‘Only Saying What Trump Has Said 11 Times', Says Rahul As He Repeats Claim of Modi's ‘Surrender'
Menu
हिंदी తెలుగు اردو
Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion
Support independent journalism. Donate Now
Politics
'Only Saying What Trump Has Said 11 Times', Says Rahul As He Repeats Claim of Modi's 'Surrender'
The Wire Staff
9 minutes ago
The prime minister is unable to say that Trump is lying because the latter has spoken the truth, Gandhi claimed on Friday.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. Photo: PTI
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
Contribute now
New Delhi: Lok Sabha leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi, who has once again claimed that US President Donald Trump compelled Prime Minister Narendra Modi to 'surrender' during the India-Pakistan conflict, said he was only saying the same thing Trump has repeated '11 times'.
'Trump … has said 11 times that Modi stopped due to pressure from him. I am only saying what Trump is saying and has said 11 times,' Gandhi said on Friday (June 6) to mediapersons.
He continued: 'Modi has not made any statement on Trump's comments. Modi should say that Trump is lying.'
Earlier in the day, Gandhi claimed while addressing an event in Bihar's Rajgir that Trump had repeatedly said he made Modi surrender and that the latter was unable to say that the US president was lying because he was speaking the truth.
'You know that he has a habit of surrendering,' Gandhi said referring to the Union government's decision to enumerate castes during the next population census, something that had been a demand of opposition parties in the run-up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
'Trump has said 11 times – 11 times – that 'I made Narendra Modi surrender'. He's said it 11 times, in public. Modi is not able to object to this. Modi is not able to say that Trump is lying. Because it is the truth,' the Congress MP alleged.
On Tuesday, Gandhi while addressing a function in Bhopal claimed that Modi obeyed Trump's diktat to 'surrender'.
'Trump gestured from there [the US], picked up the phone and asked Modi 'what are you doing?' 'Narendra…surrender'. Aur, ji hazoor karke, Narendra Modi ji ne Trump ke ishaare ka paalan kiya. ['Saying yes sir, Modi followed Trump's instructions'],' Gandhi said.
As the four-day military conflict between India and Pakistan ended on May 10, Trump was the first to announce the cessation of hostilities, claiming also that the US mediated the ceasefire between the two South Asian nations.
He has since repeated this stance and also claimed to have used trade as leverage during a mediation effort: 'I said, come on, we're gonna do a lot of trade with you guys. Let's stop it. Let's stop it. If you stop it, we'll do trade. If you don't stop it, we're not gonna do any trade.
'People have never really used trade the way I used it, that I can tell you, and all of a sudden, they said, I think we're gonna stop.'
Since then the US government has said in a court filing that Trump used trade access as incentive to 'avert a full-scale war' between India and Pakistan.
The Modi government has denied claims that the US mediated the cessation of hostilities or that trade came up in discussions between Indian and American officials during the conflict.
Modi has not personally addressed the claims.
Meanwhile, the BJP has called Gandhi's mentality 'sick' and 'dangerous'.
'By making extremely cheap, low-level statements, the self-proclaimed, self-styled, supreme leader, the leader of opposition, Rahul Gandhi, is telling the world that even after becoming the LoP, he lacks seriousness and maturity that the post requires,' BJP spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi said on Wednesday.
He added: 'The manner in which Rahul Gandhi compared our armed forces' valour and the briefing given by our armed forces on Operation Sindoor's success with surrender, shows how sick and dangerous his mentality has become.'
