Can "The Tribune" Justify Hosting a Mouthpiece of the Pakistan Military Establishment?

An Error Most Grave: Why The Tribune Must Retract That YouTube Video Interview

AI-generated representational Image

An Error Most Grave

Part I: Disappointment in the Host and Editorial Judgement

On watching The Tribune’s recent episode of Indian Standard Time, featuring Ms Ayesha Siddiqa, a Pakistani analyst known for her proximity to and commentary on the Pakistani military establishment, I was left not merely disappointed but deeply perturbed. The guest’s narrative was as expected—replete with rationalisations, evasions, and carefully-worded justifications for past Pakistani state-sponsored terrorism. But the real shock lay elsewhere: in The Tribune’s editorial judgement in selecting this guest and, more specifically, in the handling of the interview by its Editor-in-Chief, Ms Jyoti Malhotra.

Ms Malhotra is a seasoned journalist. I do not for a moment doubt her competence or her professional commitment to India’s national interest. However, the tone and tenor of the conversation—too mild, too accommodating, and insufficiently probing—left viewers with the unmistakable impression that a known voice of Pakistani strategic denialism was given a prestigious platform to air her views unchallenged.

In an environment where Punjab and north-western India continue to reel under the spectre of ISI-backed radicalisation, this is not simply an editorial misstep. It is an affront to the people’s lived trauma, and a disservice to the legacy of those who have stood against the tide of terrorism.

Part II: The Interview – Obfuscation, Deflection and an Alarming Normalisation of Terror

The interview, ostensibly focused on the extradition of Tahawwur Rana, a convicted conspirator in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, quickly transformed into a platform for dangerous revisionism. Ms Siddiqa framed Rana as a minor player, deflecting attention to David Headley, while insinuating American complicity and downplaying Pakistan’s role altogether.

She dismissed Rana’s extradition as symbolically interesting but strategically irrelevant. Her rationale? That Pakistan’s military has moved on, with its focus now on Baluchistan and its accusations against India for fuelling insurgency there. In her own words, Mumbai is forgotten, not worth revisiting—a stunning abdication of moral responsibility.

Most disturbing was Ms Siddiqa’s articulation of a tit-for-tat worldview, suggesting Mumbai was a reaction, and today’s unrest in Pakistan is simply India’s turn. The implication, left artfully vague, is that terrorism is diplomacy by other means.

Ms Siddiqa’s comments about Pakistan’s willingness to "move groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba from the freezer to the fridge" laid bare the continued threat that such actors pose. Yet, Ms Malhotra did not challenge this callous metaphor. Nor did she interrogate the absurdity of the claim that Pakistan’s current military leadership has no connection to past atrocities.

Repeatedly, Ms Siddiqa described terror attacks like 26/11 and even Kargil as tactical operations aimed at denting India’s image. For her, these were psychological operations—terror as PR—not crimes against humanity. This normalisation of violence was neither rebutted nor condemned.

Even more galling was her anecdotal account of Pakistani politicians privately admitting culpability but refusing to act. The underlying message was clear: Pakistan is a hostage to its army, and the world must accept that.

Ms Malhotra’s line of questioning, regrettably, did not rise to the seriousness of the topic. The interview passed with minimal contestation. A platform meant for insight became instead a mouthpiece for the same strategic doublespeak that has cost thousands of Indian lives.

Part III: The Public Reacts with Outrage and Anguish

The public’s response was unambiguous. Across The Tribune’s digital platforms, especially on YouTube, viewers responded with fury and heartbreak. A chorus of voices condemned the soft treatment given to Ms Siddiqa, many accusing the publication of appeasement or naivety.

There was particular anger at the repeated use of the term “episode” to describe the 26/11 attacks—seen as a callous trivialisation. Others accused the host of “nodding in agreement” when Ms Siddiqa claimed “We did Mumbai.” More still lamented the absence of any forceful rebuttal to her framing of terrorism as tit-for-tat policy.

Many reminded The Tribune of Punjab’s unique place in India’s war against terrorism. From the 1980s through the early 2000s, Punjab bore the brunt of Pakistan-sponsored militancy, and its people have paid a heavy price. The idea that the region’s flagship publication would provide a platform to someone defending that legacy—not in explicit words, but through euphemism and strategic obfuscation—was seen as a betrayal.

One commenter described the interview as a “masterclass in whitewashing terror.” Another labelled it “a disgrace to the memory of Mumbai’s martyrs.” Several demanded an apology and called for the video to be taken down immediately to prevent further legitimisation of falsehoods.

Part IV: A Personal Note – A Call for Accountability and Course Correction

Having served thirty-seven years in the Indian Administrative Service, including as Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar (that then included what is now Tarn Taran district) (1992–96)—and for two years before that as Additional DC Amritsar (1990-92) and District Magistrate of Police District Batala (1989)—I have witnessed first-hand the toll that Pakistan-aided terrorism has taken on our soil.

During those difficult years, brave officers like J.F. Ribeiro and countless unsung heroes stood between chaos and order, between survival and annihilation. The costs were high. Families— including those of police personnel— shattered, communities traumatised, and civil society scarred in ways that remain palpable even today.

It is precisely for this reason that The Tribune—a publication that has historically represented the aspirations, anxieties and moral compass of Punjab and North-Western India—should have exercised greater discretion. I do not write this in anger, but with a profound sense of sorrow and civic duty.

I reiterate: this is not only about 26/11, although that in itself demands accountability. This is about rekindling dangerous memories in a region once devastated by foreign-sponsored militancy, and doing so at a time when ISI-linked sleeper cells are again being activated, and grenade attacks—particularly targeting police stations—are rising.

While Ms Malhotra’s intentions may not have been malign, the choice of guest, the tone of the conversation, and the decision to grant a prestigious platform to a virtually unchallenged spokesperson of the Pakistani establishment constitute a serious editorial error.

The Trustees of The Tribune Trust must take cognizance. I urge ‘The Tribune’ to issue a public apology to the readership of India, and particularly to the people of Punjab, and to remove the video forthwith before it gains further traction both domestically and internationally.

Editorial freedom is sacred—but so too is editorial responsibility. In this case, the balance has been broken. It is time to restore it.