Indian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Randhir Jaiswal claimed that the charges from Pakistan were a response to a strategy to divert public attention from the country’s domestic situation, characterized by subversion of the constitution and dissatisfaction with military dominance in political decision-making. The statement was issued in connection with a suicide bomb attack by Tehreek Taliban Pakistan (TTP), known as the Pakistani Taliban, that killed at least 12 people and injured more than 20 others in the capital on Tuesday, according to a statement posted on social networks.
According to media reports, the Indian government strongly rejected Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s accusations linking New Delhi to the TTP attack. Mr. Sharif claimed that Indian authorities were supporting militant groups based in Afghanistan that were carrying out acts of violence inside Pakistani territory. Jaiswal called these claims “baseless and baseless” and claimed that Pakistan’s leaders are “delusional”.
The attack occurred at around 12:39 local time after an explosive device planted by a private individual detonated a police vehicle parked in front of Islamabad’s District Court. After the explosion, the area was evacuated for safety reasons. Official information said at least 12 people were killed and more than 20 injured.
The foreign affairs spokesperson denied India’s involvement in the attack and said the accusations were an attempt to prevent Pakistani public opinion from focusing on what he considered to be Pakistan’s serious internal problems, such as constitutional instability and the military’s control of politics. Mr. Jaiswal further asserted that the international community would not be misled by what he described as a desperate maneuver by the neighboring government.
As reported by the media, differences between the two countries intensified after Pakistan’s military directly accused India of involvement in the May 21 attack on a school bus in Balochistan that killed five people, including three minors. Faced with this situation, Indian authorities also distanced themselves from the facts, denied any suggestion and withdrew their accusations against the other party.
The mutual exchange of versions and charges is part of a scenario of heightened bilateral tensions in the wake of the conflict between the two countries, especially after the violence recorded in the Kashmir region. On April 22, an attack in the region killed 26 people under Indian rule, intensifying the historic conflict between New Delhi and Islamabad.
Media also reflected that this environment of accusations and diplomatic tensions has a recent history, with common border incidents and armed incidents mixed with serious official condemnations, contributing to the weakness of dialogue and cooperation between the two countries. Furthermore, the circumstances of the attack in Islamabad, in addition to subsequent statements, increased distrust and made bilateral approaches difficult.
The Indian government, through a spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs, insisted that it rejects any accusations of supporting militant groups, and reiterated that the accusations are without any evidence or basis. The spokesperson asserted that India’s position is to absolutely condemn terrorism in all its forms, irrespective of its origin or motivation, and urged the international community to remain focused on combating these threats rather than making accusations without evidence.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s security services and authorities continue to point to India as a destabilizing factor, accusing New Delhi of operating through militants from Afghan territory. In light of this, the Government of India reiterated its commitment to international counter-terrorism cooperation efforts and emphasized its support for regional stability.
Against this backdrop, bilateral relations between India and Pakistan continue to be fraught with mutual suspicions, misspoken statements, and confrontational power relations, in a situation characterized by repeated attacks, territorial disputes, and difficulties in diplomatic dialogue.
About The Author
