Rahul Gandhi: Odisha Govt Run By Billionaires, 40,000 Missing Women Still Unaccounted
National Security Advisor Ajit Doval dropped a truth bomb during his address at IIT Madras, calling out Western media's distorted coverage of Operation Sindoor. Doval proudly revealed that the precision strike executed by Indian forces hit 9 terrorist targets deep inside Pakistan in just 23 minutes, with zero collateral damage on the Indian side. In a scathing rebuke to the New York Times and others, Doval challenged them to present even a single image showing damage in India. 'Not even a glass pane was broken,' he said. He pointed to before-and-after satellite imagery of 13 Pakistani airbases including Sargodha, Chaklala, and Rahim Yar Khan. 'Only damage was on their side, and it was surgical,' he asserted. Highlighting the indigenous capability of the mission, Doval said India's confidence stems from its homegrown technology and precision intelligence. This wasn't border skirmish. It was deep, calculated, and decisive.#operationsindoor #ajitdoval #iitspeech #newyorktimes #pakistanairbase #indianstrike #foreignmediaexposed #surgicalstrike #indiandefence #makeinindia #toi #toibharat #bharat #trending #breakingnews #indianews
31.6K views | 3 hours ago
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
3 minutes ago
- Hans India
Karnataka Deputy CM DK Shivakumar Highlights Unwavering Congress Commitment, Takes Veiled Swipe At Siddaramaiah
Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar has emphasized his unwavering commitment to the Congress party, marking 37 years of dedicated service while subtly drawing attention to the contrasting political journey of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who transitioned from the Janata Dal (Secular) to Congress. At 63 years old, Shivakumar highlighted his deep-rooted connection with the party, stating that he has matured alongside the Congress organization. His comments appear strategically timed amid ongoing speculation about potential power-sharing arrangements within the Karnataka government, subtly positioning himself as the more loyal party member compared to Siddaramaiah, who joined Congress in 2006 after his tenure with the Janata Parivar. The Deputy Chief Minister reflected on his political career, which spans eight consecutive terms in the state assembly, emphasizing that his allegiance has remained constant from his early political days. He stressed the importance of maintaining organizational roots, suggesting that abandoning one's foundational connections leads to fruitless outcomes. This philosophy appears to underscore his criticism of leaders who have switched political affiliations during their careers. Shivakumar credited his appointment as Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee chief to the trust placed in him by former Congress president Sonia Gandhi. He described his three-year tenure in this role as a period of complete dedication toward dismantling the BJP's governance in Karnataka, which he referred to as the "double engine" government. His efforts, he claimed, were instrumental in restoring Congress power in the state. The Deputy Chief Minister portrayed his contribution to the party's electoral victory as wholehearted, suggesting that his personal investment was crucial to bringing the current government to power. This assertion reinforces his claim to a significant role in Karnataka's political landscape and potentially strengthens any argument for greater responsibility or recognition within the state leadership structure. In addressing ongoing discussions about potential leadership changes, Shivakumar praised Sonia Gandhi's 2004 decision to decline the Prime Minister's position, describing it as an extraordinary political sacrifice that remains unparalleled in Indian politics. Without directly naming individuals, he observed that while some leaders are willing to share power, many others refuse to do so, even at the grassroots panchayat level. These remarks come at a crucial time when questions about a possible rotation of the chief ministerial position in Karnataka continue to generate political speculation. The comments suggest underlying tensions about power distribution within the state government and highlight the complex dynamics between the two senior Congress leaders in Karnataka. Shivakumar's emphasis on organizational loyalty and his implicit contrast with Siddaramaiah's political history appears to be a strategic positioning move. By highlighting his continuous association with Congress since his political inception, he distinguishes himself from colleagues who have changed party affiliations, potentially strengthening his claim to leadership positions within the state hierarchy. The Deputy Chief Minister's statements reflect broader themes of political loyalty, organizational commitment, and the significance of maintaining consistent party allegiance throughout one's career. His comments also underscore the ongoing internal dynamics within the Karnataka Congress unit, where questions of leadership succession and power-sharing arrangements continue to influence political discourse. As speculation about potential changes in Karnataka's leadership structure persists, Shivakumar's public assertions of loyalty and dedication serve to reinforce his position as a committed party member who has consistently supported Congress interests throughout his extensive political career. His subtle critique of party-switching behavior appears designed to highlight the value of unwavering organizational commitment in contemporary Indian politics.
Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What India can learn from the maritime prowess of the Cholas
By N Manoharan and Diya Parthasarathy In his recent public address at Gangaikonda Cholapuram, Tamil Nadu, Prime Minister Modi pointed out the legacy of the Cholas in various arenas, especially in the maritime domain. But one wonders what the larger context of the Cholas' maritime ventures was, and how relevant it is today. Understanding the Cholas' maritime ventures is necessary to realise India's maritime tradition. Acknowledging this, a decade back, the Centre released a stamp to commemorate the contribution of Cholas in laying 'a strong foundation for promotion of trade, commerce and cultural exchanges which brought fabulous economic prosperity and expansion of Indian culture and heritage across the Indian Ocean to the land of South East Asia.' The Indian Navy undertook the 'Chola Expedition' in 2008 to replicate the 'invasion' of Srivijaya kingdom (Sumatra, Southeast Asia) by Rajendra Chola I in 1017 CE. By comprehending maritime ventures during the Chola period, it is possible to understand the present Chinese ventures in the Indian Ocean under the garb of the Belt and Road Initiative. The Chinese indeed had trade connections, but not in the present form of economically tethering countries along the Maritime Silk Route. There were two main interlinked drivers for the Cholas' maritime projection: Mercantilism and military expansion. At the turn of the first millennium, the trade patterns witnessed a transformation from pre-emporia to emporia. Pre-emporia trade denoted shipping of goods directly from the source of production to the place of consumption. Whereas, the emporia trade pattern meant that several intermediate ports catered to the breaking up of bulk goods for retail sales and purchases. Coinciding with such a change in trade pattern was the rise of 'corporate empires' like the Cholas, the Srivijaya Empire, the Khmer Kingdom of Cambodia, Champa in Vietnam, and the Song Dynasty in China. Varieties of goods were traded among the ports of these regions that included metals, spices, perfumes, cosmetics, precious stones, textiles, and even animals like elephants and horses. Significantly, customs levied on these goods that transited through seas constituted a chunk of the coffers of corporate empires. Though such a financial network gave a kind of order in these 'corporate' empires, it also led to disputes among those empires that tried to arm-twist the transiting trading crafts to serve their economic and political interests. The dispute started when the Srivijayans became avaricious and imposed a high levy for the passage of goods carriers through Southeast Asia. The Cholas did not take it kindly and wanted to get away from the 'Malacca dilemma' posed by the Southeast Asian kingdom. The Srivijaya rulers were also trying to control the land crossing across Kra Isthmus. Rajendra Chola went on to occupy Malaysia to control the Malacca Straits and also acquired Java and Sumatra by defeating Sailendra rulers during his Digvijaya. As China emerged as a leading trading point and market, securing sea lanes of communication became imperative. The Chinese considered the Cholas ('Chulian' by the Chinese) as a 'first-class' trade partner. Chola kings wanted to send a clear message to the Chinese that they would not hesitate to use military options against the obstructing elements (both state and non-state) to ensure the free flow of goods. This 'choke point syndrome' pervades even today, although the Chinese are more worried now than the Indians were then. To achieve the above two objectives, the Cholas depended on a strong and well-organised navy that was built over a period of time. Kings used to get a good deal of their income from trade and could thus afford to maintain a large and powerful navy without exhausting their land revenue base. The Chola Navy consisted of an armada of ships that were constructed and used for trade purposes. According to historical records, the Chola armada comprised destroyers, frigates and battleships. Apart, they used colandia, large expeditionary vessels, and sangara, large oceangoing single log vessels, to transport troops and logistics. These ships had the capability and experience to travel long distances. Kattumarams were small boats of wood tied together to float in shallow waters and to move goods from large ships to shore, and also to make amphibious attacks. The Chola Navy also included a strong intelligence wing to track intrusion of foreign naval forces. The Chola seafarers mostly used winds, heavenly bodies and currents to sail across seas. The kings were said to have encouraged the study of astronomy, geography and cartography as part of their maritime expeditions. A specialised study on the science of shipping and ship-building was patronised and pursued. Apart from commercial