Trump ‘Rejigs' Mideast Policy, Finally Okays AMRAAM Sale For Egypt, Big Boost For Sisi's F 16s?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- 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
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Border Fire, Regional Fallout: Thailand, Cambodia, and the Fragility of Peace in Southeast Asia
On 24 July 2025, the long-disputed Thailand–Cambodia border once again erupted into open violence. Cambodian rocket fire reportedly killed Thai civilians and soldiers in Surin Province. In response, Thai F‑16 fighter jets carried out airstrikes near the Ta Muen Thom temple complex, escalating what had been a tense standoff into a full-blown military clash. Within hours, diplomatic relations nosedived—Thailand expelled the Cambodian ambassador, suspended border trade through major checkpoints, and deployed additional troops to reinforce its frontier. From Phnom Penh, Prime Minister Hun Manet condemned the Thai airstrikes as 'unprovoked aggression' and urgently appealed to the United Nations Security Council. Images of bomb craters, wounded villagers, and smouldering fields flashed across Cambodian state television. In Bangkok, the military framed its response as self-defence and insisted Cambodia had violated Thai sovereignty. Yet beyond the rhetoric and the troop movements lies a more concerning truth: this is no ordinary border dispute. It is a symptom of deeper regional instability and a stark warning about the declining capacity of ASEAN to maintain peace among its members. The conflict is rooted in long-standing historical disputes over border demarcation, particularly around temple complexes such as Preah Vihear and Ta Muen Thom. Though the International Court of Justice ruled in Cambodia's favour in 1962 and again in 2013 with respect to Preah Vihear, adjacent areas remain contested. The Ta Muen Thom temple, located in the Dangrek range, is similarly caught in cartographic ambiguity. While clashes in the past were sporadic and localised, the current situation is qualitatively different. Both governments are using the incident to rally nationalist support at home, entrenching positions that make de-escalation more difficult. In Thailand, the crisis coincides with a period of domestic political uncertainty. Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended just weeks earlier following the leak of a private conversation with Cambodian leaders, raising questions about civilian authority and foreign policy decision-making. The military's prompt retaliation, coupled with the ambassador's expulsion, marks a reassertion of hardline nationalism. In Cambodia, Hun Manet has used the incident to project strength and unity, positioning himself as the custodian of national sovereignty. Both sides are appealing to nationalist sentiments, reinforcing a cycle of confrontation with limited space for dialogue. What is particularly striking is the institutional vacuum into which this conflict has emerged. While ASEAN is yet to convene an emergency summit, appoint a special envoy, or offer a structured mediation process. The bloc's slow response contrasts sharply with the urgency of the situation. Cambodia's turn to the UN for redress is a clear sign of eroding confidence in ASEAN's ability to manage intra-regional disputes. While individual ASEAN members—most notably Indonesia and Singapore—have urged both parties to de-escalate, the regional body appears paralysed. The diplomatic fallout is already taking a toll. Cross-border trade, which supports thousands of livelihoods along the Thai–Cambodian frontier, has come to a halt. The tourism sector, recovering from years of pandemic-induced disruption, now faces renewed cancellations and travel advisories. At the geopolitical level, the crisis opens the door for external actors to play a greater role. China, which maintains strong bilateral ties with both governments, could step in to offer mediation. But such a role is unlikely to be viewed as neutral, particularly in Thailand, where concerns about Chinese influence have intensified in recent years. Meanwhile, Japan and the United States have both expressed concern, raising the prospect of a broader strategic entanglement if the situation worsens. For India, the clash is deeply troubling. As a key strategic partner of ASEAN and an advocate of its centrality in the Indo-Pacific, India has invested heavily in connectivity and trade across Southeast Asia. The India–Myanmar–Thailand Trilateral Highway, for example, hinges on border stability and regional coordination. If ASEAN is unable to fulfil its role as a security anchor, India's own regional engagement could be affected. Moreover, the dispute underscores the importance of effective multilateral institutions. India has always emphasised diplomacy and peaceful dispute resolution—principles that are now under strain in its extended neighbourhood. There is still a narrow window for de-escalation. A ceasefire agreement, ideally brokered through ASEAN's more capable members or with international support, must be prioritised. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation offers mechanisms such as the High Council for mediation—mechanisms that must be activated. If bilateral efforts fail, a neutral monitoring arrangement under UN or ASEAN auspices could help stabilise the situation. But long-term peace will require more than ceasefires. It will need renewed political will, institutional reform within ASEAN, and a return to diplomacy over spectacle. What is unfolding between Thailand and Cambodia today is more than a frontier skirmish. It is a test of Southeast Asia's ability to preserve peace without descending into hardened nationalism or external dependency. The bullets may have been exchanged along an ancient border, but the real battleground is the future of regional cooperation. ASEAN cannot afford to remain silent. And the region cannot afford another failure. 'This article is part of sponsored content programme.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Business Standard
