Ravi Shankar Prasad-led delegation concludes Europe visit, rallies support against Pak's cross-border terrorism

London [UK], June 3 (ANI): The all-party delegation, led by BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad, departed from London to India on Tuesday after concluding their five-country visit in Europe and the European Union to garner widespread support for India's fight against terrorism and exposed Pakistan's role in fostering terrorism.
Prior to their departure, the BJP MP-led delegation, which includes BJP MPs Daggubati Purandeswari and Samik Bhattacharya, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi, Congress MPs Ghulam Ali Khatana and Amar Singh, former Union Minister MJ Akbar, and former Ambassador Pankaj Saran, met with the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)-India and interacted with the media there, during which the delegation delivered a strong message on the global threat of terrorism, highlighting Pakistan's misuse of international funds to support terrorism and arms proliferation.
The delegation also received widespread support from British parliamentarians, think tanks, and the Indian diaspora for India's democratic unity and firm stance against terrorism.
Delegation leader Ravi Shankar Prasad stated that during their time in the UK, the delegation met with key UK figures, including the Speaker of the House of Commons and Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel, emphasising the need for international accountability on terrorism financing amidst appreciation for India's democratic approach.
Following the interaction with the media, Prasad highlighted the global concern over terrorism as a 'cancer' and called for scrutiny of Pakistan's use of international funds, noting the novelty of the all-party delegation initiative.
'This has been really good. Our visit to England concludes today. We held a press conference at the India House here; we met the Speaker of the House of Commons this morning. We met the Chairman of the Conservative Party yesterday; we also met Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel. We also met Indian Friends in the Labour Party... We also interacted with Think Tanks. All of them are concerned that terrorism is a cancer... We also said that they (Pakistan) get loans from the IMF and World Bank and they get other funding too. So, is the funding being used for terrorism and weapon purchases or for the poor? This should be asked of them... Everyone said one more thing: that the all-party Parliamentary delegation visit is a new initiative,' Prasad said.
Congress MP Amar Singh emphasised the delegation's efforts to explain India's terrorism challenges and urged Pakistan's government to clarify its stance.
'We met several people here. We met the Speaker, Ministers, a few State Ministers, Labour MPs, and Conservative MPs. We have tried to explain how India is being affected by terrorism... We have also said how our neighbouring country troubles us again and again. Now, their Government has to decide what stand they take. But we have said everything we had to,' Singh stated.
Meanwhile, AIADMK MP M Thambidurai noted the UK's support for India's anti-terrorism actions, its appreciation of India's democratic unity, and its criticism of Pakistan's military rule and misuse of funds for terrorism.
'We met all the elected people of the House of Commons and Senators also... They are all positive... The Indian delegation is much more successful, seeing the reaction of all sections of people in Britain. They are for India; they are against terrorism... They are very unhappy with Pakistan... Instead of developing the country, there is no democracy there. There is a military rule there... They are misusing the money they are getting and using it for terrorism... The UK is one of the countries that have suffered. So, the UK also felt that terrorist camps in Pakistan are a dangerous thing... So, whatever action that has been taken by India to tackle terrorism is being appreciated by them,' the AIADMK leader noted.
UK MPs, following the meeting with the delegation from the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)-India, questioned Pakistan's aid misuse as well as backed India's anti-terror stand.
UK MP Bob Blackman raised critical concerns over Pakistan's use of international aid money during the meeting with the all-party delegation, questioning whether funds meant for the country's development were being diverted to purchase Chinese weapons for terrorism against India.
Key figures like House of Lords MP Lord Karan Bilimoria and former member of the UK Parliament Shailesh Vara also expressed unanimous cross-party support in the UK for India's response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, alongside discussions on deepening India-UK ties in trade, security, and education, despite last-minute camera restrictions leading to phone recordings.
Blackman expressed the UK's condolences and support for India's anti-terrorism actions, emphasising India's desire for peace and questioning Pakistan's misuse of aid for military purposes, advocating for its use in health initiatives like polio eradication.
'We had a meeting and it's great to see the delegation from all parts of India... Everyone from the United Kingdom expresses their condolences and support for the people of India who've suffered this terrorist outrage... India wants peace and tranquillity between the two,' Blackman stated.
'The money that's sent to Pakistan, what is it used for? What it shouldn't be used for is buying Chinese weapons that would then enable terrorists to attack India, and I take a very strong view that our international aid money that should go to Pakistan should be going for the eradication of polio and other infectious diseases that benefit the people of Pakistan rather than it being used illicitly for military purposes,' he added.
Lord Karan Bilimoria, who chaired the APPG-India meeting, highlighted the unified cross-party support in both nations against terrorism, reflecting a positive meeting outcome and emphasised the potential for deeper India-UK collaboration in security, education, and the recently agreed FTA, strengthening bilateral ties.
Former UK MP Shailesh Vara appreciated the delegation's in-person visit for providing a clear explanation of the Pahalgam attack and enhancing bilateral understanding and underscored the solid India-UK relationship.
The all-party delegation was welcomed by APPG India President Sandy Verma, and the meeting was co-chaired by UK MPs Lord Karan Bilimoria and Jeevun Sandher.
Many current and former MPs, including Lord Ed Vaizey, Bob Blackman, Barry Gardiner, Gurinder Singh Josan, Gagan Mohindra, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Kanishka Narayan, Shailesh Vara, Baggy Shanker, Mark Pritchard and others also joined the discussion.
Earlier today, the delegation met UK Minister for Citizenship and Migration and Minister for Equalities Seema Malhotra at the UK Parliament.
Meanwhile, on Monday, the Conservative Party's Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel expressed her pleasure after meeting with an all-party Indian parliamentary delegation, led by Prasad, and stated that 'significant areas of discussion were covered.'
During their diplomatic outreach, the delegation visited the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Denmark. (ANI)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

