Piers Morgan hosts a heated debate on the India-Pakistan ceasefire, featuring General Wesley Clark's warning of nuclear danger and Barkha Dutt's critique of Western media's false equivalence regarding Lashkar-e-Taiba. Former Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar counters India's unilateral actions, while influencers Ranveer Alabadia and Shahzad Giyas Sheikh clash over the Pakistani military's role and the Osama bin Laden intelligence failure. Ultimately, the segment reveals how domestic politics and conflicting narratives sustain the Kashmir conflict despite a fragile truce brokered by President Trump and Marco Rubio. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Escalating Tensions in Kashmir00:07:50
Pakistan is the country which has broken the myth of Indian conventional supremacy in war theater in a way which is a display to the whole world.
My question to the world is about this man.
I hope everyone's able to see this person's face.
He was found 800 meters from a military base in Pakistan.
I have no narrative other than the one that the world should know.
We are combating terrorism because if India exports vaccines and engineers, Pakistan exports terrorism.
India and Pakistan are both declaring victory after a U.S.-broken ceasefire called Time on a skirmish which brought two nuclear powers to the brink of potential war.
Well, several days of escalating clashes reached a dangerous flashpoint with both countries launching missile and drone strikes on major military bases.
Both sides are praising President Trump and Marco Rubio for diffusing the tensions.
The U.S. reportedly leveraged trade deals with both of them to get it done.
And both sides say they've asserted their military superiority over the other.
Pakistan held parades near the border to shower the military in pedals.
India's defense minister said the roar of Indian forces reached the very headquarters of the Pakistan army.
But the questions now are will the ceasefire hold and for how long?
Is Trump's cavalier trade policy an important weapon for peace?
And after days of an intensive propaganda offensive by both sides, who is right and who actually won?
To discuss all this and more, we have Hina Rabbani Khar, the former Pakistan Foreign Affairs Minister, and Bharkdad, a well-known Indian journalist and commentator.
Later on the show will be joined by two young influencers from India and Pakistan.
But first we have Wesley Clark, a retired four-star U.S. Army general, to give us his thoughts on where we are with this.
General Clark, great to have you back on uncensored.
It all looked very scary for a few days and now we seem to have been becomed.
We've seen flare-ups before.
It's the fourth time, I think, we've seen a sort of situation like this since independence in 1947, three times over Kashmir.
How dangerous was this flashpoint in your estimation?
And how reassured are you by the way it's played out?
It was dangerous because anytime you have nuclear-armed powers exchanging fire, that's dangerous.
As far as I can tell, the planes mostly stayed on their own soil.
The air-to-air engagements were fought with long-range missiles.
The strikes were done with air-to-surface missiles.
Air defenses were engaged on the Pakistani side.
I was with the Pakistani leadership in 1990 when they almost went to war with India again.
I was hosting them in the National Training Center.
They told me in the middle of the visit, said, we're going to go back to Pakistan.
The nuclear weapons have been uploaded to the aircraft.
We're going to war.
Of course, nothing.
They did not go to war.
So these incidents do happen.
I'm relatively comfortable that this one has been resolved temporarily.
Kashmir will remain a flashpoint.
But the domestic politics in both countries, on the one hand, argue for continuing confrontation, and on the other hand, argue not to escalate.
So I think we're in a sort of stable position with a lot of rhetoric and animosity.
And I'm glad to see both sides claiming victory.
Yeah.
Also claiming victory is the White House and the Trump administration in the sense that they believe that the way they used trade deal initiatives to try and force a ceasefire proved very swiftly effective.
A, do you believe that?
And B, if that is the case, you know, it's an interesting way of resolving this kind of thing.
I mean, are you in favor of it as a military man?
Well, I love the fact that we're taking credit for having done this.
If trade deals can do it, let's have more tariffs and then being able to relax them at the right time.
I'm just being a little bit humorous here.
But if it did help, that's great.
We don't actually know that because we don't actually know the motivations on either side.
And actually, I think both sides were looking for an excuse not to go further.
Do you think Pakistan, is there any doubt that these extremists who carried out the initial terrorist attack, killing all these Hindu men, do you think there's any doubt that they were working in some form with Pakistan?
Or could it be that Pakistan has lost control of extremists like this?
Well, I think there's a little bit of both, Pierce.
I think there are elements in that terrorist group that Pakistan doesn't control.
On the other hand, I think the Pakistani leadership wants to keep the pressure on India in Kashmir.
So without more detailed intelligence, it's a little hard to know.
But it would be the logical response of India to assume that this was a premeditated, prepared action by the Pakistani military.
And if it wasn't, it's incumbent upon Pakistan to take the corrective action publicly against these terrorist groups that indicate it won't happen again.
Unfortunately, this seems to be Pakistan's method of expressing its angst over Kashmir.
And it has gone on at a low level many times without any overt major reaction by India.
So they finally crossed the line.
India reacted.
I hope Pakistan will get these groups under control.
There's so many more important issues in the world than fighting about Kashmir.
It's got to be a way to resolve this.
