Latest news with #UPA
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
No one has given clean chit to Pakistan: Karti Chidambaram defends his father's statement on Pahalgam terror attack
Congress MP Karti P Chidambaram on Tuesday rejected allegations that the Congress had given a clean chit to Pakistan and urged Union Home Minister Amit Shah to watch the full interview of his father and senior party leader P Chidambaram before making such claims. "I hope the Home Minister has watched the full 40-minute interview of the former Home Minister. If he watches the entire interview, he will be able to understand the context in which it was said. No one has given a clean chit to Pakistan... I would urge the Home Minister to watch the full interview so that he can understand the context," he said, defending his father, P Chidambaram. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Data Analytics MCA PGDM Degree Product Management Cybersecurity Technology Design Thinking Data Science Leadership Others Data Science Project Management MBA Operations Management Finance healthcare others Healthcare CXO Management Public Policy Digital Marketing Artificial Intelligence Skills you'll gain: Data Analysis & Visualization Predictive Analytics & Machine Learning Business Intelligence & Data-Driven Decision Making Analytics Strategy & Implementation Duration: 12 Weeks Indian School of Business Applied Business Analytics Starts on Jun 13, 2024 Get Details The remarks came in the backdrop of Amit Shah's response to Congress leader and former Union Minister in the UPA regime P Chidambaram's "Why do you assume terrorists came from Pakistan?" statement, where he accused the latter of giving a "clean chit" to Pakistan. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Simple Morning Habit for a Flatter Belly After 50! Lulutox Undo Shah, addressing the Lok Sabha during the discussion on Operation Sindoor , said, "Yesterday, former Home Minister Chidambaram raised a question about the proof of the terrorists coming from Pakistan... Whom does he want to save? What will he gain by defending Pakistan? ... We have the proof that these three were Pakistanis. We have voter ID numbers of the two of them... The chocolates recovered from them are made in Pakistan... The former Home Minister of this country is giving a clean chit to Pakistan. If they were not Pakistanis, then Chidambaram is also raising the question as to why Pakistan was attacked... 130 crore people are watching their conspiracy to save Pakistan..." Chidambaram, who served as Home Minister in the UPA tenure, had said in a recent interview with a news outlet that the Government was "unwilling to disclose what the NIA has done all these weeks. Have they identified the terrorists and where they came from? I mean, for all we know, they could be homegrown terrorists. Why do you assume that they came from Pakistan? There's no evidence of that. They are also hiding the losses." (ANI) Live Events
India Today
16 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
We killed terrorists who bled India under Congress: Amit Shah
Union Home Minister Amit Shah slammed the Congress and said that the Modi government killed terrorists who bled India under the UPA regime. He further said that three of the terrorists who carried out the Pahalgam massacre have been eliminated by security forces in a joint operation by the Army, CRPF and Jammu and Kashmir Police near Srinagar. The terrorists were killed on Monday in an operation dubbed Mahadev, but officials had held back in identifying them conclusively as the Pahalgam attackers. Amit Shah criticised opposition parties for questioning the proof of terrorist origins and accused them of undermining the armed forces while listing terrorist attacks from 2004 to 2014. Highlighting historical policies on China, Kashmir, and the 1971 war, Shah contrasted the repeal of POTA under previous governments with the current administration's zero-tolerance policy against terrorism, citing improved security in Kashmir, reduced civilian deaths, and halted organised strikes.
