Slain Pahalgam tourists were ‘Bharatiya' or ‘Hindus'? Priyanka vs BJP, a tense exchange in Parliament
The sharp exchange between the treasury and Opposition benches capped Priyanka's speech, in which she called the Pahalgam killings a 'major failure of Indian agencies', and said no number of military operations could help the government 'hide behind the truth' that it failed to protect Indian lives.
New Delhi: In a charged moment in the Lok Sabha during the debate on Operation Sindoor, Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra Tuesday read out the names of the 25 Indians killed in the Pahalgam terror attack, framing their identity as ' Bharatiya ', as members of the ruling BJP interjected with shouts of 'Hindus'.
Immediately, a few members from the treasury benches interjected, with shouts of 'Hindus'. Priyanka paused, looked up, and responded, 'Bharatiya the (they were Indians).'
The remark drew loud desk-thumping from the Opposition benches. 'Those who were in the Baisaran Valley, and the 25 Indians who were killed, there was no security for them. No matter how many operations you carry out, you cannot hide behind this truth. You could not keep them safe,' she said, going on to name all the 25 slain Indian tourists.
'I want to read out the names of those 25 Indians so that every member sitting here realises that they were also humans like us, not pawns in a larger political game. They are also martyrs of this country. Their family members deserve to know the truth,' said the Congress general secretary.
Speaking before Priyanka, Home Minister Amit Shah claimed in his speech that Sonia Gandhi had broken down after the Batla House encounter. 'She should have cried for Shaheed Mohan Sharma instead of the terrorists of the Batla House,' he'd said earlier in the day.
In her speech, Priyanka responded to Shah. 'He spoke about my mother's tears. My mother cried when her husband was martyred by terrorists. When she was all of 44. I talk about the pain of the families because I can actually feel their pain and anguish,' she said.
Priyanka also sought to counter Shah, who listed the terror attacks that happened during the rule of Congress-led UPA I and UPA II, pointing out that following the Mumbai attacks in 2008, the then home minister Shivraj Patil and Maharashtra chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh resigned.
'Under the home minister. Manipur is burning, there were riots in Delhi, attack in Pahalgam. He is still occupying the chair. Why? Why was there no security at Baisaran Valley? There was no security, no first aid. You left them at the mercy of God. Are the prime minister, home minister, defence minister, NSA not responsible?' she said.
On Shah blaming Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi for certain foreign policy and military moves which, he said, were detrimental to India's interests, Priyanka said, 'You dwell on history, I want to talk of the present. You just need an excuse to blame my family. You have been in power for the past 11 years. Take your own responsibility.'
Priyanka also took a swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, saying he wants to walk away with the credit of Operation Sindoor, just like 'claiming credit for Indian athletes winning medals at the Olympics'.
But leadership is also about owning up responsibility, she said, terming US President Donald Trump's announcement of a 'ceasefire' between India and Pakistan 10 May as the biggest symbol of Modi being an 'irresponsible' PM.
She also referred to Shah's statement that Pakistan approached India, urging to stop the military action.
