UK Was Informed Ahead Of US-Iran Strike, No Request For Help: Minister
London:
Britain did not receive a US request for its Diego Garcia base to be used in the US strikes on Iran, but it was informed ahead of the attack, senior minister Jonathan Reynolds said on Sunday.
Reynolds said Britain had moved military assets to the region and would take "all action necessary" to defend its key allies if they came under threat. He added that Prime Minister Keir Starmer was talking to allies on Sunday.
"No request was made," the business and trade minister told Sky News. "I know often because of British military assets, RAF Akrotiri (in Cyprus) or Diego Garcia, sometimes that request is made. And this was not a situation where that request was made".
Reynolds added that Britain had been informed of the strike.
"I can't tell you exactly when we did know, but we were informed, as you might expect," he said.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
Prices, like water, will find their own level. Controls breed vested interests: Minoo Masani
You cannot defeat the law of supply and demand. Prices, like water, will find their own level, and no amount of juggling will stop the laws of hydrodynamics or the laws of economics from having play. And that is why the team of the World Bank which visited India in February or March this year—let me remind the House that the World Bank is our biggest foreign benefactor today, generous, friendly and helpful—singled out for particular castigation Government's present policies, which in its opinion make for inefficiency and high costs, and controls which hamper industry at every turn. Two days ago, I read that the L.K. Jha Committee having failed to stop the rise in prices, the matter will now be referred to a committee at a higher level of Cabinet Ministers, as if the level of the committee decides whether controls would be effective or not! Suppose the Ministers' committee fails, where are you going any higher? Who is going to form the next committee to stop prices rising if the committee of three Cabinet Ministers fails where Mr Jha and his colleagues have failed? Controls are the main bane of our economy. It is said we should stop prices rising by putting on controls. If I may say so, that is flying in the face of the laws of economics. Nothing can stop prices rising if the supply and demand position warrants it. A British economist has said that to try to stop prices by controls is like a lady going to a surgeon to remove her double chin, and the thing comes out at the back of her neck in a bump! In other words, you treat a symptom, you do not treat the disease. The disease of inflation is due to the policies pursued by the Government. Until these are changed, no controls are going to succeed. Also read: For Minoo Masani, Indira Gandhi's bank nationalisation Bill 'came in the dark, like a thief' What is a control? A control is giving an official, even a small one, the power of life and death over a peasant, a shopkeeper or a businessman. Human nature being what it is, is it a matter for surprise that our public life is now riddled with corruption? I am not putting on any cloak of moral superiority. We are all the same under the skin, whatever party we may belong to. But the danger is that, when you combine economic and political power in the same hands, you are creating opportunities for corruption that should not be created. I would not entrust anybody, including my own party, with the unlimited power that you give to the bureaucracy and politicians to exercise controls. I would recognize that human nature being what it is, there must be checks and balances, a division of power. Why do we have a division of power between the judiciary, executive and the legislature? Similarly, we must have a division of authority, political and economic. The day on which you give economic power to those with police power, you have surrendered the liberties of the people, and that is what state capitalism as practised by the present Government means. Also read: Minoo Masani is India's forgotten liberal who went against Nehru's all-pervasive socialism Controls involve bureaucracy. Let me give you a few findings of the studies made by the Organization and Methods Division of the Government itself. Official files in the Union Ministries increase at an annual rate of three lakhs; 21 lakhs of files are awaiting screening and destruction; 22 to 45 per cent of the working space allotted to the staff on an austerity basis is occupied by undisposed files. In the Central Public Works Department, 18 to 25 months are needed for a proposal to reach the stage of execution. And in that particular Ministry the study cites the case of the Land and Development Office where the allotment of a piece of land involves no less than 370 steps from the beginning till the end. This is the controlled economy. I was very glad that my friend, the Minister for Steel and Heavy Industries, speaking at a seminar in Delhi on August 6, confessed that we are now over-regulated, and he has stated that our framework of detailed control needs alteration, and the multiplicity of points at which they operate needs to be reduced. I am quoting him now: 'It is a painful but inexorable fact that today an industrial manager spends more time getting across or around controls than in the task of management.' This is a very laudable discovery, however belated it may be, but the removal of controls is not so easy. The Minister for Steel has already found that out in his very laudable desire or attempt, which has so far failed, to decontrol steel. That is because every control breeds a new vested interest. Vested interests on the business and official side creep up which resist the abolition of the control, and it needs a very stout heart and great guts, like the late Mr Kidwai, to scrap the whole lot and go back from control to decontrol as Mahatma Gandhi advised. This essay is part of a series from the Indian Liberals archive, a project of the Centre for Civil Society. This essay first appeared in the book 'Congress Misrule and the Swatantra Alternative', published in November 1966. The original version can be accessed on this link.
