Former Pak Minister Hina Khar Storms Out Of Live Debate When Grilled On Terrorism, Army
Last Updated:
Former Pakistan minister Hina Rabbani Khar left a live TV debate when asked about terrorism and the Army's role. Indian journalist Barkha Dutt criticized Pakistan's instability.
Former Pakistan minister Hina Rabbani Khar walked out of a live television news debate when she was asked to respond to questions on terrorism and the Army's supremacy in so-called democratic Pakistan.
Indian journalist Barkha Dutt appeared on UK journalist Piers Morgan's 'Uncensored" talk show where Khar was also present. Khar's screen on the live-streaming feed turned black while Dutt was grilling Pakistan on terrorism and its Army's interference in governments.
In a video shared on X, Dutt was heard saying: 'Modi is an elected prime minister of India in his third term unlike Prime ministers of Pakistan who are appointed by the Army, jailed or exiled. Your country is in turmoil because Imran Khan has been jailed. Shehbaz Sharif an Army-appointed PM. Did you know what your defence minister Khwaja Asif said in an interview that Pakistan used terrorism? Pakistan is doing a dirty job of other countries by using terrorism…"
Khar was appointed as the Foreign Minister of Pakistan in July 2011, the first woman to have held the position.
First Published:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Foreign minister Jaishankar asked if India can trust US President Donald Trump. His reply: ‘Meaning what?'
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar weighed in on India's foreign policy priorities and ties with major global players — including the United States under Donald Trump during his visit to Brussels this week. In a conversation with European media network Euractiv, he was asked whether India could trust Trump. Jaishankar replied: 'Meaning what?'. The interviewer then expanded on the question, asking, 'Is he (Trump) as good as his word? Is he a partner India is willing to deepen ties with?' 'I take the world as I find it,' was Jaishankar's reply. 'Our aim is to advance every relationship that serves our interests — and the US relationship is of immense importance to us. It's not about personality X or president Y.' Jaishankar's frank comments come as New Delhi and Washington have differed over US role in the cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan. The US President has often reiterated his claim of mediating peace between New Delhi and Islamabad, while India has asserted that the decision was made strictly bilaterally. Speaking at a campaign event on May 31, Trump once again said he 'got India and Pakistan to stop fighting' by linking trade talks to de-escalation. 'We talk trade, and we say we can't trade with people who are shooting at each other and potentially using nuclear weapons… They understood and they agreed, and that all stopped,' he said. Earlier, on May 10, when the two nuclear-armed countries agreed to stop firing and military action, the United States claimed credit for brokering the ceasefire with Trump saying the two countries agreed on a full and immediate ceasefire 'after a long night of talks mediated by the United States'. New Delhi has dismissed such remarks in the past and maintains that the ceasefire following Operation Sindoor was the outcome of direct bilateral engagement with Pakistan. Indian officials have underlined that no foreign government, including the United States, was involved — and that trade negotiations with Washington were unrelated to any security decisions made in the region. Jaishankar, who is in Brussels to meet European Union (EU) leaders, also spoke about India's foreign policy priorities from counterterrorism and trade to multipolarity and global trust. On the recent clash with Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack, Jaishankar urged the West to see India's response under Operation Sindoor as an anti-terror operation—not a border spat. 'This isn't merely an India-Pakistan issue. It's about terrorism,' he said, adding: 'Let me remind you—Osama bin Laden lived in a Pakistani military town, right next to their equivalent of West Point. That very same terrorism will eventually come back to haunt you.' He also criticised the international media coverage for reducing the situation to 'tit-for-tat between two nuclear-armed neighbours.' Noting Europe's search for 'strategic autonomy,' Jaishankar said multipolarity is already here. 'Europe must now make decisions based on its own capabilities and interests… I hear terms like 'strategic autonomy' being used—these were once part of our vocabulary,' he remarked. Calling the EU a 'major pole' in the global order, Jaishankar said: 'That is precisely why I'm here: to deepen our relationship in this multipolar world.'
