For India's Ambassador to Portugal, Puneet Kundal, “it is time for the world to respond to terror as it should be responded to”, and he promises “to make no distinction between terrorist groups and the Pakistani army”. If the conflict escalates, India guarantees it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons.

Ambassador Puneet Kundal, in this recent crisis with Pakistan, the announcement by US President Donald Trump of a total and immediate ceasefire between India and Pakistan, mediated by him, surprised many people. Is this a significant shift, or does it signify a significant change in relation to India's traditional reluctance to accept a mediating role played by third parties?

Well, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. First of all, I think we have been very clear: our Minister of External Affairs and the Prime Minister were clear that the announced ceasefire was based on the damage we inflicted on Pakistani military infrastructure, such as the strikes on 11 airports. And we received a call from the Director-General of Military Operations of Pakistan, calling our Chief of Army Staff, and in the afternoon, at around 5 p.m. that day, we had the ceasefire. I do not believe there was any declaration. There was a statement, but I do not think we agreed to any external arrangement. In our relations with Pakistan, we confine ourselves to the bilateral aspect. We told Pakistan that we will only speak with Pakistan on a bilateral basis. And we will only speak with Pakistan on two matters: the dismantling of terrorism and terrorist infrastructure, in a manner that is irreversible and verifiable. And we will speak with Pakistan about Pakistan relinquishing the illegally occupied part of the territory of my state, which is Jammu and Kashmir, that is, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. I think these are the matters we will speak with them about. We will indeed speak with them.

Is that your own home state, that occupied part of Kashmir?

Yes, it is.

So how do you feel? You have a personal connection to this conflict, which I think was already ongoing when you were a child, because it has existed at least since 1972 or something like that.

Well, it goes much further back than that. I mean, if we look at Jammu and Kashmir, things began at the time of…

Independence.
Yes, you are right. It goes back to that. That was the first instance of what I would call cross-border militant sponsorship, if we look at it that way - sending tribes supported by the Pakistani army into my state of Jammu and Kashmir, which at that time was a kingdom. And then, of course, they did the same in 1960, at 5 a.m., in the so-called Operation Gibraltar. And then again in 1971. And since 1989, it has been a concerted effort to destabilise India. There is a very famous statement made by Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the then Prime Minister. He said that after the 1971 war, in which we created Bangladesh, and Pakistan was effectively split into two, leading to the creation of a new independent country called Bangladesh, he said that India and our Defence Minister should not boast of temporary military victories. “We will bleed India with a thousand cuts”, he said. Then they launched the so-called “Pak” operation, under which the entire issue of militancy was promoted and fostered, and the entire terrorist infrastructure was created. And this is a known fact. I mean, Pakistan's Defence Minister admitted it officially to journalists, saying that yes, “we created terrorist infrastructure in our country”. We can, of course, continue to cite examples, but let us not forget that Osama bin Laden was caught in Abbottabad, in Pakistan, near a military camp, a very large military installation. So there is a history of fostering terror, and I think the use of terror as an instrument of foreign policy and as a state policy is what is most deplorable.

Taking that into account, do you believe in a lasting ceasefire, Mr. Ambassador?

Well, the ceasefire was requested by them. We agreed to it, but if you noticed when you entered the Embassy, we have these banners hanging behind me. It says: 'Operation Sindoor is not yet over'. We put up these banners on the 18th, when we had Pakistan-sponsored protests at our doorstep. And they were carrying photographs of the Army general. They carried photographs and placards with all kinds of slogans against India. Threats were made against the Indian leadership. Threats were made against my state. Threats to the security of the Embassy and to the person of the Ambassador, i.e., me.

Here?
Yes, just outside the Embassy.

When did that happen?

On the 18th of this month, the day of the Portuguese elections. The Embassy and I posted a tweet about it. I also posted from my personal account. It is there on my Instagram. It is true. It was covered in the news across India, but the most - or perhaps the least - reassuring part of the whole story is that the key individuals who came to protest outside the Embassy were sitting with the Pakistani Ambassador the night before, and I am telling you this based on their Facebook pages. We have photographs of the people shouting slogans outside the Embassy sitting with the Pakistani Ambassador the night before. Do we need a clearer demonstration of, you know, terror or of intimidating other countries in this way? I think it is self-explanatory, and I am simply looking at their Facebook pages, as you can see.

Have you spoken with your Pakistani counterpart?