Kashmir hits the news whenever these flashpoints blow up.
You know, it's an area the size pretty much around the UK sort of size.
China has a piece of it.
India has a piece of it.
Pakistan has a piece of it.
And, you know, there have been, like I said, these flare-ups now going on for, you know, since 47.
Will it ever get resolved?
Will it ever get resolved?
And for those who are kind of uninitiated about it, what is the big deal about Kashmir?
Why is it such a flashpoint?
Well, when Israel, when India was divided, basically there was no resolution to Kashmir because the populations were intermixed, because it's a very attractive area.
It is in part a vacation site.
Indians and Pakistanis both craved it, both wanted it, and it was left under temporary Indian control.
And that's where it's been.
And there's no way, easy way to resolve this.
And I think there are some things that just are not in the near term resolvable.
And so when you try to solve them, you make the problem worse.
It's a perpetual thorn in the side of both countries, but India can't give it up.
There are Indian citizens.
There's the politics in India.
And Pakistan can't give up claiming it.
And there's the politics in Pakistan, both public politics and the internal politics in the Pakistani military leadership and the civilians who nominally head the Pakistani government.
Tax Day Troubles Begin00:02:10
And so it's like a badge of honor.
And so it's just there festering and festering and festering and nudging back and forth and trying to get some marginal advantage.
General Clark, you were freezing up a little bit there, but I got the general point of what you were saying.
And I greatly appreciate you coming back at Uncensored to give your perspective on this.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Well, let's get into this debate now with Hina Rabani Kar, the former Pakistan Foreign Affairs Minister, and Bhaktat, a well-known Indian journalist and commentator.
Okay, Bhakti, welcome to Uncenter, to both of you, first of all.
This is a, for the rest of the world, it's been a scary week to watch how quickly things escalated.
Both sides blaming each other, both sides now claiming victory.
A lot of disinformation swirling around the internet, making it very, very difficult for people outside the immediate vicinity to really know what has happened here.
What is your overview of where things have played out?
Tax day has passed, but for millions of Americans, that's where the trouble begins.
The IRS is now ramping up enforcement for those who miss the April deadline or still owe back taxes.
Well, today's sponsor, Tax Network USA, can still help.
If your books are a mess, if you're self-employed, or if you're a business owner, Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track quickly.
They say the IRS is applying enforcement pressure at levels they've never seen before.
But even after the deadline, it's not too late to take control.
The consultation is completely free.
Acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters, and surprise levies before they escalate.
Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash peers.
That's tnusa.com slash peers.
Let tax network USA make the next move, not the IRS.
Hi, peers, and thank you for having me.
Two Weeks of Terror Debate00:15:31
You know, I've spent the last two weeks on the ground, first in Kashmir after the terror attack that triggered this entire situation, military escalation between India and Pakistan, and then in the states of Punjab, as well as the area of Jammu.
The reason I mention this is because it's been absolutely shocking what I have witnessed in the last few days.
Pakistan, which was seething because India attacked terrorist bases inside its territory, tried to target civilian areas and places of worship inside Indian territory.
This led the Indian military to target their air bases when their air bases took serious damage is when Pakistan dialed Indian officials here and asked for a ceasefire.
This is the exact sequence of events.
Before Hina Rabbani Khar gives her perspective, I heard the tail end of your conversation with General Clark.
And I have to say, as an Indian, I'm just so exhausted, bored, and irritated by the both sides that the Western world and the Western media imposes on jihadist terrorism.
The two bases that were targeted by India were the headquarters of the Lashkarit Taiba and the Jeshe Mohammed.
The Lashkarit Taiba is recognized as a terrorist group by the United Kingdom and the United States.
Forget India, since 2001, the UK has recognized the Lashkari Taiba as a terrorist group.
The Jeshe Mohammed, the terrorist who heads it, was released after an Indian plane was hijacked in IC81 called IC814 in 1999.
And the terrorists who hijacked it demanded the release of this man who continues to enjoy impunity and freedom in Pakistan.
And one last point.
There was a terrorist, a British Pakistani national called Omar Saeed Sheikh.
He was one of the three terrorists released, who's in Pakistan, who went on to assassinate and behead Daniel Pearl.
Omar Saeed Sheikh is still in a Pakistan safe house after he was acquitted of the murder of Daniel Pearl by Pakistan's Supreme Court.
We're talking about terrorism here.
We're not talking about some both sides, some dispute, some Kashmir issue that can't be resolved.
This is jihadist terrorism patronized and literally grown and looked after and nurtured and watered by the Pakistan army.
Okay, well, as you've been talking, the Indian Prime Minister Modi has been speaking.
He said, India is clear, terror and talks cannot take place at the same time.
Terror and trade cannot take place at the same time.
And water and blood can't flow at the same time.
I want to tell the world community, this has been our promise.
If talks take place with Pakistan, it will only be about terrorism.
If we talk to Pakistan, it will only be about Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
So let me bring in Hina Rabbani Khar.
So what's your response both to what Barker just said, but also to what Prime Minister Modi is saying?
