Muslims feeling weakened: Robert Vadra links Hindutva push to Pahalgam attack
Robert Vadra sparked a row with 'Muslims feeling weakened' remark while speaking about the Pahalgam terror attack where Hindus were singled out and shot at point-blank range. 26 people lost their lives when terrorists attacked tourists who were enjoying a holiday in Kashmir's 'mini Switzerland'.Vadra further said "minorities feel uncomfortable and trouble" in India and blamed the 'Hindutva' push by the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Central government for the same.advertisement"In our country, we see that this government will talk about Hindutva, and the minorities feel uncomfortable and troubled...If you dissect this terrorist act that took place, if they (terrorists) are looking at people's identity, why are they doing this? Because there's a divide that has come about in our country with Hindus and Muslims..," he said.
Vadra further said that terrorists' act of checking identities and killing Hindus is "a message" to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.Vadra added, "This will make these kinds of organisations feel that Hindus are making a problem for all the Muslims. Looking at identities and then killing somebody, that's a message to the PM, because Muslims are feeling weakened. The minorities are feeling weakened...This has to be coming from the top that we feel secure and secular in our country, and we will not see this kind of acts happening."advertisementBharatiya Janata Party (BJP) IT Cell head Amit Malviya, shared the video on his X handle, expressed shock over the remark.Malviya wrote, "Shocking! Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra shamelessly defends an act of terror, offering cover to the terrorists instead of condemning them. He doesn't stop there, instead, shifts the blame onto India for the atrocities committed by Pakistani terrorists."Vadra's comments came a day after terrorists opened fire on a group of tourists on Tuesday. The Resistance Front, an offshoot of the banned terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed the attack sent shockwaves across the country and triggered a mass exodus of tourists from the Valley.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
18 minutes ago
- NDTV
No, India Is Not Israel, And Pak Is Not Palestine
In the immediate aftermath of the April 2022 Pahalgam terror attack - where Indian civilians were targeted in a region long destabilised by cross-border militancy - an old but deeply flawed analogy began circulating with renewed vigour: that India is becoming Israel, with Pakistan being touted as the new 'Palestine'. This comparison, invoked by a range of commentators from populist influencers to academic quarters, attempts to overlay the Middle Eastern fault lines onto South Asia. However, while superficially tempting, this analogy is strategically misleading, historically untrue, and morally hazardous. At its core, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a struggle between a militarily dominant state and a stateless people living under occupation. It is defined by asymmetric power, a denial of sovereignty, and ongoing territorial annexation. India and Pakistan, by contrast, are both fully sovereign states that emerged from a negotiated partition of British India in 1947, each with their own internationally recognised borders and UN memberships. The bilateral conflict, especially over Kashmir, stems not from a denial of statehood but from unresolved territorial claims. Pakistan's continued insistence on linking Kashmir to Palestine flattens these distinctions and obfuscates the history of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism across Indian territory - from Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir to episodic destabilisation in India's Northeast. Equating Pakistani actions with Palestinian resistance also undermines the moral and strategic integrity of the Palestinian cause. It erases the fact that, unlike Palestinians under occupation, Pakistan has used its sovereign apparatus to sponsor and shelter groups involved in acts of terror. This deliberate state complicity - acknowledged even by global institutions - makes Pakistan an aggressor, not an aggrieved actor. Minorities, Democracy, and Statehood One of the more dangerous simplifications of the analogy lies in the misrepresentation of internal minority politics in both regions. It is true that India is facing criticism over recent communal tensions, polarised discourse, and policies perceived as marginalising Muslims. However, equating that with the condition of Palestinians under occupation ignores the difference between a flawed democracy and an apartheid state structure. In India, Muslims remain an electorally significant, constitutionally recognised group whose cultural, linguistic, and religious institutions are protected under law. Their political presence - though under strain - remains visible. From Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the country's first Education Minister, to Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, one of India's most beloved Presidents, the leadership and legacy of Indian Muslims is historically well-anchored. In contemporary times, figures like Asaduddin Owaisi, a staunch government critic, and Salman Khurshid, a senior Congress leader with no constitutional post, were both part of an all-party delegation sent abroad to brief international counterparts in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. Their inclusion, despite being politically oppositional, signals a rare bipartisan consensus on matters of national security. Contrast this with Pakistan, where Ahmadiyyas are constitutionally barred from calling themselves Muslims, and Shias are frequently targeted in sectarian violence. The state's own structures are often complicit in marginalising non-Sunni groups, with blasphemy laws regularly weaponised against minorities. These are not merely social biases but systemic exclusions - legally and politically embedded. Meanwhile, in Palestine, the question is not one of minority rights within a sovereign state but of basic human existence under foreign occupation. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live without freedom of movement, due legal process, or political autonomy. Lumping these distinct contexts together does violence to the nuance required to address each problem on its own terms. Terrorism, Occupation, and Policy India's security doctrine has consistently emphasised that its conflict is not with the people of Pakistan but with its military-intelligence apparatus and its use of terrorism as statecraft. From the insurgency in Kashmir and the Khalistani separatist movement in Punjab to arms flowing into the Northeast in the 1980s and 1990s, India's internal challenges have often traced back to external sponsorship. These were not acts of a stateless community demanding dignity but the result of a neighbour using irregular war to destabilise a regional adversary. Israel, by contrast, has often responded to Palestinian armed resistance with disproportionate force - demolishing homes, bombing refugee camps, and applying collective punishment policies. These actions have generated global concern about human rights violations, and rightly so. However, attempts to map these punitive actions onto India's counter-terror operations obscure the scale, nature, and intent of both countries' military strategies. What makes the analogy particularly hollow is India's long-standing commitment to the Palestinian cause. Even under the Modi government, which has expanded strategic ties with Israel, India has repeatedly reaffirmed its support for a two-state solution and spoken against occupation at UN fora. Far from mimicking Israeli policy, India has walked a diplomatic tightrope - deepening bilateral defence relations with Israel while maintaining principled solidarity with Palestine. Conflating these divergent positions is not only analytically lazy but diplomatically counterproductive. It risks damaging India's credibility in the Global South, especially at a time when New Delhi seeks to position itself as a mediator and developmental partner in multilateral spaces. More importantly, it insults the Palestinian struggle by associating it with Pakistan's agenda of using terrorism and religious nationalism as tools of foreign policy. Reject Lazy Analogies Both the Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan conflicts demand global attention. But attention should not mean abstraction. The occupation of Palestine is a human rights crisis rooted in land, displacement, and statelessness. The India-Pakistan dynamic, while also involving land and identity, is situated in a very different matrix: of two sovereign nations, one of which has routinely used terrorism to internationalise what is essentially a bilateral issue. Sympathy for the Palestinian cause should not be hijacked to justify flawed analogies that exonerate state complicity in South Asia. Nor should India's legitimate counterterrorism operations be lumped with settler-colonial violence. Doing so only weakens both struggles - reducing history, diplomacy, and suffering to hashtags. In times of polarisation, strategic clarity is not just a virtue, it is a necessity. India is not Israel. Pakistan is not Palestine. And equating them does justice to neither the complexity of history nor the urgency of peace. (Ashraf Nehal is an author, analyst and columnist, who writes on South Asian geopolitics, climate action and world affairs. He was a former PM Young Writing Fellow)
India Today
19 minutes ago
- India Today
'Make in India' gave us breakthrough in defence, says Bharat Forge's Baba Kalyani
After years of indifference from policymakers and the military establishment, Bharat Forge is now among the companies that are at the forefront of India's defence manufacturing push, thanks to a crisis-driven pivot and a policy overhaul led by the Narendra Modi-led government. In 2012, at a defence exhibition in Delhi, a few paused to look at the artillery gun on display by Bharat lot of army guys walked by, some laughed at it,' Chairman Baba Kalyani said during an episode of the New India Junction podcast 'Not a single guy stopped to even see what the hell it was.'The lack of interest wasn't about the product. It was about disbelief, according to Kalyani, but that an Indian private company, not a foreign giant or public sector unit, could build something as complex as an artillery gun. The military brass was still sold on imports. 'Everybody believed in global suppliers,' said Joint MD Amit Kalyani. Today, over a decade later, the same homegrown gun is a symbol of India's Make in India ambitions. But Bharat Forge's entry into defence manufacturing wasn't born out of strategy alone, it was shaped by frustration, missed opportunities, and a global financial crisis that forced a seeds were sown in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash. 'This idea of defence came into my mind somewhere around 2011,' said on his military school background and deep friendships within the armed forces, he realised that artillery guns were essentially complex forging systems, something Bharat Forge already excelled at.'Look at artillery, it's full of forging. It's metallurgy. So I thought, why don't we use our metallurgical and forging knowledge to make guns?'But back then, defence production was a state monopoly. Kalyani recalled how in the 1980s, India imported 400 artillery guns from Swedish firm Bofors, along with a full technology transfer package. 