Iran-Israel conflict: Jaishankar speaks to Iranian counterpart; thanks him for facilitating evacuation of Indians
NEW DELHI: External affairs minister
S Jaishankar
on Friday spoke to his Iranian counterpart Seyed Abbas Araghci and thanked him for facilitating safe evacuation of Indian nationals during the conflict between Israel and the Shiite state.
In a social media post on X, Jaishankar said that Araghchi shared perspective and thinking about the heightened tensions between Iran and Israel.
"Spoke to FM Araghchi of Iran this afternoon. Appreciate his sharing Iran's perspective and thinking in the current complex situation," Jaishankar said.
"Thanked him for facilitating the safe evacuation of Indian nationals," he added.
Earlier on Thursday, ministry of external affairs said that India evacuated more than 4,400 Indian nationals from Iran and Israel so far in 19 special flights under Operation Sindhu launched on June 18 to bring home its citizens amid the ongoing conflict between the two countries
"A fresh batch of 173 Indians evacuated from Iran reached Delhi late Thursday night in a flight from Armenian capital Yerevan", MEA said in a post on X.
MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, in response to queries on Operation Sindhu, said New Delhi was assessing the situation on the ground and a decision on the future course of action would be taken based on it.
Over 3,400 Indian nationals have been evacuated so far in 14 flights from Iran since the start of Operation Sindhu, according to data shared by him during the briefing.
Jaiswal later shared updated evacuee figures in the post on X after the arrival of the flight from Yeravan.
"A special evacuation flight from Yerevan, Armenia landed in New Delhi at 22:30 hrs on 26th June, bringing home 173 Indian nationals from Iran," he wrote.
"As part of #OperationSindhu, a total of 4415 Indian nationals (3597 from Iran and 818 from Israel) have been evacuated so far using 19 special evacuation flights including 3 IAF aircraft. 14 OCI card-holders, 9 Nepali nationals, 4 Sri Lankan nationals and 1 Iranian spouse of an Indian national were also evacuated from Iran," he added.
Israel and Iran fired hundreds of missiles and drones at each other's cities and military and strategic facilities since the hostilities began more than a week ago.
The tensions escalated significantly following the US bombing of three major Iranian nuclear sites on the morning of June 22.
India has evacuated its nationals on chartered flights operated from the Iranian city of Mashhad, the Armenian capital of Yerevan and the Turkmenistan capital of Ashgabat since June 18.
Iran lifted airspace restrictions on June 20 to facilitate three chartered flights from Mashhad.
The first flight landed in New Delhi late on June 20 with 290 Indians, and the second one landed in the national capital on June 21 afternoon with 310 Indians.
Another flight arrived from the Armenian capital city of Yerevan on June 19 and a special evacuation flight from Ashgabat landed in New Delhi early on June 21.
India on June 23 had evacuated 290 Indian nationals and a Sri Lankan citizen from Iran following the US bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How the US helped oust Iran's government in 1953 and reinstate the Shah
When US missiles struck Iran's key nuclear facilities on June 22, history seemed to repeat itself. Seventy-two years ago, a covert CIA operation toppled Iran's democratically elected government. Now, as American rhetoric drifts once more toward regime change, the ghosts of 1953 are stirring again. The coordinated US air and missile strike, codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer, targeted three of Iran's principal nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center. The attack immediately reignited fears of a broader war in the Middle East. In the hours that followed, US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term 'Regime Change. But if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Though officials in Washington, including Vice President JD Vance, rushed to clarify that regime change was not formal policy, many in Iran heard echoes from 1953, when the US and UK orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. After being appointed as the prime minister of Iran in 1951, Mossadegh moved to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, then controlled by the British, who had long funneled Iranian oil profits to London. 'He ended a long period of British hegemony in Iran… and set the stage for several decades of rapid economic growth fueled by oil revenues,' wrote Mark Gasiorowski, a historian at Tulane University, in an essay for the volume The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies (2018). 'He also tried to democratise Iran's political system by reducing the powers of the shah and the traditional upper class.' Mossadegh argued that Iran, like any sovereign state, deserved control over its resources. Appearing before the International Court of Justice in 1952, he laid out Iran's case: 'The decision to nationalise the oil industry is the result of the political will of an independent and free nation,' he said. 