Okay, I think first of all, I just have to say that, you know, as I appear in front of you, trying to make sense of what happened in the last two weeks, I appear as a proud Pakistani and representing a proud nation which showed a lot of dignity in up against extreme aggression,
violence, illegal attacks into our territory within the geographical locations of Pakistan by a nuclear power, a belligerent, what I have always consistently called a rogue state.
And I can give you very good reasons for that.
Because as any representative, and also, Pierre, I think I need to clarify, I do not give version of events.
I'm not a journalist.
I have served the state of Pakistan and I will continue to serve.
I continue to serve the state of Pakistan as the chairperson of the Foreign Relations Committee.
So I will have to align myself to facts on the ground, to how things appeared, how things happened, not how what my narrative of that is.
Because we've seen a lot of narrative shaping by placing two women, one Muslim, to try and keep the version, but by trying to bring in Daniel Pearl to try and get international sympathy.
I, for one, am a Pakistani who absolutely does not seek any hyphenation with India, because it is generally believed that Pakistan always seeks to be hyphened with India because Pakistan wants to be at par with India.
We absolutely do not want to at all be hyphened with a country which feels that it can declare war, it can declare terrorist to exist somewhere and then go and launch strikes across international borders without getting any,
you know, first of all, without any providing any evidence, not to the country alone, but even to the international community, even to the United Nations, and feels that because it has said so, it no more operates within the realm of international law, within the realm of UN Charter.
It operates as a unilateral striper, judge, jury, executor, as it did in the case of Canada, which we know has been, you know, India has been found, you know, with their red-handed.
Okay, but let me ask you a question.
I mean, let me ask you a question now.
How should India have responded to the murder of 27 of its people?
So, you know, why are you not asking me the question?
How should Pakistan have responded to the murder of its people in Jaffa Express in Balochistan, which had India's fingerprints all over it?
So, this is the question.
Why don't you answer my question first, and then we can come to other questions later.
We're talking about the catalyst for what happened in the last two weeks.
It was the terrorist attack and murder of 27 mostly Hindu men.
And my question is simply: how should India have responded that you would have found acceptable?
So, I like your assumption that there is no equivalence between Pakistanis being murdered.
When did I assume I made any such assumptions?
Because you seek an explanation from Pakistan, and I guess the world's not.
Well, no, we're talking specifically about what's happened in the last two weeks.
So, I think it's not, it's not.
Well, look, look, I think if you want to speak over me, I can't.
I don't like it.
Honestly, I don't like it when guests start to play what a battery too early in the debate.
I brought you guys together to debate what's happened in the last two weeks, not the whole history of the conflicts between India and Pakistan or any of that.
I'm talking about what's happened as a direct result of a terrorist attack that killed 27 mainly Hindu men.
And I'm simply asking you: if you were in India's shoes, how should they have responded to that?
If you are against the way they did respond, I have been in India's shoes, and I think that is where I'm talking factually rather than based on narrative shaping.
I have been in India's shoes, I have had terrorist incidents in Pakistan where India's fingerprints have been all around.
And I would have expected to answer your question directly.
I would have expected India to act like Pakistan acted when Pakistan finds evidence of India's fingerprints all over disastrous terrorist attacks inside Pakistan's territory.
It is to provide evidence to the United Nations, it is to provide evidence to the other country, and to first of all, I think that's why I would be with you, Pierre, because I do not want this debate at all to sink into the he said, she said.
I represent a country and I certainly represent my person, Tukit Samman, who seeks normalcy, peaceful coexistence, and mutual prosperity for the two countries.
But if one country amongst the two believes that it has the unilateral strike to go outside of the realm of international law and unilaterally carry out strikes without even feeling the need to provide any evidence and break one line before in Balakot strike and then decide that it is now trying to set a new norm.
Now, that norm that it was now trying to fit has been cut to pieces.
That whole, you know, okay, well, let me bring you a good time to respond.
Let me bring in Barker again.
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief podcast.
If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon.
And on the weekend, we go longer with the PDB Situation Report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify and Apple or wherever you get your podcast.
Also on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
What is your response to that?
A statement and a question.
Hina said that Pakistan does not seek any equivalence with India, any parallels with India.
There can be none.
Pakistan just got bailed out by the IMF with a loan for $1 billion.
The IMF projects India to be the fourth largest economy in the world.
India would love to ignore Pakistan if we could.
India seeks no high formation with Pakistan either.
My question, I have two questions for Hina Rabbani Khar.
One is, does she acknowledge the Lashkari Taiba, recognized to be a terrorist group by the United States and the United Kingdom, recognized to be the group responsible for the Mumbai terror attacks of 26-11, in which six Americans died?
Does she recognize both these groups to be terror groups?
And if she does, can she explain why they have never conducted a single terror strike within Pakistan and have only conducted terror strikes in India?
My second question to Hina Rabbani Khar is, what did she feel about the Americans coming in and taking out Osama bin Laden from Abdabad, where he was given a safe space to stay?
