Pakistan claims India targeted three airbases, say reports
Pakistan's airspace closure is in effect from 3.15 a.m. till 4 p.m. of May 10.
'The Pakistani military has launched its counter-attack against Indian aggression,' state broadcaster PTV News reported quoting security sources.
Pakistan military spokesperson Lt Gen Ahmad Sharif Chaudhry told a hurriedly called press conference in Islamabad at around 4 a.m. that Nur Khan (Chaklala, Rawalpindi), Murid (Chakwal) and Rafiqui (Shorkot in Jhang district) airbases of Pakistan Air Force were targeted.
"But all assets of the Air Force remain safe," he claimed.
'India has fired air-to-surface missiles with its jets,' he claimed.
Minutes later, state-run PTV said citing security officials that Pakistan has launched a counter attack.
Pakistan launched a fresh wave of drone attacks targeting 26 locations in India - from Jammu and Kashmir to Gujarat - for the second night on Friday, with the defence ministry saying the enemy's attempts to hit vital installations, including airports and air bases, were successfully thwarted.
On Thursday evening, Indian air defence units intercepted at least eight missiles fired by Pakistan towards the border areas of Jammu, including the strategically important Jammu airport, defence sources had said.
(With inputs from Jagriti Chandra and PTI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
8 minutes ago
- First Post
NSA Doval in Moscow: Why India won't ditch Russia despite Trump's tariff threats
Amid tariff threats from Donald Trump, India's National Security Advisor Ajit Doval is in Moscow for a high-level visit to strengthen ties between the two nations. Here's why New Delhi continues its engagement with Moscow — and it goes well beyond the oil trade read more India and Russia share a historical relationship and it seems that Trump's tariffs won't change it. File image/PTI India is in no mood to back down. Amid the continuous threats from US President Donald Trump, India's National Security Advisor Ajit Doval has reached Russia for a visit focused on strengthening India's defence and energy ties with Russia. While the trip was pre-planned, it has assumed greater significance, as the US president said on Tuesday that he would increase the tariffs charged on Indian imports 'very substantially' over the next 24 hours because of New Delhi's continued purchases of Russian oil. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD And Doval isn't the only Indian leader in Russia. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar is also expected to visit Moscow later this month. As tensions between India and the US increase over the purchase of Russian oil, we examine the India-Russia partnership and why it remains significant for New Delhi. Doval's visit to Moscow On Tuesday (August 5), NSA Doval arrived in Russia for a high-level visit to strengthen ties between the two nations. According to reports, Doval will hold closed-door meetings with senior Russian officials to discuss regional stability, counterterrorism cooperation, and energy security. An Economic Times report said that India is looking to purchase additional S-400 defence systems which contributed to India's success in Operation Sindoor against Pakistan. There are also rumours that India is exploring purchase of Su-57 fighter jets from Russia. National Security Advisor Ajit Doval is in Moscow on a high-level visit to strengthen ties between India and Russia. File image/PTI According to Russian media outlet TASS, the visit is part of a planned schedule and will focus on defence cooperation between India and Russia. 'The current escalation of the geopolitical situation will also be discussed. Apart from that the topics will include such pressing matters as supplies of Russian oil [to India],' the source said. Trump's threats to India on Russian oil Notably, Doval's visit comes amid criticisms and threats from US President Donald Trump over the issue of Russian oil. On Tuesday, in his latest attack, he told CNBC in an interview, 'India has not been a good trading partner, because they do a lot of business with us, but we don't do business with them. So we settled on 25 per cent but I think I'm going to raise that very substantially over the next 24 hours, because they're buying Russian oil.' These remarks by the American leader came a day after he said that he would 'substantially' raise US tariffs on India and had accused New Delhi of buying oil from Russia and selling it for profits. In fact, over the past few days, the US president and members of his administration have been highly critical of India's purchase of Russian oil. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD His Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, as well his Deputy White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, have questioned India's purchase of Russian oil with the former stating that it was a 'point of irritation' in the ties between the two nations, while Miller accused India of financing Russia's war against Ukraine. However, India has stood its ground with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stating that its purchase of Russian oil was a 'necessity' and called out US and Europe for singling it out. The MEA in a statement said that the nations criticising India are themselves 'indulging in trade with Russia' even when 'such trade is not even a vital compulsion'. 