India
‘India hosts G20, Pakistan hosts T20’: Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi’s ‘top terrorists’ swipe at Islamabad
Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi recently made a pointed remark contrasting India’s global leadership with Pakistan’s alleged support for terrorism. Speaking to the Indian diaspora in London, she stated, “While we host the G20, they host the T20—the top 20 terrorists of the world,” implying that Pakistan provides shelter to some of the most wanted terrorists globally.
She further criticized Pakistan’s duplicity, saying it “shakes hands with you and then bites you on your back,” referencing the discovery of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan despite its alliance with the U.S.
Chaturvedi also drew a parallel between India’s pursuit of Free Trade Agreements and Pakistan’s alleged “Free Terrorism Arrangement,” highlighting the stark differences in their international engagements. Her comments were part of a broader effort by an Indian parliamentary delegation to expose Pakistan’s purported state-sponsored terrorism on the global stage.
This rhetoric aligns with previous statements by Indian leaders. For instance, during the G20 Summit in 2017, Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasized that “some nations are using terrorism for achieving political goals,” equating Pakistan-based groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed with global terror organizations such as ISIS and al-Qaeda.
India’s consistent stance has been to urge the international community to isolate and sanction nations that support terrorism, advocating for a unified global response to combat the menace effectively.
In a pointed and politically charged remark, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi recently stirred debate by contrasting India’s global leadership with Pakistan’s alleged harboring of terrorism. Speaking to members of the Indian diaspora in London, Chaturvedi quipped, “India hosts the G20, Pakistan hosts the T20—the top 20 terrorists of the world.” While wrapped in wit, the statement reflects a broader and long-standing diplomatic contention between India and Pakistan over the issue of cross-border terrorism.
India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, has increasingly positioned itself as a global economic and strategic player. Its hosting of the G20 summit in 2023 was seen as a landmark moment, not only diplomatically but also symbolically. India showcased itself as the voice of the Global South, a nation committed to sustainable development, digital innovation, and multilateral cooperation.
In stark contrast, Chaturvedi’s barb underscores India’s frustration over Pakistan’s alleged inaction against terrorist networks operating within its borders—a concern that has been echoed in international forums.
The “T20” remark, while humorous in form, is a critique of the perception that Pakistan continues to serve as a safe haven for individuals and organizations involved in terrorism. For decades, New Delhi has maintained that Pakistan-based groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and others have orchestrated attacks on Indian soil, including the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and the 2019 Pulwama bombing. Chaturvedi’s statement aligns with this narrative, essentially accusing Pakistan of continuing to shelter elements that threaten regional stability.
The international community has taken note of these allegations. Multiple global bodies, including the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), have placed Pakistan under scrutiny. Although Pakistan was removed from the FATF’s “grey list” in 2022 after making certain legislative and financial reforms, many believe that the underlying infrastructure of extremism still finds space in parts of the country. Indian leaders have consistently pointed to this as a security threat not just for India, but for the wider world.
What adds to the irony, and perhaps the bite, of Chaturvedi’s comment is the use of the “T20” term—normally associated with a popular format of international cricket.
Cricket is a shared passion between India and Pakistan and often serves as a tool of diplomacy and people-to-people contact. Yet here, the term is used to convey an ominous message, repurposed to signify terrorism rather than sport. It reflects how deeply entrenched the issue of terrorism has become in bilateral relations between the two neighbors, to the point that even cultural metaphors are drawn into the fray.
Her statement also speaks to the growing confidence of India’s political class in taking a firm, often vocal, stand on international platforms. Gone are the days when Indian leaders shied away from publicly naming Pakistan in global settings. Today, Indian representatives, whether at the United Nations, G20, or bilateral meetings, are direct in their language. Chaturvedi’s speech to the Indian diaspora fits into this larger strategic posture: vocal, assertive, and unapologetic.
Critics may argue that such rhetoric contributes little to actual diplomatic resolution and could exacerbate tensions. But supporters see it as a necessary counter-narrative to what they view as Pakistan’s continued denial of its role in sponsoring or turning a blind eye to terrorism. For the Indian diaspora—particularly in Western countries—such remarks often serve to rally support, both emotionally and politically, for India’s position on security and foreign policy matters.
Furthermore, Chaturvedi’s allusion to Osama bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad, Pakistan, is a reminder of past controversies. The fact that the world’s most wanted terrorist was found living in a compound near a major military academy in Pakistan shocked global observers. That episode has become symbolic of the suspicions many hold regarding Pakistan’s internal contradictions—fighting terrorism in some quarters while allegedly enabling it in others.
Chaturvedi didn’t stop at the T20 analogy. She also drew a comparison between India’s pursuit of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and what she termed Pakistan’s “Free Terrorism Arrangement.” It’s a biting turn of phrase meant to emphasize the contrasting paths the two countries have taken on the global stage. While India negotiates trade deals and pushes economic growth, the insinuation is that Pakistan has allowed itself to become entangled in a network of extremist patronage and international suspicion.
These rhetorical flourishes are not made in a vacuum. They reflect a domestic political climate in India where national security remains a top priority. With general elections approaching, and with nationalistic sentiment often influencing electoral behavior, such statements serve both foreign and domestic policy objectives. They reinforce the narrative of a strong India standing up to global threats, and they appeal to voters who prioritize national integrity and security.
However, the use of such language also raises questions about diplomatic tone. While sharp rhetoric can capture headlines and galvanize public opinion, it may limit the space for back-channel diplomacy and peaceful negotiation. India and Pakistan, after all, remain nuclear-armed neighbors with a complex history. They share borders, cultural ties, and economic potential that are frequently overshadowed by their political disagreements.
Chaturvedi’s comments should also be viewed in light of increasing efforts by India to shape global perceptions. Indian diplomacy is now intertwined with strategic communication, where narratives are as important as negotiations. Terms like “Terroristan” and “T20 terrorists” are part of a larger toolkit of persuasive language aimed at influencing how the world sees South Asia’s security challenges.
It is also worth noting that such messaging often resonates with international audiences who have themselves been affected by terrorism. Countries in the West that have faced attacks on their soil may find a natural ally in India’s tough stance. Thus, Indian leaders—parliamentarians, diplomats, and ministers alike—are increasingly comfortable invoking sharp, memorable phrases to drive home their point.
In the end, Chaturvedi’s “G20 vs T20” statement is emblematic of a broader geopolitical reality. It highlights the competing narratives of two neighboring nations with vastly different global aspirations. India seeks to be a rule-maker in the global order, advocating for cooperation, innovation, and economic integration. Pakistan, on the other hand, finds itself battling persistent accusations of terrorism support, struggling to reshape its global image despite efforts at reform.
Whether such rhetoric will lead to constructive change remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the verbal sparring between India and Pakistan is no longer limited to official statements. It now occupies global stages, diaspora gatherings, and international media, shaping public perception in ways that formal diplomacy often cannot. Chaturvedi’s comments are just one example of how political messaging, laced with satire and criticism, has become a powerful tool in the evolving India-Pakistan relationship.
- Group Media Publication
- Construction, Infrastructure and Mining
- General News Platforms – IHTLive.com
- Entertainment News Platforms – https://anyflix.in/