Shashi Tharoor Hits Back at Donald Trump Over Ceasefire Credit, Emphasises India's Anti-Terror Stand
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has hit back at Donald Trump for claiming credit over the India–Pakistan ceasefire during Operation Sindoor, India's retaliatory military campaign after the Pahalgam terror attack. Tharoor said it was India that made it clear from the outset: 'We were not looking for war, we struck only terror camps. If Pakistan stopped, we would stop. No persuasion needed.' Tharoor also remarked that the U.S. might have spoken to Pakistan, but India's position was crystal clear. He further reflected on his recent diplomatic visit to Russia, where he reiterated India's red line on terror and reinforced India's message post-Sindoor. Watch this powerful rebuttal where Tharoor explains why India's response was measured, firm, and independent, and why no one needs to claim credit for India choosing peace.#ShashiTharoor #OperationSindoor #DonaldTrump #UnitedStates #India #Pakistan #TrumpIndiaCeasefire #IndiaPakistan #TharoorOnTrump #toi #toibharat #bharat #breakingnews #indianews
Read More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
30 minutes ago
- India Today
Those behind Emergency wanted to enslave judiciary: PM Modi in Mann Ki Baat
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday played remarks of leading anti-Emergency politicians in his monthly radio broadcast to slam the then-Congress government for atrocities on people, and said they should always be remembered as it inspires people to stay alert to keep the Constitution in his Mann Ki Baat programme, Modi said those who imposed the Emergency not only murdered the Constitution but also made the judiciary their condemnation of the Congress for the Emergency-era excesses, without naming the party or the then prime minister Indira Gandhi, came amid an ongoing bitter war of words between the ruling BJP and opposition parties, which have claimed that an undeclared Emergency prevails under the Modi , , BJP (@BJP4India) June 29, 2025 Modi said in his address that with the power of public participation, big crises can be said, "I will play an audio for you. In this audio you will get an idea of the magnitude of that crisis. How grave that crisis was."advertisementIn the audio, Morarji Desai, the prime minister after the Emergency, said the "oppression" of the Indira Gandhi regime was going on for several years but reached its peak in the last two years after the Emergency was said, "People's right to freedom was snatched away, newspapers were left without freedom. Courts were made completely powerless. And the way more than one lakh people were put in jail and then arbitrary rule continued, it is difficult to find its traces in the history of the world."Modi said in the broadcast that people were tortured on a large scale during the Emergency for the 21-month period between 1975 and 1977. There are countless examples of atrocities on people that cannot be forgotten, he also played bits of speeches of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and former deputy PM Jagjivan Ram related to the Fernandes was shackled, he noted and recalled that anyone could be arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) at that were harassed and freedom of expression throttled, he of people were arrested and subjected to inhuman treatment, but it is the strength of Indians that they did now bow and accept any compromise with democracy, he finally won, the Emergency was lifted and those who imposed it lost, he that the 50th anniversary of the Emergency was commemorated recently as 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas', he said those who fought against it must always be Emergency was imposed on June 25, 1975 by the then prime minister Indira the defeat of the Indira Gandhi government in 1977, Vajpayee said, according to the audio, "Whatever happened in the country cannot be called just an election. A peaceful revolution has taken place. The wave of people's power has thrown the killers of democracy into the dustbin of history."Modi said, "We should always remember all those people who fought the Emergency with fortitude. This inspires us to remain constantly vigilant to keep our Constitution strong and enduring."- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Narendra Modi
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
NATO's 5% pledge: Rearming the West or rebalancing the world