'Europe-Russia trade includes not just energy, but also fertilisers, mining products, chemicals, iron and steel and machinery and transport equipment,' read an official statement. India further said that it would take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD History of India-Russia ties India's ties with Russia go way beyond just the oil trade. The two countries established diplomatic relations in April 1947 — even before India attained independence — and since then the two nations have shared extremely close ties. Through the years, India and Russia have supported each other; for instance, during the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, Russia, then the Soviet Union, played a mediating role and hosted the so-called Tashkent summit in 1966 where a peace treaty was signed. Moreover, during the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, Russia supported New Delhi — marking perhaps the peak of the Indo-Soviet relationship. Experts note that the 1971 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between India and the Soviet Union was the result of American diplomats quietly reducing security commitments to India as they sought to normalise their relations with China. Even post the Cold War period, India and Russia continued their ties — annual summits have been held since 2000, when a strategic partnership was signed (and subsequently upgraded in 2010). India and Russia have also been holding 2+2 meetings — joint meetings with foreign and defence ministers – since 2021. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two leaders share close ties. File image/PTI Present and future of India-Russia ties Even amid the Russia-Ukraine war, India has maintained its ties with Moscow — with Prime Minister Narendra Modi even visiting Vladimir Putin in July last year. In fact, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has referred to the India–Russia relationship as the one constant in global politics over the last half century. India has also refrained from voting against Russia in the UN Security Council. India's friendship with Russia is both practical as well as strategic. When India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, the Soviet Union did not shun cooperation with India — unlike the US. Moreover, Russia has been a huge supplier of weapons to India. In the early 1990s, the USSR represented about 70 per cent of Indian Army weapons, 80 per cent of its Air Force systems, and 85 per cent of its Navy platforms. Today, that number has reduced to a total of 36 per cent, as per a report published by Sweden-based Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri). Experts note that India has been reducing its dependency on Russian arms and diversifying its defense procurements, buying more from countries like the US, Israel, France and Italy. In the energy sector too, Russia has been a partner to India. Russian oil now accounts for nearly 40 per cent of India's annual crude imports, up from just two percent in 2021. The two countries also cooperate on nuclear energy. Russia's state nuclear power provider Rosatom has an agreement in place to build six nuclear power reactors in India. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There is also a long-standing economic relationship. India and Russia aim to increase bilateral trade from $68 billion to $100 billion by the end of this decade. Connectivity initiatives include the Chennai-Vladivostok maritime corridor and the International North-South Transport Corridor. Culturally too, India and Russia share strong ties. Since August 2023, Indian travellers have already been eligible for e-visas to Russia, which are typically processed within four days. And last December, there were reports that Russia would soon allow Indian travellers to visit without a visa. It will be interesting to see how India-Russia navigate their ties in the face of Trump's rising threats. But if history is any indicator, it's safe to say that the Indo-Russia 'bhai bhai' feeling isn't going anywhere in the near future. With inputs from agencies
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why Trump's tariff threats to India over purchase of Russian oil mark just another chapter in US hegemony
US President Donald Trump's trade war, which began with the aim of fixing the trade deficit with partner countries, has entered a new phase of economic coercion, with India in the eye of the storm. To force Russia into signing a peace deal with Ukraine and India to agree to stiff US terms in the ongoing trade talks, Trump on Monday widened the tariff war to achieve geopolitical goals by warning India of additional tariffs for profiting from sales of Russian oil amid the Ukraine war. While New Delhi has called the targeting of India over the purchase of Russian oil 'unjustified and unreasonable' and vowed to take 'all necessary measures' to safeguard its 'national interests and economic security', Indian exporters are in a fix, scrambling to retain access to the US — their most valuable export market, accounting for nearly 20 per cent of India's total outbound shipments. Globally, experts on trade and geopolitics have said the new tariff threats by the US directed at India could undermine 25 years of US-India relations. Trump's latest threats to India follow the American President's multiple blunt remarks over India's association with the BRICS grouping, Apple's manufacturing operations in