Politician wanting to take credit: Tharoor slams Trump for declaring halting of Indo-Pak hostilities
New Delhi, May 12 (PTI): Congress leader Shashi Tharoor on Monday described US President Donald Trump's announcement of halting military hostilities between India and Pakistan as "a politician wanting to take credit for something" and slammed the American leader for re-hyphenating the two South Asian countries.
Asserting that he did not like the social media post of Trump announcing the cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan, Tharoor pointed out that the US president tried to make a "false equivalence" between India and Pakistan and said it was equating the victim with the perpetrator which was "shocking".
Asked about Trump's announcement, Tharoor told PTI Videos, "I see it as a particular politician wanting to take credit for something and I can see that the government of India probably said 'let them take the credit if they want to', but from our point of view we have made it clear that the peace followed a request from the DGMO of Pakistan who called his Indian counterpart at 3:35 pm (Saturday) and we did not take very long to say yes because we had never wanted a long war."
"We had made it very clear on May 7 that what we had done was to strike terrorist targets in reprisal for Pahalgam and the last thing that we wanted to see was the beginning of a long protracted conflict...We had said at every stage, we had done our thing, we have sent a message, if you react, we will react," the MP from Thiruvananthapuram said.
Clarifying that he was speaking as an individual MP, Tharoor said he did not like Trump's social media posts on the issue.
Tharoor said there were four problems with Trump's message including the "false equivalence" between India and Pakistan.
"You are making equivalent the victim and the perpetrator, which is really shocking. It is completely wrong to imply that as a result of this India is going to give some sort of negotiation to Pakistan. We will never negotiate to the point of a gun, we are never going to give the satisfaction to Pakistan of feeling that by unleashing a terrorist attack in Pahalgam they have somehow earned the right to negotiate with India," he said.
"I don't think that Mr Trump should have in any way, shape or form implied that the Kashmiri dispute has been internationalised by the American involvement. We don't even accept that there is a dispute of that nature, Kashmir is an integral part of India...we are not interested at all in internationalising the dispute," he said.
So the implication that the international community has a role to play in resolving this issue flies in the face of basic assumptions of India's foreign policy, Tharoor said.
"I do not believe we will do that. The fourth thing I did not like about Trump's tweet is that it re-hyphenated India and Pakistan," he said.
For the last 30 years, India has successfully in pursuade the world and US presidents since Clinton to not club the two countries together.
Tharoor also said the tension between India and Pakistan is not new.
"If we look back at the developments of the last decade, I think the last straw was the Pathankot attack...when the PM very graciously invited the Pakistanis to participate in the investigation into the attack. And they sent their intelligence people to an Indian airbase — something that had never happened before. They went back and said the Indians did it to themselves, that I think was the last straw.
"That’s when the prime minister felt, and the Government of India concluded, that you could never really trust the Pakistani military establishment and that entire apparatus there," he said.
"So if you look back at where things stood even before Pahalgam, it was not a very warm relationship. After Pahalgam, it’s taken a further dive — because, as you know, we’ve suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, we have reduced the number of personnel in the embassy here, in the High Commission, we have removed defence attaches," he said.
It is a very tense relationship even without a shooting war going on, Tharoor said.
"For three-four days we were shooting at each other which was a very serious matter which seems to have been brought to a halt right now. I hope it stays that way but even then peace in this case is just the absence of war," Tharoor said.
India and Pakistan have reached an understanding to stop all firings and military actions on land, air and sea with immediate effect after four days of cross-border strikes that triggered fears of a wider conflict.
In a short announcement, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said the directors general of military operations of the two countries agreed on the understanding during a call this afternoon.
The decision by India and Pakistan was first made public by Trump in a social media post while claiming that the talks between the two sides were mediated by the US.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI calls for 'unified judicial policy', use of technology to converge practices across courts
Jaisalmer (PTI): Pushing for a "unified judicial policy", Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said technology can help align standards and practices across courts, creating a "seamless experience" for citizens, regardless of their location.
He said high courts -- due to the federal structure -- have had their own practices and technological capacities, and "regional barriers" can be broken down with technology to create a more unified judicial ecosystem.
Delivering the keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer, Kant proposed the idea of a "national judicial ecosystem" and called for an overhaul of India's judicial system with the integration of technology.
"Today, as technology reduces geographical barriers and enables convergence, it invites us to think of justice not as regional systems operating in parallel, but as one national ecosystem with shared standards, seamless interfaces, and coordinated goals," he said.
He emphasised how the role of technology in the judiciary has evolved over time.
"Technology is no longer merely an administrative convenience. It has evolved into a constitutional instrument that strengthens equality before the law, expands access to justice, and enhances institutional efficiency," he said, highlighting how digital tools can bridge gaps in the judicial system.
Kant pointed out that technology enables the judiciary to overcome the limitations of physical distance and bureaucratic hurdles.
"It allows the judiciary to transcend physical barriers and bureaucratic rigidities to deliver outcomes that are timely, transparent and principled," he said, adding that the effective use of technology can modernise the delivery of justice and make it more accessible to citizens across the country.
The CJI called for implementing a "unified judicial policy".
He said India's judicial system has long been shaped by its federal structure, and different high courts have their own practices and technological capacities.
"India's vast diversity has led to different high courts evolving their own practices, administrative priorities and technological capacities. This variation, though natural in a federal democracy, has resulted in uneven experiences for litigants across the country," he said.
Kant underscored that predictability is crucial for building trust in the judicial system.
"A core expectation citizens place upon the courts is predictability," he said, adding that citizens should not only expect fair treatment but also consistency in how cases are handled across the country.
He pointed to the potential of technology in improving predictability.
"Technology enables us to track systemic delays and make problems visible rather than concealed," he said.
By identifying areas where delays occur, such as in bail matters or cases involving certain types of disputes, courts can take targeted action to address these issues and improve efficiency, Kant said.
The CJI explained that data-driven tools could identify the reasons behind delays or bottlenecks, allowing for faster, more focused solutions.
"Technology enables prioritisation by flagging sensitive case categories, monitoring pendency in real time and ensuring transparent listing protocols," he said.
Justice Surya Kant also discussed the importance of prioritising urgent cases where delays could result in significant harm. He highlighted his recent administrative order that ensures urgent cases, such as bail petitions or habeas corpus cases, are listed within two days of curing defects.
"Where delay causes deep harm, the system must respond with urgency," he stated, explaining that technology can help courts identify and expedite such cases.
Kant also raised the issue of the clarity of judicial decisions.
He noted that many litigants, despite winning cases, often struggle to understand the terms of their judgment due to complex legal language.
"Although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand," he said.
He advocated for more uniformity in how judgments are written.
"A unified judicial approach must therefore extend to how we communicate outcomes," he said.
The CJI also discussed the role of AI and digital tools in improving case management. He pointed to the potential of AI-based research assistants and digital case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
"Emerging technological tools are now capable of performing once-unthinkable functions. They can highlight missing precedent references, cluster similar legal questions, and simplify factual narration," he said, explaining how these technologies can help judges make more consistent decisions.
He also highlighted tools like the National Judicial Data Grid and e-courts, which are already helping to standardise processes like case filings and tracking.
Kant reiterated that the integration of technology into the judicial process is not just about improving efficiency but about upholding the integrity of the system and strengthening public trust.
"The measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served," he said.
