on a channel declared mazaa (fun) would begin when Pakistan attacks India.
Another example of the channels’ insensitivity was the use of AI-generated images and graphics – one depicting an enraged Indian prime minister Narendra Modi trampling a cowering Sharif – which trivialised the conflict and framed it as little more than a high-stakes cricket match between the two nations.
Some Indian media houses reported that similar fake news was being broadcast by Pakistani outlets. However, for someone in India, where I live, it has become nearly impossible to verify what the media is reporting on the other side of the border, as the government has banned access to Pakistani news channels, including Dawn and Geo News.
Several Indian news websites, including The Wire – co-founded by a former editor of The Hindu – also faced bans (in this case, the restriction was lifted a day later).
Amid all this, the mainstream print media, both in English and regional languages, has remained largely responsible and sober, refraining from whipping up passions. Many news websites have done the same.
If the ceasefire doesn’t hold, this could become the first major war that Indians witness in the age of private news channels and social media. Whether the screens will make the proverbial fog of war even thicker remains to be seen.
Keep ReadingShow less
A vivid depiction of the Kurukshetra battlefield, where Arjuna and Krishna stand amidst the chaos, embodying the eternal conflict between duty and morality
War and peace have exercised the minds of human beings for as far back as history goes. It is no wonder then that the Mahabharata war, which took place over 5,000 years ago, became a moment of intense discussion between Lord Krishna and Arjuna.
Hundreds of thousands of people on either side were ready to begin battle on the site of Kurukshetra. Seeing the armies and his near and dear combatants, Arjuna lost the will to fight. How could he fight his grandfather Bhisma and his guru Dronacharya? He asked Krishna what all the bloodshed would achieve.
Krishna replied that every effort to resolve the conflict had been blocked by Duryodhana. Duryodhana had refused to give the Pandavas even a needlepoint of land, despite Lord Krishna's peace proposal that they accept just five villages. Krishna urged and convinced Arjuna that it was his dharma to fight a righteous war, even if it came with painful consequences.
While war is characterised by violence and destruction, it can also be a catalyst for peace negotiations and treaties.
Charles Minard's iconic flow map illustrating Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Russia, highlighting the vast distances and severe lossesAge of Revolution
The great political master Chanakya (350–275 BCE), guru of Chandragupta of the mighty Maurya empire, wrote the famous treatise Arthashastra. In it, he describes in detail the steps one must take to wage war. Kautilya suggested four policies: conciliation (sama), compensation (dana, or gifts to adversaries to pacify them), dissension (bheda, creating divisions within adversaries), and force (danda, attack). These could be used singly or in combination, depending on the context.
However, like Krishna, Chanakya advocated war only when all other alternatives were exhausted.
According to Von Clausewitz, a military theorist (1780–1831), “War is merely continuation of a policy by other means.” He believed military objectives that support political aims fall into two broad types: wars to achieve limited goals, and wars to disarm the enemy—rendering them politically helpless or militarily impotent.
After suffering years of terrorist violence and the recent brutal killings of Hindus in Kashmir, India feels it has exhausted all avenues of peace with Pakistan.
There has also been a school of thought which rejects war altogether. Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace, had strong anti-war sentiments, expressed through his writings and personal life. In his book, he chronicled the French invasion of Russia in 1812, led by Napoleon Bonaparte.
Vivid depiction of the Kurukshetra battlefield, showcasing Arjuna and Krishna in the chariot amidst the chaos of warAmazon
Tolstoy himself fought in the Crimean War (1853–1856), a conflict between the Russian Empire and an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, the Second French Empire, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont. Sardinia is an island and autonomous region of Italy.
Tolstoy believed war was inherently unjust and a product of government actions, rather than the people's interests. He emphasised the importance of love—both human and divine—as a force for peace and against the brutality of conflict.
Christians have a concept called a Just War, taken up only as a last resort. They also had the doctrine of holy wars called the Crusades, meant to recapture occupied territories. This idea is now considered a shibboleth.
The current Russia-Ukraine war has brought some interesting observations, according to Benjamin Jensen, director of the Futures Lab and senior fellow for the Defence and Security Department at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
He points out that the war has shown the rise of drone warfare and electronic warfare as defining features of modern conflict. Long-range attack drones have played a crucial role.
After the Russian invasion in February 2022, then-Ukrainian ambassador to India, Igor Polikha, urged PM Modi to help stop the war. He said India had qualified in diplomacy through Kautilya several thousand years ago, when Europe had no civilisation.
Unfortunately, President Zelensky of Ukraine has presided over the destruction of his country, having failed on both diplomatic and military fronts.
(Nitin Mehta is a writer and commentator on Indian culture and philosophy. He has contributed extensively to discussions on Hinduism, spirituality, and the role of Gurus in modern society. You can find more of his work at www.nitinmehta.co.uk.)
A journalist’s perspective of the Kargil War