I have not had the opportunity to speak with him since then. I mean, this was on Sunday. Today is Tuesday, so two days ago. But he is a professional diplomat. I have great regard and respect for him. We meet whenever we can. We speak the same language; we understand each other very well. But we have to fulfil our duty, and I think it is my duty to call it out when his country sponsors terrorism in my country, and especially in my state.

Over the past decade, India has transformed its response to what it considers Pakistan's campaign of terrorism and is scaling up that response, using new technologies and seeking broader effects. In your view, where might this lead us? What is the end of the road?

Well, the end of the road is for Pakistan to stop using terrorism as an instrument of state policy. It must stop nurturing and sustaining terrorists. In the recent strikes, we hit Bahawalpur and Muridke, which are the headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, which attacked us in 2019. In the recent attack in Pahalgam, on 22 April, 26 innocent people were killed after their religion was determined. I hope you understand what I am referring to. They were forced to remove their trousers and were searched. They were asked to recite the Holy Quran, and those who could not were shot at point-blank range. Only men. In front of their children, in front of their families. This is the kind of wrongdoing that comes from across the border. In 2019, the Jaish-e-Mohammed carried out a suicide attack on a bus carrying paramilitary personnel. It was on Valentine's Day, on 14 February. Forty people died. Let us not forget the Mumbai attacks. One hundred and seventy-six people were killed in 2008. It was perpetrated by Lashkar-e-Taiba. In 2001, we had the attack on the Indian Parliament; Jaish-e-Mohammed carried it out, claimed responsibility, and both these groups are also listed under the 1267 Sanctions Committee. And we have their leaders, Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar, walking freely in Pakistan, independent and at liberty, organising rallies. I think this clearly shows Pakistan's position with regard to terrorism.

Do you not think this could lead us into a full-scale war?

Well, everything I am saying at this moment is that, this time, we have called Pakistan's bluff. We have received support from across the world. Portugal was at the forefront. On the day of the attack, 22 April, the attack took place. On the 23, we received a very clear statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, condemning the terrorist attack. We also had a statement from the Presidency of the Portuguese Republic. This time, we have taken a series of measures across multiple vectors. We have undertaken military actions; we have undertaken economic actions. We are considering suspending the Indus Waters Treaty. But I will tell you that the main measure we have taken is that we are moving away from strategic restraint towards what we now call punitive deterrence. We have drawn thick red lines. There is a quantum leap in the punitive measures we will adopt.

Should we call it a war of attrition?

I do not think it is a war of attrition or a war of exhaustion; war is what they have been waging, they have been calling it asymmetric warfare. It is not a war of attrition. It is about drawing a very clear line to say no to terrorism, to say that India's patience cannot be tested. They have been doing this since 1947. My state has been subjected to this since 1989. It is high time the world said: stop this. Stop using terror as an instrument of foreign policy. However, let me say that there are three simple principles we will follow from now on. First, India's retaliation against terror will increase exponentially. We will respond to all terrorist attacks. Second, both the terrorists and their sponsors, and I say this clearly, Pakistan, we will make no distinction between them. And third, we will bring all perpetrators of attacks to justice.

So you will not distinguish between terrorist groups and the Pakistani army.

No, we will not. For us, they are the same. The same. We will make no distinction between terrorist groups and those who support them, which means they are supported by the Pakistani army and the Pakistani government. We no longer distinguish between them.

Regarding what happened in the tourist area of Pahalgam, the site of the attacks that killed 26 people, can India act on the basis of those premises without having conducted a full investigation? In other words, what I mean is: does India have concrete evidence that there was involvement of the Pakistani state in the attack?

Yes, the type of communications equipment and the weapons used are a clear indication of the origin of the attack. Responsibility was immediately claimed by a group called The Resistance Front, which we had already listed and for which we had already taken steps to have it included in the list of the 1267 Sanctions Committee (UN sanctions committee). This group is nothing more than a branch or an offshoot, or indeed Lashkar-e-Taiba itself. They claimed responsibility immediately and then withdrew it very, very quickly as well. So, in answer to your question, when Pakistan speaks of a neutral investigation and so on, this is a false flag. It is a false flag because we provided them with reams and reams of documents after the Mumbai attacks. In the past, our air base in Pathankot was attacked in 2016. We gave them reams and reams of documents. We even allowed access to Pakistan's investigation team to visit the air base. We provided documentary evidence of the attack. Nothing came of it, and therefore we took action. In 2016, we carried out what we called a limited operation in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. We called it a “surgical strike”. Then we had the attack in Pulwama in 2019, where 40 of our paramilitary personnel were killed. We conducted an airstrike on the headquarters of the terrorist organisation in a place called Balakot. So this is a clear indication. We know what is happening. In India, we know what is happening.