and trade interests, there were larger politico-strategic and cultural drivers behind the maritime ventures of the Cholas. They had to prove their might both in peninsular India and in the maritime neighbourhood. They had to protect trade routes and traders of Tamilagam. It was, in fact, a matter of survival and pride. Also, as Saivites, they considered it their religious duty to carry Saivism beyond Indian shores. Such drivers are true in the present context as well. It is intriguing to note why the Cholas did not pay attention to West Asia and Africa as much as they focused on South and Southeast Asia. One wonders whether it was because of the quantum of direction of trade that was flowing mostly from the west to the east, or did the Cholas consider Africa and West Asia beyond their reach? This aspect needs a fresh enquiry. Manoharan is Director, and Diya is a Researcher at the Centre for East Asian Studies, Christ University, Bangalore
Hans India
3 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court Questions Rahul Gandhi's Patriotism Over China Territory Claims, Stays Defamation Case
The Supreme Court delivered sharp criticism to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Monday regarding his assertions that China had seized over 2,000 square kilometers of Indian territory. The justices questioned whether a genuine patriot would make such statements, though they simultaneously halted defamation legal proceedings against the Leader of Opposition. The controversy stems from Gandhi's statements during his 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra, where he alleged that Chinese forces had occupied significant portions of Indian land and were physically attacking Indian military personnel in Arunachal Pradesh. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, expressed skepticism about the source of Gandhi's information regarding the territorial claims. The justices questioned Gandhi's approach as the Leader of Opposition, suggesting that such concerns should be raised within Parliament rather than through public statements. They emphasized that his position carries significant responsibility and questioned why he would make such assertions publicly instead of utilizing proper parliamentary channels. Gandhi had approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court rejected his petition in May, which challenged both the summoning order and the criminal complaint filed against him. The High Court had previously ruled that freedom of speech does not provide protection for statements that defame the military forces. The original complaint was filed by Udai Shanker Srivastava, who accused Gandhi of making disparaging comments about the Indian Army during his political campaign. The complainant alleged that Gandhi's remarks were made in the context of ongoing border tensions with China and were detrimental to the armed forces' reputation. During a 2022 press conference in Rajasthan, Gandhi had criticized the ruling party for allegedly ignoring China's territorial advances and military aggression. He claimed that while media attention focused on internal political matters, insufficient attention was given to what he described as China's capture of Indian territory and violence against Indian soldiers. Gandhi reiterated similar claims in January 2023 while in Jammu and Kashmir, stating that former military officials had corroborated his assertions about territorial loss. He mentioned meeting with retired army personnel and a delegation from Ladakh who allegedly confirmed that Chinese forces had taken control of significant Indian territory. The Congress leader also claimed that former military personnel informed him that numerous patrolling points previously under Indian control had been permanently occupied by Chinese forces. These statements formed the basis of the defamation case filed in Uttar Pradesh, which led to a trial court issuing summons against Gandhi. After receiving the summons, Gandhi approached the Allahabad High Court seeking to have both the proceedings and the summons dismissed. However, the High Court rejected his petition, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court. The case highlights the delicate balance between political criticism and statements that may be perceived as harmful to national interests or military morale. While the Supreme Court has stayed the defamation proceedings, the justices' comments reflect concerns about the appropriateness of Gandhi's public statements regarding sensitive border issues. The matter underscores ongoing political tensions regarding India's border management and the role of opposition leaders in addressing national security concerns. The Supreme Court's intervention suggests that while legal proceedings have been paused, questions remain about the proper channels for raising such sensitive issues in India's democratic framework.