If she did not think the Americans conducted an act of war against Pakistan then, she should not think that the Indians tracking the basis of the Lashkari Taiba and the Jaishi Mohammad prescribed internationally recognized terror groups should be considered something that Pakistan has to worry about.
Pakistan should thank India who helped you demolish terror groups.
All right, let me get the response then.
Hina, your response.
Look, Pierre, I'm sorry, it is fast, you know, becoming what I had feared it would become, because sitting across the table within or across this room linked with an English Indian journalist who just claimed that Karachi port had been attacked and decimated and who still probably has that tweet on her target.
Targeted is targeted.
And guess what?
The details are not.
No, you are misrepresenting me.
No, ma'am.
You don't have good answers.
You don't have good answers.
And I'm not going to ask her what happened about the terrorists who killed Pakistanis, 40 Pakistanis and Sanjota Express, who have actually been acquitted by Indian courts.
So this, you know, I think you should get an Indian, you know, an Indian journalist against an Indian journalist because what they have displayed about their norms of, you know, reporting and about the dignified way and about cockting stories has been on open display.
And Pierre, allow me to say this.
Pakistan, clearly, India's GDP is 11 times that of Pakistan.
That's a reality.
Pakistan is going through economic trouble.
That's a reality.
But when the war theater comes and there is an assumption of India being the net security provider for the entire hemisphere, a certain hemisphere, and when the war theater comes and we find out that one of the players in the war theater has a tendency to leave both its equipment and its people into our territory.
And then, even till today, the Indian military forces have not accepted the fact that they had losses of Rafael and other jets.
We are not here to win a war.
We did not start this battle.
We have no intention of continuing this at all.
We, however, have to be very, very clear that Pakistan is a country which has broken the myth of Indian conventional supremacy in war theater in a way which is that display to the whole world.
We also want to make sure, and I think it has been understood, and that's why the clamoring for the ceasefire as quickly as it did as soon as Pakistan started its strike.
What has been clarified is Pakistan does not only have the capacity, but also the will to be able to respond in kind.
And therefore, this adventure that India went on on wanting to rewrite the rules of the game outside of the realm of international law, I think India, I would not want anyone to be bloody nosed or to get a bad reality check.
But I think what has been clarified that this whole pretense of dominance in the conventional field, you can have toys, really expensive ones, but you really need people to be able to get the best out of those toys.
And I think what we saw in the war theater is for everyone to do.
But you didn't answer that.
Hang on.
Okay, hang on.
Hang on.
Please let me answer.
And both of you can ask as many questions as you wish, and I will stay there to answer it.
I think the other myth that has been broken is the whole question of India having the ability, just because of its economic prowess, having the ability to be able to launch strikes into another nuclear state and not expecting a response.
And once the response came, having the complete inability, it was literally a breakdown of Indian defense system, not having the ability to defend.
Well, you know, the strange thing about this.
Listen, listen, Hina, Hina.
You can't just keep talking.
Look, Hina, with respect.
With respect, this thing is...
Once we retaliate.
Look, if I could just say the bleeding obvious to you.
Look, both sides are claiming total dominance.
Both sides are claiming total victory.
Both sides are claiming the other side is back in its box.
We're not seeking dominance.
Both sides claim the rights to Kashmir and so on.
So we have what I would call a very strange situation where everyone's claiming total victory over the other side, but you can't both be right.
But are the Lashkar and Jezh terrorist groups?
She didn't answer the question.
Does she acknowledge that the Lashkar and the Jezh are terrorist groups that have freedom to function in Pakistan?
Please answer the question.
Well, I mean, I think that's a simple question.
Hina, do you have been closer to the point?
Do you accept that point?
I will not stoop myself.
Are we terrorists?
Are we a terrorist group?
Well, Hina, do you accept?
Hina, do you accept they are a terrorist group?
Well, hang on, Hina.
Let me ask the question.
I think you need to bring it up.
Hina, let me ask the question, Hina.
Do you accept that they are a terrorist group?
And do you accept that they have been operating with impunity in Pakistan?
I mean, I think your last comment, I would absolutely reject.
Credibility and Terrorism Claims00:15:37
I think Pakistan is the country which is trying to correct the wrongs.
India is a country which is trying to do the wrongs.
There's a vast difference.
You can narrative shape as much as you want and build these lovely stories about, you know.
So I, okay, Pierre, how about me saying that I believe India is a country which has weaponized terrorism to be able to get the sympathies of the world to work outside of international law?
And they've done it rather effectively.
And I think they've played the China containment bit quite.
And we do not seek dominance.
I want to clarify this.
Pakistan seeks, genuinely seeks dialogue.
Pakistan genuinely seeks negotiation.
Pakistan genuinely seeks a peaceful coexistence.
But if you say that, oh, the Security Council resolutions claim Kashmir to be disputed territory, but now Prime Minister Mundundar Modi has said that it is an integral part of India and not Pakistan and everybody else.
President Trump, is he wrong when he says he wants to come in and solve this dispute?
It is disputed territory and will remain disputed territory until we're able to sit down and resolve this.
Okay, listen, listen.
Okay, hang on.
Hang on.
I want to bring in two other guests to join this debate.