News18
20 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
‘What Did You Do': Amit Shah Invokes Batla House, Dares Rahul Gandhi To List UPA's Anti-Terror Ops
Last Updated: Amit Shah launched scathing attack on Congress over terror attacks that took place during UPA government and dared Rahul Gandhi to give account of action taken against terrorism. Taking on the Opposition during the Operation Sindoor debate in Parliament, Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Tuesday dared Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi to give an account of actions taken by the UPA government in response to terror incidents during their tenure. Shah invoked the Batla House encounter and said that over 25 major attacks took place within 6 years, in which nearly 1,000 people were killed; however, the then Manmohan Singh government at the Centre 'did not do anything". 'There were 27 big attacks between 2005 and 2011. Around 1,000 people were killed. What did you do? I challenge Rahul Gandhi to stand in the House and tell the people of the country what action they took against these terror attacks. They did not do anything," the Home Minister said, while addressing the Lok Sabha today. Recalling Congress leader Salman Khurshid's remark on Batla House encounter with Sonia Gandhi's reference, and said that the grand old party does not have any right to ask questions to the government over terror. 'I saw Salman Khurshid crying on TV. He was coming out of Sonia Gandhi's residence and said that she cried after seeing the pictures of Batla House encounter. If she had to cry, she should have cried for Shaheed Mohan Sharma, not for the terrorists of the Batla House encounter. And they ask us what we have done? They do not have any right to ask us," he said. Shah also responded to the Opposition's criticism of three terror attacks during the Narendra Modi government, and said that they were 'Kashmir-centric" and no such attacks took place in the rest of the country. 'They said that attacks took place during our tenure as well. I want to tell them the difference. They are not able to see. Whatever attacks took place in our tenure were Kashmir-centric. Not a single incident took place in the rest of the country," he said. 'This is the Modi government. Even in Kashmir, the situation is such today that they have to send terrorists from Pakistan. Terrorists are no longer found in Kashmir," Shah stressed. view comments First Published: July 29, 2025, 13:37 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
21 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
Operation Sindoor debate: What is the Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting that Jaishankar, Rajnath Singh are attacking?
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar recalled the 2009 Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement in Lok Sabha, calling it a grave misstep after the Mumbai terror attacks. Their sharp remarks revived criticism of the meeting between then-PM Manmohan Singh and then-Pakistan PM Yousuf Raza Gilani, which controversially referenced Balochistan and delinked terror from dialogue read more Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani (L) shakes hands with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the 15th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in the Egyptian Red Sea tourist resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, July 16, 2009. File Image/Reuters The Sharm-el-Sheikh summit — long considered one of the most contentious chapters in India's post-26/11 diplomacy — is back in the spotlight during the Monsoon session of the Lok Sabha. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, invoked the July 2009 meeting while discussing Operation Sindoor, sharply criticising the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) for its handling of relations with Pakistan in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Their interventions have revived the criticism of a joint statement issued after talks between then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh on July 16, 2009, a document that not only altered the framing of dialogue between the two countries but also made an unprecedented mention of Balochistan. Sharm-el-Sheikh was a strategic error: Rajnath Singh Speaking on Monday in the Lok Sabha, Singh launched a pointed critique of the previous UPA government, accusing it of blunting India's position on cross-border terrorism at a time when international momentum was building against Pakistan after the 26/11 attacks. 'In 2009, the government back then made a mistake in the Sharm-el-Sheikh agreement,' Singh told the House, opening the Operation Sindoor discussion. He argued that the joint statement, issued after the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit meeting in Egypt, weakened India's insistence that any dialogue with Islamabad would hinge on a demonstrable commitment to curb terrorism emanating from its territory. 'This diluted the terms set that Pakistan will not be allowed to use its land for terrorism,' Singh said, drawing a contrast with the earlier stance of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who, he recalled, made it 'unequivocally clear that any dialogue with Pakistan would be contingent upon a commitment to end terror originating from its soil.