China has stated that it is willing to maintain communication with both sides and to play a constructive role in achieving a full and lasting ceasefire and in maintaining regional peace and stability. Does India trust China to play that positive role in the situation?

We believe in the bilateral approach when it comes to Pakistan, which I have already mentioned.

But do you not see China as something of a lifeline for Pakistan, in the event of further conflict with India?

Well, they have what they call an iron-clad relationship. If we look at the brief skirmish we had over four days with Pakistan, we see that most of the weapons they used were Chinese. Their nuclear programme is entirely Chinese. They have the CPEC, the so-called China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project. There is a deep political and economic relationship. China is also, as we know, a permanent member of the Security Council. So yes, China provides them with significant support and backing. That said, we also maintain good relations with China. We had a brief issue in 2020. We lost some soldiers, and they also lost some soldiers. But that followed 1962, when we had a full-scale war across the region. We have bilateral trade of around €100 billion with China; we are members of BRICS and both members of several other organisations. We speak with the Chinese. We have existed side by side for a very long time, I mean India and China, next to each other. We exist as two civilisational states. In the current situation, as we see it, yes, they are supporting Pakistan, but I think they may also realise that Pakistan's use of China may not be the right course of action. It is, I mean, a question of understanding beyond a certain point.

In the next crisis, if there is reciprocal military conflict, India's statement that it will no longer respect the threshold between terrorists and Pakistani Army targets will very likely escalate a future crisis into reciprocal military conflict very quickly. My question is: is there not a risk of a nuclear confrontation?

Well, India is a responsible nuclear power. Let me begin by saying that our nuclear policy is very clear. It has a few elements to which I would like to draw your attention. First, we will not be the first to use nuclear weapons, i.e., we will not initiate their use; that is the declaration. And second, we will not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear state. Unfortunately, Pakistan does not have these principles. They believe in first use, and in the recent confrontation, threats were directed at us. They said that they would use the full spectrum of their power, which includes nuclear weapons. And we had the Pakistani Ambassador to Russia threatening to use nuclear weapons against India. We heard the words “full spectrum of power”, and as you know, that implies the threat of nuclear weapons. But I think the world should call out this nuclear bluff, and that is what we did. We took limited, responsible, contained, and above all very measured action in response to this threat, which led to the death of 26 people in my state, on our territory. I think it is time for the world to start responding to terror in the way it ought to be responded to.

So India rules out the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a strong conventional attack by Pakistan?

As I said, our nuclear policy is very clear: no first use of nuclear weapons, and no use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.

Pakistan has reportedly sent a letter to India requesting that its Government reconsider the decision to keep the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. Pakistan has appealed to India to reconsider that decision, citing the dependence of millions of people on the water regulated by that treaty, signed in 1960. Do you think India will give in to that request from Pakistan?

Well, let me say that our position is very clear: terror and talks, terror and trade cannot go together, and our Prime Minister was very clear when he said that “water and blood cannot flow together”. We have suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, which, as you know, was signed in 1960. The allocation was three rivers for Pakistan and three rivers for India. But in terms of volumes, 80% of the water went to Pakistan and 20% to India. Now, we had been requesting a review of the system for a very, very long time. We asked Pakistan to sit down and review the Treaty with us. They refused outright. Given Pakistan's actions, I think this is an instrument we are now using: suspending the Treaty. I do not know what decision will be taken, but what I can say is that we will certainly increase the use of the waters available to us. I mean, 80% of the water going to Pakistan, to begin with, was unfair. While the Indus Waters Treaty, if you look at the Treaty, the two or three words that stand out right at the beginning are “friendship”, “goodwill”, “good neighbourly relations”. Where are all those things in Pakistan's actions? That is one of the aspects in what we call the “IWT”. So let me say that while the Indus Waters Treaty is suspended, the other understanding is active, which is India's war on terrorism.

Is India not using its privileged position over a natural resource as a weapon of war?

