'Should China-Nehru link be investigated?': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey slams Rahul Gandhi; asks if 1962 war was 'imposed'
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey (left) and Rahul Gandhi/ File photos
NEW DELHI:
BJP
MP Nishikant Dubey on Monday intensified his criticism of
Congress
leader
Rahul Gandhi
, calling for a probe into the alleged historic links between the Nehru-Gandhi family and China.
His demand stemmed from what he described as "revelations" found in declassified documents from the 1961 Belgrade Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
In a sharply worded X post shared on Monday, Dubey took aim at India's first Prime Minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru
, questioning his foreign policy choices during the formative years of the Cold War.
'Rahul Baba, do you know that at China's behest, your family's patriarch Nehru ji created the new gimmick of non-aligned countries? Look at the member countries of the first conference in Belgrade in 1961. After isolating India from both Russia and America, did any country come to India's defence during or after the 1962 war with China?' Dubey asked.
— nishikant_dubey (@nishikant_dubey)
The BJP MP went on to allege that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), championed by Nehru, eventually "benefited" China rather than serving India's strategic interests.
Citing the 26th declaration adopted at the Belgrade Summit, Dubey argued that the text revealed Nehru's alignment with Chinese interests.
'Tibet to China, Panchsheel for China, and after making China a permanent member of the United Nations, this conference ordered the UN to recognise China as the sole representative state.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here]
Esseps
Learn More
Undo
By siding with China, did your family impose the 1962 war on India or not?' he said.
He followed up with a pointed query directed at Rahul Gandhi: 'Should the relationship between China and the Nehru family be investigated?'
The 1961 Belgrade Summit was the inaugural meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement — a coalition of states aiming to stay independent from both the Western and Soviet power blocs. Nehru was a key architect in shaping the principles and objectives of the movement.
This is not the first time Dubey has targeted the Congress leadership. He previously accused the Nehru-Gandhi family of compromising India's interests in relation to Pakistan, particularly citing the Indus Waters Treaty. He had also flagged India's financial commitments to Pakistan under the treaty, claiming they were the result of Congress-era policies that weakened India diplomatically.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
10 minutes ago
- Time of India
Gautam Adani visits Chinese equipment makers as US legal woes linger
Indian billionaire Gautam Adani traveled to China last week to meet industrial equipment manufacturers, marking what appears to be his first overseas trip since the US unveiled criminal and civil cases against him in November. The visit, including to a solar module maker, underscores Adani's continued efforts to maintain momentum in renewables even as he faces heightened scrutiny abroad. Sagar Adani , who oversees the green arm of the conglomerate's sprawling empire, accompanied his uncle on the trip, according to a social media post by one of the companies he visited. The trip to China could signal a renewed push for international engagement as Gautam Adani tries to shake off controversies, from US legal troubles to investor concerns about corporate governance practices, following a bruising short-seller report in early 2023. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Prices of Solar Panels Might Actually Surprise You Solar Panels | Search Ads Get Info Asia's second-richest person, along with his nephew Sagar, face criminal and civil charges in the US over their alleged involvement in a $250 million bribery scheme to pay regional officials in India to lock in solar-power contracts. — BROAD_ltd (@BROAD_ltd) Live Events The Adani Group has denied the claims, though both Gautam and Sagar have curtailed their international travel since the indictment was announced. The Indian conglomerate is building one of the largest renewable energy parks — five times the size of Paris — near India's western coast with solar panels and wind turbines. The billionaire visited a Jinko Solar Co. manufacturing plant, inspecting the facility's automated production lines, the Shanghai-based company said in a statement on June 4. Its energy storage solutions are well-suited to India's high-temperature conditions and will be integrated into Adani's projects to bolster grid stability and renewable energy absorption, it said. Adani also visited Broad Group's facilities, the Chinese firm said in a post on X. The company has a range of subsidiaries that includes a wind turbine manufacturer. A spokesperson for Adani didn't immediately comment. The group's renewable energy ramp up plans are crucial for two of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi 's policy pledges — making the country carbon neutral by 2070 and self-reliant, especially in manufacturing. India is one of the biggest markets for China's solar modules and Adani's visit could also signal room for better business ties between the two countries. While relations between the nuclear-armed neighbors remain fraught, there have recently been signs of a thawing. In January, they agreed to resume direct flights, facilitate visas and restart sharing data of trans-border rivers. A few months later, the nations announced the resumption of an annual pilgrimage to the Tibet Autonomous Region, organized by India's foreign ministry, that had been suspended for years after border clashes erupted.
