This week on Hafta, Newslaundry’s Abhinandan Sekhri, Raman Kirpal, Manisha Pande, Jayashree Arunachalam and Shardool Katyayan are joined by retired Brigadier Kuldip Singh.
In this tense news week, we begin by dissecting India’s Operation Sindoor and strikes on terror camps in Pakistan on May 7. “Neither side, particularly India, wants a full-scale war,” says Brigadier Singh, referring to past confrontations like the Uri and Balakot strikes. He adds, “This time, the strike is far greater in intensity and in the number of targets.”
Jayashree, acknowledging public sentiment but questioning the nature of response, says, “What we’re seeing right now feels more like muscle-flexing.”
Shardool highlights how the United States and Western nations are responding differently to the current crisis compared to earlier years. “The U.S. is far less interested now…One reason is that they don’t need Pakistan the way they did before.”
Manisha points out that Operation Sindoor marks a shift in the Indian government's stance. She says what it signals is that the government “now has a clear intention: to state unambiguously that Pakistan is the enemy”.
This and a lot more. Tune in!
Hafta letters: India and Pakistan, diplomatic games, journalist designations
We have a page for subscribers to send letters to our shows. If you want to write to Hafta, click here.
Check out the Newslaundry store and flaunt your love for independent media.
Download the Newslaundry app.
Song: Where is the love?
Timecodes
00:00:00 – Introductions
00:05:03 – Headlines
00:13:25 - Operation Sindoor and escalating tensions between India and Pakistan
00:48:22 – Brig Kuldip’s recommendations
01:29:40 – Letters
01:42:25– Recommendations
References
'Operation Sindoor': India’s Cross-Border Message Is Loud and Calculated
Theatre of Absurdities: Why no one will win an Indo-Pak war
Let’s Talk About: Kashmir – Part 1
Recommendations
Brigadier Kuldip Singh
The Ends of Earth by Robert D Kaplan
George Friedman’s writings (Author of Geopolitical Futures)
Writings of Yuvan Noah Harari ( Such as ‘Sapiens’)
Raman
‘Protest should not have turned communal’: Nainital girl who spoke for unity
Manisha
Jayashree
The Balakot Misdirection by Sushant Singh
The Impunity of India’s Police: How to Manufacture a Murder
31 Songs by Nick Hornby
Shardool
Indore’s ‘love jihad’ machine: Hindutva networks, ‘100% police support’, witchcraft claims
Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War
The World at War by BBC
Abhinandan
Joe Biden’s interview with BBC
Check out previous Hafta recommendations, references, songs and letters
Produced and recorded by Priyali Dhingra and Ashish Anand.
Production assistance by Tista Roy Chowdhury.
This episode is outside of the paywall for now. Before it goes behind the paywall, why not subscribe? Get brand-new episodes of all our podcasts every week, while also doing your bit to support independent media. Click here to subscribe.
Manisha: [00:00:00] This is a News Laundry podcast, and you're listening to NL HTA
Abhinandan: News Laundry APTA Cab. Welcome to this episode of HTA from an extremely news packed week. Uh, we are recording this on Thursday, the 8th of May. And as you can imagine, uh, most of this hti not all, will be, uh, discussing the violence and the, i, i dunno whether we should call it a war or a confrontation with Pakistan.
Uh, the worst
Manisha: escalation, I think you can call it escalation, the escalation, the
Abhinandan: escalating violence. Uh, but it is a very fast evolving situation. So by the time this episode goes out, much may have changed, hopefully for the better and for the more peaceful. That is my view. Um, let me introduce the panel first.
In the studio [00:01:00] du Kaen who is with us after a couple of weeks, I guess. Yes, yes. Couple of weeks. Hello, Manisha Pande.
Manisha: Hello,
Abhinandan: Ram Kal. Hello, uh, joining us from Chennai, uh, is Stri Ala.
Jayashree: Hello. Hello.
Abhinandan: And our subject expert, the guest joining us from Ali Punjab, ISIA Kep Singh. Thank you, sir for joining us
Brig. Kuldip Singh: privilege to be with you all.
Abhinandan: Uh, so many of our audience may already be familiar with the Briga, but we have a formality of always introducing our guests. Uh, Briga Kdi Singh retired from the Indian Armed Forces. He was formerly an Vice-Principal Director for defense at the National Security Council and Joint Intelligence Committee, the Prime Minister's Office, and a former senior consultant at the NDMA and the Ministry of Home Affairs.
He has also written for the Quint operations, UR India's Cross Border Messages, loud and Calculated, [00:02:00] and Theater of Absurdities, why no one will win an indoor park war. The link for both his in the show notes below, you can click on the link and read the brigadier articles, and you can listen to this podcast to hear his views.
Before we go to the headlines, uh, you are in Punjab, in Moha. And just before we started recording this, uh, Briga, we saw the headlines that there was a very tense night in Amitha, at least I think Manisha spoke to some of friends in ARD because the headlines reported that there was some missiles that were shot down that was supposedly meant for.
15 cities and Chand is one of them. Do you get that sense, uh, sitting where you are in Moha or is there only a, where you actually hear the blasts?
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Um, uh, I heard about that, uh, that there is something which has happened in Amsu. There has been some explosion over there, but insofar as, uh, Chanika is [00:03:00] concerned, I have heard nothing about that.
And, uh, life goes on here. Okay. So before Manishh, but what I've heard just now on the TV is that they have been, you know, the Indian Armed forces, the 80 GPI has put out a statement that in the night, in the intervening night of seventh and eighth, that is last night, which has just passed by the Pakistanis, have tried to, you know, attack a couple of cities on the border.
Right? Yeah.
Manisha: 15 seconds, you know,
Brig. Kuldip Singh: so that statement has just come in. I think it's, yes, it has. And we decept the five years
Manisha: back.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: So, uh, that should be taken seriously, and that may be in response to the attack, uh, which was carried out, you know, on the Terror network by the armed forces.
Abhinandan: Yeah, and we'll speak that about that in a little more detail.
But before we go into the headlines, I just want to, uh, remind our audiences that we are a completely ad free platform. Our Press Freedom Week offer apparently is still [00:04:00] active, although the press freedom week is over. Uh, so you're a journalist with an independent media organizations, you don't take ads, unlike most others who do.
You've already lost the most major source of revenue. If you're an a free platform, you're bootstrapped but ambitious butting heads with those in power, pursuing journalism. Because journalism matters. That's the day in the life of a news laundry reporter, a news laundry producer, a news laundry technician, a news laundry designer, our staff who takes care of us, all of us.
So if you're watching this and you wanna support us, we will make it worth your while. You buy one joint news, laundry news minute subscription, and you get one free. So it's a one plus one, which you can give to a friend or family who does not appreciate ad free journalism to make them realize what difference ad free journalism makes.
So you can scan the QR code flash on your screen right now. You can click on the link in the show notes, and, uh, you can then become a part of the [00:05:00] tribe that keeps journalism alive and New Zealand alive. So thank you for that. Uh, before we go into the discussion, can we get the headlines, which will mostly be related to the battle, I guess, ri.
Jayashree: Yes. So first, a quick timeline of what has happened. The Indian military on Wednesday carried out strikes against terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir. In response to the terror attack, nine sites were targeted by the Indian Armed forces as part of operations du at an all party meeting today.
Today is May 8th. Our defense minister, Rajat Singh, said eight a hundred people were killed in the strikes, at least 15 people were killed. Meanwhile, and 43 injured in cross border shelling from the Pakistani army along the line of control, US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, spoke to the NSAs of India and Pakistan respectively, and reportedly urged them to keep lines of communication open and to avoid escalation.
The US Embassy and Pakistan has urge Americans to avoid conflict zones, especially near the India Pakistan border and the [00:06:00] LOC. Then on Thursday, the Indian government said Pakistan's attempts to target military installations in 15 cities were negated. The government said Indian forces responded by targeting and neutralizing Pakistani air defense radars and systems in several locations, including Laur.
The Pakistani military has said they shot down 12 drones from India that violated its airspace. This is according to Reuters. Now, while all this was happening, our, uh, reliance industry is limited sought trademark registration of operation Ur As later the company issued a clarification and said a junior had inadvertently done it without permission.
Hmm.
Manisha: They got quite a bit of backlash.
Abhinandan: Hmm. There was much backlash
Manisha: because as we are speaking, it's quite tense.
Abhinandan: Hmm.
Manisha: Uh, with the deaths that have happened in poon with the uncertainty in Punjab. So I think it comes at a very bad time. But anyway, they've said some Junior is responsible for it. So it could
Jayashree: be,
Manisha: could be.
Jayashree: It could be. It's always a junior. In related news, the Ministry of [00:07:00] Home Affairs ordered civil defense mock drills in 244 districts across the country. This exercise involved testing AIR eight sirens, training civilians and students blackout procedures, camouflaging key sites, and practicing evacuation plans.
This is in case of a hostile event on television after two weeks of screaming matches between Indian and Pakistani, so-called security experts, the news broadcasters and digital association has urged the media not to invite panelists from Pakistan.
Manisha: None of them are exports. Yeah. Even I keep seeing these tweets from Pakistanis there that we don't know who these guys are.
Who are these guys? Who have you called? And some of them are called just to be shouted at. Yeah, so the first thing is, hey, bus pakistanian, that's, and then like five weeks job is done of Barr of abuse and then that's it.
Abhinandan: He gets his check and he goes home.
Manisha: That's what the
Jayashree: viewers want.
Manisha: Just to add, this is a week where even the Indian right wing had to rely on Yalda Hakeem and on CNN for countering Pakistan.
Yes. They did it with poise. They did it [00:08:00] very pointedly, and we had to circulate those clips from evil foreign press to make a case against Pakistan because Indian journalism only gives us memes, right. At least what we see on our television
Jayashree: news studios. Right. The National Commission for Women condemned the online abuse faced by Heman Nal.
She's the wife of Indian neighbor Navy officer, left Inne Nal, who was killed in Helga. This is because in her first public remarks following the attack, she made an appeal for communal harmony. She was then very viciously trolled on social media.
Manisha: Yes.
Jayashree: I thought it was shocking. I mean, I'm not ultra shocked, but it was terrible.
Manisha: It was very
Jayashree: disturbing.
High court ruled that members of scheduled, cast and scheduled tribes who convert to Christianity cannot invoke provisions of the SCST Prevention of Atrocities Act. It said the caste system is alien to the Christian faith. I would just say that even though this is a legal position, I mean Christianity and Islam have wholesale imported the car system.
I feel like castes that [00:09:00] one unifying force, it follows you to your grave. So I do think the courts must adapt and recognize that.
Song: Hmm. So
Jayashree: in business news, SEBI has accused Pran Adani, the director of several Adani group companies of insider trading. Sebi has alleged he shared price sensitive information and violated regulations.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg has reported that Gotham Madani is trying to convince the Donald Trump administration to drop the criminal charges against him. This is in a so contracts bribery case. Now, six months before the end of his term, as executive director of the IMF India has called back kv Superman.
Superman was formerly India's Chief Economic Advisor. The Union Bank is now under scrutiny because it apparently decided to pre-order nearly two lack copies of Superman's book. And this order was worth 7.25 crows. It has acknowledged lapses now in its purchase.
Abhinandan: Well also, uh, the publisher, which was I think Rupa, right?
Rupa [00:10:00] publication. Yes. Yes. Uh, it hasn't been paid yet. They've, I think got half or less than half. They got 50%, half, 50%. And, and, uh, if they were, had asked me before, I've told them whether it's legitimate or not legitimate working with the government. You never get paid in full
Shardool: ever. No. But like they should tell you that what, what really happens in government banks, internal circles, how they function.
Abhinandan: Yeah. I mean, they're supposed to be independent. I have stories to tell you about how government departments function. I mean, I would probably be hauled up if I were to, because. It's bizarre. But anyway, go ahead. 'cause I have pre No, but this,
Jayashree: this story came out because, um, in December they had a board meeting and the board said we didn't ratify this 50% payment or whatever.