9 to a room, none with a choice: Migrants in Dubai caught in housing purge
Lights flicker, doors hang off their hinges and holes in the walls expose pipes in the apartment building where Hesham, an Egyptian migrant worker, lives in Dubai, an emirate better known for its flashy skyscrapers and penthouses. His two-bedroom rental unit is carved up to house nine other men, and what he calls home is a modified closet just big enough for a mattress. But now the government has ordered the 44-year-old salesman out of even that cramped space, which costs him USD 270 a month. He's one of the many low-paid foreign labourers caught up in a widespread crackdown by authorities in Dubai over illegal subletting. That includes rooms lined with bunk beds that offer no privacy but are as cheap as a few dollars a night, as well as partitioned apartments like Hesham's, where plywood boards, drywall and plastic shower curtains can turn a flat into a makeshift dormitory for 10 or 20 people. After a blaze at a high-rise in June, Dubai officials launched the campaign over concerns that partitioned apartments represent a major fire risk. Some of those evicted have been left scrambling to stay off the streets, where begging is illegal. Others fear they could be next, uncertain when or where inspectors might show up. Now we don't know what we'll do, said Hesham, who's staying put until his landlord evicts him. Like others living in Dubai's cheapest and most crowded spaces, he spoke to The Associated Press on condition only his first name be used for fear of coming into the crosshairs of authorities enforcing the ban on illegal housing. We don't have any other choice," he said. Dubai Municipality, which oversees the city-state, declined an AP request for an interview. In a statement, it said authorities have conducted inspections across the emirate to curb fire and safety hazards an effort it said would ensure the highest standards of public safety and lead to enhanced quality of life for tenants. It didn't address where those unable to afford legal housing would live in a city-state that's synonymous with luxury yet outlaws labor unions and guarantees no minimum wage. Dubai boom boosts rents Dubai has seen a boom since the pandemic that shows no signs of stopping. Its population of 3.9 million is projected to grow to 5.8 million by 2040 as more people move into the commercial hub from abroad. Much of Dubai's real estate market caters to wealthy foreign professionals living there long-term. That leaves few affordable options for the majority of workers migrants on temporary, low-wage contracts, often earning just several hundred dollars a month. Nearly a fifth of homes in Dubai were worth more than $1 million as of last year, property firm Knight Frank said. Developers are racing to build more high-end housing. That continued growth has meant rising rents across the board. Short-term rentals are expected to cost 18% more by the end of this year compared to 2024, according to online rental company Colife. Most migrant workers the AP spoke to said they make just $300 to $550 a month. In lower-income areas, they said, a partitioned apartment space generally rents for $220 to $270 a month, while a single bunk in an undivided room costs half as much. Both can cost less if shared, or more depending on size and location. At any rate, they are far cheaper than the average one-bedroom rental, which real estate firm Engel & Vlkers said runs about $1,400 a month. The United Arab Emirates, like other Gulf Arab nations, relies on low-paid workers from Africa and Asia to build, clean, babysit and drive taxi cabs. Only Emirati nationals, who are outnumbered nearly 9 to 1 by residents from foreign countries, are eligible for an array of government benefits, including financial assistance for housing. Large employers, from construction firms and factories to hotels and resorts, are required by law to house workers if they are paid less than $400 a month, much of which they send home to families overseas. However, many migrants are employed informally, making their living arrangements hard to regulate, said Steffen Hertog, an expert on Gulf labor markets at the London School of Economics and Political Science. The crackdown will push up their housing costs, creating a lot of stress for people whose life situation is already precarious, he said. Hassan, a 24-year-old security guard from Uganda, shares a bed in a partitioned apartment with a friend. So far, the government hasn't discovered it, but he has reason to be nervous, he said. They can tell you to leave without an option, without anywhere to go. Fires remain a threat in Dubai Dubai has targeted overcrowded apartments in the past amid a spate of high-rise fires fueled by flammable siding material. The latest round of inspections came after a blaze in June at a 67-story tower in the Dubai Marina neighbourhood, where some apartments had been partitioned. More than 3,800 residents were forced to evacuate from the building, which had 532 occupied apartments, according to a police report. That means seven people on average lived in each of these units in the tower of one-, two- and three-bedroom flats. Dozens of homes were left uninhabitable. There were no major injuries in that fire. However, another in 2023 in Dubai's historic Deira neighborhood killed at least 16 people and injured another nine in a unit believed to have been partitioned. Ebony, a 28-year-old odd-job worker from Ghana, was recently forced to leave a partitioned apartment after the authorities found out about it. She lived in a narrow space with a roommate who slept above her on a jerry-built plywood loft bed. Sometimes to even stand up, she said, your head is going to hit the plywood. She's in a new apartment now, a single room that holds 14 others and sometimes more than 20 as people come and go, sharing beds. With her income of about $400 a month, she said she didn't have another option, and she's afraid of being forced out again. I don't know what they want us to do. Maybe they don't want the majority of people that are here in Dubai, Ebony said. AP
