Military action is to be taken with greatest caution
About 6am last Tuesday, I got a notification on my mobile phone—a message from a friend's son distraught by the Pahalgam attack. The message berated the government for not taking speedy retaliatory action and wanted me to build media pressure on the government into taking immediate action. I was shocked.
I have known this person since childhood. He was schooled at the best of institutions in India and holds an engineering degree. He landed a plum job with an MNC even before he completed his education, and today is part of the top corporate echelons.
Also Read |
Zero-day terror in Kashmir: National security needs an AI upgrade
I advised him to keep his cool and trust the government, and reminded him of 1971, when a similar war hysteria had built up in India. However, when Indira Gandhi, the then prime minister, summoned General Sam Manekshaw, the then army chief, and wanted the army to attack and liberate East Pakistan, the general flatly refused any immediate action.
The reason? Manekshaw, a brilliant strategist, knew that the monsoon was due in a few months and that during the rains, the fields in Bangladesh would turn into swamps, hindering movement of men and materiel. Attack at such a time would be suicidal. Manekshaw was ensuring the survival of his men.
After nine months of careful planning, coordination, and strategizing, Indian forces attacked East Pakistan and liberated Bangladesh. More than 90,000 troops surrendered, in the largest such exercise ever. On 16 December 1971, Bangladesh was liberated.
Also Read |
Kashmir simmers but Pakistan's game has no winners
Coming back to the present, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has authorized the Indian armed forces to take 'appropriate action". Strategic meetings have been held at 7, Lok Kalyan Marg, North Block, and South Block. Military actions have economic and diplomatic consequences. Ensuring quick victory with minimum casualties requires commitments from powerful allies for support to our cause or at least neutrality during any kinetic engagement.
This is the reason defence minister Rajnath Singh and foreign affairs minister S. Jaishankar are conducting hectic parleys with their counterparts in various countries, including the US. The actions are reminiscent of 1971. While Manekshaw and chiefs of navy and air force were preparing for war, Indira Gandhi was scouting for dependable diplomatic partners.
Also Read |
Beyond cartel claims: Fixing the broken media model
India struck a landmark deal with the USSR in the nick of time as an insurance against possible Western interference. During the war, when the US sixth fleet appeared in the Bay of Bengal, so did the USSR's submarines appearance validating India's diplomatic masterstroke.
The situation is equally treacherous today, if not more complicated amid Trump 2.0. Bereft of any ideology, geopolitics is far more transactional, with nations switching sides at the slightest hint of economic discomfort.
Unlike in 1971, both India and Pakistan are now nuclear powers. There's no USSR to support us. Russia is fighting Ukraine, limiting its ability to extend any help. China is ambiguous. Foreign minister Wang Yi's comments reveal Beijing's cautious posture: 'Conflict is not in the fundamental interests of either India or Pakistan." Also, the US is sending mixed signals. Consider J. D. Vance's statement, 'Our hope here is that India responds to this terrorist attack [in Pahalgam] in a way that doesn't lead to a broader regional conflict."
Unaware of the complexities limiting the government's options, people are babbling on social media ignoring Modi's track record of keeping his word, be it on surgical strikes or the Balakot airstrike. It's time to quietly stand with the government and not indulge in unnecessary rants. Some are using the situation to sow seeds of communalism. A few days ago, in Vrindavan, a group of people protested in front of the Banke Bihari temple, demanding boycott of Muslims involved in the service of the temple. The temple trust asserted unequivocally that they have been making lord Krishna's clothes for centuries.
On 29 April, the Jammu & Kashmir assembly unanimously condemned the terror attack and expressed their solidarity with the country. Their legislators think the end of terror in the Valley has begun. Ignoring such a show of solidarity, the hate mongers forget the nationwide condemnation of the terror attack from mosques around the country. This is the time to stand with the government and work towards social unity and not fan hatred.
Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan. Views are personal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Is Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump a teaser for his political ambitions? Rumors spiral as 'Muskians' weigh in
In an unexpected twist that's rippling through political and tech circles alike, Elon Musk and Donald Trump—once perceived as two towering allies of influence—are now locked in a public spat that's as volatile as their personalities. The feud , which has evolved from sharp remarks to veiled accusations, is fueling whispers of a deeper political pivot for the Tesla and SpaceX boss. Could this be Musk's unofficial campaign trailer for a future role in politics ? From Compliments to Cold Wars The dramatic fallout began when Trump, speaking alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, commented coolly on his past rapport with Musk: 'Elon and I had a great relationship… I don't know if we will anymore.' The remark came after Musk voiced criticism of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill (BBB)—a sweeping debt-cutting proposal. Trump quickly countered, accusing Musk of attacking the bill to safeguard Tesla's electric vehicle subsidies. Musk didn't hold back. In a stunning escalation, he suggested on social media that Trump may be implicated in the "Epstein files," sending speculation into overdrive. The insinuation lit up the internet, while Trump fired back with threats to strip Musk of his multi-billion-dollar government contracts, suggesting this would be a quick way to 'save billions' in the federal budget. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo Political Chess or Genuine Rift? As the drama unfolded, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie stepped in with a striking perspective. Massie dismissed the idea that Musk was ever driven by tax incentives, claiming the billionaire's involvement with political figures had cost him more than it gained. 'So many politicians get into politics for personal benefit,' Massie said while talking with Fox News . 'Elon's motivations go beyond that.' According to Radar Online, t his clash has left the Republican base visibly shaken. Trump loyalists are reeling, struggling to reconcile their admiration for both men. Some online users, affectionately dubbed "Muskians," appear to be navigating what commentators are calling the 'seven stages of political grief.' And with Musk increasingly weighing in on legislative matters and electoral dynamics, some believe he's testing the waters for a deeper dive into the political arena. You Might Also Like: Donald Trump vs Elon Musk feud sparks meme fest online: From WrestleMania edits to Simpsons spoofs A New Kind of Candidate? Massie's suggestion that Musk should engage more with primary elections than general contests is telling. Not all Republicans are cut from the same cloth, and Musk's vocal criticism of Trump-era policies—paired with his ever-growing influence—could position him as a disruptive force within the GOP, or even beyond it. Critics argue that Musk's interventions highlight a broader shift in conservative politics, where tech moguls and billionaire capitalists wield growing influence over party ideology and public discourse. But the tension also exposes a deeper fear: that Musk, with his staggering wealth, massive online following , and visionary allure, could reshape political engagement altogether—perhaps as a candidate, or at least as a kingmaker. — RepThomasMassie (@RepThomasMassie) From Boardroom to Ballot? For now, Musk hasn't made any formal moves toward a political office. But the ferocity of his feud with Trump, paired with his increasing interest in legislative decisions, is leaving many to wonder: is this more than a battle of egos? Is it a preview of a seismic shift in American political leadership? Whatever the truth may be, one thing is clear—the Musk-Trump rift is more than just personal. It's political, it's public, and it might just be the start of Elon Musk's most uncharted journey yet. You Might Also Like: Elon Musk's estranged daughter Vivian revels in his rift with US President Donald Trump: 'Love being right' You Might Also Like: Trump vs Elon Musk: Why are they fighting? Tesla CEO makes explosive claim about US President's Epstein files connection
India.com
25 minutes ago
- India.com
Why is Trump desperate for a trade deal with China? Know the SHOCKING reasons that brought US to its knees due to...
(File) China Rare Earth Elements: After assuming office for his second Presidential term in January this year, Donald Trump instigated a trade war with China by imposing exorbitant import tariffs on Chinese good. However, nearly six months later, the US President is desperately seeking a trade deal with Beijing to prevent key American industries from collapsing. Here's the reason why Trump made a U-turn on China, and is appeasing the Asian power to seek a China-US trade deal. Why US bent the knee to China? China dominates the global supply of rare earth elements, which are used by the US defense industry to manufacture advanced weapons and defense systems like radar systems, fighter jet engines, etc. According to a report by the South China Morning Post, China controls more than 90 percent of the world's processing and refining of rare earth elements, and also leads in other refining an extraction of other critical minerals like refined gallium, of which it controls 98.8 percent of global production. In recent years, Beijing has leveraged its dominance in critical mineral production and refining as a major negotiating point in trade wars, as well as targeting the defence industries of the US and its allies. The US defense industry is majorly dependent on China for rare earth minerals, but the supply has been nearly halted due to the ongoing US-China tariff war. China has imposed an export ban on rare earth elements to the US, effectively weaking the Pentagon's Pentagon's military preparations and weapons manufacturing capabilities. How China pressured the US into submission? In July 2023, Beijing imposed export controls requiring Chinese exporters to seek permission to ship eight gallium-related and six germanium-related products to other countries. In August last year, the list was expanded to include antimony, and in December, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce imposed export restrictions on gallium, germanium and antimony to the United States, as Beijing anticipated a trade war when Trump assumed office. In April this year, Beijing imposed export restrictions, mandating special export licenses for seven categories of medium and heavy rare earth elements (REEs) – samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium – as well as magnets and other finished products containing these REEs to be shipped out of China. China's sweeping restrictions on REEs brought defense manufacturing to a