In an era where geopolitical boundaries are blurred and warfare has morphed from trenches to tech, NATO 's recent commitment to invest 5% of GDP annually in defence by 2035 sends a thunderous signal—not just to adversaries, but to allies questioning the alliance's strategic relevance. The Hague Summit Declaration, adopted by 32 member states, marked a pivotal moment in transatlantic security thinking. The question now is whether this is a forward-looking strategy or a reactionary bulwark clinging to the past paradigms. At the core of the declaration lies an emphatic reaffirmation of Article 5—the principle that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members. However, the real headline is the proposed ramp-up in defence and security-related spending: 3.5% of GDP earmarked for traditional defence infrastructure and capabilities, and an additional 1.5% for resilience, critical infrastructure protection, and innovation. This is a fundamental reset of NATO's budgetary posture, reflective of a world no longer anchored to the certainties of post-Cold War peace. The strategic rationale behind this move is evident in the literature. From Russia's protracted war in Ukraine to hybrid warfare tactics deployed through cyberattacks, misinformation campaigns, and economic coercion, the threats facing the Euro-Atlantic region are no longer just physical; they are systemic. However, the implications of NATO's new doctrine stretch far beyond Europe. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo By including Ukraine's security under the umbrella of NATO's own, the alliance is signalling that Kyiv's stability is no longer peripheral—it is central to the European defence architecture. Although the declaration stops short of directly naming Russia as an aggressor, it unequivocally categorises it as a long-term threat. The political calculus here is clear: to maintain unity among diverse member states while advancing a credible deterrent posture. However, pledging 5% of GDP—especially in times of economic uncertainty, rising public debt, and shrinking fiscal room—will not be without domestic blowback. For many European countries, where defence budgets have long played second fiddle to social spending, the pivot will require not only financial reallocation but also political will. The path to 2035 will be fraught with parliamentary debates, economic trade-offs, and inevitable scrutiny from taxpayers questioning the utility of militarisation during peacetime. Live Events That said, NATO's blueprint smartly distinguishes between "hard power" and 'soft shield' spending. By allocating up to 1.5% for cyber defense , critical infrastructure, industrial innovation, and civil preparedness, the alliance acknowledges the multidimensional nature of modern warfare. Drones, AI, satellite technologies, and quantum encryption will define future battles. This is NATO's attempt to future-proof itself. Another compelling aspect of the declaration is its call to dismantle internal defence trade barriers and catalyse transatlantic industrial cooperation. The subtext? Europe's dependence on American defence systems must evolve into a mutual technological collaboration. With U.S. domestic politics becoming increasingly isolationist and polarised, especially in light of looming electoral uncertainties, Europe has no choice but to shoulder more of the strategic burden of NATO. The timing of this declaration cannot be ignored. This occurs at a time when questions are being raised about the longevity of American leadership and the cohesion of Western alliances. Populist politics, migration crises, climate-induced conflicts, and digital disruptions are redrawing the map of security concerns. In this light, NATO's 5% commitment is as much about deterrence as it is about staying relevant. However, for all its ambition, the declaration raises a philosophical question: can militarised investment alone secure peace in a world where most battles are fought in cyberspace, legislatures, and courtrooms? While NATO shores up its arsenal, adversaries weaponize currency systems, manipulate public opinion through AI-generated propaganda, and infiltrate supply chains. In such a scenario, defence must be defined not only by missiles and manpower but also by legal resilience, technological agility, and economic fortitude. In its closing remarks, the summit's declaration looks ahead—to Türkiye in 2026 and Albania thereafter. Symbolically, this eastward shift in NATO meeting venues reflects a changing strategic frontier. The frontlines are no longer confined to the Fulda Gap but extend into the Black Sea, Indo-Pacific, and digital cloud networks connecting us all. Ultimately, NATO's 5% pledge is more than just a budgetary item. It is a test of collective resolve in a fractured global order. If implemented wisely—with strategic clarity, equitable burden-sharing, and an eye on emerging threats—it could become a blueprint for securing liberal democracies in a multipolar, volatile world. But if the focus remains confined to tanks and treaties while ignoring the algorithmic and institutional battlefields of the 21st century, NATO risks building a fortress for yesterday's war The author is Department of Commerce, Assistant Professor and Research Supervisor, St. Thomas College (Autonomous), Thrissur, Kerala
Economic Times
34 minutes ago
- Economic Times
NATO's 5% pledge: Rearming the West or rebalancing the world