So they asked for an inquiry. So then they hired KPMG to look into the matter. Yeah. I don't know what KPMG said, but that's when all this came out. Right? Right. They shay bought this man's books.
Song: Hmm.
Jayashree: So, yes. Now in Punjab, the um, AHI party government, uh, passed a resolution in the legislative assembly. It's vowed not to spare even a single drop [00:11:00] of water from its chair for neighboring Ana.
Abhinandan: Right
Jayashree: after that, the Punjab and Ana high court directed the Punjab government and its police not to interfere with the functioning and regulation of the Baal Dam. In Maharashtra, the social justice minister has said the state government can't increase monthly financial assistance to women under the Lu Kiva scheme to 2100.
This is, even though the alliance had promised this ahead of last year's assembly election, he said, however, the current amount of 1500 per month will be dispersed.
Abhinandan: Something similar happened in, uh, Delhi. Right. But they then upped it. I mean, they, they had made a promise, but then they said, you have to register then.
Raman: No. In Delhi, the major problem is registration
Abhinandan: right
Jayashree: But in this MASH case, is the first time they're finally saying that, yes, we will not follow whole process. This was a major
Abhinandan: plank for Exactly.
This was one of the major planks that they fought on. [00:12:00]
Raman: We did a story also,
Jayashree: now India and the UK have inked a free trade agreement bringing an end to about three years of negotiations. Uh, nare Modi has described it as an ambitious and mutually beneficial free trade agreement that will help catalyze trade, investment growth, job creation, and innovation.
Abhinandan: Right? So those are the headlines. Thank you, Jeri. Yes. Uh, just reminding you again, do pay to keep news free. There's a QR code. 'cause when the public pays the public served, we want to send some of our reporters out to report and bring you a noise free, slightly sensible, uh, version of what is happening on the ground.
Uh, so do support us. We don't want those reporters to be paid from revenue that accrues from billionaire or from government ads. 'cause then they will be unable to do their jobs. Serving you. And they'll have to serve those who give them ads. So the QR code is here, the link is below. So
Manisha: I, since the whole skirmish has started and [00:13:00] last two days especially, I've got a lot of messages from people in Pung saying that we are being ignored.
Mainstream media is not looking at the damage that's happening here. No one's talking about us. So we especially want to send our reporters to these areas so that we can really bring out the human stories there. What people are suffering. They've already been like 13 deaths, but I think that's a big aspect that is not been given enough attention.
So, and we think of
Abhinandan: sending three people there,
Manisha: we wanna send two people there, right?
Abhinandan: Two people, right?
Manisha: So, please support the endeavor. We can send there and bring stories that you guys wanna listen to and that you guys feel are being ignored,
Abhinandan: right? So, uh, K Sing, you know. Again, thank you for making the time.
I have several questions for you. I'm sure the rest of the panel does as well. But to begin with, uh, you have said neither side wants a war. Uh, at least India doesn't want a war, but you're saying neither can win a war. Uh, which is, I I mean, I'm guessing it, it [00:14:00] kind of goes along the lines of the more philosophical cliche that war has no winners, but yours is the more strategic statement.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Uh, what I had actually said was that, uh, neither side, particularly India, you know, doesn't want a full scale ball. You know, uh, these strikes, like for example, the URI or the Bala court or you know, the present, uh, strikes of seventh and all that, it's okay, you know, provided they can be managed.
Now in the past, if you have seen, somehow both countries have been able to find a common ground to manage these strikes without escalating this time. However, the strikes have been far more, you know, greater in intensity and number as also in the numbers of targets.
Abhinandan: Is there any analysis of why that is?
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Yeah, uh, because, uh, you see these are the standard, [00:15:00] uh, what they call terror training camps, bases, which have been hit, you know, like we are, we are well aware, you know, all my, uh, while I was in DI, right from the time we knew that is the headquarter of the LET. You know, and of course it also had been, has been having personnel of the JUD, which they tried to show with the social organization.
Mm-hmm. And actually it's the headquarter of the JUD and there is no LET, but actually speaking it's the LET also over there. It's also part of our larger small little training base over there. Baur, we are well aware, you know, Assad MOU is there and his JEM, you know, is there. And the other areas which were targeted in POK, they are known places for the terrorist training camp from where these people come down to the launch pads, which, you know, depend, launchpad actually are movable up and down depending on where they go out.
And, uh, the thing. But the, what has been hit are [00:16:00] confirmed locations of terrorist training, you know, infrastructure.
Abhinandan: But why is it that you said that in the past, URI and Bala Court. It, it did not escalate to the level it has escalated to now. Uh, why is that? This time is different.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: The larger picture is that India is a vast country, you know, it's a deep country.
It has got great strategic depth in so far as even China is concerned. We have strategic depth.
Song: Hmm.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: You know, we have a border and then of course China's across the Malaka state on the other side in. So as Pakistan is concerned, we have great amount of strategic debt. Anything located below Madia Pradesh, you know, even in terms of nuclear is unreachable for them.
So in so FARs Pakistan was concerned, we did not really need submarines or what we call undersea capability, the naval triad for a second strike capability. Anything located beyond. Could have been hit, could hit into Pakistan in the case of a second [00:17:00] strike deep into Pakistan in, in fact, it covers all of Pakistan with Agni four.
Even Agni five is far beyond that. Even ugly three Agni, four covers all that, you know, whereas Pakistan's missiles do not cover entire India. Right? So we are the things, so that is why, you know, uh, one is that the second is Pakistan is a linear country. They can mobilize faster and put their troops at the border very fast, but they also have no strategic depth.
And generally that's what they have been enunciating every now and then at the strategic level that the line which joins. Islam ndi, the highway, which comes from there, RA pindi Islam, Laur Kasu de Palour, and then goes on to Fort Abba, is the line beyond which their core starts. The heartland starts, so the moment the Indian armed forces crossed that line on ground, capture that material, that 15, 20 kilometers depth up to [00:18:00] depal port.
The moment you cross that, then you are behind, or you are between Kaur and Lahore, or you are between Islamabad and Lahore and you're into the core of Pakistan and the rest is open. So they say that that is their nuclear threshold. They define that. They define it that way, you know, but drawing a line in the sand is the easier part.
Mm-hmm. You know, you can just draw a line and carry out threatening people is the actual usage when it comes in that. You know, things start getting really complicated. So that is part one of my medicine. Second is, uh, you ask that why wars between of, uh, are not venable? I did not mean, you know, in the sense there are wars which are venable, you know, there are wars which are Venable, for example.
The Second World War was clearly won by the allies. You know, they had, yeah,
Abhinandan: of course. I mean, I'm not [00:19:00] at all suggesting that we go to an area when, you know, in fact, uh, last week or the, this week was victory day, what Russia celebrates his victory day. Uh, when they actually defeated Nazi Germany, they lost 27 million people.
I mean, that, those war are over, I think. No, I, I was actually more curious, uh, brigadier that, uh, why has escalation become higher this time as opposed to u Bala court where, you know, we did strike, you know, them across the border, but this didn't happen. That, you know, they're striking 15 targets. Here they are.
Now saying we watch what we do, the saber rattling has become a lot noisier this time. Is it because they are pandering to a local audience as well? Or has something changed strategically for them on the ground?
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Uh, let me just first go back to why wars between two neighbors are not Venable. Okay. Right.
You know, uh, they will be victors. You know, uh, I, if you see my piece, I've very clearly written, you know, India is a much larger economy and [00:20:00] today wars are driven by economic. Might, you know, those days of, you know, one sword. One spear and one are gone. Mm. Today we are fighting what we call techno industrial wars, you know, technology with the ability to produce munitions, you know, at a very fast rate and feel them in medicine.
So the second part of this is that, you know, uh, Pakistan does not have the ability to sustain a war against India because eventually, after a few days of war, we will prevail upon them. We are armed forces are far better equipped. They are larger number. We are able to bring more combat power on the battlefield in all forms over.
However, that process of reducing the Pakistani armed forces, you see, that's not the Pakistani armed forces, not a Taliban, you know, they are neither the Palestinians. So the process of reducing that [00:21:00] armed forces will take a few days. Now, the destruction that will happen and the attacks that they launch, the artillery, et cetera, like what you're witnessing on the LOC will also be there on our side.
There will be some destruction on our side. Right? So what we are trying to say is that in the case of, you know, United States fighting a battle from a war from conus, and everybody going about their life without even seeing one round being fired is different. In our case, there will be certain amount of damage on our side, especially in the a hundred kilometers built, adjoining the border.
So that is why at the end of the day, you know, uh, war such wars are not really, you know, uh, vulnerable, uh, in the way, in the classical sense of the victory.
Jayashree: Can I ask a question? So like, um, yes, but what, how do you view aerial attacks as like a response to terror? Like for example, BALCO, what do you think it achieved?
Like do you [00:22:00] think they have a deterrent value? Or is it mostly about sort of sending a message, but you know, the outcome of it hasn't actually achieved much.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Uh, see, uh, history tells us that these attacks have, we have fought a number of wars with Pakistan.
Song: Yeah.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: You know, and at the end of the day, uh, you know, that terrorist sponsorship and the fermenting of terror inside India continues.
Right. But it's also about punishment. You know, also about telling people that you can't continue this. Hmm. Uh, you know, ad lib and, uh, then hope that nothing will happen because in which case you are only encouraging, you know, allowing encouragement of that deed to be perpetuated time and time again, which is absolutely not desirable.
So there has to be punishment, you know, just as a person who carries out in the, in, in, let's say in the civil, let's say there is a serial murderer. Hmm. You know, would you like to, uh, just [00:23:00] chastise him, send it for psychological counseling for some time or at some stage of his crimes, you would like to say, okay, it's time.
You know, you send him to the literature. Or, you know, or, or something like that. Or imprison him for life or something like that. You know, there's a serial killer around there.
Song: Hmm. You know,
Brig. Kuldip Singh: so, uh, at, so this is about punishment, you know, and that's what the Indian Air Force has tried to inflict without crossing the border, because the moment you cross the border, then you know, you are looking at the prospect of, uh, greater collaboration.
Right.
Manisha: So, like you said, um, we've always known these terror facilities have existed. We've always presented this option to governments even after 26 11, that, you know, we can go and we can strike them. What do you think has fundamentally changed for us to go into Punjab? I mean, what has significantly changed is that we've redrawn the red line, we've gone into proper [00:24:00] Punjab and hit how, how do you think this.
Decision was taken even though you were probably not there while it was being taken. But what's your guess on why this time we decided to just go all the way and will that significantly change our ability to manage the escalation? Because you can manage it if it's in POK, but now that we've gone into Punjab, we kind of now have to wait for what Pakistan does.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Okay. Uh, let me first handle the escalation part. You see, um, what is being left unsaid? What is being left unsaid and unstated and not being spoken about is the issue that till now. Till very recently, we always had some large superpower. As a mediator.
Manisha: Yeah.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Or a crisis manager.
Manisha: Yeah.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: You know, if you look at Cargill, look at the [00:25:00] amount of interests that was taken by the United States.
You know, nostri was there. Uh, our own, you know, uh, defense minister at that time, Mr. Just one thing was there, you know, there were par they, you know, intervened and they ensure that, you know, uh, the crisis won down and did not escalate to nuclear levels. In fact, there's the specific story which goes around and tells that the US deputy, NSA told Pakistan.
Un sheet your nukes and put them back. Uh, if you recall that, uh, story, you know, it was went around. So they, they, they were also the crisis managers. Now, if you look at post B Court, you know, behind the scenes, if you read that Congressional research service report of January, 2020, which has been put out by the Congressional CRS, uh, for their own Congress, if you read that report, that very clearly brings out what happened behind the scenes and how many times, you know, uh, president Trump at that stage intervene, talked to people Yeah.
And ensured that Pakistan released, uh, you [00:26:00] know, a, uh, Aman ab then the pilot. Mm-hmm. And both sides won down. Now, if you notice, uh, there is, uh, rather disinterest from the side of the United States.
Manisha: Why is that?