30 minutes ago

• Time of India

‘Diplomatic intervention': Pakistan nominates Donald Trump for 2026 Nobel Peace Prize; cites role in India-Pakistan crisis

Donakd Trump Pakistan has nominated US President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize , crediting his "decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership" during the recent crisis between India and Pakistan. The announcement was made in a post on social media platform X, where Pakistani officials said Trump played a key role in defusing tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. The nomination follows comments made by Trump on Friday, in which he argued he deserved the prestigious award for multiple peace efforts, including his involvement in easing tensions between India and Pakistan. 'I should have gotten it four or five times,' the president said. 'They won't give me a Nobel Peace Prize because they only give it to liberals.' While the Indian government has rejected the idea that Trump played a role in the ceasefire, Trump insists he helped prevent a potential war. 'Well, I stopped a war... I love Pakistan. I think Modi is a fantastic man. I spoke to him last night. We're going to make a trade deal with Modi of India,' he told reporters earlier this week. 'But I stopped the war between Pakistan and India. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo This man was extremely influential in stopping it from the Pakistan side. Modi from the India side and others. They were going at it – and they're both nuclear countries. I got it stopped.' Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir, has also secured a lunch meeting at the White House following his recommendation that US President Donald Trump be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly confirmed the meeting will take place but did not provide a date. This is not the first time Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. In the past, loyal lawmakers and supporters have submitted his name for consideration. He has also repeatedly voiced frustration at being overlooked, referencing the 2009 win of former US President Barack Obama. Trump also announced on Truth Social that he had arranged a peace treaty between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. He said officials from both countries would travel to Washington on Monday to sign the agreement, although their joint statement listed the date as June 27. 'This is a Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World!' Trump wrote. He also criticised the Nobel committee for not acknowledging his previous peace efforts in other regions. 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia. .. No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do... but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!' The peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda, reached during three days of negotiations in Washington, aims to end a decades-long conflict in eastern Congo. Trump has positioned himself as a global peacemaker, often highlighting his negotiation skills as a key approach to ending international conflicts. However, the wars in Gaza and Ukraine are ongoing, with no resolution reached more than five months into his presidency.

