Dr. Shashi Tharoor

India chose to react in a very careful, calculated, calibrated and precise way only against terrorist infrastructure, didn't strike any Pakistani military installations or any civilian or governmental installations and basically signaled, look, We're only after terrorists and we did the strike at 1.30 in the morning so there wouldn't be too many civilians about.

We want to avoid all collateral damage. It was a very responsible strike that the Indians conducted. The Pakistanis chose to react with unnecessary escalation. They shelled very heavily civilian and occupied civilian inhabited areas of India. killing 22 civilians and hospitalizing a further 59 in the district of Pooch in Kashmir. And frankly, India had to respond and did very, very strongly.

We want to avoid all collateral damage. It was a very responsible strike that the Indians conducted. The Pakistanis chose to react with unnecessary escalation. They shelled very heavily civilian and occupied civilian inhabited areas of India. killing 22 civilians and hospitalizing a further 59 in the district of Pooch in Kashmir. And frankly, India had to respond and did very, very strongly.

We want to avoid all collateral damage. It was a very responsible strike that the Indians conducted. The Pakistanis chose to react with unnecessary escalation. They shelled very heavily civilian and occupied civilian inhabited areas of India. killing 22 civilians and hospitalizing a further 59 in the district of Pooch in Kashmir. And frankly, India had to respond and did very, very strongly.

And when India responded, it also attacked places it had so far kept off limits. It hit Pakistani air bases, for example, very hard. Pakistan has, because there is no terrorist infrastructure in India to aim at, Pakistan was assaulting Indian cities where ordinary human beings live. And that was simply unacceptable.

And when India responded, it also attacked places it had so far kept off limits. It hit Pakistani air bases, for example, very hard. Pakistan has, because there is no terrorist infrastructure in India to aim at, Pakistan was assaulting Indian cities where ordinary human beings live. And that was simply unacceptable.

And when India responded, it also attacked places it had so far kept off limits. It hit Pakistani air bases, for example, very hard. Pakistan has, because there is no terrorist infrastructure in India to aim at, Pakistan was assaulting Indian cities where ordinary human beings live. And that was simply unacceptable.

We were able to use our air defense shield to stop that, but we hit the Pakistanis hard where it hurt. Now, this escalation was leading nowhere for nobody. As far as India was concerned, they delivered their message to the terrorists. They were willing to stop. As far as Pakistan was concerned, They didn't know when to say that their honor was satisfied. And if the U.S.

We were able to use our air defense shield to stop that, but we hit the Pakistanis hard where it hurt. Now, this escalation was leading nowhere for nobody. As far as India was concerned, they delivered their message to the terrorists. They were willing to stop. As far as Pakistan was concerned, They didn't know when to say that their honor was satisfied. And if the U.S.

We were able to use our air defense shield to stop that, but we hit the Pakistanis hard where it hurt. Now, this escalation was leading nowhere for nobody. As far as India was concerned, they delivered their message to the terrorists. They were willing to stop. As far as Pakistan was concerned, They didn't know when to say that their honor was satisfied. And if the U.S.

helped them to step off that ladder, the U.S. gave them an excuse to climb down off it, so much the better, because India had no interest in a prolonged war. What was very clear from the manner of the Indian strike to begin with, David, was that India was trying to signal from the very start, this is not the opening salvo in a long conflict.

helped them to step off that ladder, the U.S. gave them an excuse to climb down off it, so much the better, because India had no interest in a prolonged war. What was very clear from the manner of the Indian strike to begin with, David, was that India was trying to signal from the very start, this is not the opening salvo in a long conflict.

helped them to step off that ladder, the U.S. gave them an excuse to climb down off it, so much the better, because India had no interest in a prolonged war. What was very clear from the manner of the Indian strike to begin with, David, was that India was trying to signal from the very start, this is not the opening salvo in a long conflict.

This is just a one-off retaliation to a terror attack, period, nothing else. It's Pakistan that was taking it in the wrong direction. And I'm glad that stopped right now.

This is just a one-off retaliation to a terror attack, period, nothing else. It's Pakistan that was taking it in the wrong direction. And I'm glad that stopped right now.

This is just a one-off retaliation to a terror attack, period, nothing else. It's Pakistan that was taking it in the wrong direction. And I'm glad that stopped right now.

You said it, David, I didn't, and I probably would be unwise to say very much along those lines myself. I will say that mediation is possibly the wrong word. Mediation implies a request by both parties to be involved in the two examples you gave and a third example, the 1999 Cargill conflict, when President Clinton summoned the Prime Minister of Pakistan to Washington.

You said it, David, I didn't, and I probably would be unwise to say very much along those lines myself. I will say that mediation is possibly the wrong word. Mediation implies a request by both parties to be involved in the two examples you gave and a third example, the 1999 Cargill conflict, when President Clinton summoned the Prime Minister of Pakistan to Washington.

You said it, David, I didn't, and I probably would be unwise to say very much along those lines myself. I will say that mediation is possibly the wrong word. Mediation implies a request by both parties to be involved in the two examples you gave and a third example, the 1999 Cargill conflict, when President Clinton summoned the Prime Minister of Pakistan to Washington.

and told him to lay off, which he did. All those three cases were essentially the U.S. putting pressure on the Pakistanis, who in every case were in the wrong. They were the perpetrators of terror. They were the perpetrators of violence. In the case of Kargil, they were the ones who had led an invasion of Indian territory. So in all those cases, the US was telling one side.