Ranvir Alabadia, who is the host of the Ranvir show, Shahzad Giyas Sheikh from the Pakistan Experience Podcast.
Welcome to both of you.
Look, Ranvir, I don't have a horse in this race, okay?
I don't think anybody outside of India and Pakistan has a horse in this race.
So when I see both sides claiming victory and this sort of sea of disinformation that's been spread about who did what to whom and what planes were shot down and what weren't shot down and so on and so on.
Pilots being captured, where they weren't they.
It's very hard to work out what the truth is.
The good news is the shooting seems to have stopped.
And it appears to have been a lot to do with the United States offering some new trade arrangements to both countries to try and bring them to a ceasefire, which is what's happened.
Now, I mean, A, do you believe that?
And B, if that is not the case, why do you think the shooting has stopped?
Okay.
Firstly, I would like to greet the world and present the objective truth.
I'm here to present proofs, facts, and figures.
Donald Trump claimed that he was responsible for the ceasefire and Pakistan proceeded to break the ceasefire about an hour after it was announced.
My question to the world is about this man.
I hope everyone's able to see this person's face.
He was found 800 meters from a military base in Pakistan.
That's the face that the world recognizes.
This is the face that India recognizes because it's most specific to our narrative.
This man.
is a UN designated terrorist being celebrated by the Pakistani military in the background.
That's not the narrative that they give the Pakistanis.
That's not the narrative that the world knows.
But if you check with the UN, if you check with the US, they'll tell you that this is Abdul Raouf.
India's attacks were precision-oriented, moderate, and most importantly, they were simply a retaliation as they've always been.
India's never been an aggressor in any of these situations.
We export vaccines, we export philosophy, and we export engineers and leaders to the world.
That's why our economy is 11 times the size of Pakistan.
But the Pakistani narrative is that, hey, look at these people.
They're trying to get the world to sympathize with them.
Pierce, my question is to you.
You've seen the objective facts and figures.
What do you feel about this whole situation?
Hey, I'm Caitlin Becker, the host of the New York Postcast, and I've got exactly what you need to start your weekdays.
Every morning, I'll bring you the stories that matter, plus the news people actually talk about.
The juicy details in the world's politics, business, pop culture, and everything in between.
It's what you want from the New York Post wrapped up in one snappy show.
Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast.
Listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
The world only knows this person.
India has a list just like people like this man.
Well, okay, Ramvi, Lev Ramvi.
My question for you would be that you posted something on Instagram, which I found very interesting, but you then deleted it, seemingly after the backlash that it attracted.
So for those who didn't see it, let me just remind people of what you said.
Dear Pakistani brothers and sisters, I will get hate from many Indians for this, but it's important to be said, just like many Indians, I don't have hate in my heart for you.
Many of us want peace as well.
Whenever we meet Pakistanis, you invariably welcome us with love.
But your country is not run by government.
It's run by your military and your secret service, the ISI.
The average Pakistani is very different than these two bodies.
The average Pakistani has dreams of peace and prosperity in their hearts.
These two villains have hurt your economy since independence.
They've also constantly been responsible for terrorist attacks in India.
Proofs in the next slide.
I mean, first of all, why did you delete that?
I deleted it because the ceasefire was broken and Pakistan just gave us another reason to not trust the entire state once again.
Even if you try having a conversation with Pakistanis, they respond with a hey, where's the proof about the Pehelgam attack?
My question is that have you studied what the world is saying about your country?
Have you seen the economy of your own country?
It's very important to understand that the Indian armed forces simply retaliated to the action of the Pakistanis.
I have no narrative other than the one that the world should know.
We are combating terrorism because if India exports vaccines and engineers, Pakistan exports terrorism.
We're doing a favor to all our civilians.
We're protecting our civilians.
But truth be told, we're protecting humanity because Pakistan has become the terror hub of the world.
This is not an Indian narrative.
This is the narrative that the world should know.
Okay, well, let me get Shahzad to respond here.
Shahzad, your response to that.
Thank you, Piers, for inviting me.
First of all, for an international audience, I think it's quite clear to see compared to Hinar Rabbani's poise and grace, Barkadat's theatrics.
I think nothing has gone down faster than a Rafael and Bharkadat's credibility throughout this entire process.
She first reported that except the F-16 that India shot down, the naval bases that were demolished.
No answer.
You're welcome to make a million expressions while I talk about it.
You make ad hoc attacks to see a once credible journalist getting deduced to Arna Goswami in a way.
Don't tell me certificates.
Don't need certificates from members of a terrorist state.
All right.
Go ahead.
Let's watch that 15 years ago said.
Ranveer, you can bring your pictures any day that you want.
I'll come to your facts and figures.
But let me just quote Barkadat on this.
15 years ago, Susan Barkad said that the prejudiced administrative and political system is not letting her name that the prime minister of India right now, Narendra Modi, is attacking Muslims.
If we're going to talk about international organizations labeling somebody a terrorist, Narendra Modi was labeled a threat to religious freedoms around the world and was written by whom?
The difference by the United States of America.