Scroll.in
3 hours ago
- Scroll.in
For a lasting peace between India and Pakistan, their people must be allowed to talk
After the Pahalgam terror attack in April and Operation Sindoor early the next month, India-Pakistan relations, which were already in a state of deep freeze, have entered into a crisis-orbit from which a return to normality seems almost impossible. Pakistan is seeking a dialogue with India, without, however, making a commitment to ending cross-border terrorism. India, on the other hand, has further rigidified its position by stating that 'terror and talks' cannot go together, 'terror and trade' cannot go hand in hand and 'water and blood' can never flow together. If nothing changes, there will probably be another terror attack and another round of Operation Sindoor. But will it put an end to the problem? Unlikely. How to break this logjam? One thing is certain. If we really seek a way out of this crisis, we need honest introspection on both sides. Habitual chest-thumping, blame-game and finger-pointing are of no help. Nor should anyone in Pakistan or India be under any illusion that the leader of a friendly third country (ie Donald Trump) will act as an honest mediator and solve our problems. Trump's mediation is neither acceptable to India nor desirable. Pakistan should stop thinking that a third country can act as a 'force multiplier' helping it to deal with India. We have to solve our own problems. There is another compelling reason that external interference in bilateral issues could have malign consequences. Look at the war in West Asia, in which Israel was the aggressor and Iran the victim. A major cause of constant strife and destabilisation in the region is Israel's successful use of the United States as a 'force multiplier' in dealing with its neighbours. America's unwavering support to Israel has given the latter the confidence that it can literally do what it wants because Washington is there to supply weapons, money and bail it out in the United Nations Security Council. Closer home, we have seen how superpower rivalry between the US and now-extinct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics plunged Afghanistan into devasting wars and civil conflicts for 40 long years. India-Pakistan problems were created the British imperialists. British rule ended nearly 80 years ago. Let us not invite another power to fish in South Asia's troubled waters. Self-reliant solutions are the best solutions. For this, we have to harness all those trust-promoting resources that we possess in abundance. The most important such resource is the aspiration for peace among the common people of India and Pakistan. Sadly, the governments on both sides think people have no place in deciding the trajectory of India-Pakistan relations. Modi's attitude Let us examine Prime Minister Narendra Modi's attitude and actions in this regard. On September 18, 2016, terrorists from Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed attacked an Indian Army camp in Uri in Kashmir, killing 19 soldiers. Six days later, at a rally of the Bharatiya Janata Party in Kozhikode, Kerala, Modi made two significant statements. He said he would mount a campaign to isolate Pakistan globally. He also directly appealed to the people of Pakistan to become partners in the fight against terrorism. He even predicted: 'That day is not far when the people of Pakistan will come out on the streets to force their leaders to fight against terrorism.' Facts have proved him wrong on both counts. Pakistan is not facing any kind of international isolation. On the contrary, its global engagements have increased. Similarly, Pakistanis have not rebelled against their government for its support to terrorism. In fact, for the time being at least, the military-civil ruling establishment in Pakistan appears to have consolidated its position among its people. Why has this happened? Three inter-related questions are pertinent here. First, do the people of Pakistan have any role in the fight against terror, which its rulers have undeniably made a part of their state policy? Second, if they do, what has the Modi government done so far to help them play that role? Third, do the people of India have any role in the outreach to their Pakistani counterparts? Statesmanlike, unstatesmanlike On the first question, Modi's approach has been inconsistent, even self-contradictory. Consider this. In 2016, there was a statesmanlike ring to his appeal when he said: 'I call upon the people of Pakistan to come forward. Let's fight against unemployment, poverty and illiteracy. In India infants and pregnant women die. In Pakistan, too, the scenario is the same. Let's fight to save them. Let's see who wins this battle.' His constructive message must have appealed to many in Pakistan. Sadly, when he repeated the appeal at a rally in Gujarat on May 26, it came with a direct threat to Pakistani citizens. 