Supriya Sule-led delegation arrives in Egypt to convey India's stance on terrorism
The delegation arrived in Cairo after concluding their visit to Ethiopia on Sunday (June 1, 2025), Suresh Reddy, India's Ambassador to Egypt, received the delegation.
The delegation has a packed and productive schedule in Egypt, including Ministerial engagements, Parliamentary exchanges, interactions with think tanks, media, the Indian community and others.
It is one of the seven multi-party delegations India has tasked to visit 33 global capitals to reach out to the international community to emphasise Pakistan's links to terrorism.
Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated after the Pahalgam terror attack, with India carrying out precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in the early hours of May 7.
Pakistan attempted to attack Indian military bases on May 8, 9, and 10. The Indian side responded strongly to the Pakistani actions.
The on-ground hostilities ended with an understanding of stopping the military actions following talks between the directors general of military operations of both sides on May 10.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
In the era of social media and warmongering, what the young need
My fingers had been sifting through the internet around the midnight of May 6, when they arrived at a reposting of a black-and-red poster. It invited a plethora of questions, including those related to its credibility. Operation Sindoor was underway. It was still late at night. So, the internet revealed stray images with little reliable reportage. My mind was taken over by anxiety, the first thought being, 'are we heading to war?' The next morning, air sirens blared over a Delhi neighbourhood. Residents, it seems, had been impervious to official notices, and the anxiety was palpable. Some stared at the skies imagining silhouettes of military jets. It was only when an official outside the residential complex announced that it was a civil mock drill did relief return to the worried faces. The children trotted back to their homes. The city suddenly seemed to operate in distinct contrasts. While the military operation seemed celebratory for a large section of people, chaos crept up on some social media handles. Some youngsters took to reporting, advertising a successful military operation. Some came up with pro-war narratives, while others cited humanitarian concerns over a full-scale conflict. Over the next four days, several of my peers were glued to mobile phones with updates of drone attacks and ceasefire violations. Social media became a source of information and exchanges, at times leading to fear amongst the younger section who now rely primarily on it. The effect of using technology extensively has led to cognitive and behavioural modifications within this section, as social psychologist Jonathan Haidt noted in The Anxious Generation. Not a day went by wherein one couldn't find an Instagram story without people sharing literature surrounding the ongoing hostilities. Worse still, all this took the form of diatribes, or opinions. Some of this literature had merit, while others were either misinformed or even perniciously charged. Information exchanges by 19 to 21-year-olds even led to occasional hate mongering. At times, the exchanges degenerated with some interlocutors questioning the other's right to freedom of speech. These newfound 'mobile journalists' who also became social media activists began to claim that they were better informed than those who held the government accountable — the media and the civil society. Debates also began to rage in family WhatsApp groups, and amongst friends, some of whom had travelled all the way to Delhi to give a postgraduate entrance exam. The idea of escalation between the two countries by itself was not devoid of sordidness and fear, but the social media epidemic of information warfare left a young pandemic surviving generation more uneasy. A Pakistani friend who recently graduated with a degree in political science from a reputed college in London started a new social media handle 'reporting' on world affairs. The more our country pushed on the agenda of Operation Sindoor, his reportage increasingly became acrimonious. He relied on reports focusing on Pakistan's side of the story, often veiling his country's real position under a narrative that tried to highlight supremacy vis-a-vis India. When I tried to gauge people's thoughts on the matter, several gave a communal angle to interpersonal dynamics; some feigned ignorance. There is beauty and vulnerability in friendships, some that transcend borders and socio-political fragilities. It struck me: Would I ever be able to approach my friend with the same ease as before? The relations between India and Pakistan are riddled with hostilities and anxieties. Should they affect personal relationships? Or is there space to navigate the situation together? When I was growing up, my grandparents narrated experiences of a blackout — they had to hide in trenches in case of air raids or cover windows with dark tape to prevent light from passing through. A hostile socio-political environment often leaves