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel In an era where geopolitical boundaries are blurred and warfare has morphed from trenches to tech, NATO 's recent commitment to invest 5% of GDP annually in defence by 2035 sends a thunderous signal—not just to adversaries, but to allies questioning the alliance's strategic relevance. The Hague Summit Declaration, adopted by 32 member states, marked a pivotal moment in transatlantic security thinking. The question now is whether this is a forward-looking strategy or a reactionary bulwark clinging to the past the core of the declaration lies an emphatic reaffirmation of Article 5—the principle that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members. However, the real headline is the proposed ramp-up in defence and security-related spending: 3.5% of GDP earmarked for traditional defence infrastructure and capabilities, and an additional 1.5% for resilience, critical infrastructure protection, and innovation. This is a fundamental reset of NATO's budgetary posture, reflective of a world no longer anchored to the certainties of post-Cold War strategic rationale behind this move is evident in the literature. From Russia's protracted war in Ukraine to hybrid warfare tactics deployed through cyberattacks, misinformation campaigns, and economic coercion, the threats facing the Euro-Atlantic region are no longer just physical; they are systemic. However, the implications of NATO's new doctrine stretch far beyond including Ukraine's security under the umbrella of NATO's own, the alliance is signalling that Kyiv's stability is no longer peripheral—it is central to the European defence architecture. Although the declaration stops short of directly naming Russia as an aggressor, it unequivocally categorises it as a long-term threat. The political calculus here is clear: to maintain unity among diverse member states while advancing a credible deterrent pledging 5% of GDP—especially in times of economic uncertainty, rising public debt, and shrinking fiscal room—will not be without domestic blowback. For many European countries, where defence budgets have long played second fiddle to social spending, the pivot will require not only financial reallocation but also political will. The path to 2035 will be fraught with parliamentary debates, economic trade-offs, and inevitable scrutiny from taxpayers questioning the utility of militarisation during said, NATO's blueprint smartly distinguishes between "hard power" and 'soft shield' spending. By allocating up to 1.5% for cyber defense , critical infrastructure, industrial innovation, and civil preparedness, the alliance acknowledges the multidimensional nature of modern warfare. Drones, AI, satellite technologies, and quantum encryption will define future battles. This is NATO's attempt to future-proof compelling aspect of the declaration is its call to dismantle internal defence trade barriers and catalyse transatlantic industrial cooperation. The subtext? Europe's dependence on American defence systems must evolve into a mutual technological collaboration. With U.S. domestic politics becoming increasingly isolationist and polarised, especially in light of looming electoral uncertainties, Europe has no choice but to shoulder more of the strategic burden of timing of this declaration cannot be ignored. This occurs at a time when questions are being raised about the longevity of American leadership and the cohesion of Western alliances. Populist politics, migration crises, climate-induced conflicts, and digital disruptions are redrawing the map of security concerns. In this light, NATO's 5% commitment is as much about deterrence as it is about staying for all its ambition, the declaration raises a philosophical question: can militarised investment alone secure peace in a world where most battles are fought in cyberspace, legislatures, and courtrooms? While NATO shores up its arsenal, adversaries weaponize currency systems, manipulate public opinion through AI-generated propaganda, and infiltrate supply chains. In such a scenario, defence must be defined not only by missiles and manpower but also by legal resilience, technological agility, and economic its closing remarks, the summit's declaration looks ahead—to Türkiye in 2026 and Albania thereafter. Symbolically, this eastward shift in NATO meeting venues reflects a changing strategic frontier. The frontlines are no longer confined to the Fulda Gap but extend into the Black Sea, Indo-Pacific, and digital cloud networks connecting us NATO's 5% pledge is more than just a budgetary item. It is a test of collective resolve in a fractured global order. If implemented wisely—with strategic clarity, equitable burden-sharing, and an eye on emerging threats—it could become a blueprint for securing liberal democracies in a multipolar, volatile world. But if the focus remains confined to tanks and treaties while ignoring the algorithmic and institutional battlefields of the 21st century, NATO risks building a fortress for yesterday's warThe author is Department of Commerce, Assistant Professor and Research Supervisor, St. Thomas College (Autonomous), Thrissur, Kerala