I do not think it needs to be seen in that way. What needs to be recognised is that this is a treaty we consider unjust. It survived the 1965 war, the 1971 war, the 1999 war, the attack on the Indian Parliament, attacks on our parliamentary forces, attacks on our cities, the entire phenomenon of terrorism, you know, the terrorist bombings in Mumbai in 1993. It survived everything and everyone. But there is a point beyond which a country cannot be pushed. India is a large country. We are a country of 1.4 billion people; we represent 18% of the world's population. We are the fourth-largest economy in the world. We have targets to become the third-largest economy in this decade, and we have the goal of making India a developed country by 2047. That is a declared objective. To achieve that, we need a stable and secure environment, both internally and externally. If Pakistan continues to trouble us in this way, and it is not merely a nuisance, I mean it is a clear declaration of intent to destroy us, to “bleed India with a thousand cuts”, as they said, then India cannot be restrained beyond a certain limit. We will respond to such blatant and dangerous threats.

There is an accusation against your Government that does not come only from Pakistan, it is made internationally and even by some Indian opposition, that India is increasingly treating its minorities worse, especially Muslims. What is your response to that?

If you look at it, India is possibly the third-largest Muslim country in the world, and in some respects even the second-largest. Our minorities are safe, they are represented, and they are part of the mainstream. If you look at India in 1947, Muslims accounted for around 18% of the population; today, they still account for 18% of the population. However, if you look at Pakistan across the border, minorities accounted for 23% of the population in 1947. What is the figure today? It is less than 2%. What happened to the minorities? Systematic conversions, threats, blasphemy laws? People who were killed. So where is the question of Islamophobia? Even in my state of Jammu and Kashmir, which is a Muslim-majority state, we held elections last year, in 2024, state elections, and voter turnout was 65%. We do not measure people by religion. I mean, look at the Indian Constitution. I think I need say no more.

But you are comparing Indian democracy with Pakistani democracy, which is not the same thing…

Because Pakistani democracy does not exist. Three years of its existence were under military rule, direct military rule, martial law, and for the remaining time, the army has been called in. Democracy and Pakistan are two completely different concepts.

So, in that sense, India has, let us say, greater obligations to treat minorities better.

Can you give me any examples where we are not treating our minorities well today? Everyone is on the rise. The Government of India is taking care of all its citizens, regardless of religion.

Very well: what is your comment on this case? The police arrested one of the country's most prominent Muslim public intellectuals, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, I believe on Sunday, at his home in Delhi, simply for social media posts.

Well, let me say that the arrests that are being made have a basic rationale behind them. You could also say that other individuals, for example, a few days ago there was another case, which I would prefer not to name, but he was not Muslim, and that person was arrested for certain inflammatory remarks made against the political leadership. He was not Muslim. So please do not be misled into thinking that if you arrest an Indian citizen under the law, he is Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Christian or Jewish. We have all religions in India, including Zoroastrianism. We have all religions in India. All live in peace. Look, India is growing. I mean, growth is not possible unless the entire country rises together… And I said that we want to be the third-largest economy; we are the fourth-largest now.

That does not mean agreeing with everything the Government says. Supporters of Khan condemned his detention, which they said pointed to selective protection of rights under Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist administration, reflecting the poor state of the world's largest democracy. “This is not about one man”, said Pawan Khera, spokesperson for the Indian National Congress, the country's main opposition party: “This is about the slow strangulation of free speech, the criminalisation of dissent, and the use of the machinery of the state to silence outrage manufactured by the BJP”…

I think that is the strength of Indian democracy: the opposition says what it has to say. It is an electoral democracy. If you wish, you could apply a similar line of reasoning to Portugal, if I may. There are right-wing parties that oppose immigration, and there are also left-wing parties that do not oppose immigration, they encourage it. It is a matter of debate. So it is similar: across the political spectrum, you will have different political parties, different viewpoints, and the ability to express them publicly. And the fact that you were able to cite this case to me - and honestly, I was not aware of it - but the ease with which you can learn about it and cite it shows the strength of Indian democracy. It has nothing to do with the substance, that is a separate matter, but what I can assure you is that the rule of law is paramount. There is absolutely nothing being done against minorities, and within the political spectrum you will have different viewpoints. That is all.

Regarding relations with Europe and with Portugal in particular, beyond historically conflictual moments, there is a growing Indian community in Portugal. What are the relations with your country like?