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Uh, I think, um, the dynamics had possibly changed. You know, he's more focused on, you know, Europe and he, I mean, he has taken, um, taken too many things on his plate.
Manisha: Yeah, he seems very nonchalant. Trump. I mean, his statements seem very nonchalant. They're very, like, they also bad.
Abhinandan: Also, I think, uh, he does not take his job of a world leader seriously. Uh, and that is clear by several interviews he's given the last week. Yeah, the most notable when he was asked, do you think it is your job to uphold the constitution?
He says, no, I don't really think that's my job. Um, uh, Joe Biden in a surprisingly coherent interview to the BBC Day befores today. Has pointed out to many things that Trump does that does [00:27:00] not behave a world leader. So Trump really doesn't give a shit if he bomb ourselves to death. He doesn't care. Uh, we are the global south.
We are not close to him. We are not north, uh America. We are not Europe, we are not Havana. There's no, you know, Cuban missile crisis, uh, happening in their back door. So I think they don't really care. All the Marco Rubio has spoken apparently according to CNN, to both, uh, uh, prime Minister Modi Yes. And, uh, the Prime Minister of Pakistan over the last few days.
But I think one, uh, interesting, uh, perspective that I saw, which concerns the media, which completely turned fake news on its head, was this interview, uh, that was done on CNN last night, uh, of I think the former, uh, ambassador or the representative of UK to the un. He has also served at some point in Pakistan who said that there's going to be this strategic escalation, which he says [00:28:00] is basically first we, you know, they hit us, you know, two 20 kilometers inside, or two oh kilometers wheel hit them 40 kilometers inside.
They let us 45 kilometer wheel them 50 until someone comes and stops both sides. I mean, you don't get too deep, right? Uh, and in the meantime, uh, as most Western media describes both Pakistani media and Indian news media as those having a very casual relationship with the truth, uh, which is unfortunate because I remember 15, 20 years ago the Pakistani media was a joke.
The Indian media wasn't quite a joke. It was not fantastic, but it wasn't ridiculous. Now we are at the same level, and they said they will, both the medias will weave their own fake news narrative to placate their domestic audience and. Both will be fake, but everyone can go home and relax and go to sleep, but
Manisha: it can deescalate.
Abhinandan: That is a good way of deescalation where fake news plays a aka. So I thought that was a very interesting take. [00:29:00] There is one, but let's
Manisha: go back. You can finish my, you know,
Brig. Kuldip Singh: firstly about Trump. You know, I, uh, would not really agree that, uh, you know, Trump, um, yes, Trump, uh, president Trump does make statements, which, you know, are perhaps off the cuff, but, you know, my personal experience from many, many visits to the, uh, US and part of being, having been part of many strategic dialogues, et cetera and all that, is that the us you know, the, uh, the president is not all that powerful as we make him out to be.
You know, uh, there are very strong institutions, um, uh, in the United States. You know, like if you look at the first term of Trump, uh, you please remember how James Comey of the FBI stood up to him. How did the Attorney General stand up to him? You know, today, if you notice, uh, within the Pentagon, there's a pushback against what Pete he has been trying to [00:30:00] do.
Yeah. So they have very, very strong institutions and, uh, there is always a pushback. So, you know, why? Let's not, you know, just carry it away by optics in the way that a person says something, if he doesn't mean. I mean, uh, it doesn't really I this thing. So I would like to investigate that issue far more deeply on the basis of what.
He achieves through that statement rather than the statement itself
Song: right
Brig. Kuldip Singh: now. The second part is the escalation. I think in the case of Bala Court, we just hit one seminary and the issue was over. Now, this time, uh, you know, the strike has been across, see, the strikes across the LOC are, uh, you know, uh, have been going on ever since independence, because it is the line of control.
So, you know, they have been shelling. In 2003, we had a ceasefire agreement after started again, stopped again, started again, stopped again. You know, it has been going on. But crossing the international border and hitting two places is perhaps [00:31:00] one of Pakistan's red lines. Although the Indian Air Force and the Armed forces and the MBA has clarified that we, we have not targeted.
Any military civilian infrastructure, you know, or any industry, what has been a longstanding, you know, intelligence identified terror infrastructure, and that has been struck. So, but, you know, uh, uh, the Pakistanis, they've, they have said that it's a violation of a sovereignty, so perhaps that's why, you know, they, and, and also you see the Pakistani army today, um, is enjoying a rather.
Poor image. They are also beset on many fronts. You know, there is a balu problem going on. Who? And you recall that train siege, you know? Mm-hmm. The TTP is acting out the Taliban, uh, you know, Afghan Taliban, they're putting pressure on them, et [00:32:00] cetera, and all that. So, you know, on, they are preoccupied on many fronts.
So, uh, the, this government also, you know, after the imprisonment of removal of Ebro Ka that raan, it is still trying to establish a brand and add to it the, you know, economic evisceration, you know, which has happened over there. So, you know, uh, this is perhaps a thing which is trying, they're trying to gather, you know, everybody behind them in the name of nationalism.
Abhinandan: Right. I, but I must say, uh, sorry for disagree, as are we, um, that's, that's inevitable in a war, isn't it? I mean. Any country in a war invokes nationalism to get the popular support. I mean, that, that is one thing that is common across the world.
Shardool: Yeah. So there is, there is a bit of difference. So I, I wanna address first the question Manish answered and you talked about it, us is less interested now because, one, they don't need Pakistan anymore like they did back then.
Pakistan in, in its own stature, has gone [00:33:00] down in the world. Mm-hmm. They are much down and we have grown Sure. Not that, not as we want to be, we should be, but we have the, the difference is much more now, the third is almost every NATO country, western country has wisened up to the Pakistanian because since the Mujahidin us SR invasion of Afghanistan, what Pakistan did was took the money from internationally.
All the countries, wherever they could get it from and use that money to breed terrorists, train them. And while they were fighting USSR in Afghanistan, they also diverted that money towards India. And now since the, uh, briad are mentioned, uh, 99 and 2001, but post 2003, the only incident, big incident, which happened was 26 11 Hmm.
Mumbai. And we could have taken the steps, but we still did not have, and in my opinion, we still don't have that strategic depth. And one, one thing was also [00:34:00] criticized for not doing anything. But now we do have it, and because people are more trustworthy of us, you have what? The strategic wherewithal to take action because to say no, that we will not tolerate this terrorism anymore.
You know, to draw a line in the sand like brigade subset. That is the thing. That is why the western country, the especially United States, is much less interested because one, like, like Henry Kissinger said, being a friend of United States is like putting yourself in peril in itself. That is the reason.
It's he Henry Kissinger's words on record. They don't need Pakistan anymore after os Laden was found.
Abhinandan: Yeah, I think they don't need Pakistan anymore. That is one thing, but strategic depths, there is some, I mean, I, I do not kind of buy into that narrative that there is any real, um, thought through a cohesive.
Mechanism by which we are taking apart terrorism in the long [00:35:00] run. Yes. As we've had a guest in the past who's the only a time in history where terrorism has been, you know, completely finished. Uh, and in a sense it is what the EDI also said that between neighbors, you know, a war, even if you win a war, if your neighbors, there'll always be a, some issue was Northern Ireland.
Yeah. And how that was dealt with is very different. You and I don't if there's any other case in the world where you have been able to wipe out terrorism and live in harmony, we are yet to see it. Yeah. So I agree with you. I agree with you. So I, I don't think, I mean, this is
Manisha: one of the ways to hit strategically and have punitive measures to hit the money.
Yeah. No, but I'm, I'm saying, and along with that lot of things, like it can never be one thing, it's always a mixture of five or six. Yeah. But, which is what I'm saying
Abhinandan: then that's a strategy that has to be cohesive. Thought through. I don't believe that has happened in any time in my living memory. Oh, agree.
It has. It's been [00:36:00] completely ineffective. I
Shardool: agree with you. Like the point I made and, sorry, sorry. Go
Brig. Kuldip Singh: the button, please. Yes, please. Yes, yes, please. Uh, I'll, I'll like to, you know, uh, answer two things. One is this thing that you mentioned. It's, you know, you must read a Randt study, A study by Rand. It's entitled, you know, how Insurgencies End.
Song: Hmm.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: And how Terrorist terrorist entities End. Very interesting. They have carried out analysis of over a hundred terrorist entities and it was found that 40%, 40%. Died or got finished because their political objectives were met. And they go on to define that most of these terrorist entities had very, very finite, you know, political objectives.
One second, 43% were ended with the help of pulis and focused intelligence [00:37:00] operations. Why Pulis? You know, I'll come to that at the end of this. Now, 10% died on their own and only 7% were terminated with the help of the armed forces. And they said that armed forces a blunt instrument. Why not armed forces?
Because armed forces come from outside, whereas a pulis knows almost. The, almost the eating habits, I mean literally the eating habits of almost everybody. Yeah. Because of,
Song: yes.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: So 43% were ended with that. So it's a very interesting study. It's not that things have not been ended now, you know, coming down to another part, you see the problem is today that this is what we are talking about.
Terrorism as a classic case of injustice or something like that. Or against, you know, uh, invader or something like this. Like, you know, uh, in Ireland. Or, you know, in relation or any
Abhinandan: perceived [00:38:00] injustice, even if not real injustice, it just has be perceived by select bunch. No, no.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: See, there are cases, for example, you know, like there are cases in which, uh, some people have come from outside, like in Africa, you know, people fought against people coming in from outside.
Song: Hmm.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: So you make all them a terrorist, but they listening. But that is not what we are talking about today. Yeah.
Song: Hmm.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: You know, I want to make two points in this case. See today terrorism is a form of warfare. We are not willing to admit it. You know, it has become a form of warfare. Why? Because it is the cheapest option to disrupt a country.
Mm-hmm. You know, with a few people and some money. You are tying down the resources of that country. You're tying down the intelligence resources, the economic resources, the military who are, who have to flood that area. And you are also carrying out aggravation of that population. Why? Because when the military goes in, they have to carry out a check.
You know, I have been [00:39:00] there, so, you know, when, I mean, when you carry out a check, you know, you have to stop people, people get inconvenienced. You know, there's a lady walking by and you, uh, uh, are you really not sure? Uh, is it a lady? What's that sticking out? You know? And you stop and you, uh, okay. And it's not me who stops.
Somebody from the jovan stops and he says, stop. And, uh, you find she's getting an umbrella, but the fact that she has been stopped and checked, you know, uh, is an aggravation. Right. You know, some people perceive it that. Why checking me. So this inconvenience, so it's, it's become a form of warfare against another state.
It's the cheapest option. Then at the end of that, there's a deniability. Now law people say this is irregular war, you know? But the problem is no war is regular or irregular, you know? No war is regular. What is a regular war? Is, is a regular war, is are [00:40:00] there some rules like basketball? Mm, this is a three pointer or, or there a referee standing over there.
So no war is regular or irregular. If you go back to, you know that saying, you know, war is a continuation of politics by other means, you know, terrorism, a continuation of a form of warfare by other means. Sure. So what we are facing is a form of war. You know, which is deniable and which is cheaper to phage.
Manisha: Yes.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Right.
Abhinandan: And one, and that's
Manisha: at the heart of the problem.
Abhinandan: No, I had one question. Uh, you know, this is just strategic. Just wanna know your views on it. And then I also want to know the panel's views on it. Uh, while watching the international media, what really, and I've mentioned this last time also, what really sometimes irritates and annoys me is, you know, I, I, my views, my politics is, you know, pretty transparent.
I'm, I'm not one of those hyper nationalists or even slightly nationalist or at all nationalist, but [00:41:00] I don't think there is any doubt of, uh, Pakistan's aggression using terrorism over the decades. But yet, even in the case of what happened in Helga, the BBC refused to call those men terrorists, men with guns is how they described them.
Um, when I was watching CNN last night, uh, when I've been watching, um, Al Ja Zera, I've been watching so many of these international channels and the narrative. To me, and I think I'm a pretty objective party. I'm no Pakistani hating, you know, uh, uh, Hindu, Hindu warrior. But I think there is a clear, bad guy here, which is Pakistan historically, but yet the world doesn't see it.