'For us Iranians, the uneasiness of stopping any kind of action which is seen as interference in our national affairs is more intense than for other nations.' Britain saw the nationalisation as both a strategic and economic threat. It imposed a blockade and led a global oil boycott, while pressuring Washington to intervene. The British adopted a three-track strategy: a failed negotiation effort, a global boycott of Iranian oil and covert efforts to undermine and overthrow Mossadegh, writes Gasiorowski . British intelligence operatives had built ties with 'politicians, businessmen, military officers and clerical leaders' in anticipation of a coup. Initially, the Truman administration resisted intervention. But President Dwight D Eisenhower's election ushered in a more aggressive Cold War posture. 'Under the Truman administration, these boundaries [of acceptable Iranian politics] were drawn rather broadly,' Gasiorowski wrote. 'But when Eisenhower entered office, the more stridently anti-Communist views of his foreign policy advisers led the US to drop its support for Mossadegh and take steps to overthrow him.' Fear of communism's spread, particularly via Iran's Tudeh Party, believed to be the first organised Communist party in the Middle East. 'Although they did not regard Mossadegh as a Communist,' Gasiorowski wrote, 'they believed conditions in Iran would probably continue to deteriorate… strengthening the Tudeh Party and perhaps enabling it to seize power.' While Britain lobbied for a coup, Mossadegh appealed directly to Eisenhower. Eisenhower, in a letter in June 1953, offered sympathy but warned that aid was unlikely so long as Iran withheld oil: 'There is a strong feeling… that it would not be fair to the American taxpayers for the United States Government to extend any considerable amount of economic aid to Iran so long as Iran could have access to funds derived from the sale of its oil.' Mossadegh's response was blunt. He accused Britain of sabotaging Iran's economy through 'propaganda and diplomacy,' and warned that inaction could carry lasting consequences: 'If prompt and effective aid is not given to this country now, any steps that might be taken tomorrow… might well be too late,' he wrote. Weeks later, in August 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 launched a covert operation to oust Mossadegh and restore the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to power. 'A decision was made to develop and carry out a plan to overthrow Mussadiq and install Zahedi as prime minister,' Gasiorowski wrote. 'The operation was to be led by Kermit Roosevelt, who headed the CIA's Middle East operations division.' The mission, code-named Operation Ajax, used anti-Mossadegh propaganda, bribes, and orchestrated street unrest. After an initial failure and the Shah's brief exile, loyalist military units staged a successful coup on August 19. Mossadegh was arrested, tried, and placed under house arrest until his death in 1967. In 2013, the CIA officially acknowledged its role, releasing declassified documents that described the coup as 'an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.' In Iran, schoolchildren learn about the 1953 coup in classrooms. State media airs annual retrospectives on Mossadegh's downfall. His name recurs in graffiti, political speeches, and university lectures. In his book The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations, the historian Ervand Abrahamian called the operation 'a defining fault line not only for Iranian history but also in the country's relations with both Britain and the United States.' It 'carved in public memory a clear dividing line — 'before' and 'after' — that still shapes the country's political culture,' he wrote. While Cold War defenders portrayed the coup as a check on communism, Abrahamian sees oil and empire as the true motivators. 'The main concern was not so much about communism as about the dangerous repercussions that oil nationalisation could have throughout the world,' he argues. Following the coup, the Shah ruled with increasing autocracy, supported by the US and bolstered by SAVAK (Sazeman-e Ettela'at va Amniyat-e Keshvar), a secret police trained by the CIA. Decades of repression, inequality, and corruption gave way to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which toppled the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic. 'The strategic considerations that led US policymakers to undertake the 1953 coup helped set in motion a chain of events that later destroyed the Shah's regime and created severe problems for US interests,' wrote Gasiorowski. On November 4, 1979, the US Embassy in Tehran was seized. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. Revolutionaries repeatedly cited 1953 as the origin of their mistrust. Though Washington denied involvement for decades, few Iranians ever doubted the CIA's role in Mossadegh's fall. 'The coup revealed how the United States began almost instinctively to follow in the footsteps of British imperialism,' write David W Lesch and Mark L Haas editors of The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies . 'Demonstrating a preference for the status quo rather than the forces of change.' Even President Barack Obama, in a 2009 speech in Cairo, acknowledged the long shadow of 1953, noting that the coup had created 'years of mistrust.' No US president has ever issued a formal apology. Dr Omair Anas, director of research at the Centre for Studies of Plural Societies, a non-profit, non-partisan, independent institution dedicated to democratising knowledge, sees the 1953 events as not just a turning point but a template for today's impasse. 