College faculty criticises Operation Sindoor, suspended
An Assistant Professor at SRM College of Arts and Science, a unit of SRM University, was suspended on Thursday after a post on a social media platform allegedly against Operation Sindoor went viral. She was teaching Communication Skills, Employability Skills, Verbal Aptitude and other Personality Development courses at Career Development Centre in the institution.
A spokesperson of SRM University said she had been suspended as per the institution's decision.
'Anti-patriotic post'
'She had been regularly posting on social media. But it is her right to freedom of speech. She is working in an institution and the post she had uploaded on Wednesday was anti-patriotic. Hence, the decision was taken,' the official added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
40 minutes ago
- NDTV
Pak Targeted J&K Tourism, Wanted To Trigger Riots In India: PM Modi
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. PM Narendra Modi criticised Pakistan for supporting terrorism and conspiring to harm Jammu and Kashmir's tourism sector by sending terrorists to kill tourists. Pakistan has been warned, and it will not succeed, PM Modi said. New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched a direct attack on Pakistan today over the neighbouring country's open support to terrorists. He slammed Pakistan for conspiring to strike at Jammu and Kashmir's economy and discourage travellers by killing 26 tourists in Pahalgam. "Pakistan is against humanity, tourism and rozi-roti of Kashmiris, and hence attacked tourists in Pahalgam," PM Modi said in Katra after inaugurating the world's highest rail bridge over the River Chenab, and India's first cable-stayed bridge Anji. PM Modi's strong comments against Pakistan have increased pressure on the neighbouring country over its policy of allowing terrorists to train on its territory before sending them to India to launch attacks. After Operation Sindoor, when India launched precision cruise missile strikes at terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK), India maintained that its fight was against terrorists in Pakistan and not against the people of Pakistan. "Whenever Pakistan hears the name 'Operation Sindoor', it will be reminded of its shameful defeat," PM Modi said, referring to India's strikes on Pakistani military installations like air bases and radar sites. Earlier today, the prime minister flagged off a Vande Bharat service between Katra and Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir, the first train connection between Kashmir valley and the Jammu region. He inaugurated the train in the presence of Railway Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha, and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, among others. According to the Northern Railway, the train has two travelling classes - Chair Car (CC) and Executive Class (EC) - with tickets costing Rs 715 and Rs 1,320, respectively. The rail link features India's second-longest transportation tunnel, T-80 (11.22 km), known as the Pir Panjal Railway Tunnel, situated between Banihal and Qazigund. The project involves the construction of 36 main tunnels with a total length of 119.6 km, along with eight escape tunnels totalling 66.4 km. The Chenab bridge measures 1.3 km in length and stands at a height of 359 metres- 35 metres higher than the Eiffel Tower. The construction involved over 600 km of steel welding, exceeding the length of the railway track from Jammu to Delhi. Anji Bridge, India's first cable-stayed railway bridge, is 725.5 metres long. The bridge is balanced on the axis of a single central pylon and the height of a single pylon is 193 metres from the top of the foundation. Remarkably, all 96 stay cables were installed within just 11 months, with a total length of 653 km - more than the distance from Jammu to Delhi.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Shashi Tharoor gets question from journalist son over Operation Sindoor: What was he asked?
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, who is leading a multi-party delegation on Operation Sindoor in the United States, was posed a question by his son Ishaan Tharoor at a diplomatic meet in Washington DC. Shashi Tharoor and team is in the last leg of the anti-terror campaign after having visited Guyana, Panama, Colombia and Brazil before arriving in Washington Tuesday afternoon. Shashi Tharoor's son Ishaan Tharoor is the global affairs columnist with the Washington Post, and asked his father the question in that capacity on Thursday. Ishaan Tharoor inquired about Pakistan's role in the Pahalgam terror attack, asking whether any country had asked for evidence from the delegation about the same. 'I'm curious though, on this tour you've been on various countries in the Western Hemisphere. Have any of your government interlocutors asked you to show evidence of Pakistan's culpability in the initial attack?,' Ishaan Tharoor questioned his father. He further inquired what the Congress MP had to say on the repeated denials from Pakistan regarding their role in the initial April 22 attack which claimed the lives on 26 people. While saying that he was glad the matter was raised, Tharoor jokingly quipped that he had not 'planted' the question. In response to the query, Shashi Tharoor cited three reasons why countries did not ask for evidence on Pakistan's role in the Pahalgam terror attack. He further said that India would not have retaliated in the manner that it did if there had not been convincing evidence on Pakistan's involvement in the attack. 'Very simply, no one had any doubt, and we were not asked for evidence," he said, while adding that the media had posed this question in two or three places. Tharoor said that there were 'three particular reasons' he wanted to draw people's attention to, the first being the '37-year pattern' of Pakistan repeatedly launching terror attacks and denying it later. 