And I don't see how they don't see it. And what I figured is the world doesn't
Brig. Kuldip Singh: you. The world doesn't. But no, my point
Abhinandan: is because all the reporters are reporting from POK, not a single of the foreign correspondences allowed in Kashmir. Would, would we not be able to, would we not be able to push our narrative if we said, [00:42:00] boss, come and report from here.
Everyone is on that side. Not a single reporter can report from here. We lose the international narrative.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: No, I see. Uh, we, that's what I'm trying to say. You see, uh, we really need to look at how West Views Terrorism One is the UN that lose un definition. You know, uh, by the un attack, by irregular forces on armed forces personnel of another country or security personnel is not, is not surprisingly terrorism.
Then what is, uh, uh, uh, they say, uh, it is, uh, it is, uh, irregular. Asymmetric warfare. Irregular warfare. Yes. Only when civilians are attacked, they're defining as a terrorism, very strangely. Now, why the west behaves that way? You know, terrorism, really speaking, we are now talking of terrorism, but who are the founders of terrorism?
Modern, contemporary T of course, I'm not trying to root trace, you know, [00:43:00] trace the roots of terrorism back to the Israelis. And you know, those murder, the thing, the people who went through the thing. It's as old as history of mankind and any other profession, terrorism. But if you look at what happened in the second World War, there are so-called resistance fighters, you know, beautifully brought out in that movie.
In glorious bastards. In, yeah. Operating behind the lines. You know? Now to Germans, they were terrorists to the French and to the allies, they were resistance fighters. So, you know, and many of the terrorist groups, if you look at the uk, if you look at the us they have sponsored terrorism across the world.
You know, or you know, they, they have been, the United States has always been in the forefront of what we call rent an army.
Song: Hmm.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Somewhere rent an army. You know, if you look at Iraq, you know the Sunni [00:44:00] militias. Yeah. You know, you know, and if you go to Afghanistan, back in Afghanistan, they were the muja. So they have a slightly and slightly different definition.
And in their case, especially in the case of the United States, they have not been really troubled except by the 9 1 1 attacks. You know? Uh, beyond that, they have really not been troubled internally by terrorism. Very, if you must go down to a website called the Southern Law Poverty Center. And the FBI websites.
Surprisingly, when a US citizen especially, uh, Anglo-Saxon kills two 50 people or shoots down children, 30, 40, 50 children, it is not terrorism. It's a shootout. Hmm. You know, and the NRA will come and tell you, you know, uh, uh, you [00:45:00] know, people, guns don't kill people. People kill people. Hmm. You know, that kinda, you know, bland Yeah.
Definition that, and it's not just as simple as that. You know, in their case, if you look at the number of so-called terror groups, you know, many of their, uh, you know, worst. In fact, if you go down to the Yeah. Website and to the Southern Law Poverty Center, you know, uh, what is called statistic, you'll find these guys have killed more of their own.
Then terrorists have killed them. Sure. You know, so they have a different, different variation of terrorism altogether and they are unable to see what's happening to us.
Abhinandan: But do you think they're just, but but do you think it's, uh, you know, strategically, even for optics, better idea to let media report from Indian Kashmir as well?
The, at least, you know, what, what is not occupied by Pakistan so that they, [00:46:00] they, you know, trust our narrative as well. Because I just find the narrative that is put out there while they try to be neutral, they seem to suggest that they are kind of more, you know, they are more likely to believe what Pakistan is saying.
Which I find bizarre because Pakistan again, 'cause Pakistan is a serious country. It's not a serious country. It is, it is three cities that have some sort of order, uh, you know, which is La Islam, Karachi, and maybe to an extent ndi, the rest of Pakistan is the wild west. So why would their narrative at all be comparable to a country which is a functioning democracy, however noisy or problematic it be?
Would it not solve the problem by just letting a few reporters or journalists hashmi?
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Yeah, I, I fully agree. You know, in fact, um, uh, I find some of the reporting, it's just recently that, you know, uh, YDA Hakeem, she did some very serious questioning, you know, with the defense minister. You know, she's the one who really tried to put him on the mat.
Yeah. But many of the, [00:47:00] you know, uh, journalists or, you know, uh, of news portals, they don't ask those difficult questions and reporting. Yes. I personally, fully subscribe to your view that, you know, many of them should be encouraged to come and report from India and give our perspective, our pain, our problems, you know, uh, so that, you know, there's a balanced.
View, which is being projected and not a one-sided view. But again, if you come down, you see Pakistan was a chosen one from the fifties by the United States. You know, they were part of that CTO Santo that Mutual Defense Pact. All their offices, you know, were doing courses abroad. Most of the civilians were going for study abroad.
They were chosen one till very recently, you know, till very till about 15 years back. They were, you know, that privileged ones. So there is a easy access, you know, uh, they, a lot of people find that ease of associating with them [00:48:00] over there. Whereas, uh, they have yet to find, you know, that. Uh, you know, ability to reach out, meet people here and, you know, do the reporting here.
But I fully agree, I think they should be encouraged to come here and see what is happening rather than just sit down over there and, uh, you know, report from there.
Abhinandan: But we'll come to that battle later. Right? Let's try to get Indian reporters in to report from India. But, uh, thank you so much for joining us.
Has been an extremely, uh, wonderful conversation and got to learn a lot. But before we say goodbye, uh, can we get you to recommend something that would enrich the lives of our listeners?
Brig. Kuldip Singh: We tend to go much by hearsay. We cheat in the way, like we want to buy a car. Ask someone. Hmm. You know, and that guy says, I don't know.
I'll ask someone. Hmm. And who do they end up asking? They, I end up asking a 80-year-old bji or something like that. A Fuji, you know?
Song: Hmm.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: That guy was born in a era when cars were, you know, [00:49:00] the thing. So, you know, uh, why aren't you doing your own address? So I learned one thing that whenever you speak, whenever you, the thing people, people you know, uh, uh, form an opinion of you based on what you speak, what you speak so deeply investigate an issue.
Both sides. So what we were taught is whenever you make an intelligence assessment, marshal all the evidence, make two assessments. Okay? One assessment and a competing negative hypothesis.
Song: Mm.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Yes. Compare both. C, which has got more credibility, weight based on your own experience learning, and then go with that or even amend that, you know, or take pieces from the competing and put it here.
I apply that to my everyday life. That is one thing that I can tell people that learn how to deeply investigate every issue, even every minor issue. Yes. Before forming an advertising. Second [00:50:00] is, I always would say that read deeply. I, uh, you know, have a huge collection of books. My wife blames me that, uh, the number of books that I bought.
If I had not bought them, she would've built another house.
Song: Right.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: You know, he blames me for that. So I read a lot of book. Anything that I lay my hands on, I mean, not trash. So the, so, so tell us the
Abhinandan: last good book you read.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Uh, right now. Right now I'm reading this, uh, you know, this is Kaplan Robert Kaplan's, you know, he's a good writer.
It's the ends of the earth. You know, I read that, uh, I've been reading, I read a lot into grand strategy strategy, nuclear difference theories, con conflict, et cetera, and all that, you know, so, you know, uh, uh, I read things by George Friedman, Thomas Friedman. You are aware of who, uh, George Friedman is. He was the founder of Stratford.
Song: I see.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Which they call the parallel CIA. Mm. So after that, it was [00:51:00] taken over by another group. He's formed another company called Geopolitical Futures. It's a paid site, but he writes excellent stuff. Now, there are a lot of old authors. You know, you have Zu, you have Bmu Muhi, you have Little Art. You know, you have, you have, you know what is called Gaddis.
You have, you know, you, you, there's a whole range of people. You can continue, modern people, you know, like if you, uh, uh, are reading, I would recommend that every person go through that. Four volumes of U No Harari starting off from Sapiens.
Abhinandan: Yeah. A lot of people recommended that. Yes.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: I have to say this time on Indian serials.
Manisha: What about Indian TV news, which is very excited.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: I, I, uh, Manisha, I'm sorry to say I threw out the set top box about five years back. Oh no. We don't watch any, uh, news channel.
Abhinandan: Thank you so much. That Bri So our audience, not only did you get two [00:52:00] recommendations of what you should read, you also got a recommendation of what you should not watch.
And that is what you get on the press Freedom Week one plus one offer. You can scan this QR code and, uh, contribute to a media that is not, uh, vacuous and shouting and exploiting your emotions. But thank you so much, sir. Uh, pleasure speaking with you. Uh, stay safe, stay motivated and motivating others.
Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Grateful.
Brig. Kuldip Singh: Thank you. Thank you.
Abhinandan: Bye-bye. Hello? Sorry about this ad break. It's an ad about us on our show, not paid for by taxpayers money. So actually I should not be sorry. This is an information only message for a very special episode of a crossover between Hafta and South Central.
As you know, the news, laundry and News Minute have a partnership and association, which you hope to cement even further. And as part of that crossover of our two flagship podcasts, [00:53:00] we have a special Freedom of Speech episode. This special episode is gonna be aired or put online, not aired. That's absolute term.
Will you put online on May the 13th, which is a Tuesday, and this is a conversation with Al Camera, Dran, Puja Prana, Manisha Pane, and myself. So Al is gonna tell us about, of course, his recent brushes with the law, uh, freedom, speech satire, political satire, et cetera, et cetera. And let me see if I've completed the message.
Of course I haven't, 'cause I can never remember anything. There is this QR code, which you have to scan. Because this episode is for subscribers only. So you have to be a subscriber of News Laundry or News Minute, or a member. I would suggest pick up a joint subscription. You can get everything on both sides, and by both sides, I mean News Minute and News Laundry, and there's a QR code.
There's a link in the show notes below. Get the full conversation. I highly recommend it. We've discussed many things about the history [00:54:00] of satire, freedom, speech, political freedoms, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So back to the Hafan now. Yeah, so on this, uh, matter, you know, I'm sure all of us have stuff to share about.
What is happening? The battle, Manisha is very scared. She was saying, let's go to Bangalore. So 'cause now, now after the conversation with the Briga, she was saying, let's P Cargo. 'cause they cannot come that far. Oh my
Manisha: God. Go below.
Abhinandan: She rolls her eyes. You're sitting safe in general. Nice. Chill out.
Jayashree: We had
Abhinandan: two
Jayashree: mock drills.
One at the atomic plant in Ham and one at the Chennai port. Actually that must be,
Manisha: it must. Yeah. Although the site must be quite tense. Okay. I'm
Abhinandan: just saying. Uh, just, this is India. This is India, a country, and this is something that I've observed before I come back to the point that I want to ask you about the media reporting from Kashmir.
But India is the country where during the Delhi riots, a cop pointed a gun at this man charging at him. [00:55:00] He was no, KU Bering was a regular dude. His name was Sha, I think.
Song: Yes. He
Abhinandan: kept walking. We had the reverse. A guy pointing a gun at a cop. The cop is pushing the gun away. Like in America, someone points a gun, the guy's hitting the floor or the guy's, everyone's backed off.
Here people are saying is like this, India's the country where there's an earthquake. I live in a high rise, complex thing is checking. People are shouting, are you going down? No, but it's lasting a little long. Yeah. Should we go The most
Jayashree: tragic is India as a country, then we have to come
Abhinandan: up with, we'll see India.
Jayashree: India, the tsunami took place and it was horrific when it happened and so many people died and so many people that I know drove that morning to Marina Beach to stand and watch the waves coming in. And then they were like, oh my God, it's coming really fast. So this is that country they ran. So I'm not sure has that,
Abhinandan: how effective security drills are.
And secondly, I dunno whether you've seen the videos [00:56:00] of cops or. Ambulance personnel picking up people who are injured. Those are people who are trained. Yes. And you've seen how they pick up injured people. I was watching a match recently. Indian match, someone got injured. The people who went on the stretcher, how they picked him up.
So if you think one drill of half an hour is going to do anything, good luck my so no. But anyway,
Manisha: the point of with like he said, modern warfare and all you a need bunkers. So if a siren goes off, the drill has to be about reaching your bunker as soon as possible. We don't have that in cities. And you don't need lights anymore.