India, and, topping it all, the invitation extended to Pakistan's Army Chief to the White House weeks after the Pahalgam attack and later offering a lower 19 per cent tariff to Pakistan. However, using economic coercion to achieve geopolitical goals has been a longstanding American policy and is only expanding under Trump. A working paper titled 'Asphyxiation by Sanctions: Harm, Fear and Smog' by former Reserve Bank of India governor Urjit R. Patel calls the US the 'hegemonic sanctioner', arguing that India should view the emerging international financial architecture around BRICS and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as a 'risk mitigant' and a rational response to the ever-expanding sanctions regime. India's sharp response to Trump's coercion on Monday comes after the US for decades sanctioned multiple countries for exporting oil, complicating New Delhi's strategy to diversify its energy imports. Over the years, the US has sanctioned oil exports from Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria. India resumed oil imports from Venezuela in 2023, after a three-year pause, only after the US eased sanctions on the country. Patel's paper said out of 1,325 global sanctions since 1949, 486 have been imposed by the US, which currently administers over 30 sanctions programmes — making it responsible for 'three times as many sanctions as any other country or international body'. Moreover, US-led sanctions have surged in recent decades, partly due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the paper said. Patel wrote that the US has 'pioneered secondary sanctions on an industrial scale', often in coordination with allies such as the G7 grouping and the EU, forming a 'posse'. These extraterritorial sanctions are enforced to impede economic and commercial activity by third countries that would not otherwise violate a primary sanctioner's rules, he said. The former RBI Governor wrote that the effectiveness and reach of US secondary sanctions are heavily reliant on the centrality of the American financial system and the US dollar's status as the global numeraire and principal currency for settling cross-border transactions. However, the overuse of the US dollar correspondent banking network as a 'switch' on payments has prompted many countries to explore alternatives — a trend that could undermine the dollar's dominance, he warned. Patel said the US economic sanctions have imposed a significant burden on emerging economies such as India. The hegemonic position of the US means that its sanctions, particularly secondary ones, cause 'collateral damage' to third countries — economic losses that are especially severe for emerging economies and often 'underappreciated' by the sanctioners. Patel, who has also served as a Director at the Bank for International Settlements, argues that the imposition of sanctions by hegemonic powers often occurs without adequate public debate or transparency regarding their costs. Unlike wars, where human and financial costs are evident, the 'cost-benefit of sanctions, counter sanctions and secondary sanctions is a black box — the layered and complex scope is a mystery to most'. The paper also pointed out that US sanctions, particularly on Iran, have directly affected Indian investments. The development and operation of Iran's Chabahar Port, which involves Indian investment, faced 'a hard break' due to initial US sanctions and had 'limited operations' after the US reintroduced sanctions in 2018. Even after India signed a 10-year agreement to develop and operate the port in 2024, the US State Department issued a warning about 'the potential risk of sanctions' for deals with Iran, creating significant uncertainty and hampering progress. In another example, Patel highlights that Indian public sector oil companies have accumulated unpaid dividend income of around $900 million from their upstream 'oil equity' investments in Russia. This non-receipt of income is directly attributed to 'payment channel-related prohibitions by the US and the EU', he says, adding that this financial loss 'inter alia, affects investments by Indian oil companies and the government's budgetary revenue'. While a trade deal is yet to be finalised between the two countries, several measures already announced by Trump have begun to affect India. Indian officials have indicated that the US is unwilling to negotiate sectoral tariffs — such as those on steel and automobiles — which have already impacted nearly $5 billion worth of Indian exports. Evan A. Feigenbaum, Vice President for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said on Monday that US-India relations may now become a political football, especially in New Delhi. He warned that the core understandings that enabled closer ties may be at serious risk, as New Delhi had largely assumed Washington would take political risks to strengthen the relationship — something Trump has not done and clearly will not do. Feigenbaum added that the split in relations is further underscored by Trump's effusive praise for Islamabad and recent engagement with Pakistan's army and government — developments that raise obvious concerns in New Delhi. 'The United States was roiled by India's ties to Iran, Myanmar, and later Russia. Trump and his administration are now moving to sanction and tariff India over its oil trade with Russia. This significantly shifts the bar for bilateral relations,' he said.
