Letters to the Editor: Stage of Transition

Stage of transition

Rohit Sarma, the hit man, and Virat Kohli, the King, decided to call it a day almost simultaneously from Test cricket, leaving a big vacuum in Team India’s batting line-up. It is very natural for someone to call it a day, but the timing was a bit sudden.

On earlier occasions when we had the greats like Kapil Dev, Sunil Gavaskar, Sachin Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly, and Rahul Dravid called it a day, leaving a void in Team India which was later filled up suitably. The show goes on. Now it is time for other young Turks like Gill, Rahul, Pant, Jaiswal and others to fill up the void and get baptised before the upcoming English tour. The show will go on, keeping the cricket fans' hope alive.

Dr. Ashim Chowdhury,

Guwahati

Reasons behind the ceasefire between India and Pakistan

After a terrorist attack on Indian soil, India launched Operation Sindoor, targeting approximately nine terrorist camps located within Pakistan. During this operation, India ensured that no Pakistani military bases or civilian areas were harmed. This was clearly stated by two female Indian Army officers and the Indian foreign secretary during a press briefing. However, the destruction of these terrorist camps led to the death of several notorious militants.

Pakistan’s military and government could not accept India’s successful operation lightly. In retaliation, the Pakistani Army launched cross-border attacks using gunfire and mortars along the Line of Control (LoC). In addition to these attacks, Pakistan used missiles and drones against India. However, India’s Sudharshan Chakra defence system successfully neutralised these threats. In return, India managed to destroy several Pakistani defence infrastructures, including radar systems and military airbases, causing a significant morale breakdown within the Pakistani military.

It became evident to the Pakistani side that the China-made weapons they had heavily relied upon were of inferior quality when compared to India’s superior defence systems. Amidst all this, Balochistan separatists within Pakistan escalated their own operations, launching several attacks against the Pakistani Army, resulting in many casualties. These internal attacks further weakened Pakistan’s position, especially as their army was already engaged at the Indian border.

Pakistan’s economic situation also played a major role. With an extremely weak economy, Pakistan was once again forced to seek loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to run the country. The bulk of Pakistan’s military assets — including missiles, drones, fighter jets, and defence systems — are imported from China, and with depleted resources, Pakistan found it difficult to procure new weapons. Reports indicated that Pakistan had foreign reserves sufficient to import only one month’s worth of essential goods. Hence, Pakistan had neither the financial strength to buy new arms nor the fuel to operate its existing military equipment.

Despite their initial belief that Chinese weapons could challenge India, Pakistan realised their ineffectiveness in the face of India’s superior military response. This led them to once again approach the IMF for loans. Pakistan reportedly received around $100 billion in loans from the IMF, but this financial aid came on the condition that Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire with India.

U.S. President Donald Trump played a key role in preventing the India-Pakistan conflict from escalating into full-scale war. He assigned the U.S. Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor the task of mediating between the two nations. Both American officials actively engaged with the military chiefs, national security advisors, and foreign ministers of India and Pakistan through individual phone conversations.

Following these discussions, India laid down a clear condition: If Pakistan violated the ceasefire or if any terrorist attacks occurred on Indian soil, such incidents would be considered a direct “Act of War”. Through this condition, India sent a strong message that any future terrorist activity would lead to immediate and severe retaliation.

This message was conveyed to the Pakistani government via the U.S. mediators. Pakistan, under pressure and with limited choices, agreed to the ceasefire by accepting India’s conditions. Analysing Pakistan's acceptance of the ceasefire reveals several factors:

Pakistan lacked the financial resources for a prolonged war.

Fuel shortages made it difficult to operate its war machinery. Internal unrest, especially the intensified Baloch rebellion, distracted the Pakistani Army.

Without adhering to U.S. advice, Pakistan wouldn’t have received the IMF loan, which it desperately needed.

By agreeing to the ceasefire and accepting India’s conditions, Pakistan implicitly admitted that its territory was still being used as a safe haven for terrorists. The fact that Pakistan initiated the ceasefire proposal via a phone call to India clearly indicates that India did not provoke the conflict but only responded in defence. India’s military has never sought conflict with any foreign nation without reason. However, when the country's sovereignty or the safety of its citizens is threatened, the Indian Army is always prepared to respond appropriately — as was seen in this conflict. If Pakistan had agreed to the ceasefire only to secure loans, then it should be aware that any further violation will result in even greater consequences. The damage Pakistan faced in the current situation is already significant, and any future conflict could be far more devastating — possibly even threatening Pakistan’s existence on the global map.

India’s government and armed forces remain fully prepared to confront any hostile actions. From now on, every mistake by Pakistan will only bring new dangers and consequences upon itself.

Deborshi Gautam

Bangaon, Nalbari

Boons and banes of online education

Online education offers flexibility, allowing students to learn anytime and anywhere. It provides access to a wide range of courses and often reduces costs compared to traditional education. However, it also has drawbacks. Students may face distractions, lack of motivation, and limited interaction with peers and teachers, but in the present era, offline education should be promoted because children tend to get distracted by other things in the name of online learning, such as excessive use of mobile phones, computers, and spending more time on games.

But for those who remain busy all day and still want to gain some education, online learning is a good option.

Sofikul Islam,

(sofikulislam22282228@gmail.com)