its marks on relationships and can leave many desolate. Imagine treading through a barren and arid rubble, a land which has no light gracing its surface, malodorous with ashy smoke, burnt bodies, with its floors painted red. The writer Annie Ernaux has pointed out that more fearful than the disappearance of physicality is the disappearance of thought. As mere mock air sirens made us anxious, I chanced upon questions asked by kids whose families and homes were bombed in Gaza. The list was presented by the Palestine Trauma Centre. Some of them are: After we die, will I hear your voice? When I die, will they put me in a grave with my mom and dad? Why do they always bomb us? When a missile hits us, do we feel pain or die immediately? Do the Israeli pilots who bomb children have children? Every day you say that tomorrow war will end. While the neighbours have agreed to a ceasefire, the relationship between the two continues to be uneasy. Other conflicts rage around the world, where childhood is shadowed by the silhouette of guns and weapons. The time now is to speak in a voice that assures, especially the young ones. The writer is a student of Writing MA, currently on a leave of absence from the Royal College of Art in London
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
29 minutes ago
- First Post
Lunch at White House, hunger at home: Asim Munir's NY trip show what's wrong with Pakistan
When the US establishment engages directly with the Pakistan Army chief while bypassing its elected leadership, it proves that the country's democracy is nothing more than a decorative formality read more In a diplomatic spectacle that could only be described as 'deliciously ironic', Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan's Army Chief, was invited to the White House for a tête-à-tête with President Trump. A prime example of irony, this meeting arrived at a time when the very foundations of civilian authority in Pakistan were under siege. A prime minister who can barely finish a term, and a military leader who holds more sway than any elected official. It is a display so spectacular that even the most cynical observer would be tempted to applaud the audacity. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But this wasn't just a polite exchange of pleasantries; it was a statement. The optics were impeccable, two powerful men sharing a meal while the rest of the world watched, wondering if they were discussing strategy or simply reminiscing about the good old days of military coups. The message was clear: the US wasn't just engaging with Pakistan, it was engaging with the Pakistani military as its de facto representative. A military that doesn't just play a supporting role in Pakistan's governance, but increasingly becomes the lead actor. This was not Pakistan being celebrated in Washington; it was the Pakistani military being reinforced as the permanent sovereign. A state of affairs where civilian leadership is increasingly sidelined in favour of military power. A true diplomatic win? Hardly. More of a political indictment of a system that can't seem to find a way to empower its people through democratic institutions. The Disappearing State: When Civilians Are Optional The absence of Pakistan's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister from this historic meeting wasn't just a diplomatic faux pas; it was a glaring testament to the sidelining of civilian authority. The message was loud and clear: Pakistan's real leader is in uniform, not in a suit. This isn't just about who gets to share the spotlight in Washington. It's about who gets to make the decisions at home. The concept of the 'disappearing state' is rooted in the idea that state visits used to reflect a sovereign hierarchy, where heads of state would meet heads of state. But in Pakistan's case, that chain of command has been brutally ruptured. When the US military or political establishment engages directly with Pakistan's army chief while bypassing its elected leadership, it doesn't just reflect a diplomatic trend; it exacerbates the perception that Pakistan's democracy is nothing more than a decorative formality. The US engagement with General Munir further highlights this, reinforcing the message that military-led governance is acceptable, even preferable, to civilian-led democracy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For a country already plagued by a fractured political class, co-opted, humiliated, and frequently sidelined, the result is nothing short of disastrous. Every time a foreign power, particularly the United States, plays along with this narrative, it chips away at the legitimacy of Pakistan's civilian institutions. What's worse, this serves to further marginalise the political class, transforming elected officials into mere figureheads, ornamental but without any real power. This is not just a diplomatic faux pas; it's a death by a thousand photo ops. The Illusion of Strength: Posturing in a Global Theatre While General Munir's invitation to Washington may appear to project strength to domestic audiences in Pakistan, this is a brittle, borrowed form of strength. It's the kind of strength that only appears powerful from a distance. The paradox is unsettling: the more powerful Pakistan's military seems at home, the more dependent it becomes abroad. Far from promoting strategic autonomy, this is strategic theatre, a show designed to distract from the reality of Pakistan's political and economic dependence on foreign powers. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD American engagement with Pakistan's military has historically been less about partnership and more about utility. Whether during the Cold War, the War on Terror, or in the current climate of strategic alliances in the region, the pattern has been unmistakable: when the US needs something, be it military bases, transit routes, or leverage over Afghanistan, it reaches out to Rawalpindi, not Islamabad. This has always been a transactional relationship, not one based on mutual interests or respect. General Munir's visit to Washington follows this exact script. It's a carefully choreographed engagement designed to serve the interests of both parties, but primarily those of the US. What's worse, every such engagement further entraps Pakistan in a cycle of conditional aid, military-to-military cooperation, and silent compliance. As long as Pakistan's military establishment remains the face of the state, it becomes easier for foreign powers to treat Pakistan not as a multifaceted democracy but as a monolithic security apparatus. And in this regard, the US is complicit, not just in supporting Pakistan's military dominance, but in ensuring that civilian power remains an afterthought. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Timing of the Lunch and Shared Dessert General Munir's invitation to the White House raised questions about its true intent. While President Trump framed the meeting as a thank-you for preventing a nuclear crisis between India and Pakistan, the timing and context suggested deeper motives. The meeting came at a time of rising tensions with Iran, underscoring Munir's growing influence in Pakistan's power politics. The lunch symbolised a diplomatic gesture that excluded Pakistan's elected leaders, reinforcing the military's dominance in foreign policy. While Munir met with Trump, Pakistan rejected Iran's request for support during its attacks, a move that aligned with Israel's interests. US officials made it clear that no support would come from the broader Islamic world, isolating Iran. Trump's praise of Munir's insight into Iran further highlighted the military's central role, as the civilian government was sidelined. Additionally, Munir's reported attendance at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meeting fuelled concerns over Pakistan's increasing alignment with US and Israeli interests. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This meeting reflected a return to Cold War-era dynamics between the US and Pakistan. Pakistan reportedly offered rare earth materials and potential crypto council partnerships, benefiting both nations. For Pakistan, it was a way to shift from China to the US, while Trump secured vital resources. However, this deal reinforced the transactional nature of US-Pakistan relations, with the military continuing to dominate foreign policy, sidelining civilian institutions. India Watches, Unbothered! The entire spectacle of General Munir's visit and the subsequent media frenzy in Pakistan might lead some within Pakistan's strategic circles to believe that this is a victory in the ongoing geopolitical rivalry with India. After all, when Pakistan's army chief is feted by the world's most powerful nation, surely it must be a step toward restoring the balance of power, right? Wrong. The truth is far less flattering. From India's perspective, the situation is a source of reassurance rather than concern. India's strategic calculus regarding Pakistan has always been shaped by one key observation: Pakistan's military dominance is its Achilles' Heel. Pakistan's inability to fully embrace civilian rule and forge a truly democratic identity has been a point of pride for India's strategic thinkers for decades. General Munir's trip to Washington only confirms what India has long suspected, that Pakistan is still a security state masquerading as a democracy. And as long as the US continues to treat Pakistan as such, India's concerns about its geopolitical standing are minimal. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This isn't just about who gets invited to Washington; it's about the deeper dynamics of regional power. While the US-Pakistan military relationship may serve specific American interests, it doesn't fundamentally alter the trajectory of the Pakistan-India rivalry. Instead, it highlights the deepening chasm between Pakistan's civilian institutions and its military-dominated reality. As far as India is concerned, Pakistan's internal dysfunction is less a threat and more a confirmation of its own stability and growing influence in the region. What's Lost in the Optics? The optics of General Munir's luncheon in Washington are not what they seem. While the Pakistani military may read this as an endorsement, a validation of its central role in the state, the deeper reality is far more cynical. The US is not empowering Pakistan's military to make it stronger; it's engaging with it to keep it compliant. The handshake at the White House is not about strengthening Pakistan's sovereignty; it's about ensuring Pakistan doesn't stray too far from the US's strategic orbit. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD By endorsing the military as the primary interlocutor, Washington effectively sidesteps the messy, unpredictable nature of democratic governance. Elections, public dissent, and popular opinion all complicate diplomatic engagement. But by dealing exclusively with the military, the US gets the kind of stability it craves, centralised power that can be easily influenced. The military becomes the puppet, and the US pulls the strings. This dynamic is particularly dangerous because it consolidates Pakistan's place in a cycle of military dominance, foreign dependency, and institutional decay. Pakistan's sovereignty is sacrificed on the altar of strategic convenience, and the long-term health of its democratic institutions is jeopardised in the process. What does this mean for Pakistan's Future? Every state must choose the architecture of its legitimacy, and in Pakistan, that choice has been made again and again: uniforms over ballots. But this form of legitimacy is inherently unstable. Legitimacy built on coercion and foreign validation is always temporary. It erodes slowly, until it collapses suddenly. General Munir's lunch at the White House may satisfy egos and silence critics for a few news cycles, but its strategic cost is enormous. It does nothing to address the underlying tensions between Pakistan's military and its civilian institutions. Instead, it institutionalises the military's role as the face of the nation, an institution that is increasingly less accountable to the people it purports to represent. This is not just a short-term setback for Pakistan's democratic prospects. It is a long-term erosion of the democratic norms that Pakistan once aspired to. And unless something changes, the future of Pakistan looks increasingly like a military-led state, where the voices of its people are drowned out by the noise of military parades and diplomatic dinners. Conclusion: A Meal Served Cold General Munir's luncheon at the White House was more than just a diplomatic event. It was a symbol of Pakistan's ongoing struggle between military dominance and democratic governance. While the world watched, the real question remained: who truly holds the reins of power in Pakistan? The military, cloaked in ceremonial grandeur, seems to be making a play for the throne, one handshake at a time. Until that question is answered, the nation risks remaining a republic in name only. A republic that, like the lunch served at the White House, has grown cold, stale, and increasingly irrelevant to the needs of the people it was designed to serve. Chitra Saini holds a PhD from the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University and currently serves as an Assistant Professor (Guest) at the Delhi College of Arts and Commerce, University of Delhi. Amit Kumar is a Senior Research Fellow at the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, Rajasthan, India. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
36 minutes ago
- Business Standard
India may soon have social security agreement with UK under free trade pact
India may soon have a social security pact with the UK as an in-built component of the free trade agreement (FTA) which has been finalised between the two countries, a source said on Wednesday. The source said that from now onwards, the social security agreement (SSA) will be an in-built component of all free trade agreements to be negotiated in future. "UK is believed to have agreed on the social security component under the FTA negotiations, which would be ratified in the near future," the source said. The SSA, a reciprocal arrangement between two or more countries, ensures that an employee while on a foreign assignment does not have to contribute to the social security coverage fund in that country but get the full benefit of employment period for pension calculation, while the employers are saved from making double social security contributions on behalf of their workers. The Indian employees posted abroad or on foreign assignment are required to obtain a certificate of coverage (CoC) from retirement fund body EPFO, which helps them avoid paying social security contribution in countries where they are posted. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) has been authorised to issue the Certificate of Coverage to employees posted in nations that have signed an agreement with India. Union Labour Minister Mansukh Mandaviya told reporters here that he has requested the commerce ministry to include the SSA in all FTA negotiations in future. He said, "We are doing so to promote social security for all." At present, India has SSAs with 22 countries including Canada, Japan, Australia, Germany, Sweden and Brazil. The citizen of all 22 nations with which India has inked SSAs get the same benefit if they are posted in India. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