'I mean, Americans haven't forgotten that Pakistan didn't know, allegedly, where Osama bin Laden was until he was found in a Pakistani safe house right next to an army camp in a cantonment city,' the Thiruvananthapuram MP said. He added that Pakistan had also denied any hand in the Mumbai attacks, while saying that one of the terrorists who was captured alive was a resident of the same country. 'He told us where he was trained and what was done,' Tharoor said. For his second reason, Tharoor highlighted The Resistance Front (TRF), which he said was 'well-known proxy front of the Lashkar-e-Taiba', and the group which had claimed to be responsible for the Pahalgam attack. He said that the TRF, which was banned and listed by the United Nations and the US State Department, was enjoying a 'safe haven in the town of Muridke in Pakistan'. Lastly, Shashi Tharoor pointed out the funerals which were held for members of terror outfits like the Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba after India's May 7 military strikes on terror bases in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
The Opposition's Silence Has Let the BJP Diminish India's Political Discourse
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Politics The Opposition's Silence Has Let the BJP Diminish India's Political Discourse Sarayu Pani 38 minutes ago Today, the opposition faces a choice – they can either continue to allow the boundaries of political engagement in the country to be decided by the ruling party or they can ground their opposition in democratic principles. A multi-party delegation of India led by NCP-SP MP Supriya Sule. Photo: PTI Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now The rhetoric being employed by the multi-party delegations sent by India to other countries – ostensibly to shape the global narrative around Operation Sindoor – is puzzling. Far from offering any fresh geopolitical perspectives, opposition members of these delegations have limited themselves to enthusiastically endorsing the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government's foreign policy on Pakistan. While it is unclear as to why a foreign audience is expected to find the same arguments more compelling when endorsed by members of Indian opposition, this endorsement has been portrayed as a matter of national duty. Two weeks in, it would appear that far from influencing international opinion, this outreach has barely been noticed. Certainly, there have been no groundbreaking shifts in the way in which Pakistan is viewed globally. They have, in this period, secured further funding from the ADB and also been appointed to chair the UNSC's Taliban Sanctions Committee as well as sit as the vice-chair of the UNSC counter-terrorism committee. The political compulsion felt by the opposition to perform in this seemingly fruitless public charade is interesting. It is unlikely that seasoned politicians in the opposition could not foresee this outcome. Their participation was therefore likely driven by what they imagine their own voters expect of them. These expectations are the product of a domestic public discourse where foreign policy has increasingly been taken out of the realm of political contestation and elevated to the realm of security, where the act of criticism is in itself seen as 'anti-national'. Securitisation in international relations refers to a practice whereby issues are presented as existential threats, taking them beyond the realm of ordinary politics. The securitisation of an issue generally requires it to be framed as an existential threat to what is called a referent object, and for the audience to accept it as such. Once the audience accepts an issue to be an existential threat, it legitimises the breaking of previously accepted rules (whether international or domestic) to guard the referent object. This referent object can be a population, or even a broader principle or idea. The American 'war on terror' for example was framed as combatting a global existential threat and that was used to deviate from both established international legal principles – including on the use of force, criminal jurisdiction and the treatment of prisoners – and to curb individual rights within countries in the West (including through the mass surveillance infrastructure created pursuant to the PATRIOT Act). The securitisation discourse is not limited to international issues. Globally, the immigration discourse serves as perhaps the most tragic example of the securitisation of a domestic concern. Some of the most vulnerable and persecuted people in the world – asylum seekers – are repeatedly framed as existential threats to an imagined 'western' way of life generating cross party consent for their violent removal, often through means of questionable legality. In India, similar rhetoric has been targeted at 'illegal' immigrants from Bangladesh and against Rohingya refugees, and has been widely employed by the government as well as by several opposition parties. This has contributed to the legitimisation of practices like Assam 'pushing' people made stateless by the draconian NRC over the border into Bangladesh. There have also been extremely serious allegations raised with respect to Rohingya refugees being pushed off navy vessels with life jackets in the sea near Myanmar. Tellingly, the Indian Supreme Court refused to expedite the hearings on the matter stating the 'nation is going through difficult times'– a classic case of a security framing being used to dismiss serious human rights concerns. Theorists generally agree on two things with respect to securitisation. First, securitisation does not automatically follow from a grave threat. It is a language act where rhetoric is used deliberately to create this perception of an existential threat. For example, not all wars or terrorist attacks, become removed from the political discourse. In 1962, during the war with China, Francine Frankel points out that Nehru was severely criticised both by capitalists who insisted that the state should have focused on defence and left heavy industry under private control, and others who blamed defence minister V.K. Menon's perceived communist leanings, and Nehru himself, for what they saw as the