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
Related News
Russian President's Aide Credits Trump for Halting India-Pakistan Hostilities
'Narendra … Surrender': Rahul Gandhi in Swipe at Modi on Trump's Claims of Mediating Ceasefire
'Stopped India and Pakistan From Fighting': Trump Once Again Reiterates Claim of Mediating Ceasefire
India Rejects Claim That Trump's Trade Threat Averted War With Pakistan
Pakistan's Slick US Strategy: It's Deja Vu All Over Again
Why a Special Session of the Parliament is Critical to Discuss the Disclosure Made by CDS Chauhan
Four Things the CDS said at Pune that Deserve Our Attention
The Opposition Owes the Indian public Some Answers
'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court
View in Desktop Mode
About Us
Contact Us
Support Us
© Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
When judges face impeachment: V Ramaswami to Soumitra Sen, what happened in each of the 5 cases
The Centre is likely to bring in an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in the Monsoon Session of Parliament next month. An impeachment motion against a judge is a rare occurrence. There have been attempts to move the motion against judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts only five times since Independence, with Parliament debating only two of those motions, while the rest either failed to get the support of the required number of MPs or were rejected. Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which deals with this issue, says, 'A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.' Here is a look at the five instances when motions were brought to impeach judges. In 1993, Justice V Ramaswami was the first sitting judge of the Supreme Court to face impeachment for alleged financial misconduct during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Lok Sabha debate on impeaching him took place on May 10 and 11 that year. CPI(M)'s Bolpur MP Somnath Chatterjee moved the motion in the Lok Sabha. 'This is a constitutional obligation, not a political witch-hunt. We are seeking to maintain the dignity of the highest judiciary. Let it be known to the nation and to the world that this House, this Parliament, can rise to its responsibilities under the Constitution,' he said. Acknowledging that MPs 'were not judges', Chatterjee said the House was called upon to act 'with objectivity and seriousness of judges'. 'If we fail today, we will be failing not only the Constitution but also the hopes of the people of this country who place trust in our institutions. My appeal once again to all my fellow Members is that the time has come when we must stand up for certain values and norms,' he said. Lauding Ramaswami's counsel Kapil Sibal, who defended the Supreme Court judge in Parliament, Chatterjee said he hoped Ramaswami would resign. 'Yesterday, his counsel advocated very strongly that this House should not vote on this particular motion. His plea was: 'Please do not vote on this motion.' After the debate was over, I walked over to him and said: 'You made an excellent suggestion. Why do you not take it one step further and persuade your client to resign?'' Chatterjee concluded, saying, 'If we fail today, we will be failing not only the Constitution but also the hopes of the people of this country who place trust in our institutions.' Supporting the motion, BJP's Chittorgarh MP Jaswant Singh said it was the first exercise where 'legislators were called upon to don a judicial role'. 'What we do or fail to do today will become archival material, to be referred to by successive generations of legislators. The fate of this motion is directly linked with the moral health of the nation … The motion of impeachment is a safeguard of the State. It restrains judicial tyranny without overawing the authority of the courts. I asked myself: Is this, on the findings of the Committee, sufficient to conclude misbehaviour? My answer is yes. Is it proven? Yes. Does it warrant removal? Yes. To reject this motion would be to condone misbehaviour in the judiciary; it would taint and enfeeble the nation,' he said. The Janata Dal MP from Muzaffarpur, George Fernandes, said he hoped that the debate would be the' beginning of a cleansing process, in which we must uphold the rule of law, uphold the basic norms and values — especially if we want to combat the growing violence and corruption in this country'. The Congress opposed the motion, with its MP Mani Shankar Aiyar saying the 108 members who moved the motion 'were not a cross-section of the House'. 'They were drawn from parties that numerically did not constitute a majority … That is perfectly legal, maybe even moral, but this must be borne in mind … At a time when even my eleven-year-old daughter knew that the Ninth Lok Sabha was going to end, they decided to bring this issue forward as their electoral platform,' he said. Claiming that the House was not even being given 16 hours to consider the matter, Aiyar said, 'Whether we pass this motion or reject it, we are doing great damage to our nation. We are paying for the sins of the dying days of the Ninth Lok Sabha.' Another Congress MP, Debi Prasad Pal, questioned the legitimacy and transparency of the committee process. The motion fell through after most Congress MPs abstained and it failed to get a two-thirds majority. Of the 401 MPs in the House, 205 abstained while 196 voted in favour of the motion. The impeachment proceedings against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court took place in the Rajya Sabha. Sen was accused of misappropriating funds in his role as a court-appointed receiver and of misleading the court even after his elevation to the Bench. The Rajya Sabha took up the motion on August 17–18, 2011, following the findings of an inquiry committee headed by Justice B Sudershan Reddy, Justice Mukul Mudgal, and jurist Fali Nariman. Sitaram Yechury of the CPI(M) moved the motion, saying it was 'not one questioning the integrity of the judiciary but against one judge who has been found to have indulged in conduct that constitutes the definition of misbehaviour'. 'It is a call of duty to correct any aberration that may lead to the undermining of this faith (in the judiciary). Let us convey not only to the people of India but to the people of the world that the Indian Parliament is a sacred temple — the perpetual residence of inviolable justice,' he said. Then Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, spoke in support of the motion. 