halt in US and its allied countries, as supplies of rare earth minerals required for weapons' manufacturing rapidly thinned out. Why US requires large quantities of REEs? The United States is world's largest arms manufacturer and its defense sector requires a gargantuan amount of rare earth minerals to manufacture advanced modern weaponry such as precision-guided missiles, stealth fighter jets, naval warships, submarines and advanced radar systems. According to various reports, the US-made F-35 stealth fighter incorporates over 400 kg (900 lbs) of REEs in each unit for its jet engines, avionics, munitions and radar systems. The F-47, US' Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter jet, is expected to contain even larger amounts of critical minerals, due to cutting-edge features like unmanned flight, artificial intelligence integration, and next-gen stealth capabilities. Similarly, US navy warships and submarines require giant quantities of REEs, with Virginia-class submarines requiring 4,200 kilograms and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers needing 2,360 kilograms of REEs for their radars, munitions and other technologies. US Predator drones, Tomahawk missiles, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) smart bombs, and advanced radar systems all rely on rare earth elements for propulsion, targeting, and guidance. According to experts, more than 80 percent of the Pentagon's weapon system supply chains contain antimony, gallium, or germanium. Does US have REE resources? While the US does have rare earth resources, those pale in comparison to China's gigantic hold on global refining and processing of REEs. The US accounts for around 15 percent of global production of REEs, but its not enough to meet the rare earth needs of US industries, especially the defense sector. Since 2020, the Pentagon has invested $439 million to build domestic supply chains in critical minerals, and a $35 million contract was awarded to MP Materials in 2022 for a heavy rare earth processing facility. However, its supply chain is still miniscule compared to China, and thus needs to import a major chunk of REEs from Beijing. In 2024, MP Materials announced a record production of 1,300 tons of neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr) oxide for producing neodymium magnets, while China produced an estimated 300,000 tons of NdFeB magnets in the same year. China's antimony dominance Additionally, the US does not have any mining facilities for gallium, while China reportedly produced 750 of the 760 tons of primary low-purity gallium produced worldwide in 2024 and is known to have production capacity of up to 1,000 tons. China also holds about 48 percent of the world's mined antimony, controls 98.8 percent of refined gallium production, and is responsible for 59.2 percent of refined germanium production. All these critical minerals are used in the manufacturing of advanced weapons, ranging from armor-piercing bullets, night vision goggles and cables, to nuclear weapons and naval warships.
NDTV
29 minutes ago
- NDTV
'Harvard Is Starting To Behave': Donald Trump On Student Visa Row
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. Education Secretary Linda McMahon noted progress in universities addressing Trump's demands for transparency on international students. She emphasised the need for vetting to combat antisemitism and advocated for merit-based admissions over DEI programs. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said that she is seeing "progress" from institutions regarding the Trump administration's demands. Trump in an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had said that, 'We want to have foreign students come. We're very honoured by it, but we want to see their list." She echoed the same sentiments. 'Harvard didn't want to give us the list. They're going to be giving us the list now. I think they're starting to behave, actually, if you want to know the truth,' the president added. In May, the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard University, stating that if Harvard wants the opportunity of regaining Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification before the upcoming academic school year back, they should provide the "information required" within "72 hours". The information included the list of students who had participated in pro-Palestine protests. McMahon defended the attacks on universities such as Harvard and Columbia and said, 'I have seen progress. And you know why I think we're seeing progress? Because we are putting these measures in place, and we're saying we're putting teeth behind what we're looking at,' in an interview to NBC News. She added that there still is a long way to go to eradicate antisemitism on campus and vet international students. 'It's very important that we are making sure that the students who are coming in and being on these campuses aren't activists, that they're not causing these activities,' McMahon said. The Education Secretary said that students who come on campus should not be afraid to be there and should not feel unsafe. 'I'm really happy to see what Harvard did, but I wonder if maybe they didn't get a little spur from our action, because they talk a lot about it, but I think we really started to see a lot of their actions once we were taking action,' she acknowledged. She gave Trump the credit for pushing the universities to take steps to combat antisemitism on campus. This comes after Trump signed a proclamation that aims to deny foreign students from studying at Harvard. In May, a federal judge had blocked Trump's ability to enrol foreign students. Answering if international students will have to leave Harvard, if already enrolled, she said, 'Well, that's actually more up to the State Department than it is to Department of Education", and added, "we have to do more careful vetting.' Amid accusations on Harvard and Columbia of fomenting antisemitism, Trump had cancelled $2 billion in grants to Harvard and $400 million in grants to Columbia. McMahon added that there was an imbalance in diversity on Campus because, 'only 3% of [Harvard's] faculty were conservatives.' 'Do you think that's a diversity of viewpoint on campus? Because those — you can't possibly believe that,' she added. 'And I do think that that's one of the things that Harvard and Columbia and other universities are taking a serious look at, is, what is that balance?' She said that Harvard and other universities "need to do a better job" in that. McMahon also defended Trump's efforts to eliminate DEI programs on college campuses and said that she favoured merit-based admissions instead. 'What we found when we admit students through merit and meritocracy and, and their studies, that diversity comes on campuses by itself,' McMahon said. 'You don't need to have a particular program that says we have to have diversity, equity, inclusion.'