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Privilege motion against Suvendu Adhikari for remarks against Mamata Banerjee
Kolkata: West Bengal assembly speaker Biman Banerjee on Wednesday accepted a privilege motion moved by four Trinamool Congress (TMC) legislators against leader of the opposition Suvendu Adhikari for allegedly making defamatory remarks against chief minister Mamata Banerjee outside the assembly house on Tuesday. The speaker told the media that the motion has been sent to the assembly's privilege committee for review. 'The committee will submit its report by the next session,' he said. The next session is likely to be held in September, according to assembly officials. On Tuesday, Mamata Banerjee targeted the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) alleging that the Pahalgam terror attack had proved the Centre's failure to provide security to Indian citizens. She made the remarks during discussions on a resolution moved by the TMC government condemning the April 22 terror attack and hailing the subsequent action by the Indian armed forces against Pakistan. In the resolution, which was adopted unanimously, the name of the Indian action, Operation Sindoor, was, however, not mentioned. After the proceedings, Adhikari told reporters outside the assembly house that Banerjee batted for Pakistan throughout her speech. 'She batted for Pakistan all the way and also insulted our Prime Minister and Union home minister,' he said. Hours after this, TMC legislators submitted an application at the speaker's office seeking permission to move a privilege motion against Adhikari.
The Hindu
20 minutes ago
- The Hindu
NIH scientists publish declaration criticising Trump's deep cuts in public health research
In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. 'Dissent," he said, 'is the very essence of science.' That commitment is being put to the test. On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, challenging 'policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' It says: "We dissent." In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, 92 NIH researchers, programme directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter — and their careers on the line. An additional 250 of their colleagues across the agency endorsed the declaration without using their names. Core demands and scientific concerns The letter, addressed to Bhattacharya, also was sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH. White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the administration's approach to federal research and said President Donald Trump is focused on restoring a 'Gold Standard' of science, not 'ideological activism.' The letter came out a day before Bhattacharya is to testify to a Senate committee about Trump's proposed budget, opening him to questions about the broadside from declaration signers, and it stirred Democrats on a House panel to ask the Republican chair for hearings on the matter. The signers went public in the face of a 'culture of fear and suppression' they say Trump's administration has spread through the federal civil service. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritises political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the declaration says. Bhattacharya responded to the declaration by saying it 'has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months," such as suggestions that NIH has ended international collaboration. 'Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive,' he said in a statement. "We all want the NIH to succeed.' Named for the agency's headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world's premier public health research institution over the course of mere months. It addresses the termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12 billion and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants. Health disparities, broken trials and rising dissent In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients. In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyse the work, the letter says. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million,' it says, 'it wastes $4 million.' Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., to talk about what's happening at the NIH. At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organiser of the declaration. 'I want people to know how bad things are at NIH," Norton told The Associated Press. The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration in 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School. His declaration drew together likeminded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive COVID-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracised by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH. 'He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours," said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration. As chief of the Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who've been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. Cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimising its destruction. "So much of it is gone — my work,' she said. The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because she didn't want to be "a collaborator' in the political manipulation of biomedical science. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. 'We have a saying in basic science,' he said. 'You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients. 'We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future,' he added. But that won't happen, he said, if Trump's Republican administration prevails with its searing grant cuts. The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasised they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes nor the NIH. Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants. The letter asserts 'NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety' and the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who 'braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health.' Political context and DEI backlash The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money. At the White House, Desai said Americans 'have lost confidence in our increasingly politicised healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago.' This has forced 'indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' the declaration says. Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya's town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH's direction. The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a lynchpin in science. With that in place, he said in a statement in April, 'NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation." Now it will be seen whether that's enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him. 'There's a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can't be brave if you're not scared,' said Norton, who has three young children. "I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it's only going to get harder to speak up. 'Maybe I'm putting my kids at risk by doing this," she added. "And I'm doing it anyway because I couldn't live with myself otherwise.'
