agdeep Dhankhar draws parallels between Operation Sindoor, Osama bin Laden's assassination: ‘Bharat has done it'
"A strike that was carefully, precisely calibrated to cause no damage except to the terrorist," Jagdeep Dhankhar said addressing an event of Jaipuria institutions in Delhi.
Without naming Bin Laden, Jagdeep Dhankhar said, "This happened on May 2, 2011, when a global terrorist who planned, supervised, executed September 11 attack inside the US in 2001, he was dealt with by the US similarly."
"Bharat has done it. And done it to the knowledge of the world," he said.
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were key conspirators of the terror attack in the US on September 11, 2001. It's known as 9/11 attacks.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four airliners in the eastern United States. They flew three of the planes into buildings: the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.
The terrorists crashed the fourth plane in a field in rural Pennsylvania after passengers heroically rebelled. The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and injured thousands more, the FBI said.
On May 2, 2011, under orders from then US President Obama, a special operations unit raided the compound in northern Pakistan and killed bin Laden.
India launched Operation Sindoor to target at least nine terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir on May 7. India said over 100 terrorists were killed in the operation.
Operation Sindoor was launched by the Indian armed forces in retaliation to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that killed at least 26 people.
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar described attacks on nine terror sites in Pakistan as the "deepest-ever cross-border strike" by India.
He said that a new "global benchmark" has been set. While maintaining the spirit of peace, the objective has been to strike at terrorism.
He said Indian armed forces targeted Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba "deep inside Pakistan territory".
He said the strikes were so precise that only terrorists were harmed.
Dhankhar said that after the Pahalgam terror attack, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had given a message to the global community from Bihar. "Those were not empty words. The world has now realised what he [PM Modi] said is a reality," he said.
He also said that the Pahalgam terror attack, which left at least 26 people dead, was the "deadliest attack on our civilians since 2008 Mumbai attacks."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
9 minutes ago
- The Hindu
No Hindi-Marathi debate, says Fadnavis as he opens special centre in JNU
Amid the ongoing controversy in Maharashtra over a now-shelved proposal to introduce Hindi in primary education, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Thursday inaugurated the Kusumagraj Special Centre for Marathi Language, Literature and Culture at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). He also laid the foundation stone of the Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Special Centre for Security and Strategic Studies, which will explore indigenous strategic traditions based on the Maratha empire and is envisioned to become a hub for military history, strategy and future policy development rooted in India's past. Language issue Touching upon the emotive Marathi-Hindi issue in his address, Mr. Fadnavis said, 'The debate is not Marathi versus Hindi. There is no alternative to Marathi. A Marathi person has to accept Marathi. But our policy is Marathi along with other Indian languages. We should learn Marathi and also know other languages.' Asserting that language is a means of communication but never of discord and one's mother tongue is important, the Chief Minister said 'the insistence on Marathi is natural and justified, but we should also respect other Indian languages'. JNU Vice Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit in her address thanked the Maharashtra government for its enthusiasm in setting up the centres. She said the university has sent proposals to the Maharashtra government, with the seed money for the two centres amounting to ₹45 crore. 'Under the National Education Policy, we will be providing certificate courses, and value-added courses in Marathi for non-Marathi students. The centre will also offer PhD programmes,' she told The Hindu, adding that the courses will be started soon. Regarding the Maharashtra government's request for a statue of Maratha king Chhatrapati Shivaji on campus, Ms. Pandit said the university will respond to them in writing and once a concrete plan is established, it will go to JNU's Executive Council for approval. JNUSU protest Meanwhile, the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union (JNUSU) held a demonstration outside the Convention Centre where the inauguration took place. JNUSU president Nitish Kumar said they were not opposing the new centres but against the 'saffronisation of JNU and other educational institutions' and the 'regional chauvinism shown by the BJP-led Maharashtra government'.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
FTA with UK adds strength to India's hand in other deals: Sunil Mittal
