India's ambassador unveils essential demands towards Pakistan and the U.S.

A hot potato, right? The question is, how should we characterize the ongoing India-Pakistan drama? Is it a firefight waiting to erupt into all-out war, or just a heated squabble? Well, let's dive into the words of Pakistan's military spokesman, Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif, who had some fiery language up his sleeve when his country shot down Indian drones buzzing major cities, including Karachi and Lahore.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

AHMED SHARIF: This reckless aggression continues, and the armed forces are on high alert, neutralizing them as we speak. This is a grave, grave provocation.

Now, you might wonder, what's the big deal? This is just the latest escalation in a decades-long conflict, right? The catalyst? A militant attack last month in Indian-administered Kashmir, where gunmen opened fire in a meadow, killing 26 innocent civilians, including children. India held Pakistan responsible for that attack. And just like a cat-and-mouse game, when I had a chat with Vinay Kwatra, India's ambassador to the U.S., I couldn't resist asking the million-dollar question: Do you have evidence to back up that claim?

VINAY KWATRA: We have accused terrorists with clear links, support, training facilities, and backing in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

So, do you have the dirt on 'em?

KWATRA: If you'll allow me, let me clarify for your audience. So, the 22 April incident—26 civilians killed while their families watched—was the spark. What India did on May 6, 7, and 9 was a calculated, measured response, from our perspective. We believe we settled the 22 April question with our actions.

So, to push it, do you have evidence for state sponsorship, links to Pakistan officials, the government, the works?

KWATRA: Yeah, buddy, we sure do. You aren't scrolling through a conspiracy theory here. We have ample evidence, connected communication nodes that reach Pakistan, eyewitness accounts of the four terrorists, and plenty of intelligence-based insights that will come to light eventually. We have established that these terrorists were based, supported, and trained in Pakistan. I'll cut to the chase—we asked them to take a look, but they weren't interested in taking a peek.

Now, I wanted to explore what India's objective is for these strikes, but here's the wrinkle. As Ambassador Kwatra admitted, the militant attacks have continued, and have not been deterred in the past when India has retaliated.

KWATRA: Yeah, but we're cool-headed. We don't harbor terrorists. We don't train them. We don't equip them. We don't use them as tools for state policy. When we launched attacks on May 6, 7, we aimed to bring terrorists to justice and hold them accountable. But then, as always, Pakistan started yet another round of attacks, so we had to respond. Last night, midnight, this morning, they began another round of attacks. So, if you go back to 22 April...

So, it's a game of whack-a-mole situation?

KWATRA: Yeah, you're catching on quick. We shut 'em down, they pop back up. We shut 'em down, they pop back up. They started this on April 22. We responded. We closed the matter. They started something again. We responded again. We closed the matter again. They started today. We responded. We've closed the matter.

So, who's the real aggressor here?

KWATRA: From our perspective, we're only concerned about Pakistan training these terrorists. We've played it cool and have avoided escalating the situation. We're not itching for a war. We're not nuclear power-tripping. We're not calling it an existential threat like some do.

Staying on the topic of world powers, U.S. Vice President JD Vance tossed his two cents, stating, "We're not going to get involved in the middle of a war that's fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America's ability to control it." But does India want the U.S. to get involved?

KWATRA: Of course, we appreciate the supportive messages pouring in from around the world, including the United States. We have been communicating regularly with the U.S. government, with officials like the interim National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. We told them that the U.S. could be of great help by pressuring Pakistan to stop supporting terrorism—that would be a boon both for India and the global community.

It doesn't look like the White House is chomping at the bit to get involved, though. So, does India need an external mediator to defuse this volatile situation from spiraling out of control?

KWATRA: We would love the support of the international community, especially the U.S., to force Pakistan to stop supporting terrorism. That would be a win-win situation for the whole world.

The ongoing India-Pakistan drama, fueled by recent escalations like the shooting down of Indian drones in major cities, raises questions about whether it's a prelude to all-out war or just heated squabbling.
The recent India-Pakistan crisis stems from a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, where 26 civilians, including children, were killed in a meadow, with India blaming Pakistan for the attack.
India's Ambassador to the US, Vinay Kwatra, claimed that they have evidence linking the responsible terrorists to Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, including eyewitness accounts, communication nodes, and intelligence-based insights.
As the India-Pakistan conflict continues, the question arises whether an external mediator is needed to defuse the volatile situation and prevent a potential large-scale war on the global stage, in line with US Vice President JD Vance's statement emphasizing non-involvement in local conflicts that do not pertain to American interests.