No. Like putting up black chart paper and the can doesn't make a difference to where the machine, this is the World War
Jayashree: II approach to a drill. That makes sense. This is equivalent of
Abhinandan: Ali Baja. Yeah. But yeah, lemme go around the table on this. Um, I mean, genuinely, you know, forget your politics of this government or this ist it just basic, every international report I see the reporter is standing.
Pakistan occupied [00:57:00] Kashmir, dude. Like, let the reporter report from here see that this is more normal than that side. Why don't we allow that? Isn't it a no brainer? Or is am I missing something? No, I, why don't we
Manisha: allow, uh, foreign media to report from Kashmir? Yeah, but that's been a very long standing strategy now for almost 10 years.
But what is it serving? What I think, I think because you don't want what happens, the Indian viewers, that when foreign media reports, it tends to report on the excesses by the armed forces.
So the idea is to curtail information in a way that if normal people tend to complain about what has happened to them, like you said, we've been stopped, we are been checked, or a house has been raised that should not go out. So I think, so we're saying that the
Jayashree: strategy is that the Indian Army or Indian, the fear ising a certain kind of excess also, which should.
Well, but I mean, that's surely can't be. [00:58:00]
Raman: I think there is a sense of distrust, uh, whether it is international media or the Indian
Manisha: media. Indian media, no Indian media is allowed in K media. There is a sense international media is a sense of distrust. There, there is
Raman: a sense of distrust, even in case of Indian media, but at least we can somehow get it.
But at case we can go and report, okay, we can report. But here, I think, uh, the government, they try to, you know, give, uh, their own perception in which they have, they have been selling it so far. I mean, they're quite successful about it. And I think they have quite meticulously, I mean, I'm not discussing the media is sense of distrust.
That's what I feel. But the perception that they have. Given about this particular war, even the violence looks, you know, very much part of the diplomacy that they're playing. Uh, you know, along with this violence, the nine strikes that they have done. So you also have, uh, the foreign secretary meeting the 13 invoices of security council.
Mm. You know, and, uh, and, and telling that how we are just, uh, uh, attacking the terror infra, we're not attacking, [00:59:00] uh, you know, the country per se. Sure. So I think, I think it was very meticulously planned and ensuring that the media is, no, I think the
Abhinandan: messaging was managed, but this is not a BJP thing of not allowing foreign media there.
This has been the policy for decades. It was there in the up time as well. I just don't understand what has it served? No, no.
Manisha: The last time when the, there was a media before
Raman: 2014 we were out,
Manisha: there were lots of media. What foreign press, Ellen Barry has written so many pieces from NYT from there.
Especially when there was a massive After Bhan money. No, not after Bhan. After that. She was there when, uh, well, when there was a massive like Yeah, but this is arrest on the streets. This is multi
Abhinandan: government development. Because, because I remember even during the UPA time, I was having a conversation with some foreign correspondent who were complaining that they cannot get to Kashmir to report.
It is easier for them to report on that side. So I'm not sure if it was a blanket policy, but it was very difficult for foreign correspondence to [01:00:00] report from this side of Kashmir. And I Do you have a view on it? Why does it work? Yes. I And has it served its purpose? If so,
Shardool: I have a long answer for this, but.
The ask you,
Abhinandan: which is not unusual.
Shardool: Yes. But like a complex like, like, like Ed's said, like you have to research and think about it. So I have been reading about this for a long time, and that approach has been to my life. Like even if you have to buy specs, you have to research them. So I have a view, which I get a flack for, but India and like, it's very easy to say it.
Hmm. India for some reason since 20th century, we don't know how to hold long. Gr Yes. Long term, long term grudges and be strategic about it. We always get weak, weak need, like the inception of this state, like take a dispassionate view. Since the day this state Bo was born, it has been at war with you.
Mm-hmm. So why are you deluding yourself? Administration after administration has been deluding themselves and do not take long-term [01:01:00] steps. I'll give you an example. Uh, like I always forget the name of this dam. Actually. I wrote it like the Ur k dam, which was inaugurated by Ra Gandhi in 1982 and was signed by, uh, father of the grandfather of Ho Abdullah Shaik Abdullah and this ing BA in 1979.
It's still not finished. We don't do strategic affairs things. And that is, that is
Abhinandan: true for the PW of every state in the country. No,
Shardool: but that's the point. Right? Look at, look at other countries. It's true. Look at China, look at uh, even smaller countries. Israel, I am not going into value judgment that your animosity is wrong or right, but these things are long-term strategies.
It the do not happen in one year, five year, 10 years. That's true. There is another aspect and there has
Abhinandan: to be consistency across governments.
Shardool: Yes. And two more aspects to this. One, our diplomatic core has always been understaffed. The answer to your question lies there. Pakistan, no matter how deluded or [01:02:00] delusional it's policy is, but it's core policy is India is our enemy.
Mm. And it always puts primary efforts to that. So it has actors, which it has trained and long-term establishment invested in it. Mm. Be academics, be it in media. So they have their pitch prepared. Mm. Whenever this happens, even. State actors who are not seemingly or obviously part of the Pakistan administration.
I'll give you an example of B, B, C. Why does BBC take this look? Because Pakistan is living in England, more than 50% of them are from Ur.
Song: Hmm.
Shardool: UR is in PK. They have cultivated it. It takes a long time for all these things to happen about the media thing. Look at what happened. It's such an ironic thing. Bert, which is hounded by every right-wing person in India, was the only one countering Pakistan claims.
Mm. And eventually the Bjb goons were saying to, he is our guy. Our governments subsequently, for [01:03:00] decades and decades, hate two things, primarily transparency and accountability.
Song: Mm-hmm.
Shardool: If you have to, you. Create reputation in international media that even the people who don't like you will report for you.
If something happens, you have to open up your border. Journalists going to Kashmir. You have to be able to accountable, and this government doesn't like a question asked to it. Then how do you keep people accountable? And international affairs are not in anybody's control. There is a very simple aspect.
The last one to this is Pakistan sustains itself now for past decade or so with the help of China. And China openly suggests and has been saying for a long time in its military doctrine that we have to keep India engaged because they see us as rivals. That's why they help, they openly support terrorists.
Manisha: In fact, they very clearly came out in support of Pakistan. Yeah, yeah. Very one of very few countries that really, but I I, but it's practically a colony also now. Yeah,
Abhinandan: exactly.
Manisha: Yeah. Pakistan is practically a colony and
Abhinandan: not just Pakistan srilanka the [01:04:00] imports, but I, I generally also think that the West has this, um, patronizing attitude to the rest of the world.
Uh, and in that patronizing kind of framework, anyone who is more powerful is always the overdog top dog, and they'll always hide the underdog. And in the general geopolitical economic might strategic size, et cetera, et cetera. India is top dog. So for them, no matter what, Pakistan remains the underdog. So I think they're a lot more, uh, you know, indulgent towards that.
I mean, I just don't see whether it is Islam being larger than having been found in Pakistan in avatar birth. Whether it is, you know, the economic. Condition of the country, whether it is it's, uh, um, how consistent it is on democracy. You see on all, all objective quantifiable parameters, it is not a serious nation.
But yet, [01:05:00] but yet they get the narrative out, which I find bizarre.
Shardool: Oh. Because they have cultivated that thing now. But because the
Manisha: ISI controlled, because of the army's control and because of the close association with America with CIA, they needed them. International
Raman: perception is still that, uh, Pakistan is a state which harbors all the terrorists.
Yeah, yeah. But yet, but
Abhinandan: yet they don't see India as a victim. You see what I'm saying? I get that.
Jayashree: But they did under, they did under Manmohan Singh far more than they do now that I completely agree.
Manisha: But although all other foreign countries and all important prime ministers, and they've all come out very clearly saying that India has the right to respond to terror.
Like they have recognized algaes terror. Yeah. But, but
Abhinandan: so, but that doesn't name Pakistan. You see, when these international statements are made, they're made very carefully. It is like all like, let me take the example of another foreign policy expert. Technically she was right or rash rot. When she said there is a rush man at Badrinath.[01:06:00]
The reporter kept asking her, is it named after you? She said.
Why are you watching this? He's not wrong. You know, have no idea where she's not wrong. I have no idea what, what is watching I, this is why you cannot be taken seriously as a journalist like you who
Manisha: have many point. I wanted to add that if they start to do that, then they'll have to look within, like the defense minister told Yal Hakeem that we've been doing this dirty work for you.
Raman: Exactly.
Manisha: He said it also, I've been doing it. So how about showing does some sympathy because then the US will have to look within and look at what they created. So let then look
Abhinandan: within, look at Trump. He's saying we fucked up throughout our lives. So let him also acknowledge one more. Yeah, go ahead Ri.
Jayashree: Okay. So on the media, the Western media itself is unable to use the actual terms that it must be using for things like Israel and Palestine. So I think expecting them to do it to Kashmir is very difficult now, especially because the, I [01:07:00] mean, as that minister very clearly pointed fingers at America, but it doesn't matter.
For me though, I wanna specifically talk about this, which is Pakistan killed innocent tourists based on them being Hindu. Now, with the shelling, there isn't even like a fig leaf of targeted attacks, right? It is that Pakistan is setting out to kill in innocent civilians, and that is what it wants to do.
But on India's response, I just, I think I do not see a cohesive long-term or strategic plan. Like what is the response? Shouldn't it be with respect to the specific events, details of who masterminded anything that what led to the attack? Anything that directly addresses security failures or those responsible.
Instead, what I feel like we are getting is muscle flexing this entire thing of, oh, we're gonna draw in the sand and posturing and so forth. This is what people want. Look, this is what people want because your nation is understandably upset and angry about a terror attack, but to only emotionally assuage the thirst for revenge.
While not doing anything, this demonstrably material that led to the circumstances, I [01:08:00] feel, why aren't we allowed to question it? Like why is everyone cheering on a prospect of war? And I think it is deplorable. There is no an, there's no meaningful anti-war left in India. Yeah. Given the CPM and CP are clapping you leading, and every single political party across the spectrum is saying, yes, we stand by you.
Then on the media. I feel, why is it anti-national to merely ask for reporting and news instead of everyone closing ranks and saying that we must simply just. Repeat what the government has said. Yeah. Why is that some demonstration of patriotism that is required for us to even ask questions? There is no lack of, I mean, there's no desire to be factual, no perspective, no objectivity.
Even the so-called liberal media, which I find very depressing. Yeah. But it's some kind of,
Abhinandan: yeah, you're right. I think, but that's consistent with how it's the world over had its being, but Harts being the notable like exception in Israel, but then
Jayashree: complete abandonment of critical thinking, right? Yeah. Like that you have to fall in line living with B like.
It was in many ways a [01:09:00] failure, right? Yes. Because they ignored 11, whatever, 11 intelligence inputs about, uh, pulma that came before. Then they shot down their own aircraft. They already hit 1 73. We lost a pilot whom we then had to hectically sort of negotiate back, but still like it. And it's like, okay, you shouldn't question it at the time, but we're not even questioning it now.
This is like five years later. In most
Raman: cases, most cases of terrorism are very difficult to investigate because they have their roots abroad. Hmm. They have their roots in many countries. So if you see the terrorism that has happened so far, it has been traced back to Pakistan. Yeah. So, so to to say that, what if it was Bala Court or Bombay, the Taja hotel attack?
I mean, you, you clearly, you could clearly, you know, connect it. To Pakistan ever, even in case of Pegram, the same thing happened. So in uh, yes it was, we may say that it is, uh, it was an intelligence failure, but to say that we investigate it and then, uh, you know, [01:10:00] wreck. So that
Abhinandan: won't be possible. Thatt be possible, I think.
I think if you were to just really break this down, how do you deal with a heinous crime, which is not under your legal jurisdiction? Yeah, definitely. It's that simple. What we are effectively doing is if five or 50 or a hundred people came and did a law charge or did a robbery or did a murder, they would be arrested.