'The home minister claimed that Pakistan sought India's sharan as it was left with no option. But why did you give sharan? Why did this ceasefire happen? Why did the war end?' she said, echoing remarks made by Congress's Deputy Leader in the Lok Sabha Gaurav Gogoi on Monday.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: 'Pakistan firm sought Pahalgam satellite images, how did you miss that?' Kanimozhi rips into Modi govt
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
27 minutes ago
- India.com
Trump's 50% tariffs on India! which sectors will impact? study says ‘estimated impact of…'
U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a 50% tariff on Indian goods, which will take effect from August 7. This move raised major concerns about its potential impact on the Indian economy. However, there's some good news a new report suggests the impact will be minimal. According to a study by the PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI), the tariff is expected to affect India's GDP by only 0.19%, which is almost negligible. Out of India's total exports worth $86.5 billion, only $8.1 billion around 1.87% will be affected by this move. Trump Tariffs: What PHDCCI Study Says? The paper, released by the PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI), also recommends a series of measures to mitigate the impact of US tariffs. 'Our analysis indicates that there will be an estimated impact of only 1.87 per cent on India's total global merchandise exports and a negligible 0.19 per cent on India's GDP as a result of a 25 per cent tariff announced by the US on India,' said Hemant Jain, President, PHDCCI. The study said the total potential export impact is estimated at USD 8.1 billion based on 2024-25 merchandise exports of USD 86.5 billion (1.87 per cent of India's total global export). Which Sectors Will Impact By Trump Tariffs? Among other sectors, the study said the levies would impact engineering goods (USD 1.8 billion), gems and jewellery (USD 932 million), and ready-made garments (USD 500 million). In the wake of the US tariffs, the industry body has recommended several measures, including increasing market penetration, product development and market diversification. It suggested that stakeholders should negotiate bundled-pricing deals (textiles plus accessories) to absorb some tariff cost and maintain shelf-price competitiveness. 'Leverage Indian diaspora networks (trade fairs, cultural events) to boost volume with existing buyers under current product portfolios,' it said. PHDCCI also made a strong case for investments in joint ventures with US firms to produce tariff-sensitive goods on-shore, thereby converting exports into high-value services and intellectual property (IP) licensing. (With Inputs From PTI)
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
New clause could leave BCCI out of RTI ambit
New Delhi: A proposed amendment to the newly-introduced National Sports Governance Bill 2025 being circulated among Members of Parliament could put the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) outside the purview of the Right to Information Act since it doesn't receive grants or financial assistance from the central or state governments. BCCI will have to be registered as a National Sports Federation and follow the provisions of the Bill. (Hindustan Times via Getty Images) The bill, which seeks to bring in reforms in governance of Indian sports bodies, was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 23 by Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya and is yet to be taken up for discussion in the House, amid a continuing stand-off over the Opposition's demand over a discussion on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. The clause 15 (2) of the bill states, 'A recognised sports organisation shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers under this Act.' A new clause that is being inserted into the bill clarifies what constitutes a public authority. 'A recognised sports organisation, receiving grants or any other financial assistance from the Central Government under sub-section (1) or from a State Government, shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance.' HT has seen a copy of the bill. Under the RTI Act, a public authority is a body 'established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central Government or the Union Territory administration, the Central Government; or by the State Government.' According to people aware of the development, 'The amendment was done just to bring the bill in line with the RTI Act, 2005. BCCI might not take financial grants from the government but they do take government assistance such as infrastructure, subsidised land, state facilities, etc.' The cash rich BCCI has long resisted being brought under the RTI Act. The powerful sports body never required government recognition as a National Sports Federation as BCCI manages its own finances. However, with cricket is now an Olympic sport as part of the 2028 Los Angeles Summer Games and the Bill is seen as part of preparatyions for making a bid to host the 2036 Games. In 2018, Chief Information Commission (CIC) held the BCCI as the public authority under RTI Act, and put in place a system of online and offline mechanisms to receive applications for information under RTI Act. The Ministry of Youth And Sports Affairs was directed to take necessary steps to ensure implementation of this order. However, BCCI filed a writ petition in the Madras high court which granted a stay order. BCCI will still have to be registered as a National Sports Federation and follow the provisions of the Bill. If the Bill becomes law, it will be the first time that BCCI will become a designated 'NSF.' BCCI will have to seek recognition from the National Sports Board (NSB) and refer its legal cases to the National Sports Tribunal, both proposed in the sports Bill. According to the Bill, the National Sports Board shall have the power to grant recognition to any sports organisation as 'National Sports Body.' The NSB can suspend or cancel recognition of the sports body or its affiliate units if the provisions of the act are violated or in case it 'failed to hold elections for its Executive Committee or has committed' or there were 'gross irregularities in the election procedures.' It can also act if the federation 'failed to publish annual audited accounts or misused, misapplied or misappropriated public funds.' The NSB shall consult the respective global governing body before taking any such decision, stated the Bill. There is another proposed amendment that states a person shall not be qualified to contest for election in a federation or seek nomination to the posts of the president, secretary general or treasurer unless previously served as a member for 'at least one full term in the executive committee of the national sports body or as the president, or the secretary general or the treasurer in its affiliate unit.' In the original Bill, the duration a person needed to serve for the top three posts was two full terms as member of the executive committee. This restrictive clause, however, doesn't apply for the Sportsperson of Outstanding Merit (SOM), according to the proposed amendment.