failure of non-alignment and the collapse of the Panchsheel agreement. Similarly, the 26/11 terrorist attacks, and the UPA government's handling of it were subjected to near continuous scrutiny and political debate. Second, an issue being framed by the state as an existential threat does not by itself elevate it to the status of a security issue – for an issue to become securitised, this framing must be broadly accepted by the audience. This is where the absence of the opposition in recent years in India has really been felt. The securitisation of political issues has been a defining feature of the BJP years in India. Domestically, this has been accomplished by invoking anti-terror statutes against members of civil society, student leaders and to punish minorities for communal violence. A vast majority of these instances have not been rhetorically resisted by the political opposition to the BJP. In 2019, for example, the Congress voted in favour of amendments that dangerously broadened the scope of the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in the Rajya Sabha. Few opposition political parties have stood in clear solidarity with the detainees of either the Bhima Koregaon case or the Delhi riots conspiracy case. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of this relentless push towards the securitisation of political issues have been the Indian television news and entertainment media. The framing of every issue as an existential threat, especially to the majority Hindu population, has been profitable for them. Popular news channels have seen massive spikes in TRPs around such framings. Films like Kashmir Files and Kerela Story that have been used to create the perception that the Hindus in India are under serious threat have also done extremely well at the box office. This means that in addition to any state imperative to avoid scrutiny by turning political issues into security issues, there is also a strong commercial imperative to keep the audience in this perpetual state of existential anxiety. Once an audience is brought to this state of existential anxiety, it is very difficult to reverse. This traps both the audience and the government into a framework where the only acceptable solution to any problem is increasing militiarisation in the sphere of foreign policy and the rolling back of rights domestically. It is telling that the Congress' only consistent criticism of Operation Sindoor today is that a ceasefire was agreed upon too easily. Their criticism of the BJP government's handling of border disputes with China also revolves around the same theme. Without going into the merits of either position, it is important to note that this is because the only criticism possible of a government in front of an audience under the sway of a securitizing discourse is that they didn't go far enough or act aggressively enough. This discourse becomes a particular handicap in situations where increased military force cannot deliver the desired outcome. If, as Joseph Nye puts it, power is the ability to change the behaviour of states, then a situation where one state is compelled by domestic public opinion to use military force against another, even as such displays of force do not change the behavior sought to be changed, is not an effective demonstration of power. On the contrary, a public discourse that prevents the government from introspecting on its strategies, returning to the drawing board, or exploring alternative pathways, including diplomacy, arguably reduces its power. Theorists generally agree that in any democratic society, national security must never be idealised. And while some issues will need to be securitised from time to time, desecuritisation must always be the long-term goal – to move issues out of this threat defence sequence and into the ordinary public sphere. For the last decade or so, the Indian opposition has preferred to allow the ruling party to set the boundaries of what issues can be debated politically and what issues are elevated to the realm of security. Given the hold the BJP has on the media and consequently, the public imagination, perhaps they believed that to do otherwise would be electorally harmful. It is important to remember that securitisation is not an innocent reflection of an issue being a security threat. To securitise, or to accept a securitisation framing is always a political choice. And this isn't a political choice that requires political power to exercise. It is a battle fought in the realm of rhetoric. And by refusing to challenge any of the state's securitization framings over the last decade, in domestic policy, as well as in foreign affairs, the opposition has contributed to the shrinking of the political discourse in India. Today, the opposition faces a choice – they can either continue to allow the boundaries of political engagement in the country to be decided by the ruling party or they can ground their opposition in democratic principles, and challenge the boundaries themselves, when required. But they would do well to note that to continue along the former path is to contribute to their own growing irrelevance. Sarayu Pani is a lawyer by training and posts on X @sarayupani. Missing Link is her column on the social aspects of the events that move India. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News The Opposition Owes the Indian public Some Answers 16 Opposition Parties Demand Special Parliament Session in Joint Letter to Prime Minister Rijiju Jumps to Defend Tharoor as MP Faces Congress Ire Over 'LoC Never Breached' Remark INDIA Bloc Pushes for Special Session of Parliament on Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor We Disagree With Modi Govt But Will Cooperate As Its Delegates Abroad: John Brittas, Asad Owaisi Five Questions That Indian MPs May Have to Face Abroad 'Parliament Kept in Dark': How Modi Govt's Multi-Party Global Outreach Differs from The Past India Needs Sustained and Credible Outreach on Terrorism What Could Be Shashi Tharoor's Political Endgame? About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