'The 1953 coup was staged in the backdrop of the Cold War which resulted in Iran's inclusion into the CENTO alliance along with Pakistan and Turkiye,' he said. He is sharply critical of current regime change rhetoric, describing it as detached from Iran's internal political conditions. 'The most important player is Iran's domestic politics,' he said. 'At this stage, it is not willing and prepared for a regime change.' Anas points out that the government has already absorbed considerable dissent: 'Previous anti-hijab protests have already accommodated many anti-regime voices and sentiments.' But absorbing discontent, he suggests, is not the same as welcoming systemic change. 'Any regime change at this stage would immediately lead the country to chaos and possible civil war, as the new regime won't be able to de-Islamise the state in the near future.' Trump's rhetoric, therefore, landed with particular resonance. While senior officials have attempted to distance the administration from talk of regime change, many in Iran and beyond see a familiar playbook: pressure, provocation, and the threat of externally imposed political outcomes. Dr Anas contends that many of the so-called alternatives to the Islamic Republic are politically inert. 'Anti-regime forces since 1979 have lost much ground and haven't been able to stage a major threat to the revolution,' he said. 'The West is fully aware that the Pahlavi dynasty or the Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK) have the least popularity and organisational presence to replace the Khamenei-led regime of Islamic revolution.' As he sees it, the system's survival is not merely a matter of repression but of strategic logic. 'Khamenei can only be replaced by someone like him,' he said. 'The continuity of the Islamic revolution of Iran remains more preferable than any other disruptive replacement.' He also warns that a forced collapse of the current order could have serious regional implications. 'In the case of violent suppression of Islamist forces, the new Iranian state might seek the revival of the Cold War collaboration with Pakistan and Turkiye and a strong push against Russia.' For India, a country that has generally maintained a policy of non-intervention, such a development could be deeply destabilising. 'Any abrupt change would complicate India's West Asia and South Asia strategic calculus,' he said, 'and more fundamentally India's Pakistan strategy.' Dr Anas also sees Western credibility as severely eroded across the region. 'The West has left no credibility whatsoever about human rights, freedom, and democracy after the Israeli-Gaza war,' he said. 'The Middle Eastern public opinion, including that of Kurds, Druze and Afghans, have lost hope in Western promises. They prefer any autocratic regime to West-backed regimes.' India, he said, risks being caught flat-footed if political transitions come suddenly. 'India generally stays away from the normative politics of the Middle East,' he said. 'While this shows India's principled stand on no intervention in internal politics, it also puts India in a weak position once the regime changes, as happened in Syria.' His recommendation? 'India needs to engage more actively with West Asian civil society to have more balanced relations beyond states.' Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
United News of India
24 minutes ago
- United News of India
Cong glorified its Jail Yatras, real revolutionaries went to Kala Pani: Jitendra
Jammu, June 27 (UNI) Union Minister Dr Jitendra Singh on Friday said that Congress glorified its Jail Yatras while real revolutionaries went to Kala Pani. Addressing a press conference here to mark 50 years since the declaration of Emergency in 1975, describing it as the darkest blot on Indian democracy, Dr Singh exposed what he called the decades-old DNA of Congress marked by nepotism, authoritarianism, and suppression of democratic values, warning that while Emergency may have formally ended, its mindset still persists in some political quarters. Dr. Singh underlined that the seeds of authoritarian tendencies were sown long before 1975. 'Before the nation began voting for Narendra Modi, this psyche of entitlement had already taken root,' he said. Referring to the Congress Presidential elections of 1946, he recalled how 12 out of 15 Pradesh Congress Committees voted for Sardar Patel, but Jawaharlal Nehru was imposed as Prime Minister under Gandhiji's pressure, despite Patel's overwhelming mandate. 'This was the first betrayal of democracy — when the popular choice was overruled for dynastic favoritism,' Dr. Singh said, quoting Dr. Rajendra Prasad who had remarked, 'Gandhi has once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant in favor of glamour.' Dr. Singh called out the Congress leadership's glorification of jail-time, pointing out that most leaders were imprisoned post-1933, under far more comfortable conditions than revolutionaries like Veer Savarkar and Comrade Dhanwantri, who endured Kala Pani. 'Had Discovery of India been written before 1933, it would have been from a colonial dungeon, not a jail library,' he quipped. Dr Singh chronicled how Indira Gandhi was installed as Prime Minister in 1966 by K. Kamaraj under the assumption she would be a puppet. But within three years, she split the Congress, disrespected internal democracy, and laid the groundwork for authoritarianism. 