Amid tariff row, Army shares 1971 newspaper clipping highlighting U.S. arms supply to Pakistan
The article in the newspaper clipping is dated August 5, 1971 and headlined, 'U.S. arms worth $2 billion shipped to Pakistan since '54'. The clipping was posted on the Eastern Command's X handle exactly 54 years after it was first published, with a caption saying, 'This Day That Year Build Up of War - 05 Aug 1971 #KnowFacts'.
Arms supply at 'throw-away prices'
The article quotes V.C. Shukla, the Minister for Defence Production at the time, who told the Rajya Sabha that the estimated value of U.S. arms shipments to Pakistan since they entered into an arms pact in 1954 amounted to ₹2 billion. He added that both China and the U.S. had supplied Pakistan with arms at concessional rates or 'throw-away prices'.
This took place months before war broke out between India and Pakistan in December 1971, which ended with the independence of Bangladesh.
Incidentally, former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled Dhaka for New Delhi last year, also on August 5, after she was ousted from power in her country.
'Unjustified and unreasonable'
The Eastern Command's post comes at a time when the U.S. has slapped a 25% tariff rate on imports from India, and vowed to add a 'penalty', with U.S. President Donald Trump accusing India of funding Russia in its ongoing conflict with Ukraine by buying Russian crude oil. At the same time, Mr. Trump has announced a trade deal with Pakistan, hinting at developing massive oil reserves in that country, and potential oil sales to India.
On Monday (August 4, 2025), the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) responded to Mr. Trump's threat to 'substantially raise' tariffs on Indian goods over New Delhi's purchase of Russian oil, denouncing the move as 'unjustified and unreasonable.'
'India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict. The United States at that time actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets stability,' the MEA said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
RBI MPC decision August 6: What Sanjay Malhotra might say on growth, inflation and tariffs
Led by Governor Sanjay Malhotra, the RBI's MPC convened to decide on the bi-monthly policy rate amidst expectations of a pause in rate easing. While inflation remains low, concerns over US tariffs and incomplete transmission of previous cuts may prompt the RBI to maintain the status quo. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Pause Likely Amid Global Uncertainty Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Inflation Is Low, But Transmission Still Incomplete Industry Still Hopes for a Modest Rate Cut Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Who's on the MPC? Sanjay Malhotra, RBI Governor Poonam Gupta, Deputy Governor Rajiv Ranjan, Executive Director Nagesh Kumar, Director, ISID Saugata Bhattacharya, Economist Ram Singh, Director, Delhi School of Economics The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) began its three-day monetary policy meeting on Monday, led by Governor Sanjay Malhotra, to decide on the next bi-monthly policy rate. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is expected to announce its decision today on Wednesday, 6 August, with many experts predicting a pause in the ongoing rate easing RBI started cutting rates in February and has already reduced the repo rate by 100 basis points in three steps. However, with new economic uncertainties, particularly the 25% tariff the US is set to impose on Indian imports from 7 August, some experts believe the central bank may now hold off on further rate say that while the current data shows low inflation , the RBI might choose to maintain the status quo to monitor how the US tariffs impact the Indian Economist at Bank of Baroda Madan Sabnavis said the policy decision will not be based on the recent drop in inflation or the US tariff announcement. He noted that the RBI likely factored in tariff-related risks earlier, and a minor revision in inflation projection, from 3.7% to around 3.5–3.6%, could be added, 'The cost of oil for the economy will also play a role. We expect no change in stance or policy rate this time. The RBI's tone is likely to be cautious but optimistic due to resilient growth indicators.'Retail inflation, measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), has stayed below 4% since February, standing at 2.1% in June. The government has tasked the RBI with keeping inflation at 4%, allowing a 2% margin on either Ratings pointed out that not all benefits of the previous rate cuts have reached the market yet. So, holding rates steady may give time for these changes to take effect Economist at ICRA Aditi Nayar said that with inflation easing, the MPC might revise its full-year forecast from 3.7% to a lower average. However, she warned that the US tariffs could weaken GDP growth and create instability in the Indian rupee (INR).While many expect the RBI to pause, some industry leaders are still hoping for a 25 basis point cut, especially given the pressure on small businesses and Pitale from SBM Bank India said that tariffs could create uncertainty and affect market sentiment. He believes the current situation makes a good case for the RBI to stay & Co-Founder of Biz2X Rohit Arora said that MSMEs are already struggling with reduced liquidity and could suffer further from the US tariffs. A rate cut, he said, could help them stay afloat and keep creating jobs during the upcoming festive Panchamia from Jaypee Infratech also called for a cut, pointing out that inflation is at a six-year low. He said the real estate sector would benefit from another cut, boosting demand and buyer of Andromeda Sales and Distribution Raoul Kapoor feels that while an aggressive cut is unlikely, a moderate 25 bps reduction is still possible given low inflation and easing global six-member Monetary Policy Committee includes:All eyes are now on Wednesday's announcement to see whether the RBI continues with its cautious approach or delivers a final cut in this cycle.