I think that if I use the word “excellent” and end my answer there, I would already be quite justified. But let us go back a little. I mean, Vasco da Gama discovered India, and I have said to all my interlocutors that Portugal became Portugal when it discovered India, because that is where the wealth came from. That is where, as you know, all the voyages began. And India also became India when it was discovered by Portugal. That is the starting point. In the recent past, as you know, we are celebrating 50 years of our bilateral relations this year; last month, in April, we received a visit from the President of India specifically for this 50th anniversary, to mark this milestone. She was received by the Honourable President of the Portuguese Republic, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. She also met the Prime Minister, the Speaker of Parliament, and the Mayor of Lisbon. And it is a symbolic gesture that President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa accompanied her to most of her engagements. I think that closeness, that trust and that goodwill you have are unparalleled. We had the visit of Portugal's Minister of Foreign Affairs to India in December. We had the visit of our Prime Minister here in 2017, and of Prime Minister António Costa in 2017 and 2019; in 2020, President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa visited India. And we are expecting the Speaker of the Indian Parliament at the beginning of next month.

So there is a strong political relationship. We understand each other. Portugal has also expressed its support for our bid to become permanent members of the Security Council. We greatly appreciate and respect that. As I said, the attack took place on 22 April. On the 23, we received a very clear statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemning that terrorist incident. We are reviewing an air services agreement between India and Portugal. There are many new areas in which we are working, especially renewable energy, green energy, hydrogen, science and technology. These are areas identified by Portugal. We are also seeking to increase people-to-people contacts, and one way we are doing this is by finding ways to bring more Indian films to be shot in Portugal. Bollywood is the largest film industry in the world. Several films have already been shot here, but we would like to see more similar work. So it is a relationship of great importance. For us, it is a relationship we value highly. We also hope, once a new Government is formed, to receive a visit from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister to India, and vice versa. As I said, the President of India has already visited Portugal; we will have the Speaker of Parliament and many other political visits, but we are also considering the 50th anniversary celebrations. We launched these with various cultural, academic, educational and dance performances.

The programme began in January with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Paulo Rangel, inaugurating our Film Festival. We held “India Days” programmes at universities. I was at the University of Coimbra, which you know well, on 30 April, where we celebrated India Day. We had Indian performances, delivered speeches, and launched a book. We are looking to reach other universities in Portugal. In association with the Orient Foundation, we held at least six or seven dance performances. We also had the book Mensagem, by Fernando Pessoa, translated into Hindi. The President of the Republic greatly appreciated this during his speech at the banquet when our President visited Portugal. So there is a great deal happening between India and Portugal. You also asked about the European Union. The European Union is among our largest trading partners, if not the largest. Recently, we had a visit from the College of Commissioners to India, that was about a month and a half ago, perhaps two months. A decision was taken that we will finalise our India/EU free trade agreement before the end of this year. The EU is a very close partner for us. It is a development partner and a political partner. We have a deep understanding of how the European Union works, and the EU has a deep understanding of how India works. As I said, I think it is, once again, as in the case of Portugal, a relationship of the future.

But are you not concerned about the rise of anti-immigration narratives in several European countries?

We encourage legal and safe migration from India. That is a stated principle. What we have done is sign migration and mobility agreements with several countries, including with Portugal. This means that, if there is a need for labour in Portugal, we would be happy to provide that workforce. You can bring people for a limited period of three, five or seven years, and then decide whether to retain them or send them back. So these are the kinds of agreements we are entering into with several European countries.

Do you have an idea of how many Indian citizens live in Portugal?

Figures from AIMA released last year indicated around 45,000, approximately.

Is the rise of an anti-immigration party such as Chega in Portugal a cause for concern?

Well, I would not wish to comment on the country-s internal politics. For us, we will work with the Government in office. I think the Indian community is a very good community. It has integrated very well into the Portuguese way of life. That is well established. There is a known labour shortage in Portugal. I mean, if I look at just one example, the airport in Alcochete, I have seen references dating back to 1969. The fact that it is still not ready... one of the main issues is the shortage of labour. There are also figures indicating that in the construction industry there is a shortfall of around 80,000 workers. So, in the short term, I think there will be a need for labour; it is up to Portugal to decide, to strike that balance between economic needs and how far those can be met through immigration. As far as our country's policy is concerned, as I said, we have no difficulty working with any Government.