'Her lust for control created Sanjay Gandhi's extra-constitutional power center, where real power was usurped from democratic institutions,' he said. Referring to PN Haksar who was a Kashmiri Pandit, her own Principal Secretary, Dr. Singh quoted, 'She is blind where that boy (Sanjay) is concerned,' pointing to her compromised judgment in the face of dynastic emotion. Recalling the historic student movements of 1974, Dr. Singh described how the youth of Gujarat and Bihar sparked a revolution against Indira's misrule, culminating in the Allahabad High Court's 1975 judgment that found her guilty of electoral malpractices. 'Instead of stepping down, she imposed Emergency, arrested dissenters, censored the press, and suspended civil liberties,' he said. Dr Singh lambasted the infamous 42nd Constitutional Amendment, branding it the most 'notorious assault' on India's democratic spirit. "They extended the life of Parliament from 5 to 6 years, introduced the terms secular and socialist opportunistically, and muffled every voice of dissent,' he thundered. Highlighting how this abuse extended even to Jammu and Kashmir, he said, 'The Emergency allowed Congress to misuse Article 370 to extend the J&K Assembly term to six years. The reversal came only in 2019, under the leadership of PM Modi.' Dr. Singh further said, 'Like Raj Kapoor's famous line in film 'Awara' — 'You are punishing me, but the gutter I came from still exists' — the Congress mindset of suppressing truth, glorifying dynasty, and throttling democracy still haunts us.' He warned against whitewashing the past, saying, 'We must remember every stain — not to glorify it, but to remind future generations who betrayed democracy. If we erase the memory of Emergency, we risk inviting its shadows again.' In conclusion, Dr. Jitendra Singh gave a clarion call 'If we want India's democratic journey to continue uninterrupted, we must constantly guard against those who disguise dictatorship in the garb of legacy. The Emergency may be history, but the mindset behind it is a threat that must be defeated — intellectually, politically, and democratically.' UNI VBH GNK 2010
The Wire
24 minutes ago
- The Wire
Remembering Jim Masselos, the Australian Scholar of Bombay's Social History
James Cosmas Masselos (1940-2025) studied and wrote about Bombay/Mumbai for six decades. He was a pioneer in the study of the history of urban South Asia, held in great esteem and affection by generations of scholars who regard his work as foundational to their own. Jim was at the tail end of a generation of Australians who made a global impact on London in the 1960s such as Germaine Greer, Robert Hughes and Barry Humphries. However, after graduating from the University of Sydney, Jim headed not to London but instead made the journey by sea to Bombay (as it was) on a studentship funded by the Indian government under the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan. Supervised by Professor William Coelho at the Heras Institute of Indian History and Culture, St Xavier's College, Jim submitted his doctoral thesis to the University of Bombay in 1964. This was a study of the origins of nationalist associations in late 19th century Bombay and Poona. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Jim wrote a series of essays which laid the foundations for a new kind of urban social history. He explored how 19th-century Bombay was made from below by a range of social actors. These writings traversed a range of themes: the world of the urban mohalla, crowds and popular culture, and the changing rhythms of everyday life in the city. In the 1980s, Jim began his work on Congress' efforts at popular mobilisation in inter-war Bombay, then in the early 1990s, he looked at how other visions of the political that threatened to undercut its secular fabric. Thus, shortly after the 1992-93 riots in Mumbai, he published an essay that examined the first Hindu-Muslim riots in the city a century earlier. Professor Prashant Kidambi quotes an essay of Jim's from 1992: 'Bombay was always an Indian city; even in the days of the Raj Bombay was never merely a white enclave surrounded by an Asiatic universe.' It was a view that stood in stark contrast to prevailing notions of the so-called 'colonial city', which regarded it as a largely European construct in whose fashioning Indians had little or no role. Jim drew on empirical and archival material using strong analytical frameworks. He underlined the shaping of Bombay by the dynamic between the formally 'defined city' and the informally inhabited 'effective city'. Again Kidambi quotes Jim: 'The city defies the intentions of its masters to impose an orderly planned pattern upon it. The contrast between the habitation wishes of its population and the plans of those who formally control the shape of the city remains a constant tension in the structure of the relationships which create the urban complex.' Kidambi notes four major themes in Jim's work: 'First, he has documented the ways in which urban communities, far from being manifestations of primordial cultural identities, were historically reconstituted in the modern city. Second, he has shown a remarkably keen and prescient awareness of the centrality of space in the making and unmaking of these communities. Third, he has highlighted how diverse forms of power, operating at different scales, have structured social relations in the city. And