India fighting battle on behalf of world, especially US: Ex-envoy Taranjit Singh Sandhu
Former Indian Ambassador to the United States,
Taranjit Singh Sandhu
, who is part of the all party delegation led by
Shashi Tharoor
to the US, has emphasized India's role in combating terrorism on a global scale amid escalating tensions between
India
and Pakistan.
During an interaction in Washington, DC, the former Indian envoy underlined the global nature of the terrorism threat, saying, "Kindly look at all those terrorists and terrorist organisations, are they friends of the United States and what kind of poison they spread about the United States?... Do keep in mind that these are the same terrorists who have threatened the United States in the past, and you have just witnessed terrorism here, and can do it in the future too. So, India is fighting the battle on behalf of the world, especially the United States."
Echoing this, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor stressed that dialogue with Pakistan cannot happen "with a gun pointed at our head." Tharoor warned that India's recent decisive military actions could be repeated if Pakistan does not rein in terror groups operating from its soil, underscoring the urgent need for Pakistan to control terror elements to pave the way for any meaningful talks.
Play Video
Pause
Skip Backward
Skip Forward
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
0:00
Loaded
:
0%
0:00
Stream Type
LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
1x
Playback Rate
Chapters
Chapters
Descriptions
descriptions off
, selected
Captions
captions settings
, opens captions settings dialog
captions off
, selected
Audio Track
default
, selected
Picture-in-Picture
Fullscreen
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text
Color
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Opaque
Semi-Transparent
Text Background
Color
Black
White
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Opaque
Semi-Transparent
Transparent
Caption Area Background
Color
Black
White
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Transparent
Semi-Transparent
Opaque
Font Size
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
200%
300%
400%
Text Edge Style
None
Raised
Depressed
Uniform
Drop shadow
Font Family
Proportional Sans-Serif
Monospace Sans-Serif
Proportional Serif
Monospace Serif
Casual
Script
Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values
Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Teófilo Otoni: Quanto vale a sua casa? Descubra agora!
Valor da casa | Anúncios de pesquisa
Saiba Mais
Undo
During a session at the
National Press Club
, Tharoor said, "I think the US has understood for some time now that India has a very clear position that there will be no talks with a gun pointed at our head. It's not that we can't talk to Pakistan. I was joking the other day, we can speak all the languages they can speak and we're very happy to dialogue with them in any of those languages."
He added, "The problem is we will not dialogue with people who are pointing a gun at our heads. I mean, frankly, if your neighbour unleashes his Rottweilers to bite your children and in fact to do worse to your children and then says let's talk. You think he's going to talk to them until he either unleashes those Rottweilers or locks them up in a kennel or puts them to sleep? It's as simple as that. You're not going to talk to people who are pointing guns at your temples. It's not going to happen."
Live Events
Tharoor further clarified that the delegation's goal in the US is to enhance understanding of India's stance and address any misconceptions. "We aren't really here to negotiate outcomes. That's the job of the government. Our job is to enhance understanding, to clarify our position and to explain if there are any questions or misapprehensions on the part of our interlocutors, we'd be very happy to address them," he said.
The delegation, which includes members from various political parties and former Ambassador Taranjit Singh Sandhu, arrived in the US following their visit to Brazil. Their mission is to brief key stakeholders about
Operation Sindoor
, India's diplomatic and military initiative launched in response to terrorism and misinformation after the terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir.
Operation Sindoor was launched on May 7 following the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists, which killed 26 people and injured several others. The Indian Armed Forces targeted terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, killing over 100 terrorists linked to groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizbul Mujahideen.