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S., China say they have agreed on framework to resolve their trade disputes
Senior U.S. and Chinese negotiators have agreed on a framework to get their trade negotiations back on track after a series of disputes that threatened to derail them, both sides have said. The announcement came at the end of two days of talks in the British capital that wrapped up late on Tuesday (June 10, 2025). Editorial: Big deal: On the U.S.-China trade deal The meetings appeared to focus on finding a way to resolve disputes over mineral and technology exports that had shaken a fragile truce on trade reached in Geneva last month. It's not clear whether any progress was made on the more fundamental differences over China's sizeable trade surplus with the United States. 'First we had to get sort of the negativity out and now we can go forward,' U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters after the meetings. Asian stock markets rose on Wednesday (June 11) after the agreement was announced. The talks followed a phone call between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping last week to try to calm the waters. Li Chenggang, a Vice-Minister of Commerce and China's International Trade Representative, said the two sides had agreed in principle on a framework for implementing the consensus reached on the phone call and at the talks on Geneva, the official Xinhua News Agency said. Further details, including any plans for a potential next round of talks, were not immediately available. Mr. Li and Wang Wentao, China's Commerce Minister, were part of the delegation led by Vice-Premier He Lifeng. They met with Mr. Lutnick, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer at Lancaster House, a 200-year-old mansion near Buckingham Palace. Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade negotiator, said the disputes had frittered away 30 of the 90 days the two sides have to try to resolve their disputes. They agreed in Geneva to a 90-day suspension of most of the 100%-plus tariffs they had imposed on each other in an escalating trade war that sparked fears of recession. The World Bank, citing a rise in trade barriers, cut its projections on Tuesday (June 11) for U.S. and global economic growth this year. 'The U.S. and China lost valuable time in restoring their Geneva agreements,' said Ms. Cutler, now vice-president at the Asia Society Policy Institute. 'Now, only sixty days remain to address issues of concern, including unfair trade practices, excess capacity, transshipment and fentanyl.' Since the Geneva talks, the U.S. and China have exchanged angry words over advanced semiconductors that power artificial intelligence, visas for Chinese students at American universities and rare earth minerals that are vital to carmakers and other industries. China, the world's biggest producer of rare earths, has signalled it may speed up the issuing of export licenses for the elements. Beijing, in turn, wants the U.S. to lift restrictions on Chinese access to the technology used to make advanced semiconductors. Mr. Lutnick said that resolving the rare earths issue is a fundamental part of the agreed-upon framework, and that the U.S. will remove measures it had imposed in response. He did not specify which measures. 'When they approve the licenses, then you should expect that our export implementation will come down as well,' he said. Ms. Cutler said it would be unprecedented for the U.S. to negotiate on its export controls, which she described as an irritant that China has been raising for nearly 20 years. 'By doing so, the U.S. has opened a door for China to insist on adding export controls to future negotiating agendas,' she said. In Washington, a federal appeals court agreed on Tuesday (June 10) to let the government keep collecting tariffs that Mr. Trump has imposed not just on China but also on other countries worldwide while the administration appeals a ruling against his signature trade policy. Mr. Trump said earlier that he wants to 'open up China,' the world's dominant manufacturer, to U.S. products. 'If we don't open up China, maybe we won't do anything,' Mr. Trump said at the White House. 'But we want to open up China.'