finally, he has also been concerned with how one form of power, that expressed in the discursive practices of nationalism, sought to acquire and exercise hegemony in the city.' Bombay before Mumbai: Essays in Honour of Jim Masselos, edited by Prashant Kidambi, Manjiri Kamat, and Rachel Dwyer. Using these four divisions, Kidambi structured the book of papers that was co-edited by him, Professor Manjiri Kamat of Mumbai University and myself that were published in the UK (Hurst Publishers), India (Penguin) and the USA (Oxford University Press) as Bombay before Mumbai: Essays in Honour of Jim Masselos (2019). These drew from presentations made at a conference held in his honour at the Department of History, University of Mumbai, in 2017. Many urban historians and colleagues remembered him when he passed away. Manjari Kamat wrote to me and said: 'Jim Masselos, an alumnus of University of Mumbai and former Honorary Reader in History at the University of Sydney can be seen as a pioneer among the urban historians of Bombay." "His later writings, particularly his seminal article, The Power in the Bombay Moholla which appeared in the journal, South Asia in 1976 and the articles he published thereafter on crowd events in the city during the nationalist movement inspired historians to shift their attention to neighbourhood networks and popular movements to understand India's urban modernity and the unfolding of the nationalist movement in Bombay. "It was Jim's constant endeavour to connect the present to the past as in the case of his article on the1993 riots juxtaposed with a study of the riots of 1893 that set him apart and reflected his deep engagement with the changes and continuities in his beloved city of Bombay.' Jim's colleague in the University of Sydney, professor Robert Aldrich said: 'Jim was a much loved teacher of courses in Indian history, Southeast Asian history and other fields, his classes always enriched by his sojourns in Asia and his deep appreciation of Asian art, film and culture in general. Jim shared his passion for history and for South Asia. Just last year, a colleague told me how he had just met and chatted with a group of undergraduates whom she was taking to Mumbai for a summer course – and how excited the students were to see one of Jim's books on a display table in a bookshop when they were there. Jim was immensely kind and generous with his students, many of whom became lifelong friends (and some them distinguished scholars in their own right), and they have now been remembering him with great fondness and sadness at his passing.' There is a consensus about Jim that he was not only a fine scholar but a great friend, a supportive mentor, a generous sharer of his time. My husband and I were lucky to get to know Jim over many years, first meeting during the riots in Bombay of December 1992. My husband was unwell, so Jim and I went to wonderful parties hosted by journalists and writers. He introduced me to many film makers including Shyam Benegal and Mani Kaul. I remember walking back from a party on Malabar Hill along Marine Drive talking and laughing uproariously. I kept wondering why my new acquaintances kept saying Michael (now well) looked much younger and better. It was only when he was asked why he'd shaved off his beard I realised they meant Jim which led to much more laughter and wondering if Greek Australians and British Irishmen looked the same. I was a doctoral student when I met Jim and he set me the example of never talking down to people. He talked to everyone with respect and kindness. He had three sisters of whom he was very fond and he occasionally talked about growing up in Sydney of Greek heritage. He used to get me to try to say 'Dimitri' (his Greek name) correctly and laughed at my hopelessly romantic Hellenophilia. Jim certainly had the famous Greek xenophilia – love of foreign people and cultures, the opposite of xenophobia. He had many friends in India from royalty to the ordinary person. He wasn't interested in money or status at all and was happy to tramp around the streets although allowing himself more comfort in retirement. Jim was also extraordinarily hospitable at home, throwing parties and dinners for us, making our way to his kitchen through the books and papers that had spread from his study and were taking over his whole house. He always took time out when we visited to show us around Sydney, his other favourite city. Jim often worked with Jackie Menzies, the Head of the Asian Art at the Art Gallery Gallery of New South Wales, holding conferences there and leaving them most of his enormous collection of Indian artefacts. He was an immensely cultured man and loved art and cinema (though I never persuaded him to like 'Bollywood'). The four of us met several times in Australia and in London and ate at restaurants and drank good wine, creating lifelong memories. One time Jim, Michael and I went to a very fancy restaurant – then the most famous – in Sydney where Jim was allowed to bring some special bottles from his cellar. The waves at Bondi Beach were much louder than usual the next day. Jim had not been in good health for a while and was very ill over the last few months. I had hoped that I would get to see him one last time but it wasn't to be. Perhaps it's best to remember him as he was with his jhola and his cigarette, always smiling and full of great conversation. Eonia i mnimi – eternal memory.
