Op Sindoor debate: Has government answered the unanswered questions?
While in a blistering attack on the Centre, the Congress said Home Minister Amit Shah must take responsibility for the lapses that led to the Pahalgam attack and asked the government to clarify how many Indian jets were downed during Operation Sindoor. So, has the government answered the unanswered questions? Watch as experts share their views on the show.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
a minute ago
- The Print
India's diplomatic failures aren't just Trump's fault. It's the price of Modi's narcissism
But as recent events have revealed, this is Modi's ' phata poster, nikla zero ' moment. Donald Trump has claimed to have engineered the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, 30 times and counting. And our prime minister has failed to directly call him out or even say his name, preferring to ramble on about the choices Jawaharlal Nehru might have made over six decades ago. Political consensus over Operation Sindoor turned into a heated exchange in Parliament because Narendra Modi has turned India's foreign policy into a personal image-building exercise. The 'vishwaguru' media blitz worked for a while. India's G-20 leadership and photo-ops with world leaders were used to claim Modi's grandeur and portray that it is India's great fortune to have him as PM. Observe a familiar pattern. The nation unites after a horrific terror attack. The Opposition takes the national interest seriously, so it offers full support to the government for a strong response. But be it Balakot or Sindoor, immediately after an opaque military action, the BJP switches to election mode, evading all accountability and painting all those who ask questions as unpatriotic. The costs of this narcissism are clear to see. Obsession with the PM's image has led to the Modi government remaining mum on widespread reports of Indian aircraft losses, and even attempting to pin the blame on the Indian Air Force. Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan admitted, on 31 May, that India lost aircraft in Operation Sindoor but ascribed these to a 'tactical mistake'. Ten days later, India's Defence Attache to Indonesia, Captain Shiv Kumar, attributed the aircraft losses squarely to 'the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishment or their air defences'. In other words, not only were Indian pilots sent into battle exposed to enemy air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, they were also prevented from firing back because of political constraints. The diplomatic failure is equally glaring. For all the 'energetic' engagement and multi-party delegations going around the world, there was surprisingly weak international endorsement of India's military actions. Most countries called for 'mutual de-escalation', in effect hyphenating India and Pakistan. Also read: Geopolitical forces beyond New Delhi's control are at play in Trump's approach to India Trump's agenda The icing on the cake was when the country whose civilians were murdered in cold blood had to watch the presumed sponsor of the terror attack, 'Field Marshal' Asim Munir, having lunch with President Trump in the White House. In Trump's words, the agenda of the lunch was to 'thank him for not going into the war [with India]' and 'ending the war' and that he 'was honoured to meet him today.' Compare this with what Barack Obama said in his 2010 address to India's parliament: 'We will continue to insist to Pakistan's leaders that terrorist safe-havens within their borders are unacceptable, and that the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks be brought to justice.' Howdy Modi? And now the US has announced a 25 per cent tariff on Indian exports from 1 August, while its talks with Pakistan continue. A trade deal may still emerge in the coming days, but Trump's hard negotiating stance is clearly targeting India. Not to forget how the US announced sanctions on six Indian firms for trading Iranian petrochemicals yesterday, the same time as Trump announced a deal for a US firm to develop Pakistani oil reserves. It just isn't cricket. This is a gigantic setback to Indian foreign policy under Modi, and cannot be pinned on Trump's unpredictability alone. When you personalise foreign policy and prioritise image-building, you hand your partners and adversaries a tool with which to manipulate you. This ranges from superficial public gestures that play well on PR photos to sweetheart deals for favoured Modi cronies. The Modi government first put all its eggs into the US basket when the unipolar moment was clearly over. It subsequently overcorrected, accommodating an aggressive China by ceding buffer zones in eastern Ladakh and agreeing to Chinese concurrence for Indian patrols that earlier had free access to various patrolling points. Meanwhile, China gave full support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, giving it 'live inputs' on Indian operations, and turning India into a testing ground for network-centric warfare and new weapons systems. It has restricted critical exports to India and made moves into the northeast through the world's largest hydropower project on the Brahmaputra. To put it bluntly, Nehru's nonalignment sought investment and aid from both the US and the USSR. Modi's nonalignment has accepted economic and political penalties from both the US and China. Amitabh Dubey is a Congress member. He tweets @dubeyamitabh. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
India Today
a minute ago
- India Today
US trade tariff blow: How much can India really lose?