'The people of Pakistan should free their country from the disease of terrorism,' he said. Then came the ominous line: 'Sukh chain ki zindagi jiyo, roti khao, varna meri goli to hai hi.' Live peacefully and eat your bread, or else be ready to face my bullets. This was most unstatesmanlike. It alienated even pro-peace voices in Pakistani society, whose number is not insignificant. The same counter-productive effect has been generated by the Indian government's (unenforceable) threat to let 'not even a drop of Indus water' flow into Pakistan. The waters of Indus and its tributaries are the lifeline of Pakistan. It is foolish to think that common Pakistanis, including those who are unhappy with their rulers, would become friendly towards India when our government threatens to dump the Indus Water Treaty of 1960, one of the few agreements between our two countries that has stood the test of time. An examination of the second question shows that Modi's appeal lacks conviction. Has he taken a single practical step in the past nine years to make the people of Pakistan allies in the common battle against terrorism? No. Has he engaged them in any meaningful cooperation on matters of mutually beneficial development? No. In fact, the opposite has happened. His resolve to isolate Pakistan regionally has ensured that the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation remains in a state of coma. There has been no summit meeting of SAARC since the one held in Kathmandu in 2014. This is because Modi has refused to travel to Pakistan, which was to host the next summit. The number of visas issued by the Indian government to Pakistanis – and vice versa – had almost dried up even before the Pahalgam attack. Now they have been completely stopped. Bilateral trade between our two countries was minimal even before the Pahalgam attack. Now it has come to a grinding halt. Where then is the scope for any interaction between the people of our two countries? The Bharatiya Janata Party government's answer to the third question has been a thunderous 'No'. Those of us who have been active in Track II diplomacy with Pakistan for decades have received no encouragement, much less support. In the past, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and their ministerial colleagues would call us to ask about our talks with Pakistan's civil society and politicians. Now, it is impossible to meet even a bureaucrat in the ministry of external affairs. The ruling party views us with suspicion and disdain. The jingoist sections of the mainstream and social media have viciously maligned Aman ki Asha and all other citizen-level efforts to improve relations with our neighbour. As if peace-making is traitorous, we have been branded as 'anti-national' and 'agents of Pakistan'. In the footsteps of Vajpayee and Advani But did we do anything to harm India's interests? Let me give my own example. I accompanied Vajpayee on his two prime ministerial visits to Pakistan, in 1999 and 2004. In 2005, I went with LK Advani, when he was the BJP president, to Lahore, Islamabad and Karachi. Both leaders went as messengers of peace. The positive response they received, from the people and leaders of major political parties, was beyond expectation. Thereafter, I have visited Pakistan many times, either on my own or as a member of peace delegations. We were never coy about expressing India's concerns about cross-border terrorism. In 2015, I shared the stage with Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's army chief-turned-president, at a function in Karachi. I said my host country should act against terrorism for its own good and for the good of the entire South Asian region. Speaking in front of a large audience at Karachi LitFest in 2017, I said, 'I have come from Mumbai to convey the pain of my city and my country. On November 26, 2008, ten terrorists sailed in boats from Karachi and launched multiple attacks in Mumbai, killing over 160 innocent people. Their masterminds have not yet been prosecuted and punished in your country.' A few months before Imran Khan became Pakistan's prime minister, I met him in his home in Islamabad. He said to me, 'If your leadership is ready, we are ready to improve ties with India. If you come forward one step, we'll take two steps forward.' Many other peace activists from India have valiantly tried to promote dialogue with Pakistanis. Since it is difficult to travel across the border, groups on both sides hold online meetings. My friend OP Shah, a veteran champion of peace from Kolkata, deserves special mention for his ceaseless efforts. My young Delhi-based friends Ravi Nitesh and Devika Mittal, along with their counterparts in Pakistan, have launched an Indo-Pak peace initiative called 'Aaghaz-e-Dosti' or beginning of friendship. In 2022, three Gandhians from Pune – Yogesh Mathuria, Nitin Sonawane and Jalandhar Channole – did something unbelievable. They went on a 20-day 'pad yatra' to Pakistan, travelling on foot in several cities to spread Mahatma Gandhi's message of love, peace and brotherhood. And they received an encouraging response. Does this mean people-to-people dialogue alone will end the menace of terrorism? Not at all. But let's ask ourselves: can military action alone – specifically, new editions of Operation Sindoor end terrorism? Can it resolve even the Kashmir issue in a way Modi's BJP wants? Those who have not lost their sanity know the answer. One civilisation, two nations Where do we go from here? Here's an idea that will work, given time, patience and commitment. India and Pakistan cannot live without each other. We are not completely unrelated nations in a way India and Paraguay are, or Pakistan and Zimbabwe are. We are one civilisation, two nations. Not merely geography, but hundreds of bonds of culture, language, religion, familial relations, economic interests and historical memory (good and bad) bind us to. People, and not governments and militaries, are the custodians and carriers of these bonds. Infusing fresh life into these bonds