Claims about removal of Director General of Defence Intelligence Agency false: govt
New Delhi, May 3 (UNI) The government on Saturday dismissed as false the claims circulating on Pakistan-backed social media accounts that Lieutenant General DS Rana, Director General of Defence Intelligence Agency, has been removed from his post and deputed to the Andaman and Nicobar.
The false claims about Lt Gen DS Rana being "removed" are being circulated by Pakistan-based news channel @ARYNEWSOFFICIAK and several social media accounts.
The Press Information Bureau (PIB) of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in a post on social media platform X said, "Lt Gen DS Rana has been promoted to the prestigious rank of Commander-in-Chief, Andaman & Nicobar Command. He is the first Chief of Defence Intelligence who has been elevated to the rank of Commander-in-Chief."
The PIB said, "Andaman & Nicobar Command is the first Tri-Services Command, which is of immense strategic significance for Indian Armed Forces in the Indian Ocean Region".
Earlier too, Pakistan-based media had made false claim about Lieutenant General Suchindra Kumar alleging that he was removed after the Pahalgam terror attack.
Notably, the Ministry of Home Affairs had banned several Pakistani YouTube channels for disseminating provocative, false and misleading contents against India.
UNI RBE KK
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
32 minutes ago
- First Post
Pakistan: Former PM Imran Khan likely to get bail in Al-Qadir Trust case on June 11, says top PTI leader
Incarcerated former prime minister Imran Khan is likely to get bail on June 11 in the Al-Qadir Trust case, a top party leader has said here. read more Former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan is expected to secure bail on June 11 in the Al-Qadir Trust case, according to a senior Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader, even as the party gears up for a fresh political battle under his leadership from behind bars. The Islamabad High Court is scheduled to hear pleas seeking suspension of convictions handed to Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, in the high-profile case involving the alleged misappropriation of £190 million recovered by UK authorities from a Pakistani property tycoon. The case has become a central point in the ongoing legal troubles facing the PTI founder, who has been incarcerated at Adiala Jail since August 2023. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Speaking to ARY News, PTI chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan expressed confidence that Khan and his wife would receive relief when the court convenes next week. The hearing had previously been deferred at the request of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), which sought more time to finalise its arguments. The Al-Qadir Trust case centres on allegations that the Khan government unlawfully facilitated the transfer of £190 million, originally frozen by Britain's National Crime Agency (NCA)—to a real estate developer's liabilities in Pakistan. In return, a charitable trust set up by Khan and Bushra Bibi allegedly received a land donation from Bahria Town, the tycoon's firm. Both Khan and his wife are named as the sole trustees. Gohar told ARY News on Saturday that the PTI will collaborate with opposition parties to launch a movement, which will be led by the party's patron-in-chief from jail. He urged the opposition parties to join PTI for the sake of the country's survival and security and revealed that a strategy for the upcoming budget has been finalised. 'The party will address a press conference on June 9 regarding it,' he said. Earlier last month, Khan had said he would lead his party's upcoming protest movement against the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) led coalition government at the Centre, from the prison. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister and a prominent leader of Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf: party, Ali Amin Gandapur, earlier this week threatened to launch a full-scale movement for the cricketer-turned-politician's release after Eid Al-Adha. Khan, who faces multiple cases and has been convicted in a few of them, has repeatedly claimed the February 8 general elections of last year to have witnessed the 'Mother of All Rigging.' He has called his rivals the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) as 'mandate thieves.' Rana Sanaullah, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Political Affairs, while speaking with the media at his hometown of Faisalabad in Punjab on Saturday, urged the PTI to accept Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's offer of a meeting for negotiations and sit with the government to make amendments to the election laws. Gohar claimed Khan's wife Bushra Bibi, was being held in jail without any charges to pressure the PTI founder and claimed no deals will be made for the founder's release. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He also dismissed rumors of internal rifts within PTI. Some years ago, the National Crime Agency (NCA) of the United Kingdom agreed to a settlement worth 190 million pounds with the family of property tycoon Malik Riaz. According to an earlier report in Dawn, the NCA, in August 2019, declared that it was granted freezing orders on eight bank accounts containing 100 million pounds, 'suspected to have derived from bribery and corruption in an overseas nation.' The NCA said it had informed the then-government, run by Khan's PTI. It is alleged that Khan asked Shehzad Akbar, his aide on accountability, to resolve the matter, who in turn, 'settled' the case with the frozen funds belonging to the national treasury being adjusted against Bahria Town's liability, the Dawn said. Bahria Town Ltd, Malik's real estate firm, was found to have illegally acquired thousands of acres of land on Karachi's outskirts in the district of Malir. It had donated hundreds of acres of land to the Al-Qadir Trust, a non-profit that has only two trustees – Khan and Bushra Bibi. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies
Indian Express
35 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Jaishankar to visit France, Belgium from June 8
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar is travelling to France and Belgium from June 8 to 14, days after he visited Germany. The visit is important since a multi-party political delegation also visited France and Belgium to canvas support for India's stance on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Jaishankar will first travel to Paris and then to Marseille. During this visit, he will travel to Paris and Marseille where he will hold bilateral discussions with his counterpart Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France, Jean Noel Barrot, besides engaging with the country's senior leadership. He will also participate in the inaugural edition of the Mediterranean Raisina Dialogue which is being held in the city of Marseille. The Ministry of External Affairs said India and France have completed 25 years of strategic partnership. 'Our relations with France are rooted in deep trust and commitment, and our two countries cooperate closely across all domains of strategic and contemporary relevance besides sharing similar outlook on many regional and global issues,' it said in a statement. In the second leg of the visit, he will travel to Brussels. Here he will carry out talks with the EU as well as Belgian counterparts. During the visit, Jaishankar will hold a strategic dialogue with the EU High Representative and Vice President Kaja Kallas, and will engage with the senior leadership from the European Commission and the European Parliament. The MEA statement said: 'India-European Union strategic partnership has strengthened over the years across diverse sectors and got a big boost with the first-ever visit of the EU College of Commissioners to India in February this year.' During his visit to Belgium, he will hold bilateral consultations with the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Belgium, Maxime Prevot and also meet the senior leadership of Belgium. He will interact with the members of the Indian community. 'India and Belgium share warm and friendly relations along with a very robust economic partnership. Today the collaboration between the two countries spans various domains like trade and investment, green energy, technology, pharmaceutical, diamond sector and strong people to people ties,' the MEA said. The ministry said that the EAM's visit is expected to further deepen India's friendly relations with the European Union, France and Belgium and give renewed momentum to cooperation in diverse areas. Jaishankar met visiting UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy on Saturday, and said that India follows a policy of 'zero tolerance against terrorism' and expects its partners to understand that Delhi will never 'countenance' the equivalence of perpetrators and victims. This message will be conveyed to counterparts in Belgium and France as well. This was the first visit by a Foreign minister from a P-5 country to India, after the India-Pakistan hostilities last month. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also scheduled to travel to Canada for the G7 leaders' summit on June 15-17. He will meet his counterparts from France, Germany, UK and the EU, among others during the visit.