Hindustan Times

30 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Sam Dalrymple: 'The Northeast was probably the most affected by Partition'

This book is about the five partitions of the Indian Empire, which stretched from Aden in the west to Burma in the east to now 12 nations in three geographic regions. At the time, you write, even Britain downplayed its size. Nepal and Oman were never officially recognized. Arab states bordering the Ottoman Empire and Himalayan states near Tibet were left off the maps. But these were all run by the Indian political service, defended by the Indian army, their currency was the Indian rupee. So how did the British manage to hide them? And what did the Indian Empire actually look like? Sam Dalrymple, author, Shattered Lands (Courtesy HarperCollins) So, for example, a 1909 map [Political Divisions of the Indian Empire by The Indian Gazetteer] shows Burma as British India, and Nepal and Bhutan as princely states — they're in yellow exactly like Jaipur and Hyderabad are — but hides Arabia. A 1909 map of Aden by The Indian Gazetteer recognizes much of southern Yemen as dominated by princely states. A rare Indian Empire map from 1930 includes Aden but not the Gulf states. The British were always quite reticent to talk about what they were doing in the Arabian states, partially because very few people actually lived there. These were the poorest states in the Raj. Oil hadn't been discovered yet, and so, largely, it was small settlements on the coast. The Brits were only involving themselves in the cities and making sure that the sheikhs were abiding by them. The person who integrated the sheikhs of the Gulf into the Indian empire was Lord Curzon. Lord Curzon went on a Durbar trip to Sharjah [in 1903] and invited the sheikhs and gave them all gun salutes, and created a Persian Gulf residency, on the model of the Hyderabad residency or the Jaipur residency. So, subsequently you had the list of princely states beginning alphabetically with Abu Dhabi. There's a map of the Arabian peninsula in the Gazetteer issued to Indian civil servants, and if you placed it beside the India maps, it gave you a full picture of the size of the Indian Empire from Aden to Rangoon. The public never got to see its full scale though. The Ottoman Empire officially claimed the Arabian peninsula and the British wanted to avoid aggravating Constantinople, so they always kept the Arabian Raj off official maps of India. Likewise, Britain's presence in Nepal and Bhutan — they didn't want to scare China or Tibet. But officially under the Interpretation Act of 1889, these were India. And everyone was eligible for an Indian passport... At the Round Table Conference on Burma in 1931, Burmese leaders were against separation from India. In Aden at the same time, some saw 'the connection with India as organic.' The city's many Gujarati and Parsi residents thought Aden 'was an integral part of the Indian nation'. In the 1940s, the Nawab of Bhopal wanted the princely states to, instead of acceding to India or Pakistan, be unified as a third dominion called 'Rajastan'. The Nagas wanted a separate Christian state under the Commonwealth nation. Kalat [in present-day Balochistan], then the third largest princely state in the Raj, wanted to be independent. What were, at the time, considered the most plausible partitions? I think what's remarkable is how late the idea of independence comes up. It took them until 1929 to ask for it. What they'd all been asking for until then is for the interconnectivity of the empire to remain but for equal opportunity within the empire. The model was the Roman Empire, which, around 200 AD, became completely racially equal — so Philip the Arab could become the Roman emperor and then you've got people from Tunisia or Egypt or Syria or France suddenly ruling the Roman Empire. So, for early nationalists, it would have included everything from Aden to Burma as one giant country probably governed along a system like the United States of America, which was another country that had gained independence from Britain in the past. Once it became clear that independence was happening, you had hundreds of different ideas of what different states could look like and virtually no one could have imagined what we actually got. Gandhi wanted independence for basically Bharatvarsha. He wanted to carve out a nation state that resembled Bharat of Mahabharata fame. We're so used to this idea of undivided India that we forget until as late as the 1920s, it had never been attempted before to have all of it ruled on one country. Even Ashoka and the Mughals had never ruled over the whole of the subcontinent. There had always been a bit of Tamil Nadu or a bit of Kerala that had been independent. Or it had included Afghanistan as well or something. There were various other ideas of kind of uniting all the Muslim areas. There were ideas of Burmese nationalists. There was a very early idea of a Dravidian state that has Hindustan and India as two separate bits. The idea that we grow up with in Delhi schools is the idea that Gandhi had of this eternal Bharat. The fact that there were hundreds of other visions or just near misses is forgotten. 