Shashi Tharoor calls for 'greater backing' of PM Modi's energy, dynamism: ‘Prime asset'
Congress leader Shashi Tharoor has heaped big praise on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, calling his energy and dynamism an asset for India. His remarks came days after the Operation Sindoor delegations, one of which Tharoor led, came back after representing India overseas. Prime Minister Narendra Modi greets Congress MP Shashi Tharoor as he meets members of the seven multi-party delegations at his residence in Delhi on Tuesday. (PTI)(HT_PRINT)
In a news article with an English daily, Tharoor wrote at length about his takeaways from leading such a delegation, representing India's stance against terrorism. "Prime Minister Narendra Modi's energy, dynamism and willingness to engage remains a prime asset for India on the global stage, but deserves greater backing," he wrote in The Hindu article.
Tharoor, who led the Indian delegation to the United States, Panama, Guyana, Colombia, and Brazil, termed Operation Sindoor "a moment of national resolve". He also emphasised the value of unity as a nation and of public diplomacy.
He also highlighted his engagement in the Washington DC and said that US officials recognised India's concerns, even in the presence of Pakistani representatives. "Even as a Pakistani delegation was simultaneously present, we found US representatives, including those who met the Pakistani officials, echoing our concerns and urging decisive action against terror groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed," Tharoor wrote.
As part of the Operation Sindoor outreach, members cutting across party lines travelled to 32 countries to put forth India's resolve to tackle terrorism amid tensions with Pakistan following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.
Shashi Tharoor had drawn criticism from Congress after being chosen to lead the Operation Sindoor delegation, as he was not among the names formally recommended by the party to be included in the delegations. 'BJP's super spokesperson'
After Tharoor praised the 2015 Uri strike during his Panama leg and said that India never crossed the Line of Control before that, Congress leader Udit Raj termed him "BJP's super spokesperson", further escalating Congress's internal rift.
"My dear Shashi Tharoor, Alas! I could prevail upon PM Modi to declare you as super spokesperson of BJP, even declaring (you) as foreign minister before landing in India. How could you denigrate the golden history of Congress by saying that before PM Modi, India never crossed LoC and International border." This post by Udit Raj was also reshared by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh on X.
Reacting to the controversy, Shashi Tharoor had said he cannot dwell on the criticism. "'Undoubtedly, in a thriving democracy, there are bound to be comments, criticisms. But I think at this point, we can't afford to dwell on it, when we get back to India, no doubt we have a chance to speak to our colleagues, critics, and media there," Tharoor had said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
11 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Anti-Maoist operations should not be politicised, must be conducted in transparent manner: Congress
Congress leader Sachin Pilot on Monday said that the ongoing security operations against Maoists should not be politicised and must be carried out in a transparent manner, PTI reported. Pilot, who is in charge of the party's Chhattisgarh unit, made the comment in the state while responding to recent remarks by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. On Sunday, the home minister had announced that the operations would continue throughout monsoon. Operations are usually suspended during the season as rainfall and floods hamper combat inside dense forests, The Hindu reported. On Monday, Pilot said that whatever action is taken against Maoists should be 'effective, transparent and should not have any political colour'. 'It is a matter of internal security,' the Rajasthan MLA added. 'Strict steps should be taken after a lot of deliberation,' he said. 'Action should be…accountable…should be done on the ground and not by giving speeches again and again.' The Union government has repeatedly vowed to end Maoism by March 31, 2026. According to the Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai, more than 400 suspected Maoists were killed in the Bastar region in 2024-'25. The police have stated that 186 suspected Maoists have been killed in gunfights with security personnel in the Bastar range in 2025. In 2024, 217 suspected Maoists were killed by security forces across Chhattisgarh. Malini Subramaniam has reported for Scroll that while many of those killed in Chhattisgarh's Bastar region in 2024 were declared by the police to be reward-carrying Maoists, several families dispute the claim. The families claim that the persons killed were civilians.
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
America bombs Iran: What does the US Constitution say about war
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? 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
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Bengal girl killed allegedly after TMC workers hurled bombs during victory rally
Kolkata: A 13-year-old girl was killed in an explosion triggered by a crude bomb allegedly hurled by workers of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) while they were celebrating the party's victory in the bye-elections at Kaliganj in West Bengal's Nadia district on Monday afternoon. Police said they shall spare no stones unturned to nab the culprits . (Representational image) 'Today, a 13-year-old girl succumbed to her injuries sustained from an explosion in Kaliganj PS area of Krishnanagar police district. We shall spare no stones unturned to nab the culprits who were behind the incident. Raids are on in full swing to arrest those responsible for this extremely unfortunate death,' the state police wrote on X. Alifa Ahmed, the TMC candidate, won the bye-election by 50,049 votes. While Ahmed received 102,759 votes, Ashish Ghosh, the BJP-candidate, received 52,710 votes. The by-election was necessitated after the death of former TMC MLA Nasiruddin Ahmed in February this year. Nasiruddin Ahmed was the father of Alifa Ahmed. The TMC has been winning the seat since 2011. 'I am shocked and deeply saddened at the death of a young girl in an explosion at Barochandgar in Krishnanagar police district. My prayers and thoughts are with the family in their hour of grief. Police shall take strong and decisive legal action against the culprits at the earliest,' Mamata Banerjee, chief minister of West Bengal, wrote on X. Ziaul Sheikh, a local resident who was also beaten up, said, 'TMC workers and supporters were playing with green colour, shouting slogans, bursting crackers. Crude bombs were being hurled indiscriminately at the houses of CPI(M) and Congress workers and supporters. One such bomb killed the 13-year-old girl.' The TMC had first won the seat in 2011 when it came to power ending the 34-year-old Left regime. Nasiruddin Ahmed was elected the TMC legislator. In 2016, he lost the seat to Congress-CPI(M) alliance candidate Sheikh Hasanuzzaman. However, Hasanuzzaman later joined Trinamool. Nasiruddin reclaimed the Kaliganj seat in the 2021 Assembly polls. The seat fell vacant after his demise. The bye-election is being seen as a litmus test for both the ruling TMC and its arch rival the BJP ahead of the 2026 assembly elections.