Hindustan Times
40 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
India's strategic culture and how it uses force
Does a tradition of risk aversion continue to define India's strategic culture and its use of force? Does this aversion embolden adversaries to consider the use of force more easily, threaten its use more effectively, and use it more readily? Has our self-professed 'peace-loving' identity become a self-fulfilling prophecy, constraining our military doctrines and warfighting impulses? A quick review of the historical record will demonstrate that, despite being a conventionally weaker power, Pakistan has consistently engaged in war initiation vis-à-vis India. Pakistan initiated the 1947-48 war, seizing a large part of Jammu and Kashmir. It also initiated the 1965 war. In 1971, Pakistan attacked Indian airfields, technically initiating the war. And in 1999, India was merely responding to Pakistan's infiltration into the Kargil sector in large numbers. In each case, Pakistan initiated the conflict, and India responded. Let me expand the definition of initiation of hostilities to make a larger point. Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism against India also falls within the broad definition of conflict initiation. This includes the 2001 Parliament attack (killing nine people), the 2008 Mumbai massacre (over 160 fatalities), the 2016 Uri attack (19 soldiers killed), the Pulwama attack (40 CRPF personnel dead), and the recent Pahalgam killings (26 civilians). In each of these cases, the Pakistani side initiated the hostilities, if you view the use of sub-conventional force as initiation of hostilities. India's response to these sub-conventional attacks from Pakistan has evolved over the past 25 years. Initially, threats were made but not carried out (2001 and 2008), followed by demonstration strikes with minimal effect (2016), and finally, a more selective and measured application of force was adopted in 2019 and 2025. In each instance, Pakistan initiated hostilities, with India either reluctant to respond by using force or being constrained in its use. Let me come to a third aspect regarding the use of force. Despite credibly overcoming its long-held reluctance to use force, India's application of it remains suboptimal, perhaps indicative of a risk-averse strategic culture. Consider, for instance, the recent India-Pakistan standoff. India's use of force, even when it decides to use it, is puzzling in at least three ways, each stemming from a hesitant strategic culture that, while waning from 2001 to 2025, continues to have a profound influence on our conceptions of 'appropriate and acceptable' use of force. First, India's decisions regarding the use of force are still largely driven by a reputational imperative — a deep-seated desire to demonstrate to the international community that it is a responsible actor. But in a military conflict, what ultimately matters are the material outcomes, not reputational considerations. Are our reputational urges constraining our military objectives? Second, India is a hesitant user of force. There appears to be a politico-cultural intent to define the limits of force even before it begins — to ensure that it doesn't spread — and we seek to stick to that.. This creates an inherent paradox: India demonstrates an inexplicable preference for using force in ways that minimise impact, rather than maximise its effectiveness. The logic of military force must be to maximise impact with minimal force, as opposed to minimal impact with either maximum or minimal force. Third, by publicly limiting the scope of military outcomes, we seem to prioritise sending a political message over achieving decisive military outcomes. Here's the problem with that approach. While India seeks to drive home a political point, Pakistan seeks to drive home a military point. While India seeks to limit the scope, impact, targets, and scale of the operation, Pakistan seeks to expand those very variables in its response before the contest is called off. While India approaches the use of force through a political lens, Pakistan prioritises purely military considerations. While India's approach to war reflects Clausewitz's dictum that it is politics by other means, Pakistan appears to use force for military outcomes alone. India's political signaling appears to have little impact on Pakistani military thinking. Thus, the two sides operate with fundamentally different frameworks and India's desire to drive home a political point is lost on Rawalpindi. India's political approach to war isn't fundamentally flawed, but it appears ineffective in the context of India-Pakistan relations. India's risk-averse approach to using force is suboptimal in the India-Pakistan context for two key reasons. First, in Indo-Pak conflicts, history tells us that early gains are not just important, they also are often decisive. An Indian strategy prioritising political messaging, minimum military gains, and delayed third-party intervention is unlikely to produce early gains unlike Pakistan's strategy that prioritises early military gains, little political messaging and quick third-party intervention. India's doctrinal evolution on the use of force over the past 25 years has been remarkable, but serious introspection after each military conflict is a must to improve future preparedness, as such conflicts are unlikely to disappear. Happymon Jacob teaches India's foreign policy at Jawaharlal Nehru University and is editor, INDIA'S WORLD magazine. The views expressed are personal