In response to Pakistan's subsequent military aggression, India struck Pakistairbases, leading both countries to agree on a cessation of hostilities on May 10.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Netanyahu admits Israel supporting anti-Hamas armed group in Gaza
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted that Israel is supporting an armed group in Gaza that opposes the militant group Hamas, following comments by a former minister that Israel had transferred weapons to it. Israeli and Palestinian media have reported that the group Israel has been working with is part of a local Bedouin tribe led by Yasser Abu Shabab. The European Council on Foreign Relations (EFCR) think tank describes Abu Shabab as the leader of a "criminal gang operating in the Rafah area that is widely accused of looting aid trucks". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What Happens When You Massage Baking Soda Into Your Scalp Read More Undo Knesset member and ex-defence minister Avigdor Liberman had told the Kan public broadcaster that the government, at Netanyahu's direction, was "giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons". "What did Liberman leak? That security sources activated a clan in Gaza that opposes Hamas? What is bad about that?" Netanyahu said in a video posted to social media on Thursday. Live Events "It is only good, it is saving lives of Israeli soldiers." Michael Milshtein, an expert on Palestinian affairs at the Moshe Dayan Center in Tel Aviv, told AFP that the Abu Shabab clan was part of a Bedouin tribe that spans across the border between Gaza and Egypt's Sinai peninsula. Some of the tribe's members, he said, were involved in "all kinds of criminal activities, drug smuggling, and things like that". - 'Gangster' - Milshtein said that Abu Shabab had spent time in prison in Gaza and that his clan chiefs had recently denounced him as an Israeli "collaborator and a gangster". "It seems that actually the Shabak (Israeli security agency) or the (military) thought it was a wonderful idea to turn this militia, gang actually, into a proxy, to give them weapons and money and shelter" from army operations, Milshtein said. He added that Hamas killed four members of the gang days ago. The ECFR said Abu Shabab was "reported to have been previously jailed by Hamas for drug smuggling. His brother is said to have been killed by Hamas during a crackdown against the group's attacks on UN aid convoys." Israel regularly accuses Hamas, with which it has been at war for nearly 20 months, of looting aid convoys in Gaza. Hamas said the group had "chosen betrayal and theft as their path" and called on civilians to oppose them. Hamas, which has ruled Gaza for nearly two decades, said it had evidence of "clear coordination between these looting gangs, collaborators with the occupation (Israel), and the enemy army itself in the looting of aid and the fabrication of humanitarian crises that deepen the suffering of" Palestinians. The Popular Forces, as Abu Shabab's group calls itself, said on Facebook it had "never been, and will never be, a tool of the occupation". "Our weapons are simple, outdated, and came through the support of our own people," it added. Milshtein called Israel's decision to arm a group such as Abu Shabab "a fantasy, not something that you can really describe as a strategy". "I really hope it will not end with catastrophe," he said.
Scroll.in
25 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Rush Hour: RBI cuts repo rate, four arrested in Bengaluru stampede case and more
We're building a brand-new studio to bring you bold ground reports, sharp interviews, hard-hitting podcasts, explainers and more. Support Scroll's studio fund today. The Reserve Bank of India's Monetary Policy Committee cut the repo rate by 50 basis points, lowering it from 6% to 5.5%. This is the third consecutive rate cut. Central banks usually reduce repo rates to stimulate economic growth by making borrowing cheaper for individuals and businesses. This translates to lower equated monthly instalments for borrowers. The RBI retained India's growth projection for the financial year 2025-'26 at 6.5% despite global uncertainties, with quarterly estimates unchanged. Read on. The Karnataka Police arrested four persons, including an official of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru, in connection with the stampede that took place outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium. Those arrested are Nikhil Sosale, the marketing head of the cricket franchise, along with event management firm DNA Entertainment Networks' Sunil Mathew, Kiran and Sumanth. This came after Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Thursday said that the state government had ordered the arrest of representatives from the Karnataka State Cricket Association, DNA Entertainment Networks and Royal Challengers Bengaluru. A first information report was filed against the persons based on a complaint alleging that criminal negligence had led to the stampede. Eleven persons had died and several were injured in the incident on Wednesday. Fans had gathered to celebrate the team's victory in the Indian Premier League. Read on. The Congress described the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla railway line as an example of 'continuity in governance', which it claimed had not been acknowledged by Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his 'perennial desire for self-glory'. The statement came ahead of Modi inaugurating the Chenab bridge on Friday. The world's highest railway arch bridge is part of the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla rail link. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that the project was sanctioned in March 1995 when Congress' PV Narasimha Rao was the prime minister and that it was declared a national project in 2002 by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The contract for the Chenab bridge was awarded in 2005, Ramesh said, adding that several segments of the project had been inaugurated by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government.