536pp, ₹799; HarperCollins Did Gandhi set the tone for what India now looks like? It wasn't him specifically. The idea that set it up was in the wake of the 1905 Partition of Bengal. You suddenly had nationalists producing images of Bharat Mata, and the Congress latched on to it. But the depiction of independent India as Bharat Mata alienated the Burmese and the Arabs. These partitions occurred within the last hundred years and still exist in living memory. The 'Long March' of about 600,000 Indian refugees from Burma, 80,000 of whom die... How well are these stories documented — and were they hard to access? The origin story of this book was from a conversation with someone in Tripura who I was asking about Partition for our Project Dastaan [an initiative co-founded by Dalrymple in 2018 to reconnect people displaced by Partition]. And they said 'Which partition? ... Because there was the 1937 one from Burma, 1947 from India. And then Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971 and we got another influx for refugees.' And I, having studied Partition for three years, had never considered that. Each of these 12 countries has brushed over its past. Unlike Partition where lots of people are still alive, the 'Long March' was six years earlier so we've lost six more years and it's very late to get these stories out. I've only got a couple of people who I was able to interview in person. A Sikh family from north London — of the character Uttam Singh from the book, his grandkids — had reached out to me on Instagram and said they had a Partition story. I told them about what I was doing with the book and they said 'Oh, we were in Punjab for Partition, but actually before 1941 we were all in Burma.' And then they opened this trunk and they had an untranslated diary, photographs, and everything. I think that the key one though is Yemen — it lost most of its papers in the communist takeover of South Yemen. Many of the archives there were burnt. And all of these Arab states have been very harsh with their citizenship laws — about who gets to be Kuwaiti or from Dubai... and they don't particularly want to run over this history, especially in the present day. But the big story there got discovered by professor James Onley, who was the director of research at the Qatar National Library. He was commissioned by the sheikh of Qatar, who wanted to create a Qatari digital library, to find documents relating to Qatari history. And there was nothing in Qatar on what its life was before the 1950s and '60s. He eventually stumbled upon the fact that everything is sitting in the Bombay archives. It's not in London, it's not in Qatar, it's all in Bombay. He wrote a big book that's a classic called The Arabian Frontier of the British Raj (2007). You've used a lot of personal correspondences and diaries for your research — starting from letters written by John Simon [of the Simon Commission] to his mother describing his travels, or the ones between Sarojini Naidu and her daughter Padmaja, Asha Sahay who was a foot soldier of the INA, Uttam Singh... Tell me more about finding private papers and working with such personal research material. There were some particularly interesting ones. Two of the wildest interviews and private papers I had was Ghalib Al-Qu'aiti, the Yemeni Sultan, who's descended from the Nizam of Hyderabad. I ended up meeting him and he's living stateless in Jeddah; he's not allowed to leave the country and the Brits are refusing to give him a passport. He'd attempted to write his own autobiography but never got it published... he had all these letters and private papers that no one's really ever used before. The other one was Feroz Khan Noon, the seventh prime minister of Pakistan, who was removed when martial law was first imposed in 1957. His family live in Lahore and the family archives just haven't been utilized. And then the other one was actually my godmother Brigid Keenan who, as a young girl saw the last Brits disappearing through the Gateway of India and whose father was in the PBF, the Punjab Boundary Force. He was an Irishman who is one of the few people who volunteers to try and keep the peace... and I found his letters, which were just sitting in a house in Somerset. What was your most surprising discovery? That the Persian Gulf remained a part of the Indian Empire till 1947. That one muddled me. And it was weirdly difficult to find any papers on — so much of it is online, but it's difficult to find anyone talking about it. The thing that we've got to remember is that the Gulf was the lowest ranking princely states in the Indian empire. Not even worthy of one gun salute, you write. They weren't invited! The Sultan of Oman is the exception, and Qu'aiti State, the guys in Eastern Yemen. Oman had 21 [gun salutes] Qu'aiti State had 10, and Dubai and Abu Dhabi had zero. They all were invited to go to Mayo College, etcetera as princes. I think that's going be the big surprise for Indian readers – the fact that there was a world where the united oil wealth of the entire Gulf could have gone to either India, or let's not forget, Pakistan. These were Muslim-majority states, they could have joined Pakistan instead and probably would have. Many cities, thriving centres of culture and trade, suffered tragic declines in this time. What were some of the biggest casualties? I don't think we should be nostalgic about the 1930s. Each of these countries has gained things and lost things. This was a time of high imperialism and very racially segmented societies