And under the jurisdiction of the nation, you can try them. So there is no, uh, you know, one sidedness there is critical evaluation. There is, I think the challenge becomes, and I mean it's worth looking into. I think this is an interesting, um, kind of thought piece to write that what is. An appropriate mechanism that we have that can be accurately articulated for investigating questioning crimes that are not within the country's jurisdiction.
Yes. And how would one even, you know, pretty much look at them at different ways? And that's a, [01:11:00] i I think that's a tough, tough one. So
Jayashree: two things. I think even if we're saying that you can't investigate, and I agree that it is difficult, but by bombing nine places, how is this contributing to ensuring that a repeat doesn't happen?
Like should there not be some of an No, I meant
Abhinandan: that. I meant all of that. Not investigate the crime. Investigate how you deal with the situation, whether it is bombing. 'cause I'm not even saying you can see, you gotta see what are the options. Table. Do nothing. Yeah, do something. Do something and do something in the long run.
Does India have a tradition of the deep state that America does that no matter who was the president, their foreign policy is consistent? Their view on communism is consistent. Their view on, you know, so does India have that? Do we not? It's, I think those are questions we've just, even culturally we don't, we don't question things, you see?
Jayashree: But I think it's okay because we, we already know that, sorry, one more, just a couple of last things, which is that there are credible reports that there might have [01:12:00] been a jet that came down, right. If not one jet, several jets. But my thing is, I'm not saying that we need to believe some random anonymous source on the in.
Is claiming X or Y. The thing is that it is to ask, that question is seen to be unpatriotic, which is,
Abhinandan: yeah, that's the problem you say to me. I mean, that is that, isn't it
Jayashree: a heavy loss if it happened Also to ask the question, why weren't people evacuated from Ponch? Is that not a valid question to have asked?
Because there was always the chance that retaliatory firing would happen. Why was that never done? Mm-hmm. And also, my very last thing is, and this might be a very unpopular take, but so the Briga had said that we shouldn't get carried away by optic optics. I think we are widely carried away by optics.
Yes. I feel like this entire Ari Shati girl boss thing that we saw yesterday, and I mean look, we're a country that we applauded Vin Forat when she was winning medals for us. The second she called us sexual harassment, we threw her to the dogs. We applauded Herman when we thought that she was, you know, the model.
Victim wife, widow of this slain navy man. But then the second she said something we didn't like, [01:13:00] we threw her to the dogs. So I'm saying when you know that people are weaponizing optics in these ways, why is it that everyone is celebrating it? So,
Manisha: no, I completely disagree with that. I think it was, I think messaging matters a lot, and especially in a country like India, you would just have to see what happened within, I'm just looking at television media, right?
Right. From the time of Pega, we have been, uh, there's increased levels of anti-Muslim rhetoric on television media. There's been attacks on Kashmiris, there's been attacks on Muslims. And the moment you do this messaging where you've had two women, one Muslim, one Hindu, come together, give this, uh, briefing, lead the briefing on Operation Ur, you had to see television that day.
It was just a 360 degree turn. You suddenly shut this whole thing of. Let's ask questions of Muslims. So I think messaging matters and in that sense, having two women and of different faiths, it was a very [01:14:00] powerful message to put out. And messaging is very important sometimes. Sure. Because it completely kind of upturns, I think, you know, it was funny to see anchors who'd been saying, you know, harping on that and continue hin Muslim thing to suddenly say that, look, we are one country.
This is the ethos of India. We have united. So I, and I think that has a deep impact on people. Mm-hmm. When you see this imagery. Mm-hmm. So to me, I think it was a very good thing. Two things about operations. Ur I think every military strategist, people who've been in the defense would agree that attacking, you know, these precision targets cannot solve the problem of terrorism.
Song: Yes.
Manisha: Simply because this is a state policy for Pakistan. Like the brigade said, like Shaul said, this is their, it's a doctrine for them's, it's a warfare method for them. So, uh, we can. You know, we can be very sure that this is not, Pega is not gonna be the last attack and there will be more attacks. And we had said this in the earlier [01:15:00] episode that you have to be 24 7 vigilant and the terrorists just have to get lucky for that one second.
Mm. So that is there. But the point of these attacks is to say that, okay, we've had a long standing grouse as a country that we have, you know, we have not gone to Karachi on your railway station with AK 47 and gunned down your civilians. You've done that to us. You've attacked up parliament. Every other terror attack we can trace back to Pakistan.
So there's been way before Modi government, there has been this clamor that, when are we gonna respond? When does it get too much? Where? Where is that line where we soak enough enough now we are gonna do more than just present proof or talk to you or write letters to you or try and shame you. And I think that is what has really changed with operations Hondura.
And I don't think it's. I kind of get where it comes from and the politics of it is there. Of course, it comes from the fact that you today have a government, which is very clear in its intention of what it thinks of Pakistan. Like Shadu was saying that Pakistan is very clear that [01:16:00] India is the enemy for the current government.
There's a very clear intention that Pakistan is the enemy. It may stem from aspects of Hindutva politics, but there's a clear clarity and intention. And so that trickles down and you carry on this thing that you've been wanting to do for maybe 20 years. You've thought of it for 30 years. The only problem with this is that while you redraw the line, you now have the burden for every terror attack.
Every terror attack now has to be met with an escalation greater than
Song: Yes. The last earlier, so
Manisha: Bala Court, and now you know, we've gone deep into Punjab. We've attacked their defense, um, uh, installations in la not installations, but the defense mechanisms. Air Force, air Force defense, uh, what do you call it?
Air, air Defense. It's air. Air defense. Air, their air defense in la. And you are sure that this is not a deterrent, so what happens next? Right? Yeah. And do we have the gumption to be engaged in this constant battle with a monkey, with a gun? Basically, that's how Pakistan is.
Raman: As I said, I think this [01:17:00] time they have really meticulously planned, as you said, that messaging was very powerful.
Which it was because people were talking that there was a Muslim woman also, uh, you know, who, uh, who, who was there part of the press briefing. Yes. So everybody was talking about it. It was the talking point. And if you see the newspapers today,
Abhinandan: we are talking about it. Their stories
Raman: have, their stories have been given, you know, so I think, and it shuts haters very quickly.
You know, it's a very effective tool in shutting haters. I think this, uh, the message had to be given. The message was given, and even this violence has been wrapped. Into, uh, a proper diplo diplomacy because, uh, on the sides they are also informing the in international community that how we have done it, what we have done it mm-hmm.
And all that we're very professionally just hitting the terror infra. I mean, they may want
Abhinandan: communicate that. I'm not sure that that's, that's, that's what everybody's hearing [01:18:00] because wanting to do something is very different from actually being able to do it. So I think that they may want to do a lot of things.
I mean, no, what I'm trying to mean, he had even in the past told the, you know, air Force to go and it's cloudy so that No, no. But given, so I forgot one thing. I mean, I, I personally think that there is, what you're saying is that something had to be done. But what is that something is the question I think we have to critically look at.
I. Does that something achieve anything? It's hard for now. We know that the target are very precise because what we're saying is, is clear have to do target well, will it? What I'm saying is will it, will it solve the problem you're trying to solve? What you are saying is, is
Manisha: not solvable, just this.
Abhinandan: So, okay, then let's, okay, then let's go down this rabbit hole.
Yes, yes. If you're saying it's not solvable, then we are, let's look at it completely ity then. Are we deploying resources that could be other [01:19:00] otherwise deployed for something that is not going to give us a positive outcome. Then what you're saying is the optics is the purpose, which in my view is wanson, but that's not
Manisha: the only thing.
No. What I'm saying is nine strikes is not gonna stop it, but it's one of the many things on the menu to stop something to something,
Abhinandan: but Exactly. So if it's one of the many things, but not the only thing, it has not worked in the last 10 years, I. Then maybe we should start doing the other many things in addition to this one thing that we have to do.
Other many
Shardool: things
Manisha: have to be
Shardool: done with that de economically. So what the, the cash 22 sort of discussion we have come to this is what I was talking about. Sure. What happens is, I'll give you a philosophy example and we, which is very relatable though, be it a household, be it an organization, any type, be it a state.
If your domestic affairs are not in order, you will never be able to exert a pressure you want to on an external threat. Good point. Right Now what happens is our governments with what RI was saying, [01:20:00] people in punch were not. Wand for wand because people in India, especially state actors of different type B administrators of police, they are more interested in saving face and taking political gain and short-term political gain rather than looking at long-term strategic affairs.
This is a chess game and you are playing chess with another state, be it a smaller state, but they are a rogue state with nuclear weapons. Hmm. You can't force them to do anything, so you have to deploy strategies which imposes costs, like you gave an example, but if you employ a you know, strategy that if this happens, we will have to escalate this.
If that escalation happens, we will impose this cost and you create your narrative. People still believe and sort of subscribe to Pakistan narrative because for decades and decades their people have been employing that strategy and propaganda. When Indians go out, this government or any government. One decade.
We were talking about Amman. Isha, the next decade we are talking about we had Muslims. [01:21:00] Indians are not allowed. Correct?
Manisha: We are saying
Shardool: yes. So, so
Abhinandan: there's no
Shardool: consistency. Right? I'll give you, I'll give you a couple of examples. Like FATF when they were, um, being imposed a couple of years ago on Pakistan, India signed it, but why did you sign it?
Why are you supporting the state, which is sending terrorism? Who asked you to do this? Hmm. Our diplomatic strength is 1,123 right now. When this government has ramped up the, you know, enrollment to double, which is 35, 36 per year, which is abysmally low for country our size, every other country around us, be it Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka punches above their weight.
We sala always punch below our weight, and our diplomats are famous for getting visas for their children and relatives. It's a open secret. They don't work on long-term strategy. They're famous for KA visa. Hmm. That's the thing. I think
Manisha: the worry is also that like with Kashmir, after the abrogation, how everyone went, Tom, to [01:22:00] that we've solved terrorism.
Yes. I think that is the fundamental problem that you do something, but then there's nothing beyond that. So, uh, I agree with you that these strikes after this, you can't have 30 BGP rallies where the home minister and the Prime Minister Sanky, we finished terrorism in South Asia. Hmm. Youve done this. But I feel, but it has to be along with long-term strategic goals, like figuring out the money.
Financing. Where is the financing? Like instead of wondering where Job SO'S money is going into this news organization, figure out narco like the, uh, headline about the port drugs that were caught and how that led to Pegram terror.
Shardool: Yeah, I mean, these guys talk about Hindu. Like let people who are critical of you ask you questions, they will open up the shortcomings which you are ignoring.
Manisha: So on the URI thing, no, this is a very complex topic. We were discussing exactly that de radicalization and, you know, ending that sense of perceived injustice is very important. You look at the headlines that have come out yesterday, A poor man [01:23:00] in, uh, ish died in the shelling, uh, along with the 13 people.
He's just been dubbed a terrorist by three media organizations. There are terrorists. He's your own civilian. Hmm. A guy, teacher, how are you being and when you are not, I mean, there's no control over your own narrative, within your own, I mean, one day you are saying operations just six months ago, prime Minister saying, so I, there's a lot to be fixed within the country.
Also I, along with figuring out how you deal with foreign actors.
Jayashree: Yeah. I just feel, look, I mean about those two women officers and all I, the governor knows its audience. You put a Muslim woman officer next to a Hindu woman officer, yes. It is impactful. It tells you a story. And they knew everyone would wax alo about what a beautiful nation we are.
And that's what we're doing now. But also I think we are just too easily impressed with tokenism and not government. It's tokenism.
Manisha: I don't think it's tokenism. I
Jayashree: think it's tokenism. And I think that, well how is a person? Okay,
Abhinandan: let her finish your thought. We'll come to that. And
Jayashree: I think the, what [01:24:00] we are looking for from a government is we want the government to do something.
It doesn't matter if the government is doing something well or something that is fitting into some kind of plan. We just need something to happen. Then
Abhinandan: that's it. Like the demonetization, when the whole demo happened, and we've all experienced that with our friends who were, you know, BJP lovers, they said, why are you jumping the gun?