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Decoding China, the lessons for a vulnerable India
The exodus of over 300 Chinese engineers from Foxconn's pivotal iPhone 17 manufacturing facilities in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka — a recent move ostensibly executed under corporate directive — is far more than an administrative recalibration. It is a meticulously calibrated stratagem, designed to arrest India's burgeoning manufacturing ambitions and to perpetuate a 'unipolar Asia' under Beijing's overarching economic hegemony. A geo-economic move This calculated withdrawal is not simply a logistical reshuffling. It is a subtle, yet potent, geo-economic manoeuvre by a rival apprehensive of a rising India. The recall of these highly specialised technicians, possessed of invaluable expertise in establishing sophisticated production lines, optimising operational efficiencies, and troubleshooting the labyrinthine complexities of modern manufacturing, represents a deliberate impediment to the crucial transfer of technology. Such knowledge is the bedrock upon which India seeks to construct its edifice of advanced electronics manufacturing, and its withholding strikes at the very heart of India's aspirational ascent. In addition, China has leveraged its dominance in rare earth production and processing by restricting exports of rare earths (which include elements such as gallium, germanium, graphite), and rare earth magnets, which are crucial for electric vehicles and electronics, to India. China has also imposed curbs on the export of other critical minerals that are vital for various high-tech industries. There have also been informal trade restrictions on the export of capital equipment from China to India, including high-end manufacturing equipment for electronics assembly and other sectors, heavy-duty boring machines and solar equipment, severely impacting India's ability to set up and expand its own manufacturing facilities. The broader implication of these actions, particularly the recall of engineers and restrictions on specialised equipment, is a deliberate attempt to limit the transfer of advanced manufacturing technology and know-how to India. This aims to keep India dependent on Chinese inputs and prevent it from developing a truly self-reliant high-value manufacturing base. Crucially, many of these restrictions are not formalised bans but are implemented through verbal instructions and administrative delays. This makes them harder to directly challenge but equally effective in disrupting supply chains, increasing costs, and creating uncertainty for Indian manufacturers. In essence, China's strategy is multi-pronged, leveraging its control over crucial raw materials, manufacturing equipment, and even human capital to impede India's manufacturing ascent, especially in the high-stakes electronics and emerging technology sectors. These actions, when viewed through the prism of Beijing's anxieties concerning India's emergence as a potentially formidable manufacturing competitor in an era of 'friend-shoring' by the West, align perfectly with its broader strategic calculus. China's economic success is increasingly predicated upon maintaining robust export revenues. Consequently, any nation daring to challenge its pre-eminence in global manufacturing, particularly in high-value sectors such as electronics, is inevitably perceived not merely as a competitor but also as an existential threat. The withdrawal of these engineers, therefore, constitutes a potent stratagem to disrupt India's trajectory and safeguard China's long-entrenched export market share and economic primacy in the region and beyond. India's ambition to transform itself into a globally competitive manufacturing hub is seen in Beijing as a direct challenge to China's long-term stability. The reality in China Consider the demographic exigencies currently confronting China: an ageing and progressively shrinking populace, an unfortunate legacy of the protracted one-child policy, coupled with a palpable erosion of wealth occasioned by an enduring property crisis — even as local satraps exceed production targets in their zeal to impress Beijing. This widening structural imbalance between an excessive production capacity and faltering domestic consumption increasingly compels China to lean heavily on export revenues to underwrite its fiscal outlays and maintain a semblance of economic progress. As its social welfare and pension liabilities burgeon exponentially, the Chinese government finds itself under mounting fiscal duress. Any reduction of export revenues would directly impinge upon Beijing's capacity to fund critical domains such as domestic security and military expenditure, potentially precipitating an undesirable