that worked on the basis of exclusion. One of the places that's changed the most and suffered the most in this time would probably be Hyderabad, which was this centre of courtly wonder and baroque palaces. So much has been lost, so many great libraries, collections of art — Hyderabad should be the number one tourist destination in the country and would have been in the 1930s. Jaipur and Jodhpur and Udaipur and all the places we visit today were nothing compared to Hyderabad. Half of it was bulldozed, destroyed and ghettoized in the wake of the events of the 1940s. But I feel like it's a complicated legacy. This was also a place of great brutality, probably the most socially hierarchical place in the entire subcontinent with bonded labour ruining the lives of most the population. Today, through the lens of modern politics, we often look at it as a Hindu-Muslim thing with the Nizam as a Muslim, but I think if we look at it through the lens of class, we see that this was the site of, in the 1950s, South Asia's biggest communist movement and communist revolution. The Indian Army was still fighting communists in the Telangana countryside three years after it went into the place. Burma lost something immense. It was the most multicultural region in Asia, and today it's driven by ethnic factionalism, mass murder and civil war. But at the same time, Rangoon in the 1930s was also not necessarily a completely open place. It was driven heavily by class and race. Aden was a very diverse cosmopolitan place filled with traders from across the Indian ocean. It was one-third Indian, one-third Somali, one-third Arab, about ten percent Jews. Like Rangoon, it is the one that's fallen the most from one of the great ports of the world to a southern Yemeni city that's now riven by ethnic and religious civil war. The culture of Lahore is mourned immensely. But there were quite justifiable reasons many Muslims felt like they needed separation. Urvashi Butalia and Aanchal Malhotra have both talked a lot about this. People in Lahore who lived through Partition, who miss their friends, but also will tell you about how Hindus were never able to eat in the same room as their Muslim best friends. You write about the alliance between India and Pakistan after Partition. How did it come about and what went wrong? Of the two books that really discovered this, one is Pallavi Raghavan's Animosity at Bay (2019), which is an alternative history of the relationship of India and Pakistan. After the ceasefire in 1949 over Kashmir, both countries were quite happy to leave it to the UN and move on creating a new future, particularly in the wake of the Liaquat–Nehru Pact. And so Jinnah's tomb was built by an Indian Muslim. His daughter lived in Bombay her whole life without much issue. There were whole communities with half a family living on one side and the other half on the other side of the border. The other book is Avinash Paliwal's who was the first to used declassified intelligence files from the Northeast, and he's completely rewritten everything that we thought — because until that point, we'd been relying on memoirs and oral histories and news reports, often which got things wrong. Bizarrely, the thing that breaks apart the India-Pakistan relationship is India sending the army into Goa [in 1961] to annex it from the Portuguese. And that whilst everyone in India and half the world saw this as a final moment of decolonization, the Pakistani leadership, which had a year earlier put a military pact with India on the table, saw it as India suddenly muscling up its army, taking on European powers militarily, and essentially as a new Indian expansionism — that India would have this irredentist thing of trying to claim back lost territory. So the Pakistani leadership was terrified and started funding Naga separatists the same year. Within a year, India started funding the Pashtuns and Bengali separatists. And it became a tit for tat. But from 1949 to 1960, the whole of the 1950s, there was another way, many what-ifs that could have happened. And I think that more research really needs to be done to figure out the details of what went wrong. The 1965 war is actually the one that broke down the complete relationship: enemy property acts come in, all transport across the borders stopped, the beginning of a border wall is built up. How was the Northeast affected by Partition? The Northeast was probably the most affected by Partition. It's the reason that the Northeast is now a strange appendage on the right of India. Tripura was 20 kms from Chittagong, South Asia's largest port, and suddenly became landlocked by 2,000 kms in an area with no roads. The economy completely crumbled, and the indigenous population was overwhelmed by Bengalis flooding into the country. Half of the conflict, with the exception of Arunachal Pradesh, all of the others — the AFSPA agitation, the insurgencies in Tripura, Mizoram and Nagaland — have roots in Partition. Many of the ethnic conflicts in the Northeast — when you grow up in Delhi, at least — seemed so complicated. But the moment you think about how everything has to do with borders cutting through communities, and with regions being overwhelmed by new migrants, suddenly all of its politics became clear overnight. That fog lifted. Saudamini Jain is an independent journalist. She lives in New Delhi.