Let the data come in. Let the data come in. Right. Then the data started coming in one quarter I would call again, we discussed, let the data come in too short. Six months, eight months, one year black money back down to back to our, that the trajectory of digitization standard. Now, they don't even want to acknowledge now what is it?
But at least he tried.
Jayashree: Yeah.
Abhinandan: Then it doesn't matter whether anything came of it. Yeah. Now, why do you think it's It's
Manisha: okay.
Abhinandan: It's not to, sorry. It's
Manisha: not because Colonel Koi and Wing Commander, they have cleared exams. They have passed the tests. They have been in the Army. They've risen to the ranks on their merit.
You are spotlighting the fact that these women [01:25:00] exist. Hmm. And they have reached to. Highest positions. That's not tokenism. Sure. That doesn't, everything is great with the Army that we have achieved all gender justice or that India is great, but you're spotlighting diversity within your organization to send a message at a time where you do need to send a message of Unity.
I am a managing editor at News Laundry. If you put me on a panel with a diverse set of other panels, I don't think it's tokenism. I've reached her No, but because of my marriage. Yeah. But yeah, but I don't say, and then you Spotlight, it's not a commentary on you. It's not a
Jayashree: commentary on you or the women officer.
It is a commentary on why the government is using them to perform a certain purpose while also having, and those, it's own general ethos of being anti-women, anti-Muslim, pro hindutva. And yet we say, oh my God, but they have put a woman Muslim officer, so therefore, I, I think you send a message if you
Abhinandan: were to like, I, I mean, I think it could be both.
I mean, it could be a. I don't know what the dictionary word for tokenism is. I think tokenism the way you are for the
Manisha: sake of it, it's to put someone there for the sake [01:26:00] of it without actually working towards the, so no, but no, but
Abhinandan: what's using that? No, but no, but, but no, those are two different things. You can use someone who is deserving.
Yes. And I think what Manisha's definition of tokenism is that the person doesn't deserve to be there. I don't think that, no, my definition
Jayashree: is friends had an all white, my definition of tokenism is, suppose if you're a company in America, right? And you don't have a lot of black employees, you have two black employees and about 800 white employees.
You put that black employee on your prospect is, or on your Yeah. Website website's receive. So that's not a
Abhinandan: comment on whether that person deserves to be in that position or not. Correct. Which is what I think you're saying. It is what your company
Jayashree: is
Manisha: doing.
Abhinandan: I don't think it's a question whether she deserves to be there or, but, but we hire,
Manisha: we do a diversity hire just because we need diversity.
So we just get them there. But Yeah, but I,
Abhinandan: but I think that's what Jesse was saying. I think what she was saying is that this image does not reflect the reality of what's under the hood. I think that that is true. But at the same time, uh, optics matters. You know, just like I think, uh, you know, when [01:27:00] Maya Hy became chief minister and she made all those statues there, you could call it tokenism, but it was important that you will not only have statues here.
Yeah. There will also be a statue Dali woman. Now does that mean Maya ti cured, you know, all the ills of dalis? No, but that was important, I think. I mean, yes. The, the impo, it's, so, I think, I personally think generally in politics, in governance, you take the small victories and while also working for the big ones,
Song: yes.
Abhinandan: I think it made me happy to see a, you know, Muslim woman there. Didn't make me happy to see what circumstances brought her there, but this can be latched onto, so this is a, you know, wedge, you can then ramp through. Say when you need, you have a Mohammad Veru checks your facts for you. You have a Colonel Koi who makes you look good.
But yes, that doesn't mean all good [01:28:00] under the hood.
Manisha: Yeah, and I
Abhinandan: also just made a poem that is on the spot, like lik,
Manisha: but also I don't wanna complete India with bgp. So in BGP has this vicious narrative when it comes to Muslims. But again, I don't think that's all that is under the hood. I think there is.
There's a reason why Colonel Koi is there at the top because we are more than just anti-Muslim shit that B GB says. No, I
Shardool: think, I think you guys are talking about the same thing from different aspects like optics without any substantive long term action, especially in like situation which is strategically important and an enemy state is few tile in long run, even in short run.
So yes, optics matter, but if you don't do anything to substantiate those optics into your system, yeah, it will not matter. Like Bert, I gave an example like Bert is one guy countering, and even the right wing trolls were praising him. But if you want. People like Bert to Ish, then you should subscribe to News Laundry.
Abhinandan: No, you should s to, I would say, yeah, Hindu Bert [01:29:00] Boss subscribe to News. News. The old news link will be below. Zuber did a fantastic job. No, but like you, but you can also listen to him and for completely different reason, subscribe to us. But to say
Somalia fact hin,
Shardool: how did, my point is that only one you have, you need more people like this. And for that you need an institution which breeds people like this. For that you're
Abhinandan: not that institution I don't wanna take,
Manisha: but someday I would like to know whose idea was it? For that press briefing to be led by two women. I don't know if it's purely the PMO or if it was the right armed forces together, who decided that, or the defense ministry or who, but I think it was a great idea.
Raman: Everything is, uh, you know, very meticulously planned.
Manisha: Planned by the PO you think? I dunno.
Raman: Well, somebody, I don't
Manisha: know. I'd like to know the story behind that. I think it was [01:30:00] very well done.
Abhinandan: So on that note, which I've noticed is becoming my Akia K and I really need to come up with a better one.
Manisha: Should we read the letter?
Abhinandan: Let's, uh, yes. Move on to the emails.
Manisha: So we'll read quickly because we don't have much time. Six o'clock in five minutes, 15 minutes. So
Abhinandan: can we not, I saw whoever's curating this week's letters.
Manisha: Me,
Jayashree: me, me, me. So yes,
Abhinandan: we have covered the rule. We cannot curate 400 word letters and 300 letters. No, no. I,
Jayashree: but I, I've called a hundred word snippet
Abhinandan: from Yes.
You can only read hundred words of those caning.
Jayashree: Yeah. Yeah. I've, I've already written out a hundred word snippet.
Abhinandan: Right. And you can mail us@podcastsatnewsone.com. We only entertain the emails of subscribers. You can subscribe. Here's a QR code. There's the link way to keep news three. The link is in the show notes.
Uh, and we will be, you know, addressing all the letters that I've gathered, which now I think about 60 odd in nature. Uh, the coming week we have a full two, our recording of just letters. So if your letter has been included, it'll be addressed in the next episode.
Jayashree: [01:31:00] Yes. So Wael Sing wrote 430 words. I'm reading only a hundred words that I have taken out, which is he says, what I've come to realize in the long-term diplomatic game is that India has failed to capitalize on speaking about Pakistan occupied Kashmir on international forums.
On the Kashmir issue, you'll easily find in the international media, the discussion is about the Indian state of J and K, the Oswell Article three 70, its abrogation as well as issues of human rights and so on. Highly educated and well affirmed. Scholars will often talk about how the Indian government unilaterally abrogated Article three 70, but there's rarely talk on how Oswell FANA was illegally separated from the regional Kashmir in POK and practically given away to the government of Pakistan in 1947.
Also how Pakistan used backhand tactics to capture Dayday administration and so on. I believe this has led to the selective internationalization of Kashmir. It's a long-term diplomatic and security challenge for India and to internationally turn the tide on the rogue state, like Kash stroke state like Pakistan.
I think it's important to start talking about the whole of Kashmir and Kashmiris. [01:32:00] I think this is exactly what we talked about, right? Yeah. That the international idea of it has changed. Right? The next email is from Noman Khan. Who says, as a Kashmiri, I'm exhausted by how people act like resistance just materializes as it isn't the occupation itself that manufactures it.
This isn't chaos. It's a structure. It's the same we see in Palestine. Push people to the edge, strip them of rights, their voice, their future, and blame them for reacting. It's the same script, different flag. Most Kashmiri don't care about India or Pakistan. We want the right to exist with dignity without soldiers in every corner, or being paraded around as props for normalcy.
No one wakes up wanting to pick up a gun. It's humiliation, grief and hopelessness that push people there. The state builds the conditions and then acts shocked at the outcome. Um, he says The cycle of violence is neither liberation nor justice. It's pain, feeding, pain. The state would rather tighten its boot than ask why the fire started in the first place.
Abhinandan: Yeah. But although Kashmir is such a complicated issue, yes. Course we have Kashmir ki Kahani. [01:33:00] I, there is no doubt about the, uh, you know, excesses and enough has been written, said films that we made about the excesses of the military. But it was a complicated problem to begin with. Like, what I'm saying is that I don't, I mean, I'm not sure that an accurate description is that this entire resentment or the friction in Kashmir started with the Indian Army entering there.
Yeah. What I'm saying is it was a problem that was, that proceeded all that how it's been handled can be questioned, but that's not why it exists.
Shardool: Mm.
Abhinandan: And K is not comparable to Genesis. The Genesis is not the same. K is not comparable to Palestine. To Palestine. I don't think the two are comparable either.
Yes.
Jayashree: Also, there's a very old, let's talk about We did, no, yeah, we did. I think we did before I joined, which was quite good. Or two part thing on Kash,
Abhinandan: in fact. Yeah, we, you could watch that as well. Hmm.
Jayashree: Right Anonymous has said, I recommend interpret and filter for arguments and ideas instead of a word limit.
I disagree with the decision to remove Rama's [01:34:00] clip. I believe the mainstream reaction to misinformation is in whitewashing territory. I prefer an apology and disclaimer to a player alongside prominently read out separately, rather than rewrite history. Keywords like disinformation misinformation are used by US Democrat establishment to justify censorship like national security by Republicans.
I appreciate the haftar without paywall. It's important in a subscriber model to understand the editor's ideologies, as I recommend you evolve to be more open, for ideology to be challenged and influenced by own admission. The audience often is far more informed or erudite than some panelists and far London.
Please recommend a relook at US politics to mainstream Democrat. For example, your obsession with NPR West is not a utopia. I live there now acknowledge the western media biases. Example is pro-Israel narrative, and you must avoid subscribing to mainstream liberal narrative to retain objectivity. Well,
Manisha: so I think we should address the mistake we did, but uh, no [01:35:00] we did not.
Just to clarify, we didn't just remove it. We also added a very clear apology right at the beginning of the video. No, I think
Abhinandan: he agrees with that. He says you should just have that and the clip as well.
Manisha: And I don't know if you should have the wrong clip up with the correction, because if it's wrong, generally you tend to take it down and then put the correction there.
Yeah,
Raman: yeah. The fact was wrong, so I agree. Why would you wanna
Manisha: amplify
Jayashree: something that's wrong? Yeah, no, it's an audio podcast. It's not like they'll read the apology. Also, I think, I
Abhinandan: think this gentleman's Puritan, what's his name?
Manisha: Uh, anonymous. Anonymous. So how would you know if he's a puritan or not by his name?
Abhinandan: No, I just want to address him by his name rather than just gentleman. Oh, I thought you
Manisha: were like, I think the gentleman is a Puritan. What's his name? No. 'cause
Abhinandan: he says to maintain objectivity, which is not achievable. Pursuit. No, it's not an achievable pursuit. So I don't have an obsession NPR, but I think it is the most, um, wide, uh, variety of information, uh, different little facets of information it gets, [01:36:00] I consume way more media than I talk about here, so trust me on that.
I have no more time. Uh, but, uh, yeah, I mean, I, I don't think it's a utopia. See, again, all the words used are extreme.
Song: Yes.
Abhinandan: West is not a utopia. I've never made that claim. You must maintain objectivity. You can't. Uh, but you
Manisha: are always this west fan boy, huh? That's what he means. You know, like, oh, America is so great.
Every time you come back from America, you're like, oh my God, India
is my favorite.
Abhinandan: Can
Manisha: not dirty
Abhinandan: fact check this because rice, that's what he's saying. He's, she's gone. Right? I'm just saying these
Manisha: always, you come and then you have this face Indians. So I, okay,
Abhinandan: so that's why, this is why we will remain where we are, dude, is because you live there. I understand [01:37:00] it's a problem. You know, someone who lives, uh, in, uh, what do you call, uh, village in India?