Barkadat, you know this.
You're only playing to an audience.
You said a Pakistani pilot was arrested and captured, which turned out to be a lie.
But once the YouTube dollars come in, maybe fact goes out of the window.
So let's talk about facts.
Narendra Modi was involved in Pakistan and India is we capture our terrorists.
Let's not connect them.
Don't talk over each other.
Don't talk over each other.
No one can hear you when you do.
Barakadat has spoken for half an hour.
I have a right to respond.
Renverella Badia decided to interject.
He's had BJP people on his podcast.
I'm not talking about the state in general.
I'm talking about Ranhir Alabadia specifically.
I've now figured out why he's called beer biases because what he said sounds like the most drunk shit I've heard in my life.
This is what happens when you repeat government talking points without reading.
The bin Laden papers were not released by the DGISPR by Pakistan.
They were released by the American intelligence.
470,000 papers, which a book was written by Neghi Laahoud, which clearly states that Osama bin Laden was trying to hide from the Pakistani intelligence.
What you're pointing out with Osama bin Laden.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Okay, hang on, Shazat, Shazad, hang on, hang on, fine.
Is an intelligence face.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait.
Shazad, Shazad, sorry.
Hang on.
This is turning into a significant way.
Sorry, I moderate this.
Shazad, sorry, with the best will in the world, what you've just said is utterly ludicrous.
Osama bin Laden was found literally living in a house for years a few hundred yards from one of Pakistan's main military bases.
So if your intelligence didn't know he was there, it must be de facto the worst intelligence in the history of military intelligence.
All they had to do was get a pair of binoculars and they would have found the most wanted terrorist in the world who committed one of the worst terror attacks in history.
So forgive me, but that is a ludicrous statement to try and pretend.
So maybe somehow this was American intelligence who was maybe we should not trust assumptions here.
October 7th happened.
That doesn't prove Mossad is the worst intelligence in the world.
9-11 happened.
That doesn't prove CIA is the worst intelligence.
Well, it proves they massively dropped the ball.
And this proves that...
And I'm afraid the fact that Assad...
But you don't dispute.
You don't dispute the fact that you don't dispute Osama bin Laden was living literally down the road from one of your biggest bases.
I absolutely accept the intelligence failure, but the American intelligence itself, in terms of the 470,000 D-class.
But do you not think it stretches credibility, Shahzad?
Does it not stretch credibility?
But Shahzad, does it not stretch credibility that nobody knew in your biggest intelligence operation at that base?
Nobody knew he was living next door.
I think the context of that is that Pakistan was fighting a war on terror on multiple fronts while it was happening.
I admit that.
But that wasn't my question.
That does not mean Pakistan is supporting terrorism.
What about Barkad, who was close to calling the end the movement?
No, but the reason is relevant.
Shahzad, the reason.
Hang on, hang on.
Let me ask you a question.
Shuzad, the reason if you would allow me to say that.
Hang on one second, Rebecca.
The reason is relevant, the question, is because India's big complaint about what has happened in Pakistan in the last 20-odd, maybe more years, is that Pakistan has been knowingly harboring terrorists who commit terrorist actions.
That is the big complaint which India has against Pakistan.
And when you try and pretend, and it's not a word for it, because you can't actually believe this, that somehow nobody knew this massive military base, and none of the intelligence people that were there had any idea that the most wanted man on planet Earth possibly ever was literally living in a big house at the end of their road, it stretches credibility.
And I just refuse to believe it.
So we've got to start with a basic acceptance of reality, right?
There were certainly some people who knew, and they did not blow the whistle because they were happy for this wanted man to remain unfound.
So I think that's why India has such a tension about this, because they think, well, look what happened with Bin Laden.
It's happening again with this group now.
They're allowed to commit these terror acts with impunity.
And there are people in Pakistan who clearly are not bothered about that, or they would do something to stop it.
Why on the world are the people who are not going to be able to do that?
I want to give Shahzad the chance to respond to that.
Shahzad.
Piers, either we can say what we believe in, what sounds credible to us, or we can actually go through the documents.
Anybody watching is welcome to read the book, which cites declassified American documents, which clearly show that Osama was hiding from the Pakistani intelligence.
I'm willing to concede the fact that the Pakistani intelligence dropped the ball.
It may also be that some rogue intelligence officers may have been involved, but without any concrete evidence that the state of Pakistan is implicated in harboring Osama, how can we come to that conclusion based on assumptions?
It's the same as India blaming Pakistan for Pehil Gam without providing India.
I want to ask you to read that.
I want to ask Hina the same question.
I mean, Hina, do you not understand how ridiculous it sounds when we're expected to believe that absolutely nobody in American military, in Pakistan military or intelligence, had any idea that bin Laden was living next to that base for years?
Look, at that time, Pakistan was in active combat.
I was in the government at that time.
We were fighting this war at many, many fronts.
And it wasn't only Pakistani intelligence, but frankly speaking, global intelligence was in and around, because at that time, Afghanistan was very, very active.
Pierre, I had really expected and hoped that we could have a discussion which was about the future of this region.