The Hindu

33 minutes ago

• The Hindu

U.P. CM inaugurates 91.35 km long Gorakhpur Link Expressway

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Friday (June 20, 2025) inaugurated the Gorakhpur Link Expressway built at a cost of over ₹7,000 crore. Calling the inauguration in Azamgarh a game changer, Mr. Adityanath stressed that U.P. is no longer a 'BIMARU' State but is emerging as an 'Expressway State'. BIMARU is a term used in reference to a group of States, including U.P. and Madhya Pradesh, that were historically considered to be lagging in terms of social and economic development. The Chief Minister added that Azamgarh, which once faced an identity crisis, has now transformed into a stronghold of indomitable courage. The change witnessed in the region owing to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's guidance and the efforts of the 'double-engine government' has transformed Uttar Pradesh, Mr. Adityanath said. Inaugurating the 91.35 km long Gorakhpur Link Expressway built at a cost of ₹7,283 crore, Mr. Adityanath said the expressway will provide world-class connectivity not only to Azamgarh but also to adjoining districts of Sant Kabir Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar and Gorakhpur. 'After 2017, U.P. focused on strengthening its infrastructure. Coming out of its BIMARU tag, the State is playing a key role as the growth engine of the nation,' he pointed out. 'Before 2017' Touching upon the condition of U.P. before 2017, Mr. Adityanath said the State lacked both a developmental agenda and basic amenities. 'Any scheme for the welfare of the people failed to reach their rightful beneficiaries. Traditional industries of U.P. were on the brink of extinction, and a criminal culture of 'One District, One Mafia' thrived under the previous governments,' the Chief Minister added. He said development projects started in previous regimes were marred by corruption and criminal interference, while in contrary the situation drastically changed under the BJP government in the State. 'However, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the State has undergone a remarkable transformation, emerging as a mafia-free, riot-free, and conducive environment for both tourism and investment,' Mr. Adityanath said. Highlighting the growth of expressways in U.P., the Chief Minister added that the State boasts of the 340 km Purvanchal Expressway, the 300 km Bundelkhand Expressway, and now the 91 km Gorakhpur Link Expressway that is operational, with work underway on six more expressways. 'These [expressways] will bring massive change in the development outlook of U.P.,' he said.