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Most likely': Trump suggests Vice President JD Vance as his heir apparent in 2028
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday suggested that Vice President JD Vance is 'most likely' his heir apparent to serve as the nominee for the Republican Party in the 2028 presidential election, the furthest Trump has gone in backing Vance as a future presidential candidate from the Republican. When asked by the reporters if Vance was the heir apparent to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement he has inspired, Trump responded saying 'Well, I think most likely.' The US president added 'In all fairness, he's the vice president,' Reuters reported. Trump, while responding about his heir apparent in 2028, also suggested that Vance and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio should join forces for a future ticket from the Republican party, probably during the 2028 presidential election. Though the 2028 US election remains over three years away, the influence Trump holds within the Republican base is significant and any sign that the US president is backing a candidate can have considerable impact on the nominations. In the past, Trump has declined to offer any endorsement for his successor in 2028. The US president had said in February that Vice President Vance was 'very capable', however, it was too early to name him as the leading candidate for the Republican party. Vance, a 40-year-old one-time Marine, has been able to maneuver a role in the Trump administration, where he is serving as the Vice President and a key diplomat who has been able to champion and sell Trump's domestic policy at home and foreign policy abroad. Trump also named his close aide Secretary Rubio to shake hands with Vance and move ahead for a ticket in 2028 polls. Rubio, who is a former Senator from Florida, has emerged as one of the significant members of the Trump administration who has been tackling the complicated foreign policy dilemmas. Rubio is also the first person since Henry Kissinger who is serving as both secretary of state and national security adviser.
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Necropolitics: who is allowed to live and who may die
Have you ever noticed how an airstrike in Mumbai triggers national outrage, but a similar attack in Kashmir rarely breaks through the noise? We're so accustomed to hearing about violence there that it barely feels like news. It's as if deaths in these regions are already anticipated and normalised. These aren't just accidents of geography. They are symptoms of a deeper system, a politics that decides whose lives are worth grieving and whose deaths are simply part of the landscape. Necropolitics is the use of political power to determine who is allowed to live and who can be made to die. It describes how states and institutions manage death by exposing certain populations, such as refugees, the poor, or racialised communities, to violence, abandonment, or structural neglect. Coined by Cameroonian historian Achille Mbembe in a 2003 essay and later expanded in his book Necropolitics (2019), the concept builds on Michel Foucault's notion of biopolitics but shifts the focus. While biopolitics is concerned with managing life and populations, necropolitics interrogates the power to let people die, deciding who is disposable, who may be sacrificed, and whose suffering is structurally ignored. Biopolitics versus necropolitics Foucault traces how the organisation of power changed over time: from sovereign power, where rulers exercised authority through public spectacles of death, to disciplinary power, which works through institutions like schools and prisons to train individuals using surveillance and routine. This evolved into biopower — the control of entire populations through the optimisation of life via vaccination, sanitation, census-taking, and reproductive governance. Biopower appears progressive, but as Foucault warned, it carries within it the power to 'make live and let die.' Mbembe takes this further. He asks: if biopolitics is truly about preserving life, why are so many still dying? Why are certain lives treated as expendable? Biopolitics tells only half the story. The other half is necropolitics, the deliberate exposure of certain populations to death, not by accident but by design. While biopolitics governs life, necropolitics governs death. It does not merely ignore suffering; it produces it with calculated precision. Necropolitics is not about letting people die, but about making them die. Unlike sovereign power, necropolitics does not rely on the will of a single ruler. It operates through policies, institutions, and global indifference that erases the value of some lives. These lives are stripped of dignity, reduced to statistics, and rendered disposable. This logic, Mbembe argues, has deep colonial roots. Consider the Bengal famine of 1943. Millions died not due to a lack of food, but because British colonial policies prioritised imperial interests over Indian lives. Death was systemic, not accidental. People were treated as tools for the empire, valued only in relation to others' survival. In