Similarly,
you will not be able to decide world events. You'll never be able to have a a, a, what do you call, um, population, which has the literacy rate that they do. You'll never be able to have a population that can move from an Obama to a Trump to a Biden like that. You will never have 80,000 rupees per capita income.
But yes, we are the best. There's nothing wrong with us and I'm number one. Lemme do anonymous. Let me do anonymous. Not that he [01:38:00] has claimed, but I'm saying Indians, we are best. Exactly. We are best. We are moon first. We are everything best.
Song: Yes.
Abhinandan: Had
Manisha: too simplistic in your criticism of India. But anyway, that's another podcast altogether. Okay.
Jayashree: Uh, do we have time for more letters? I'll do one more. Yeah, you can do one
Abhinandan: more short one.
Jayashree: Okay. Uh, RA Pane says, hi, I love your work. I won't waste word quota on niceties. Wondering, can you let us know the designation wise journey of a journalist in the corporate law world?
A junior lawyer starts as an associate, moves to senior associate in five years. Then principal associate after three more years, gen then junior partner in the next three or four years. Obviously each level escalation has enormous salary increment and respect enormous salaries. I was curious about a journalist career progression, both in terms of designation, salary, and respectability.
As in how much more reliable is he or she with the designation? So, yeah.
Abhinandan: Well, I, I [01:39:00] mean, in the news world, journalism is different because in traditional media there was a marketing department, so there, there was, you know, a VP, you could become your sales head, team head, et cetera. In journalists side, there was senior correspondent, I dunno,
Raman: you have two sides.
You have editorial and non editorial. Non editorial, as you said, the management side and someone who works on the advertisement and, uh, you know, finances
Abhinandan: or type et. In
Raman: editorial again, you have, uh, the two streams. One is the desk like, uh, ri. So they move from desk towards the editorship. And then you have reporters tho those who, you know, bring stories from the field.
So they move from that side. But you have reporter, a
Jayashree: staff reporter, a principal correspondent, uh. Like a special also. And then Euro chief, you also have
Raman: a tribe. I mean some special people like Raj Kaja Sand who studied at IIT, and then they studied at IM [01:40:00] and then they came directly as guys.
Shardool: No, sir. You forget one, one thing.
I don't know what respectability, but salary and designation. Look at salary 50.
Abhinandan: No, that's not, no, technically that's not a salary. That is the size of his, his contract.
Shardool: Yes,
Abhinandan: the size of the contract. So it is a work order. Whatever contract, give it to a production house. How much of that is his salary? If we don't know that?
I
Shardool: think. But his salary in Ros, in Aztec also was in Aztec also. We don't know that, that, we dunno that he's not a designation. He's not a journalist.
Jayashree: Designations and salaries in journalism though, there is very little consistency. Many newspapers have their own sort of hierarchies. Like I know the Hindu's hierarchy is very different from the times of India.
It's very different from new Indian expresses and so on. Also, there is no parity or whatever in terms of salary. Like there is no
Raman: parity.
Jayashree: It's not like there is a standard across the industry. There is no openness about it. So I don't think it works exactly the way it does in the legal world at all. And also the size of the salary is much lower than, and [01:41:00] I was Salary
Raman: is market.
Abhinandan: No, but also I think, you know, again, the mistake we make is when we say the legal world,
Jayashree: yes, corporate law, I mean only strictly corporate law, not obviously, so it
Abhinandan: depends. Similarly, doctors, you know, how much are doctors paid? It's very hard to say. I mean, if you're a doctor working in. Aims are your walk doctor working in, you know, primary health center in if you're, you know, it's just, so, it's very difficult to say, like, so what I'm assuming I say journalist, they mean a journalist working for an Indian, uh, uh, an English Daily or an English newspaper in Delhi, or a Metro.
But even a journalist who is reporting for a small, much smaller newspaper, out municipal Albani is a journalist. So it's, it's very difficult to, there's no answer to this question.
Raman: It's no, no. The hierarchy is also very loose. Uh,
Abhinandan: either h. On the [01:42:00] economics of it. Like I said, it's like asking how much the doctor paid.
Which doctor are we talking about?
Raman: Hmm. No,
Jayashree: a freelance, it's, he's saying you can take an NL as an example. Like a, like if NL was the employer, then what is the hierarchy of journalists? So here,
Raman: here you have reporters, senior reporter, you have principal correspondence, and I think our starting salary is
Abhinandan: what now?
25, 28. What is it? 21. 21
Manisha: Is the industry average? That's what
Abhinandan: industry average. As in, in the digital space?
Manisha: No, newspapers and
Jayashree: digital. Yeah. You know, the thing is that when I started journalism 15 years ago, starting salaries, then were about like 18 to 20,000. And now I think even now, like hiring and all at a CJ, it's still about 31.
Those are the offers
Abhinandan: that are made on campus. Hmm. Yeah. Right. Alright, let's get to the recommendations for the week before we wind up. Rama, you wanna go first?
Raman: Uh, okay. Uh. We have been asked not to recommend our own stuff, but I think I need to, uh, recommend bring a spotlight on two [01:43:00] things. Uh, this is about, uh, one I think is going to come out because he has done, uh, you know, one, uh, explainer on three women who made some sense out of this chaos.
And he said that we should not. I mean, they, they called for communal harmony. There's one woman in Nal, the, another woman is n Val, uh, whose husband was killed. Mm. And there's another woman in Ker. Hmm. So we made an explainer on that because has done it. I think we are going to soon publish that. Okay. This week.
So, because, and then we also did a video report on the woman in Nal who spoke Yeah. Who, who was very daring. And she very articul, very articulate. And, uh, she faced so much trolling after that. So we have interviewed her. So the report by, uh, Anol, uh, pri. So this is one, uh, recommendation. Second, [01:44:00] uh, we, we have seen the, uh, you know, modern day trolling.
All of us are aware of it, and we also get disturbed. Uh, but there is a very good movie on Netflix 2023, uh, movie, uh, wicked Little Letters, uh, where, uh, in the, uh, when, when, uh, in, in, uh, maybe I think around, uh, in the forties, 30 forties, how this one woman who was, uh, you know, trolled through the letters and equally bad, you know, abuses that we hear now.
So it's a, it's a good, uh, movie. I think. So it's a super fun movie. Ah. From uk. It's a committee,
Abhinandan: right? Dehi?
Jayashree: Um hmm. I have three recommendations. So first, I will recommend the caravan's long piece on the Balco strike of 2019 because it says never before has warfare been conducted in an environment of so much willful lying by politicians and television channels and with so much brazen disregard for evidence.
I think it's [01:45:00] important reading also because it gives you good context, like it was also at the time a huge surgical strike. It was very important from the Omo, the ahead of the election. It helped win the election and so on. But I do think what we'll see over the next few days with the operation du will probably surpass the rhetoric around barcode.
So the piece is called the Bal Code Misdirection by Han Singh. It is incredibly long, but you can just sort of skim it if you like. Um, also the first story in our police impunity series is published by the News Minute. Either it was. Very interesting because the stories that in Karnataka, a daily wage, Debra was arrested by the police for murdering his wife.
His wife had gone missing. The police produced a body and they said, oh yeah, you are guilty, whatever. So he spent 18 months in jail until one fine day last month. His wife got off a bus. She entered court and she was like, I'm alive. Basically she, he kept, basically, he had kept telling the police that his wife had run away and they refused to believe him.
They produced this body without DNA evidence. They said, this is the body of his wife and whatever they [01:46:00] told the court, they forged. They filed a sort of fabricated charge sheet. It turned out the police didn't even try to find the wife. They just said that. So, yes, this is how your police works. Yeah, it is an excellent story.
It's called How to Manufacture Murder. Manufacture A Murder. It's in the News Minute. Finally, I'm gonna be very nostalgic. I used to really enjoy this writer called Nick Hoby. Uh, he's written a bunch of books, fever Pitch, and About Boy, whatever. Hi, fidelity. I re yes. And I recently revisited Hi. His book, um, it's called 31 Songs.
It's a collection of essays. Each essay is about a song that he loves or had an emotional. Connect with or whatever. Mm. So the thing is that 20 years ago, a reviewer, um, compared the book to like a beloved older brother giving you a CD and saying, this is why you need to like this, this music. And it is a very good comparison, but it's, it's not hugely insightful, but it's also just really nostalgic, enjoyable writing about a man's immense fond for music and for songs.
And it reminded me of how I, long, long ago, used to think that I would be a music journalist, very [01:47:00] similar to that Rolling Stone journalist depicted in the movie. Almost famous. Mm-hmm. I didn't. But it's a very nice memory. So you should read this book and you may also rediscover your own nice memories.
Manisha: Yeah. I wanna read it.
Abhinandan: Yes. Right.
Manisha: Nice lighthearted reading.
Abhinandan: Mm, yeah. I remember I read about a boy.
Jayashree: You should read Fever Pitch because it's about football. I mean, specifically it's about his love for Arsenal, but generally it's a book about why you love football.
Abhinandan: Yes. Well then he must have had his heart broken night before last.
Jayashree: Yeah,
Abhinandan: my mine too. Manisha.
Manisha: So I'm reading this book, Tariq Pe Justice by Rahi and Phan Ready, which they, I've been interviewing them next week. Quite a fascinating book with very interesting takes on the lowest rung of our judiciary.
Abhinandan: Yeah. Shaul, your recommendation.
Shardool: So my first recommendation is, uh, the second part of, uh, Hindu project, a critiques report from indoor.
And like you have to see it to believe it. That, that there's one guy in it who you laugh and be horrified at the [01:48:00] same time. Like he's in my eyes. He's the personification of the phrase, like, fantasy, abandoned by reason creates impossible monsters. Mm. He's that, yeah. You have to see it to believe it. He's crazy.
Right. So, see that. Mm. Second is, um, a book by Christine Fair. And I like this, uh, analyst Yeah. Of Pakistan, because every Pakistani army person hates her. So, uh, uh, her book's name is, um, fighting to the End, Pakistan's Army's Way of War. She wrote it somewhere, sometime in 2013 or 14. It's a very insightful book, and most of the stuff is taken from ISPR website and Green Book because they didn't think she could read Tu and she did.
And the third is, we were talking about World War II and how long-term strategies are employed even by bad actors, but how mm-hmm. Nations act, uh, the seminal documentary of World War ii, the World at War, and it's narrated by, [01:49:00] uh. Lawrence Olivier. It was made by BBC in seventies and that is the last documentary which had people alive from World War ii.
So it's, it's appendices also had interview of Hitler's girlfriend. It's beautiful and harrowing at the same time.
Abhinandan: Right. Uh, my recommendations are two, I think of fantastic, uh, explainer of the importance and the mechanics of the Indo UK deal. I explained in the Daily Brief podcasts. It is, I think, a part of podcast series also, but it's this boy, uh, something Sal, he does a fantastic job of explaining the simplifying, um, you know, in what's happening.
And the second is, uh, the interview of Joe Biden on BBC. It's, it's an interesting take of, you know, a lot of been said that how insane he was, that you know, how he was completely out of it. And to an extent it's true. And. [01:50:00] You know, even at that age, you can make a lot of sense. And he has kind of compressed a lot of things that we know about Trump in one sit down interview.
I just think it was a, it's a very compelling watch. It may not be very informative, but it was very watchable. So I'll wind up now with an appeal to pay to keep news free, fund our journalism so that we can serve you with your support rather than serve advertisers with their support. Thank you, Charul.
Thank you Manisha. Thank you. Rama. Thank you to wonderful producer Pali. Thank you. Thank you Anil. Uh, and uh, we'll see you next week. Bye-bye. Be bye
Song: Safe. So gravitate to the love
hurt, and you practice what you preach.
Where is the, where is love [01:51:00] is, where is the
Manisha: Thank you for your subscription. You are changing the world by changing the way news is funded for the smoothest news laundry experience. Download the news Laundry app. It is the best way to listen to our paywall podcasts, and you'll also get access to all free news laundry shows. Keep us ad free and subscriber funded.
Help us grow. Tell people who listen to you to pay to keep news free. Subscribe to News Laundry. Keep journalism independent.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