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Singh said the UPA missed an opportunity to mount decisive pressure on Islamabad after the Mumbai attacks of November 2008, which killed over 160 people and shocked the world. Quoting directly from the memoir of former President and UPA-era External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, The Coalition Years, Singh read: 'Pranab Mukherjee has written in his book 'The Coalition Years' that when the Mumbai attacks happened, India had evidence that the terrorists came from Karachi port. No one in the world believed the excuse of Pakistan's 'non-state actors'. He has written, and I quote – 'Amid heated debates within the Cabinet, there was a demand for military intervention which I rejected'.' हमारी सरकार, हमारी सेनाएं और हमारी लोकतांत्रिक संस्थाएं, सभी मिलकर देश की एकता, अखंडता और सुरक्षा के लिए हर आवश्यक कदम उठाने को प्रतिबद्ध हैं। — Rajnath Singh (@rajnathsingh) July 28, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Singh also recounted a meeting documented by a senior Indian Foreign Service officer, in which then Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon proposed a cruise missile strike on the Lashkar-e-Taiba headquarters in Muridke, Pakistan. 'Hearing this, Mukherjee took off his glasses, cleaned them, and thanked all the officers before concluding the meeting,' Singh narrated in Parliament — a vignette that, in his view, captured the indecision of the time. Singh's critique extended beyond military restraint. He argued that the government's response to 26/11 had long-term diplomatic costs. 'Just take a look at the documents of the Brics summit held after that incident; there is no mention of the Mumbai terrorist attacks anywhere,' he said, suggesting that India failed to rally global condemnation against Pakistan. He contrasted that with what he described as the more 'forceful' actions of the NDA government after later attacks, referencing the 2016 surgical strikes and the 2019 air strikes: 'I believe that if the government back then had taken decisive and tough steps like the 2016 (surgical strike) and 2019 (air strike), Pakistan's strategic calculus could have been altered. A powerful and decisive action could have proven to be a significant disincentive for Pakistan and its army-sponsored terrorist organisations.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'People who did nothing are questioning those who acted': Jaishankar Jaishankar challenged critics of the government's handling of Operation Sindoor and turning the spotlight on the UPA's response to earlier crises. 'We were asked, why did you stop at this time? Why did you not go further? This question is being asked by people who, after 26/11, felt that the best action was inaction,' Jaishankar remarked. Speaking in Lok Sabha during special discussion on India's strong, successful and decisive #OperationSindoor. — Dr. S. Jaishankar (@DrSJaishankar) July 28, 2025 In his sharpest attack, he pointed to the reference to Balochistan in the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement: 'In Sharm-el-Sheikh, the then government and the Pakistani Prime Minister agreed that terrorism is a main threat to both countries. Now, today, people are saying America is hyphenating you, Russia is hyphenating you — that is what I heard Deepender Hooda ji say. You are hyphenating yourself. You did not need a foreign country to say please link India to Pakistan… And worst of all, they accepted a reference to Balochistan in that.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For Jaishankar, this amounted to a damaging equivalence between victim and perpetrator: 'Now, here is a country reeling after 26/11, and you are equating Balochistan and 26/11, what happened in Mumbai, and you are saying that the perpetrator and the victim have both got a problem. And then, now you are asking me, why didn't you go further? People who did nothing are asking the Government that did so much, why didn't you do more?' Jaishankar noted that the current government had succeeded in bringing down Bahawalpur and Muridke terror sites, declaring: 'Who thought that terror sites in Bahawalpur and Muridke would be brought down the way they were?' He also traced a pattern back further, citing the UPA government's actions after the July 2006 Mumbai train bombings: 'Some years ago, if you remember Sir, the Mumbai train bombing. The Mumbai train bombing happened in the July of 2006. In September of 2006, three months after the Mumbai train bombing, at Havana, the UPA Government with its Pakistani counterpart condemns all acts of terrorism – as though we were both again equal, and agrees that it is a scourge that we need to effectively deal with together. And then they directed again, the resumption of dialogue. So, what I want to highlight is, for the people who did nothing, to have that temerity, that gumption today, to ask a Government which did so much, which brought down Bahawalpur and Muridke, to say why didn't you do more – I think it's extraordinary.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What happened at Sharm-el-Sheikh in 2009 The Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting took place on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement summit in July 2009, only eight months after the Mumbai attacks. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani held discussions that led to the issuance of a joint statement — a document that became one of the most controversial diplomatic texts in India's recent history. Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani (L) shakes hands with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the 15th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in the Egyptian Red Sea tourist resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, July 16, 2009. File Image/Reuters The statement declared terrorism 'the main threat to both countries,' and included an assurance from Gilani that Pakistan would 'do everything in its power' to bring those responsible for 26/11 to justice. It also recorded that 'Pakistan had provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence,' which Singh said was being reviewed by India. 'Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues,' the joint statement said. However, two elements triggered outrage back home. First, the statement explicitly noted that 'action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This effectively delinked dialogue from Pakistan's progress on curbing terror — a shift from India's post-26/11 stance that talks could only proceed after credible action against perpetrators. Second, Gilani's mention of Balochistan — recorded in the statement — provided Islamabad with an opening to publicly accuse India of meddling in its insurgency-plagued province. Returning home, Gilani used the reference to claim that India had tacitly acknowledged involvement, a claim India denied but one that added to the political backlash. 'Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats,' the statement read. 'Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.' 'Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.' The fallout in India was immediate and intense. Opposition parties branded the joint statement a 'sell-out' and accused the UPA government of compromising India's position. The BJP declared in Parliament at the time: 'Waters of the seven seas will not be able to wash the shame.' Congress launched a damage-control effort, with senior figures arguing that continued engagement with Pakistan was unavoidable despite the 26/11 attacks. Manmohan Singh defended his stance in Parliament at the time, delivering a statement that framed dialogue as a strategic necessity: 'We do not dilute our positions or our resolve to defeat terrorism by talking to any country. Other major powers affected by Pakistan-based terrorism are also engaging with Pakistan. Unless we talk directly to Pakistan, we will have to rely on third parties to do so. That route, I submit to this August House, has very severe limitations as to its effectiveness, and for the longer term the involvement of foreign powers in South Asia is not something to our liking. I say with strength and conviction that dialogue and engagement is the best way forward.' For the current NDA government, it is a case study in what it portrays as UPA-era indecision — a moment when India, in its view, squandered the opportunity to decisively confront Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Decisive action has replaced ‘politics of appeasement': NDA MPs target Congress
Underlining India's 'new normal' in response to cross-border terrorism, the BJP and its allies on Monday threw their weight behind the replacement of 'dialogue and cooperation' with 'decisive action' as displayed under Operation Sindoor launched in response to the Pahalgam terror attack. During the debate on Monday, the NDA leaders listed instances of the Congress 'surrendering' India's national interest due to reasons ranging from 'lack of courage' to 'politics of appeasement' during its rule for decades. 'The India of today is not the India of 2008…this turnaround, this new normal is because of our changed policies. We must give full credit to our armed forces…in the past, Pakistan-sponsored terrorists were attacking India and killing Indians almost on a daily basis,' Kendrapara BJP MP Baijayant Panda said. Citing terror incidents during the Congress-led UPA's tenure, Panda listed various instances when India sought dialogue with Pakistan in the aftermath of such attacks. 'What is most shameful is that retaliation was considered, it was planned by our armed forces but the then-government did not permit,' he said. 'We kept appeasing them… Putting no pressure on them to stop terror funding…Our approach in the past was only to cooperate… not to teach them a lesson,' he said. Terming Operation Sindoor 'strong, successful and decisive', Narasaraopet TDP MP Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu called it (Operation Sindoor) a befitting reply to the Pahalgam 'slaughter'. 'More than violence, it was an assault on the soul of India…tourists were asked about their religion and shot dead in front of their children… wives… it is slaughter…,' Devarayalu said. 'With Operation Sindoor, India has sent a very strong message… India will wait, but will never forget. This is not aggression, this is assertive deterrence,' he added, crediting PM Narendra Modi for moving from 'reactive to resolute, from strategic silence to strategic sovereignty'. Panchayati Raj Minister and Munger JDU MP Rajiv Ranjan Singh also attacked the Congress for not having done enough to counter terrorism when it was in power. 'Between 2004 and 2014 during the UPA's tenure, the terror attacks which took place claimed 615 lives…what action did you take…nothing happened,' Ranjan said, citing the 2008 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Samastipur LSJP(PV) MP Shambhavi said: '…This is the new Bharat that does not light candles after a terrorist attack, it sets fire to their pyres. India wants peace but on its own terms.' Jatin Anand is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. Over the last 15 years, he has covered bureaucracy & politics, crime, traffic & intelligence, the Election Commission of India & Urban Development among other beats. He is an English (Literature) graduate from Zakir Husain Delhi College, DU & specialised in Print at the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), Chennai. He tweets @jatinpaul ... Read More
