Jaishankar Firm on India's Stance: No Good Neighbor Relations with Terror-Sponsoring Nations
Jaishankar asserts India cannot be a good neighbor to countries supporting terrorism.
Photo by Pershotam Malhi
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar reiterated India's firm stance that it cannot maintain good neighborly relations with any country that actively supports terrorism. Speaking at an event, Jaishankar emphasized that while India is committed to being a good neighbor, this principle cannot extend to nations that harbor or promote cross-border terrorism.
He highlighted the need for a "zero tolerance" approach to terrorism, stressing that such activities fundamentally undermine regional stability and trust. This statement, implicitly directed at Pakistan, underscores India's consistent foreign policy position on combating terrorism and its impact on bilateral ties.
Key Facts
EAM S. Jaishankar stated India's position on terrorism.
India cannot be a good neighbor to countries supporting terrorism.
Emphasized "zero tolerance" for terrorism.
UPSC Exam Angles
India's foreign policy evolution and principles regarding terrorism.
Challenges to regional security in South Asia due to cross-border terrorism.
International cooperation and mechanisms against terrorism (UN, FATF).
Bilateral relations, particularly India-Pakistan, and their historical context.
Diplomatic tools and strategies employed by India.
Visual Insights
India's Neighbourhood: Strategic Context of Cross-border Terrorism
This map illustrates India's immediate neighborhood, highlighting the border with Pakistan and key regions historically affected by cross-border terrorism, which forms the backdrop for EAM Jaishankar's statement. It underscores the geographical dimension of India's 'zero tolerance' policy.
Loading interactive map...
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding India's foreign policy approach to combating terrorism: 1. India's 'zero tolerance' approach to terrorism is a recent development, primarily adopted after the 2016 Uri attack. 2. The principle of non-interference in internal affairs, a cornerstone of India's foreign policy, prevents it from raising concerns about state-sponsored terrorism originating from neighboring countries at international forums. 3. India actively advocates for a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) at the United Nations to provide a universal legal framework against terrorism. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.3 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect. India has consistently adopted a firm stance against terrorism since its inception, with its 'zero tolerance' approach evolving and becoming more explicit over decades, not just after 2016. Early instances of cross-border terrorism and insurgency in Kashmir in the 1990s already saw India advocating for strong anti-terror measures. Statement 2 is incorrect. While non-interference is a principle, state-sponsored terrorism is considered a violation of international law and a threat to international peace and security. India actively raises concerns about cross-border terrorism at various international forums, including the UN, SAARC, and SCO, arguing that it is not an internal affair of the sponsoring state when it impacts another sovereign nation. Statement 3 is correct. India proposed the CCIT in 1996 to provide a universal definition of terrorism, criminalize all forms of international terrorism, deny safe haven to terrorists, and make their prosecution or extradition mandatory. This initiative reflects India's long-standing commitment to a robust international legal framework against terrorism.
2. In the context of international efforts to combat terror financing and state sponsorship of terrorism, which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)?
- A.FATF is an intergovernmental organization established to set standards and promote effective implementation of legal, regulatory, and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system.
- B.Countries placed on FATF's 'Grey List' are subject to enhanced monitoring and are required to address strategic deficiencies in their regimes to counter money laundering and terrorist financing.
- C.The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) directly controls the membership and operational decisions of the FATF, ensuring its alignment with UN counter-terrorism resolutions.
- D.Being placed on FATF's 'Black List' signifies that a country has serious strategic deficiencies in its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes, posing a significant risk to the international financial system.
Show Answer
Answer: C
Statement A is correct. This accurately describes the mandate and purpose of FATF. Statement B is correct. The 'Grey List' (officially 'Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring') indicates countries actively working with FATF to address deficiencies. Statement C is incorrect. FATF is an independent intergovernmental body. While it works closely with the UN and its resolutions, it is not directly controlled by the UNSC. Its decisions are made by its own plenary body, comprising member jurisdictions and organizations. Statement D is correct. The 'Black List' (officially 'High-Risk Jurisdictions Subject to a Call for Action') identifies countries with significant deficiencies and calls for enhanced due diligence measures against them.
3. With reference to India-Pakistan relations and the issue of cross-border terrorism, consider the following statements: 1. The Shimla Agreement (1972) explicitly recognized the Kashmir issue as a bilateral dispute to be resolved peacefully without third-party intervention. 2. The Lahore Declaration (1999) aimed to reduce the risk of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons and reaffirmed the commitment to the principles of the UN Charter. 3. India's current 'zero tolerance' policy towards terrorism has led to a complete cessation of all diplomatic engagements with Pakistan since 2019. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is correct. The Shimla Agreement, signed after the 1971 war, indeed established the principle that India and Pakistan would resolve their differences bilaterally through peaceful means, specifically mentioning Kashmir. Statement 2 is correct. The Lahore Declaration, signed by PM Vajpayee and PM Nawaz Sharif, was a landmark agreement focused on nuclear risk reduction and confidence-building measures, reaffirming commitment to the UN Charter principles. Statement 3 is incorrect. While India has adopted a firm 'zero tolerance' policy and significantly scaled back high-level diplomatic engagements, it has not led to a *complete cessation* of all diplomatic engagements. Channels for communication, albeit limited, often exist, and India has maintained its High Commission in Islamabad and vice-versa. The policy is more about refusing dialogue on substantive issues until terrorism ceases, rather than a complete diplomatic blackout.