Okay, I had really hoped that we could have a discussion about what holds for these one-fifth of humanity, which is currently hostage to an extremist, sort of mind-boggling outside of the purview of, look, the theatrics are very unnerving to me.
So if you can just smiling for a little bit, it would help.
Well, Hina, tell me how you see the future.
Hina, how do you see the future?
We tend to be honest people and we tend to want to correct some of the miscommunications.
But I just want to say that in this time when India is galloping towards extremist thought process and really snuggling very close to making India, which was in India I respected a secular India, a democratic India, in Nauvian India, and Mahmoud Singh India.
I have sat in rooms where we have negotiated talking about making Sia Chain a mountain of peace at the request of an Indian prime minister.
And Pakistan and India had reached a new type of confidence where we were able to speak to each other, share intelligence and talk about how to move forward.
And then comes this new government in India.
And even at that time, I remember I was asked this question by an Indian, Karan Thapur, that how would you recommend Prime Minister Navasri proceed when Prime Minister Modi, who had the reputation of the Gujarat killer as chief minister, which denied him entry into the United States of America?
That is not a concocted narrative shaping I'm doing.
That's just a fact I'm quoting, which is present in history books.
Now, even at that time, Piers, I do want to emphasize, I maintain that we must view Prime Minister Modi in his no new role as Prime Minister and learning from and getting confidence from Prime Minister Wajpai and him, despite being BJP and whatever was associated with it, became literally a seeker of peace and made all effort because that is the legacy that he was seeking.
Now, in my 10 years or so of looking at things very, very minutely and being literally a peace monger, okay, and I used to call myself an indefatigable peace fanatic when it came to India and Pakistan because I see that we're holding the future together.
Revenge of Geography Explained00:10:16
And you know, the revenge of geography, you cannot hope to burn your neighbor and prosper endlessly.
Look at the European Union.
I just want to say that I think going forward, if we have the intention of seeking a legacy of peace, mutual coexistence, and accepting the strengths that exist, Pakistan is a nuclear state country which has just established our, I would say, conventional supremacy by way of share facts, not narrative shaping, sheer facts.
In the military theater, there's going to be a lot of rewriting of the hegemonic role that was given to a certain country.
We don't want that for India.
India is more than welcome to continue with its hegemonic role.
I want to bring in the others.
I think it is at peace to display that by attacking our civilians just because and going outside of international law.
And Pierre, my last comment.
Please allow me this last comment and then you're willing, you know, you're more than welcome to go anywhere else.
This is a disproportionate space by the way.
I just wanted to highlight one thing, that there is this thing called international law.
We are all signatories of the UN Charter.
Article 25 obliges all countries to go by Security Council resolutions.
Article 51 gives a country the right to retaliate in an act of war.
Now, if everybody can just answer one question.
When one nuclear state decides that it will be the judge, jury, executor, and decides that this particular security lapse is because of another country and decides to launch missile strikes, nine of them, killing civilians into the other country, is that nuclear state, which also has conventional, you know, displayed very well, supposed to sit tight and wait for other missile strikes to come.
Okay, well, let me talk about the theatrics.
I have never been a player of theatrics.
All right, I'm going to put it to the other table.
Ranveir, I mean, it's an interesting point, isn't it?
India was working on very quick assumptions that the state of Pakistan, that the leadership who are running the country, were fully aware of what this group were doing and therefore were complicit in what they did in this terrorist attack and had allowed this to happen de facto.
This has been vehemently denied by the people at the top in Pakistan.
And yet, you know, India, as Hina said, India then moved to kind of DEF CON 3 war mode very quickly based on a set of assumptions which have been denied.
Would it not have been more prudent for, as she says, for the international cause to be involved?
Piers, I think one needs to study the history of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, identify each of them.
Right from the 2000, the late 2000s, when we had Ajmal Kassab, who was a part of the Mumbai terror attacks, was caught.
Pakistan denied having anything to do with the attacks, and his origin points were in Pakistan.
We tried solving things diplomatically at that time.
Since Uri, since Balakur, we always tried only retaliating.
We're never the aggressors.
The objective view here is that every time you're asking Barkha or myself a question, you're objectively answering.
But our two Pakistanis on the panel are constantly deflecting because this is the nature of Pakistani narratives.
They'll never answer the questions directly.
So if you're asking me, if we reacted too much, my question is: how would you feel if this attack had happened in the UK, Piers?
If 26 unarmed civilians were killed in cold blood and your intelligence found out that their roots, the camps they were trained in, were in your neighboring country.
How would you want your country to react?
PS, I've grown up in India in the 90s, the 2000s to 2010s, where there was constantly a terror threat.
And in each one of those cases, it was the Jaishi Mohammed or the Lashkari Taiba or another body that was found in Pakistan.
The proof is in the pudding.
The proof is available for the world to see.
We're a flourishing country today.
We have more Muslims here who are flourishing in their careers than all of the Muslims in Pakistan.
The Muslim population of India is larger than the Muslim population in Pakistan.
We've constantly spoken about success stories that come out of India.