With the US slapping a fresh 25% tariff on Indian exports, ranging from auto components and textiles to electronics and gems, the threat to bilateral trade has returned to the say the direct hit could affect over $3 billion worth of annual shipments, though the broader impact on India's GDP is expected to be direct goods exports to the US account for just under 2% of its GDP, said Rajani Sinha, Chief Economist at CareEdge. 'Even if exports to the US reduce by 20%, the drag on GDP will be around 0.3–0.4%,' she estimated. Still, with India facing pressure over its trade with Russia and Iran, the tariff blow may carry longer-term strategic 'This move comes at a delicate time. India is diversifying trade and investments, and any escalation may force us to recalibrate our stance with countries like Russia,' Sinha duties announced by President Donald Trump on July 30 are set to take effect August 1. While the US has accused India of 'unfair trade barriers,' Indian officials insist the country's tariffs are calibrated to protect sensitive sectors—especially agriculture and dairy. That position is unlikely to change, Sinha said, pointing to intense domestic political sensitivities around farmgate prices and food to Munjal Almoula, Partner at BDO India, the new US tariffs appear to combine a blanket 25% hike with a possible penalty component linked to India's continued trade with Russia, especially oil purchases and arms deals. 'The US has been signaling this for some time, and it's now using trade levers to send a message,' he expects the broader trade deal—once targeted for conclusion by late 2025—to face further delays, particularly over disputes around genetically modified food, dairy access, and the WTO moratorium on e-commerce duties. 'These are issues where India's positions are deeply entrenched, and rushing to close a deal could hurt long-term national interests,' he Kapoor, economist at Elara Capital, said the US decision could push India's effective tariff rate (ETR) up to 26%—a steep jump from the 2.4% average it enjoyed before. 'That could shave off 20 to 30 basis points from GDP if the standoff lasts beyond two quarters,' she warned. 'The direct impact will be felt on autos, jewellery and solar equipment—especially exporters with more than 40% US exposure.'The first line of defense, Kapoor noted, may come from currency adjustments. 'We expect the USD-INR to cross 88.5 in coming weeks, helping offset export losses partially.' She also forecast a 50-bps rate cut by the RBI in August, to support growth amid external to regional peers, India's average tariff regime remains higher, Kapoor acknowledged, but she said that's by design. 'We aren't in the same boat as ASEAN when it comes to farm protection or supply chain integration. India will push back on liberalising dairy or ethanol, like it did in the UK deal,' she said. 'A half-baked deal to appease the US could damage Indian competitiveness more than it helps.'advertisementAnkit Patel, co-founder and partner at Arunasset Investment Services, estimated that gems and jewellery, textiles, and auto components could see a combined impact of $3 billion in FY26 exports. 'Jewellery alone may lose $1.5–2 billion in US orders,' he said. 'Tiruppur garment makers, Surat polishers, and Pune-based component firms will face immediate price pressure.'Patel said the stock market impact may be temporary, but investment sentiment is more fragile. 'Uncertainty deters both FIIs and domestic capex decisions. We also have to watch whether pharma and electronics remain exempt, or if the list expands later.'While India's dependence on the US as a goods export market remains relatively modest, the trade confrontation has come at a delicate time, just as the country seeks to double bilateral trade to $500 billion by the standoff escalates, experts say the road to that target could become significantly bumpier.- EndsMust Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a minute ago
- First Post
Bending to China, tilting to Pak: Is Trump taking US on Nixon course all over again?