could bring India and Pakistan closer, and reduce differences. The fact that Pakistan itself has been a major victim of homegrown terrorism offers a basis for turning this problem into a solution. The weapon Pakistan's rulers hoped could be used in their proxy war against India has turned out to be Frankenstein's monster. Far more civilians and security personnel have been killed in terrorist attacks in Pakistan than in India. Jihadism and terrorism are also the biggest reasons behind Pakistan's chronic economic woes. Hence, there is widespread disquiet and introspection in Pakistani society, including in intellectual, political and military circles. For example, Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif admitted in an interview with Sky News on April 25 the country's history of supporting terrorist organisations. 'We have been doing this dirty work for the United States for about three decades,' he said. 'That was a mistake, and we suffered from that.' This disquiet can be used to evolve a common position against religious extremism and terrorism, which will benefit all of South Asia. We will surely encounter dishonesty and double-speak in discussions with Pakistanis on this issue. We will also find many genuinely self-critical voices. Uncomfortable questions But when we speak to Pakistanis seeking peace and amity with India, we should be ready to listen to many uncomfortable questions from them. 'Why has there been a steep rise in hate speech and hate crimes against Muslims in India? Why does the Indian government and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party act in ways that appear complicit? Why has it become routine in pro-government sections of the Indian media to conflate anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan bashing? How can those condemning Muslim extremism condone Hindu extremism? How can those demanding an end to discrimination against minorities in Pakistan tolerate discrimination against minorities in India?' What such questions show is that India-Pakistan relations and Hindu-Muslim relations at home are intertwined in many ways. If the former improves, it helps in improving the latter. This cannot be achieved by militaries and diplomats. Politicians can help, but, alas, many of them seek benefits in dividing people on communal and ultra-nationalistic lines. We have very few political leaders in India or Pakistan who are bold enough to present a new vision of peace, religious harmony, cooperation and common development. Therefore, the main burden of bringing India and Pakistan closer has to be borne by progressive sections of the civil societies in the two countries. When pressure builds up from the two civil societies working together, the chances of the two governments agreeing to take the right steps become brighter. Indo-Pak relations can indeed move forward provided, one, we jettison hubris and enmity; two, we explore innovative ways to settle the Kashmir issue; and three, both sides rely solely on boli (dialogue) and not goli or gola (bullets, bombs, drones and missiles). History has shown time and again that 'terror and talks cannot go together' is an unworkable and self-defeating principle. Talks are needed precisely to end, or substantially reduce, terror. If these are pursued despite provocations, the two countries can come to agree on substantial issues, including certain crucial regional problems. When we realise that no third country can – or is needed to – bring Indians and Pakistanis together, the only alternative is for us to make the effort ourselves. Therefore, their two societies must talk. And they must compel the two governments to talk. In the famous and profoundly wise words of Mani Shankar Aiyar, the indefatigable warrior for India-Pakistan peace, these talks must be 'uninterrupted and uninterruptible'. While on the one hand we must urge early talks between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir, we must also demand removal of all obstacles in people-to-people talks. Let there be two-way visits of MPs, political leaders, business leaders, military veterans, journalists, researchers at think-tanks, academics, artists, sportspersons, religious leaders and common citizens. Let all perspectives be represented in this dialogue. Imagine Mohan Bhagwat, Asauddin Owaisi and Nandan Nilekani going to Pakistan, and Bilawal Bhutto and Pakistan's former army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa coming to India. Their views will be heard and debated by millions on both sides of the border. When more such visits follow with the participation of more influential voices, the circle of consensus, mutual trust and goodwill will become bigger, shedding rays of light and hope on a terrain that is today filled with darkness.
NDTV
6 hours ago
- NDTV
Trump Must Stop "Disrespectful" Tone Against Khamenei if He Wants Deal: Iran
Tehran: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned Saturday the "disrespectful and unacceptable" comments from US President Donald Trump, who claimed to have saved Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei from an "ugly and ignominious death". "If President Trump truly wishes to reach an agreement, he should set aside his disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards the Iranian supreme leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of sincere supporters," Araghchi posted on his X account. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