Soon after India and the United Kingdom (UK) signed the free trade agreement (FTA) on Thursday, industry leaders cheered the move. Sunil Bharti Mittal, chairman of Bharti Enterprises and co-chair of the India-UK CEO Forum, and Chandrajit Banerjee, director general, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), who were in Chequers (near London) for the FTA signing as part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's entourage, spoke to Nivedita Mookerji on the various aspects of the deal. Edited excerpts from a Zoom conversation: Who's the biggest winner in this FTA? Sunil Bharti Mittal (SBM): It's a win win for both sides with a balanced outcome after a very long and hard negotiation…. I think you will now see a lot of British companies getting much more confident about investing in India, working in India, setting up their bases in our country. The Prime Minister spoke today of taking the bilateral trade from $56 billion to $112 billion in five years—It's an ambitious target, but achievable, given the way this FTA has been set up. So I would say it's hard for FTAs to be agreed. Your 'asks' and their 'gives', their 'asks' and our 'gives'--there's always a resistance on both sides…. But over here, you don't see any major resistance, finally, because both have come to an agreement which is balanced. Chandrajit Banerjee (CB): There are many sectors from the Indian side which will benefit. From both manufacturing as well as services. But if you see some of the critical sectors, like textiles and apparels, that opens up a huge market. In the pharma sector also, we are getting huge opportunities. The small and the mid size companies across the engineering area as well as auto components will also gain. Plus, the labour intensive sectors like leather and footwear will benefit due to the increased access to the UK market. Will there be a ripple effect of the UK agreement on the US deal that is in the works? SBM: I think closing of this deal is important for India. It does add strength to India's hand. But the US is altogether different. It's the largest market in the world,… It's good to have this one out of the way. Now you will have one less trade deal to work on and the negotiators will be able to concentrate more on the next one. The one with the EU is expected to be done in the next few weeks or months. As for the US, some interim deal should be done. It's easy for you and I to discuss it here, but there are new developments in the US on a daily basis. CB: In some ways, the UK FTA is a signal to the world that India has been entering into large number of trade agreements with different countries, both in the eastern hemisphere and now in the western hemisphere, and the Indian industry is competitive. It also shows that India provides not just opportunities to companies to come and participate in the Indian economy in terms of investments, but our companies themselves are investing strongly in other economies…. So, this is indicative of balance of power. Mr Mittal, there's a full chapter on telecom in the deal. Any significance? SBM: Well, I'm delighted to see that chapter, as you can imagine. Both countries will be having open doors for telecom in terms of foreign direct investment (FDI). As you know, Vodafone had 100 per cent in India…. What the FTA will do is to take the agreed position to a hard wired position. Do you think this deal will help in the making of global brands? Hasn't that been a gap for the Indian industry? SBM: I would say yes…. You have to have large corporations first, and then you go global. That's been the norm world over. And the western world has had that privilege for decades, because they became rich much before us. I think India is on that path now, and you will start to see Indian MNCs emerging on the global stage. Tatas have already been there with Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) and others. I think we can count ourselves (Airtel) as that. There are a few other companies which are on that path to some extent--Godrej, Mahindras, for example. For your group, what does this deal mean? SBM: It validates what we've been doing for so many years in sectors such as telecom, real estate and hospitality. We also have the satellite deal—OneWeb--with the British government. So this just strengthens our hand to do more between the two countries. Perhaps, we can pick up some technologies here that we can take back to India and use the technology back home in the Indian market, which is much bigger. We remain agile. We are looking at opportunities. But today, I stand in front of you as the co-chair of the Indian business leaders' delegation, the CEO forum, and my job is to work on the larger piece. In this capacity, I have to see that Indian industry and the British business leadership can combine their minds to take our trade to the level that has been set by the two partners. What are your thoughts on utilisation of trade deals? In many cases, we've seen that we are not able to utilise the deals that are signed. How can the industry help? SBM: This is a rare opportunity where both sides can gain from combining strengths of each other. There's high degree of complementarity between the two nations. And that really makes a very strong, powerful platform, or a bridge, if I may say, between the two countries. You're right that not all trade deals result in tremendous amount of uptick in trade and services or investment. I think this is different. In this case, I feel in the first year itself, as soon as this treaty is ratified, we will see the direction of trade going up in the upwards trajectory. CB: This trade agreement is designed to work for both countries, be it for bilateral investment or bilateral trade. Whether it's small or mid-sized companies, technology, education or anything else, we (India-UK business forum) can form different groups and see to it that we are able to identify the enablers. So there should be possibilities of constructive ways of working towards taking advantage of this trade agreement. Is there anything in this FTA that you think could have been done better? Any gaps? SBM: Well, there's always something that one feels could have been better. Some parts of the industry may feel that certain things could have been better handled. But by and large, I don't think there is any reason to complain. There may be somebody unhappy out there, but, you know, in a trade deal of this nature, it is rare to get to a win win situation like the one we are seeing in this one. What is the overall mood of the industry? SBM: Very good. Industry is very upbeat. CB: I think what we have seen is an amazing partnership between the government and the industry. I think that collaborative framework is going to be a key factor as we move ahead, when industry is taken along and consulted. That collaboration should work to see that FTAs are working in a win win way.