The Print
8 minutes ago
- The Print
The court is not Rahul Gandhi's uncle. Its job is to protect rights, not preach
'It is the responsibility of political parties, especially the Leader of Opposition, to comment on issues of national interest. When a government fails so spectacularly to defend our borders, it is every citizen's moral duty to hold it accountable,' said the statement. How do you know that 2,000 sq km was acquired by China? What is the credible material? A true Indian would not say this. When there is a conflict at the border, can you say such things?' said a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court Monday, dealing with Rahul Gandhi's petition asking for quashing of defamation proceedings against him. All this, while the court stayed the proceedings and issued notice to the complainant to show cause why the criminal complaint should not go on. On the other hand, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has expressed his 'gratitude' to the Supreme Court, and Kerala BJP President Rajeev Chandrashekhar said, 'I don't think there is anybody in this country who will disagree with what the Supreme Court has said.' The Supreme Court has only itself to blame for being censured by an opposition bloc and becoming part of a political slugfest. Moral policing by courts This comes on the heels of the wisdom spewed by the Bombay High Court about a week ago. While dismissing a writ petition by the CPI(M) and CPI challenging the Mumbai Police's denial of permission to protest at Azad Maidan in support of Gaza, the court questioned the parties' patriotism. 'You are looking at Gaza and Palestine while neglecting what is happening here. Why don't you do something for your own country? Look at your own country. Be patriots. People say they are patriots, but this is not patriotism. Show patriotism for the citizens of our own country first,' said the high court. The CPI(M) Polit Bureau condemned the court's observations in a sharply worded statement. 'Ironically, the bench appears to be unaware of either the provisions of the Constitution which enshrines the rights of a political party, or the history of our country and our people's solidarity with the Palestinians and their legitimate right to homeland… The observations overlook the fact that Mahatma Gandhi in the 40s of the last century, the national movement and subsequent foreign policy of independent India had not flinched from supporting the cause of Palestinian people's right to freedom and homeland,' the document read. Following this, a senior advocate urged the court to take suo motu cognisance of the CPI(M)'s press note as criminal contempt. But the judges wisely refrained, sparing themselves further embarrassment. There have been other instances of the courts making ex cathedra observations while giving protection to petitioners—observations which smack of moral policing or 'lessons in good taste'. In the case of one YouTube video creator, the Supreme Court observed: 'There is something dirty in this person's mind that has been vomited by him through this program. Why the courts should favour him?' It proceeded to protect him from arrest. In a case regarding a university professor's Facebook post in the context of the recent India-Pakistan conflict, the Court remarked: 'This is what we call in the law – dog whistling! … Some of the opinions are not offending to the nation as such. But while giving an opinion, if you … [choose words] deliberately .. to insult, humiliate or cause discomfort to other persons… he could convey the very same feelings in a simple language without hurting others.' Also read: Where is Skill India money going? It's a Rs 48,000 crore mystery A court's purview This judicial proneness to verbal excess is not something new. I remember writing about this 28 years ago in the context of gratuitous observations made by judges of those times. Today, wide publicity to court proceedings and live-streaming should have had a sobering effect on our judges. They ought to be circumspect and apply constitutional tests to cases coming before them. This is not to say that judges should be robotic, hyper-formal entities. They are human, and the stray comment while thinking through legal problems, or a humorous or frustrated aside, is not only inevitable but a necessary reminder of this humanity. However, the court is not the citizen's uncle. It is not there to teach or preach. Which humanitarian crisis should be prioritised, which words are 'simple' enough to avoid hurting anyone's feelings, or who is a 'true Indian', are not questions warranting the courts' input. When a citizen approaches a court complaining that their right to free speech—or any other fundamental right—has been violated, it only needs to see whether they are entitled to constitutional protection. The citizen does not need to be told what they ought to have said or done. Raju Ramachandran is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. Views are personal. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