We just want to go about our work.
We want to keep our citizens safe.
But what I can promise you is that if unarmed civilians get targeted, we have one of the most capable militaries in the world.
And the first strike, Operation Sindhur, was simply targeted at terrorist bases.
These are well-known UN-designated terrorist bases.
That's all that was targeted.
Pakistan retaliated by attacking the LOC and harming civilians.
Okay, let me allow Shahzad to respond and then I'm going to go to Barker for the final words.
So, Shahzad, your response.
Unlike Ranveer, we don't live in a world of assumptions.
I didn't think this was bring your child to school day, so I didn't bring any pictures.
There was a seven-year-old child sleeping at his home, it's Abbas Turi, who has had his home.
And India claims that the seven-year-old child was at the terror stand that we killed.
There is ample evidence that India targeted civilians.
In terms of Ranveer's narrative, I'm not surprised that he's doing that.
He's not even free to post a story and deleted.
He was dragged through the Supreme Court of India for telling a sex joke.
So if he's trying to bring his trial audience back, he's welcome to shout these lies.
All right.
Ranveer, let's be here.
2006 Magalan bombings, an Islamist student organization was blamed.
As you're aware, you're representing India around the world.
Who turned out to be the terrorist in that case?
Ranveir, do you know?
It was Abhina Bharat, the RSS, who's the ideological mentor to BJP, whose people you've hosted, whose people have been accused of gang raping Bilki Swanu.
No, this is the narrative of your faith, my brother.
All right.
Anybody is welcome to Google all the things that I'm saying.
Samjata Express, RSS claimed responsibility for that.
Ajmar Darga, RSS claimed responsibility for that.
It's that entire narrative that we're talking about when they're in the middle of anybody who's watching is welcome to Google this.
Barka Dhat is again trying to bring back her far-right audience.
Barka Dat 15 years ago was accusing the BJP of targeting Muslims in Gujarat.
Did you or did you not Barka from run away from a BJ BJP mob?
Did you not sign the bottom light to escape?
We're trying to pull it out.
I think we're moving slightly off topic here.
If I don't mind me saying, listen, who's deflecting here?
These are the people who said we deflect.
Barka, it's a simple question.
Would you run away from a BJP mob trying to define?
And did you escape through climbing a water pipe with your journalist?
I am not here.
Excuse me.
Can we get it back on topic, please?
Can we get it back to where we are with India and Pakistan?
Only terrorism in a Muslim.
Barka, how does this get resolved?
How do we resolve this ongoing issue of Kashmir?
Yeah, I'm going to ignore Chezad's infantile comments and focus on what I want to say.
It doesn't matter whether you and Pakistan like or don't.
Can I speak, please?
It doesn't matter whether you like or don't like Prime Minister Modi.
He is an elected prime minister of India in his third term.
Unlike the prime ministers of Pakistan who are appointed by the army, jailed or exiled, your country is in turmoil because you have jailed Imran Khan.
Nawaz Sharif and Shibaz Sharif, his brother, who's the present prime minister, is an appointee of the army.
Before that, Nawaz Sharif.
I'm going to listen to Burka's version of Pakistan's internal politics.
You commented, ma'am, you commented on my country's internal politics.
I am responding.
No, I commented on the goods.
I am responding.
And I would be very happy on that.
There's your defense minister.
You know what your defense minister said on television?
Yes, we did say.
I'm not a journalist.
I don't have ma'am.
You're interrupting me.
Ma'am, I did not interrupt you.
Grant me the same civility.
I did not interrupt you.
Please go ahead.
Khwaja Asif, whose picture Anir held up, said in an interview to Sky News that indeed Pakistan had used terrorism as to do the dirty job.
I guess Hina could tolerate the truth.
Maybe she just left.
Khwaja Asif said on Sky News that Pakistan used to do the dirty job for other countries by using terrorism as an instrument of state policy.
Bilawal Bhutto said on the same channel, indeed, Pakistan has a past.
Through this entire conversation, neither Pakistani has answered: are the Lashkar and the Jaish terror groups or not?
And if they are, why are they allowed to function openly in Murikin Bhavalpur, where Indian action was taken against terror bases and terror bases alone?
And a last point: Prime Minister Modi did try dialogue with Pakistan.
He went to visit Nawaz Sharif in his home in Lahore.
He invited Nawaz Sharif when he was sworn in as prime minister the first time.
All of that came to naught because Pakistan's entire existence seems to be to conduct a proxy war against India.
India would love to ignore Pakistan.
India wants nothing Pakistan has.
If Pakistan would stop inflicting terrorism on our country, we would be quite happy to never engage with them ever again.
Let's leave it there.
I appreciate you all joining us.
Hina appears to have left the building.
Sorry that she felt the need to leave early.
But thank you three for remaining in your seats.
And I appreciate you being on our session.
Do you want to get to respond to that?
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, Piers.
And Free Palestine.
Thank you.
Deflect again anyway.
Piers Morgan on Sensor is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
You enjoy our show.
We ask for only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan on Sensid on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
Independent uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.