Nixon's realpolitik with China and Pakistan finds echoes in Trump's foreign policy, where strategic interests often outweighed values read more (File) US President Richard Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger stand on Air Force One during their voyage to China February 20, 1972. Reuters US President Donald Trump has some uncanny similarities with Richard Nixon, the controversial former US president from the early 1970s. Both came from the Republican Party. Their presidencies were marred by scandals. While Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment over Watergate Scandal, Trump was twice-impeached but got relief from the Senate. There is one more connection: both looked vulnerable in dealing with China and pampered Pakistan. In February 1972, Nixon's historic visit to China marked a monumental shift in US foreign policy. After more than two decades of hostility and frozen diplomatic ties, the trip symbolised the beginning of a new era in Sino-American relations. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The decision, announced dramatically in July 1971, followed months of clandestine diplomacy, including National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger's covert visit to Beijing. This rapprochement not only thawed icy relations but also recalibrated global geopolitics during the Cold War, wrote Dave Roos in History. Nixon's intention was not only to normalise ties but also to play China and the Soviet Union against each other to America's strategic benefit—a move some analysts now interpret as the foundation of a triangular balance of power. By inviting China into the 'society of nations,' the Nixon administration hoped to gain leverage in its Vietnam negotiations and in its nuclear arms talks with Moscow. Nixon and the Indo-Pak War While Nixon's China outreach made global headlines, a lesser-known but equally significant aspect of his foreign policy was his administration's support for Pakistan during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. Despite an official US arms embargo, Nixon and Kissinger orchestrated a covert strategy to ensure that Pakistan received military aid through third-party nations like Jordan and Iran. Declassified documents revealed how, shortly after hostilities broke out in December 1971, the Nixon administration moved to circumvent American restrictions to bolster Pakistan's defences. President Nixon reportedly approved the transfer of 17 fighter jets from Jordan to Pakistan, fearing that India's military success could destabilise the region and fragment Pakistan. Kissinger, in a private conversation, supported the idea of using allies like Iran to provide military aid, exposing the administration's strategic bias. Realpolitik over principles This tilt toward Pakistan came at a severe moral cost. As reports of genocidal violence by the Pakistani military against Bengali civilians in East Pakistan emerged, the Nixon administration maintained its silence. Internal opposition to the White House's stance was led by US officials on the ground, most notably Archer Blood, the Consul General in Dhaka. In what became known as the 'Blood Telegram,' American diplomats stationed in East Pakistan condemned the US inaction as a 'moral bankruptcy' and called out the administration's alignment with a regime committing mass atrocities. Despite this, Nixon remained unwavering, viewing India as an ally of the Soviet Union and a threat to regional equilibrium. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Echoes in the Trump era Fast forward to the Trump presidency, there is a striking resemblance in the US foreign policy pattern — particularly in its dealings with China and Pakistan. While Trump's tone towards Beijing oscillated between confrontational and transactional, his administration maintained a peculiar softness on Pakistan, even after episodes of terror extremism that strained US-Pakistan ties. Like Nixon, Trump appeared to favour strongman diplomacy, choosing pragmatic engagements with rival powers over value-driven alliances. Trump's strategic ambivalence echoed the Nixon-Kissinger realpolitik doctrine, where geopolitical advantages were pursued even at the cost of moral credibility. The enemy of my enemy Nixon's cold calculation — 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' — was central to both his China and Pakistan policies. At the height of Sino-Soviet tensions, the US exploited the mistrust between the two communist giants to assert itself as the balancing power. China, wary of Soviet aggression, found a temporary partner in Washington. Similarly, Pakistan served as a conduit for Nixon's secret diplomacy with Beijing, acting as a backchannel that paved the way for Kissinger's surprise visit in 1971, the piece in History said. This triangulation approach, though successful in reorienting Cold War alliances, had ripple effects that would shape South Asian geopolitics for decades. It also laid the groundwork for a precedent where US foreign policy prioritised short-term strategic goals over long-term democratic values and human rights. Spectacle and symbolism Nixon understood the power of optics. His China visit was meticulously staged to convey a narrative of reconciliation and geopolitical vision. The handshake with Premier Zhou Enlai, which symbolised a dramatic reversal from the 1954 Geneva Conference snub, was broadcast globally and left an indelible imprint on public consciousness. In contrast, his administration's behind-the-scenes manoeuvering during the 1971 Indo-Pak War was cloaked in secrecy and exposed only years later. These contrasting modes — public diplomacy with China versus covert militarism in South Asia — illustrate the dual nature of Nixon's foreign policy which is overt peacemaking paired with covert power plays. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Legacy and lessons The parallels between Nixon's maonoeuvres and recent American foreign policy under Trump serve as a cautionary tale. While strategic diplomacy can realign international relationships and strengthen national interests, it often comes at the expense of ethical considerations. Nixon's China gambit reshaped global diplomacy, but his support for Pakistan during a period of human rights abuses remains a stain on his legacy. As the world becomes more divided with many powerful countries, some people are tempted to return to Nixon's strategy of playing major powers against each other. But the experience from the 1970s shows that strong and lasting partnerships can't be based only on quick deals or short-term benefits. A good foreign policy also needs to consider what is right and responsible.