NDTV
17 minutes ago
- NDTV
No, India Is Not Israel, And Pak Is Not Palestine
In the immediate aftermath of the April 2022 Pahalgam terror attack - where Indian civilians were targeted in a region long destabilised by cross-border militancy - an old but deeply flawed analogy began circulating with renewed vigour: that India is becoming Israel, with Pakistan being touted as the new 'Palestine'. This comparison, invoked by a range of commentators from populist influencers to academic quarters, attempts to overlay the Middle Eastern fault lines onto South Asia. However, while superficially tempting, this analogy is strategically misleading, historically untrue, and morally hazardous. At its core, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a struggle between a militarily dominant state and a stateless people living under occupation. It is defined by asymmetric power, a denial of sovereignty, and ongoing territorial annexation. India and Pakistan, by contrast, are both fully sovereign states that emerged from a negotiated partition of British India in 1947, each with their own internationally recognised borders and UN memberships. The bilateral conflict, especially over Kashmir, stems not from a denial of statehood but from unresolved territorial claims. Pakistan's continued insistence on linking Kashmir to Palestine flattens these distinctions and obfuscates the history of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism across Indian territory - from Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir to episodic destabilisation in India's Northeast. Equating Pakistani actions with Palestinian resistance also undermines the moral and strategic integrity of the Palestinian cause. It erases the fact that, unlike Palestinians under occupation, Pakistan has used its sovereign apparatus to sponsor and shelter groups involved in acts of terror. This deliberate state complicity - acknowledged even by global institutions - makes Pakistan an aggressor, not an aggrieved actor. Minorities, Democracy, and Statehood One of the more dangerous simplifications of the analogy lies in the misrepresentation of internal minority politics in both regions. It is true that India is facing criticism over recent communal tensions, polarised discourse, and policies perceived as marginalising Muslims. However, equating that with the condition of Palestinians under occupation ignores the difference between a flawed democracy and an apartheid state structure. In India, Muslims remain an electorally significant, constitutionally recognised group whose cultural, linguistic, and religious institutions are protected under law. Their political presence - though under strain - remains visible. From Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the country's first Education Minister, to Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, one of India's most beloved Presidents, the leadership and legacy of Indian Muslims is historically well-anchored. In contemporary times, figures like Asaduddin Owaisi, a staunch government critic, and Salman Khurshid, a senior Congress leader with no constitutional post, were both part of an all-party delegation sent abroad to brief international counterparts in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. Their inclusion, despite being politically oppositional, signals a rare bipartisan consensus on matters of national security. Contrast this with Pakistan, where Ahmadiyyas are constitutionally barred from calling themselves Muslims, and Shias are frequently targeted in sectarian violence. The state's own structures are often complicit in marginalising non-Sunni groups, with blasphemy laws regularly weaponised against minorities. These are not merely social biases but systemic exclusions - legally and politically embedded. Meanwhile, in Palestine, the question is not one of minority rights within a sovereign state but of basic human existence under foreign occupation. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live without freedom of movement, due legal process, or political autonomy. Lumping these distinct contexts together does violence to the nuance required to address each problem on its own terms. Terrorism, Occupation, and Policy India's security doctrine has consistently emphasised that its conflict is not with the people of Pakistan but with its military-intelligence apparatus and its use of terrorism as statecraft. From the insurgency in Kashmir and the Khalistani separatist movement in Punjab to arms flowing into the Northeast in the 1980s and 1990s, India's internal challenges have often traced back to external sponsorship. These were not acts of a stateless community demanding dignity but the result of a neighbour using irregular war to destabilise a regional adversary. Israel, by contrast, has often responded to Palestinian armed resistance with disproportionate force - demolishing homes, bombing refugee camps, and applying collective punishment policies. These actions have generated global concern about human rights violations, and rightly so. However, attempts to map these punitive actions onto India's counter-terror operations obscure the scale, nature, and intent of both countries' military strategies. What makes the analogy particularly hollow is India's long-standing commitment to the Palestinian cause. Even under the Modi government, which has expanded strategic ties with Israel, India has repeatedly reaffirmed its support for a two-state solution and spoken against occupation at UN fora. Far from mimicking Israeli policy, India has walked a diplomatic tightrope - deepening bilateral defence relations with Israel while maintaining principled solidarity with Palestine. Conflating these divergent positions is not only analytically lazy but diplomatically counterproductive. It risks damaging India's credibility in the Global South, especially at a time when New Delhi seeks to position itself as a mediator and developmental partner in multilateral spaces. More importantly, it insults the Palestinian struggle by associating it with Pakistan's agenda of using terrorism and religious nationalism as tools of foreign policy. Reject Lazy Analogies Both the Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan conflicts demand global attention. But attention should not mean abstraction. The occupation of Palestine is a human rights crisis rooted in land, displacement, and statelessness. The India-Pakistan dynamic, while also involving land and identity, is situated in a very different matrix: of two sovereign nations, one of which has routinely used terrorism to internationalise what is essentially a bilateral issue. Sympathy for the Palestinian cause should not be hijacked to justify flawed analogies that exonerate state complicity in South Asia. Nor should India's legitimate counterterrorism operations be lumped with settler-colonial violence. Doing so only weakens both struggles - reducing history, diplomacy, and suffering to hashtags. In times of polarisation, strategic clarity is not just a virtue, it is a necessity. India is not Israel. Pakistan is not Palestine. And equating them does justice to neither the complexity of history nor the urgency of peace. (Ashraf Nehal is an author, analyst and columnist, who writes on South Asian geopolitics, climate action and world affairs. He was a former PM Young Writing Fellow)