degree of social instability. China's formidable trade surplus, now on the cusp of a trillion dollars, is not solely a testament to its industrial prowess but also a stark manifestation of weak internal consumption and persistent industrial overcapacity. The People's Bank of China's repeated interest rate reductions on savings accounts have largely failed to ignite internal demand. This chronic overcapacity, therefore, constrains Chinese enterprises to aggressively depress prices and inundate international markets in a desperate bid to remain solvent — a strategy that has, perhaps ironically, severely eroded profitability across a plethora of sectors. As a result, China's determined endeavours to stymie competition are not merely a reflection of simple geopolitical rivalry. Rather, they are an undeniable reflection of profound domestic compulsions. Should India, by dint of astute policy and diligent execution, succeed in getting its house in order and convincingly demonstrate the potential to compete comprehensively in the global manufacturing landscape, Beijing is highly likely to escalate its countermeasures. These could range from the insidious pressures of economic coercion to outright military posturing, all in a relentless quest to safeguard its core economic interests and, by extension, its internal stability. However, the news of the U.S. raising India's tariffs to 50%, even while China enjoys a 90-day exemption from punitive tariffs despite buying more Russian oil and gas than India does, makes India less of a threat to China. While India has been seen as a key partner in western efforts to diversify supply chains away from China, the imposition of the new U.S. tariffs serves as a reminder that all alignments carry their own fragilities, and underscores the need for India to build true strategic autonomy. The Indian Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to Beijing comes against this complex backdrop. An appraisal of India's strengths, shadows China's industrial pre-eminence is not fortuitous or trivial; it is a systemic dominance that spans critical and emerging sectors, from the esoteric realms of Artificial Intelligence and quantum computing to the cutting-edge frontiers of 6G telecommunications and electric vehicles. We need to understand that China does not merely export goods; it orchestrates and largely controls global supply chains in these advanced technologies. Even its overcapacity, otherwise a sign of economic infirmity, is being deftly weaponised as a strategic instrument for price suppression and audacious market capture. The aggressive pricing strategies employed by behemoths such as BYD in the electric vehicle segment are a quintessential illustration: by flooding global markets with irresistibly priced goods, China effectively stifles nascent competition and inexorably solidifies its global market share. This is economic statecraft in action. In stark contrast, India's manufacturing ecosystem, despite its vibrant aspirations, remains undeniably nascent. The cherished dream of transforming into a global 'manufacturing hub' frequently founders upon a litany of formidable hurdles, including persistent infrastructure lacunae and the pervasive sclerosis of bureaucratic red tape. We remain regrettably reliant on imports for a pantheon of crucial components — ranging from sophisticated chips and engines to semiconductors and sensors — even for the foundational 'screwdriver technology' indispensable for basic assembly. This profound reliance on external sources underscores the considerable ground India must traverse to genuinely metamorphose into a self-sufficient manufacturing powerhouse. 'Make in India' still needs help from outside India. From Beijing's vantage point, China has nothing to worry about yet; its actions against India are an effort to neutralise potential 'noise' within its immediate periphery while it assiduously scales up its economic and political corridors with key strategic partners across the sprawling geographies of Pakistan,the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Africa, and Latin America. India's narrative of offering an alternative to the Chinese behemoth falters on our own dependence. If India genuinely harbours the ambition to 'compete' on the global stage, it needs a laser-like focus on its own foundational development. That is what China's behaviour has taught India: The onus is on us Indians. Shashi Tharoor is a former Under-Secretary General of the United Nations, a fourth-term Member of Parliament (Congress), Lok Sabha, for Thiruvananthapuram, Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, and the Sahitya Akademi Award-winning author of 27 books, including 'Pax Indica: India and the World of the 21st Century' (2012)