'Sweden literally gave the total artillery technology package on a platter,' he said. 'But the private sector was locked out.'In 2011, Kalyani took his pitch to then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He was directed to Defence Minister AK Antony. 'He listened to me for 15–20 minutes and said thank you very much. I walked out. I got no response,' Kalyani Kalyani shared how his father had carried a file dating back to 1976—documenting Bharat Forge's early efforts to enter the sector. Four decades later, the same equipment was still being 2012 gun display only reinforced how deep the skepticism ran. 'We showcased this gun in 2012, and I can tell you, the kind of skepticism that came out, it was as if we didn't exist,' said Kalyani. 'We were offering guns at half the price of imports. Price was not the problem.'It wasn't until the Modi government's Make in India campaign began in December 2014 that the tide turned. Kalyani participated in a defence conclave at Vigyan Bhavan that year, helping draft policy inputs alongside senior officials. 'That's where the real revolution started,' he breakthrough came under Manohar Parrikar, who as Defence Minister rewrote the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP 2016). 'He understood both the policy and implementation challenges. He formed committees to fix the entire system,' Kalyani said. 'If Parrikar were alive today, he would have taken India's defence industry even further.'Kalyani believes India's reluctance to involve private players is the key reason countries like China and South Korea pulled ahead in the 1990s. 'We focused everything in the public sector. The private sector wasn't allowed into defence till 2014,' he he argued, was throttled by red tape. 'In the public sector, you spend Rs 100 and someone from finance asks why. You spend more time justifying paperwork than doing creative work.'advertisementFor Bharat Forge, defence manufacturing is no longer a speculative foray, it's a key vertical. And the economics make sense. 'We make guns at half the price of imports,' Kalyani point is not just about cost, but capability. The company's artillery guns aren't just cheaper, they're made in India, with Indian materials and Indian expertise. The once-dismissed prototype has become a poster child for strategic while policy finally caught up, it was private conviction that laid the groundwork. 'I used to keep wondering what is wrong with us,' Kalyani said. 'We had the tech, we had the price advantage—but no one believed.' Now they Watch
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Will eventually come back to haunt you': Jaishankar gives blunt warning after Pahalgam attack; asks 'why Laden felt safe in Pakistan?'
External affairs minister S Jaishankar External affairs minister S Jaishankar , who is currently in Brussels to meet the European Union (EU) leaders, had pushed back against the international media's narrative that the India's action " Operation Sindoor " against Pakistan following the terror in Kashmir was a tit-for-tat between two nuclear-armed neighbours and questioned the presence of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. In an exclusive interview with European news website Euractiv, Jaishankar recalled the October 1947 incident when "Pakistan sent invaders" and claimed that the Western countries were very supportive of this. When asked about the international media's narrative over Operation Sindoor, Jaishankar said, "Let me remind you of something – there was a man named Osama bin Laden. Why did he, of all people, feel safe living for years in a Pakistani military town, right next to their equivalent of West Point?" "I want the world to understand – this isn't merely an India–Pakistan issue. It's about terrorism. And that very same terrorism will eventually come back to haunt you," he added. On Russia-Ukraine Jaishankar also addressed why India has not taken any side in Russia Ukraine war . He said India don't believe that differences can be resolved through war or from the battlefield. He further added that it's not for India to prescribe what that solution should be. When asked that India's being judgemental enough by refusing to take a side when Russia is clearly the aggressor, Jaishankar said, "We have a strong relationship with Ukraine as well – it's not only about Russia. But every country, naturally, considers its own experience, history and interests. India has the longest-standing grievance – our borders were violated just months after independence, when Pakistan sent in invaders to Kashmir. And the countries that were most supportive of that? Western countries." "If those same countries – who were evasive or reticent then – now say 'let's have a great conversation about international principles', I think I'm justified in asking them to reflect on their own past," he added. On new geopolitical order Jaishankar said that the multipolarity is already here. Europe now faces the need to make more decisions in its own interest – using its own capabilities, and based on the relationships it fosters globally. 'I hear terms like 'strategic autonomy' being used in Europe – these were once part of our vocabulary," Jaishankar said in an interview. On Trump and India ties Jaishakar said, "I take the world as I find it. Our aim is to advance every relationship that serves our interests – and the US relationship is of immense importance to us. It's not about personality X or president Y.' On India's relationship with China mJaishankar said that any companies are becoming increasingly careful about where they locate their data – they'd rather place it somewhere secure and trustworthy than simply go for efficiency.