Economic Times
26 minutes ago
- Economic Times
America's changing stages of capitalism impacted the world — Donald Trump now wants to disrupt the old economic order: Jonathan Levy
Jonathan Levy is Professor of History at Sciences Po, Paris. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das, he discusses capitalism shifting shape in America — and new directions under Donald Trump: Q. What is the core of your research?A. I'm a historian and my focus is the history of the United States. I'm also a historian of capitalism across the American past and in the relationship between the US and the world. Q. How do you characterise what you call the 'main ages of American capitalism'?A. The origins of American capitalism can be found in the history of the British Empire — for political reasons, it promoted the expansion of commerce in the Atlantic world, throughout Asia and the Northern American colonies. So, I define the first age of American capitalism as the Age of Commerce, where the dominant question was to what degree the state would expand this. The next stage, the Age of Capital, beginning after the abolition of slavery, had two defining characteristics — first, industrialisation and the shift of capital away from agriculture towards industry. By the end of the 19th century, the United States had displaced Britain as the largest industrial power in the world. But this age also had financial and monetary dynamics which were as intrinsic to capitalism as industry — those culminated in 1929's crash and the Great Depression. That begins what I call the Age of Control, with the New Deal which fundamentally changed America's political economy. After World War II, the US became a global economic, industrial, commercial and financial hegemon. The last stage is the Age of Chaos after 1980, linked to the increasing prominence of finance in the US. I also discuss new disruptive information technologies from places like Silicon Valley, this age characterised by the chaotic nature of both finance and new tech. Q. Which age of American capitalism are we seeing now? A. I think a new stage is being born — but transitions of this magnitude take decades. When 2008's financial crisis occurred, people thought that, like 1929, a new age of capitalism would emerge — that did not happen. Instead, the Obama administration cobbled back a version of the capitalism that existed before 2008 — so, what America saw instead was a slow social and political crisis that followed 2008. That became visible with Donald Trump's first election in 2016 and the way Trump broke away in his criticisms, whether of immigration or trade, from the ruling philosophies of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Trump changed the rhetoric on trade and international economic relationships, especially pointing to what he said was the risk of China to an America-led world later saw Joe Biden make more attempts at transformation with a new industrial strategy and promoting parts of US manufacturing, alongside concern about Donald Trump is clearly a disruptive agent, both in terms of his politics and policies. He very much wants to break apart the old economic order — I don't see him or the political movement behind him as having the potential to create a new order but he does have the potential to destroy the old one. We're in a waiting phase to see what happens next. Q. What are the implications of this for the rest of the world? A. After WWII, there was an assumption the United States would have a hegemonic relationship with the world — it would create rules it would benefit from but those would also offer advantages to others, whether through the use of the dollar or the openness of the American market. Hence, some economies sought to industrialise by exporting to America, such as Germany and Japan after World War II. More recently, this was true of China. It hasn't been as true of India, although, in recent decades, India has integrated more with the US via services.I think both the Trump and Biden administrations, in their own ways, began to question whether these relationships do work in the interests of the United States. Hence, we've seen an emphasis on national security, the China issue and the need to revamp US industry — such initiatives are important but I doubt they'll amount to wholescale transformation. Q. What forms of wealth or assets define American capitalism today? A. At the heart of capitalism is capital, a form of wealth valued in light of its capacity to earn a future profit or returns. During the Age of Control, the US political economy was structured with what I call a 'politics of income' — the welfare state and other measures sought to make the distribution of labour incomes more equitable. Now, since the 1980s, wealth and the ownership of assets, especially financial assets, has become more important than labour incomes — when that happens, you see greater inequality and debt. That's been a central feature of American capitalism over the last 20 to 30 need to ask if there should be an effort now to increase the ownership of assets and wealth, to make this less inequitable, or to restore an emphasis on incomes and away from wealth? This is an inescapable question today. Q. We're seeing breath-taking levels of American fiscal debt now — how does that coexist with capitalism? A. First, public debt isn't intrinsically bad — it depends on what it goes to. The US has a persistent budget imbalance which leads to rising debt. But the investments being made through the fiscal mechanism are not necessarily great — America has not been able to move its fiscal apparatus towards doing the things that should be done in the present to lead towards a better fiscal future. The US solved child poverty during Covid — and then decided to unsolve it by tax cuts and cutting successful social spending programs. Similarly, under Biden, the US began making some investments in a green energy transition — now, they're being undone by Trump. So, the US state is overly indebted — but it isn't doing the things it should quite rightly do. Views expressed are personal