necropolitical systems, people are not killed through spectacle but through slow, structural abandonment. Death is normalised and bodies become data. The people, whether in borders, refugee camps, or detention centres, are managed, contained, and forgotten. For instance, during the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s and '90s, queer people, especially Black, brown, trans, and working-class individuals, were abandoned by healthcare systems and denied dignity. As scholars like Judith Butler and Jasbir Puar note, only queer lives made respectable through whiteness or middle-class identity were grieved. Puar calls this queer necropolitics, where some queer lives are protected while others are left to die. Characteristics of necropolitics Necropolitics operates through several defining features that together create a system where certain lives are systematically devalued. First, state terror suppresses dissent through surveillance, violence, imprisonment, or elimination, even within democracies. Second, states collaborate with private militias or criminal groups, blurring the line between state and non-state violence. Third, enmity becomes a governing principle, making the right to kill a measure of authority. Fourth, war and terror become self-sustaining economies, fuelling global surveillance and arms markets. Fifth, active predation of certain social groups displaces entire communities, as seen in resource extraction projects. Sixth, death is administered in varied forms like torture, drone strikes, starvation, and disappearance. Finally, these acts are morally justified through ideologies like nationalism, religion, or utilitarianism. Creating a state of exception Necropolitics is sustained not only through violence but through the systematic invention of enemies. Modern states are driven by the desire for an enemy onto whom fear and blame can be projected. This enemy need not be real — the fantasy alone justifies surveillance, exclusion, and elimination. In neoliberal regimes, the threat turns inward, prompting expanded policing and emergency laws that target not just the accused but also those who resemble them. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls this condition the state of exception, when the law suspends itself in the name of preserving itself. Mbembe expands this to show how, for many populations, the exception is not temporary but permanent. In such spaces, legality becomes hollow and rights are applied selectively. What governs is not justice but logistics, such as who gets care, who receives compensation, who can cross a border, and who is punished for trying. These decisions may seem administrative, but they are deeply necropolitical, revealing how life and death are unequally distributed. The living dead Mbembe also introduces a haunting concept within necropolitical thought — the living dead: people who are not killed outright but are forced to live in conditions so degraded, unstable, and violent that life becomes a slow, continuous dying. These are individuals and communities who may remain biologically alive but are stripped of political, social, and moral recognition. We saw this during India's COVID-19 lockdown, when migrant workers were left to walk for days without food, shelter, or transport. Many collapsed and died on highways or railway tracks, not from the virus, but from state neglect. Their deaths were quietly processed and bureaucratically explained and largely unmourned. Mbembe calls these zones death worlds — spaces where populations are exposed to abandonment or sudden violence. Drawing from Agamben's 'state of exception,' Mbembe shows how these spaces operate outside the usual rule of law. Here, death is not a breakdown of governance but its very method. Gaza is one of the starkest examples. After the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, Israeli strikes flattened hospitals, aid centres, and homes. Even the deaths of children were dismissed as collateral damage. The silence that followed reveals necropolitics at its clearest: some deaths are not just permitted but framed as necessary for political strategy and national security. In everyday life Necropolitics does not always come with bombs or guns. More often, it takes the form of law, policy, and bureaucracy — sterilisation drives targeting Dalit and Adivasi women, police databases that profile Muslim names or Black people, drone strikes that label civilians as 'targets,' or detention centres where children sleep on cold floors. These are not failures of a protective system, but features of one designed to discard. It also exists in silence — in the world, including states and global institutions — looking away as thousands of civilians, including women and children, are killed in places like Gaza, while the rest of us carry on with our daily lives. Necropolitics is not confined to war zones. It thrives in the slow violence of poverty, caste, racism, and displacement. So, if power today functions through abandonment and death, what does resistance look like? The goal must not simply be to survive, but to live lives that are recognised, valued, and grieved. Rebecca Rose Varghese is a freelance journalist.