'The cheques can't lie; individuals can. This is a fit case for removal, and we must so make a recommendation to the President,' he said. Saying he had come to seek justice on 'not only questions of law but also on questions of facts', Justice Sen defended himself in the House. 'The concept of presumption of innocence has now been reversed into a presumption of guilt … Even if you hold me guilty and remove me, I will still shout from the rooftops that I did not misappropriate the money … This entire matter is being driven by assumptions and political will, not law or facts,' he said. In reply, Jaitley said, 'This misappropriation will hang like an albatross around your neck even when you shout from rooftops that you're innocent … Can we afford to have a judge whose conduct smacks of this kind of proven misconduct?' The Upper House passed the motion and Justice Sen became the first sitting judge to have an impeachment motion against him passed by a House of Parliament. He subsequently resigned and then Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid told the Lok Sabha on September 5, 2011, that further discussion on the matter was not required and the Lower House did not get to discuss or vote on the matter. More than 50 Rajya Sabha MPs signed a motion seeking the removal of Justice S K Gangele of the Madhya Pradesh High Court over charges of sexual harassment by a former district and sessions judge in Gwalior. The motion was dropped after an inquiry committee did not find enough material against the judge. Over 50 Rajya Sabha MPs signed a motion to impeach Justice Reddy of the High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana over charges of physically assaulting a judge of a lower court. However, the motion was dropped after nine MPs withdrew, and it fell short of the minimum 50 MPs required to introduce the motion. Opposition parties in the Rajya Sabha, including the Congress, (then undivided) NCP, SP, BSP, and CPI(M), submitted the motion to impeach Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in April 2018, alleging 'misbehaviour' and 'incapacity'. On April 23 that year, the then Rajya Sabha chairman, M Venkaiah Naidu, rejected the motion saying that the charges pertained to internal court administration and did not amount to constitutional 'misbehaviour'.
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Detained Columbia graduate claims 'irreparable harm' to career and family as he pleads for release
Detained Columbia graduate claims 'irreparable harm' to career and family as he pleads for release NEW YORK: A Columbia graduate facing deportation over his pro-Palestinian activism on campus has outlined the "irreparable harm" caused by his continued detention as a federal judge weighs his release. Mahmoud Khalil said in court filings unsealed Thursday that the "most immediate and visceral harms" he's faced in his months detained in Louisiana relate to missing out on the birth of his first child in April. "Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone," the 30-year-old legal US resident wrote. "When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep." He also cited potentially "career-ending" harms from the ordeal, noting that Oxfam International has already rescinded a job offer to serve as a policy adviser. Even his mother's visa to come to the US to help care for his infant son is also now under federal review, Khalil said. "As someone who fled prosecution in Syria for my political beliefs, for who I am, I never imagined myself to be in immigration detention, here in the United States," he wrote. "Why should protesting this Israel government's indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Palestinians result in the erosion of my constitutional rights?" Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin responded that Khalil should simply self-deport, taking advantage of the administration's offer of $1,000 and a free flight to those in the country illegally that use its CBP Home app. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Khalil obtained a green card, but the Trump administration says it is revoking it. Khalil's 13-page statement was among a number of legal declarations his lawyers filed highlighting the wide-ranging negative impacts of his arrest. Dr. Noor Abdalla, his US citizen wife, described the challenges of not having her husband to help navigate their son's birth and the first weeks of his young life. Students and professors at Columbia wrote about the chilling effect Khalil's arrest has had on campus life, with people afraid to attend protests or participate in groups that can be viewed as critical of the Trump administration. Last week, a federal judge in New Jersey said the Trump administration's effort to deport Khalil likely violates the Constitution. Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote the government's primary justification for removing Khalil - that his beliefs may pose a threat to US foreign policy - could open the door to vague and arbitrary enforcement. Khalil was detained by federal immigration agents on March 8 in the lobby of his university-owned apartment, the first arrest under Trump's widening crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza.
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Musk vs Trump: Is Musk taking a step closer to mending broken relationship with Trump? Here is a full list of tweets deleted by Tesla CEO after feud
US President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk Is Musk taking a step closer to ending the feud with Trump because Tesla CEO's latest move seems to be hinting in that direction? James Fishback, principal architect of the "DOGE checks" initiative, who had called out Musk for his tweets against Donald Trump , hailed Tesla CEO after he deleted all the posts against the US President. He pointed out Musk's deleted posts and said that now to take another step and apologies to President Trump. "Elon has deleted his slanderous tweets about the President of the United States. Good first step. Next up: full-throated apology to Trump and his family," he said. It all started with Fishback, replying to Musk's tweet over think about making another party" American party. "Elon, Keep tweeting about your 'new political party' and Japanese fertility rates all you want. You owe President Trump a full-throated apology, and every hour you delay, it'll make an eventual apology less sincere. You can substantively disagree with the President on policy, but you should not have baselessly and personally attacked him. " Fishback said. Responding to Fishback, Musk posted several tweets but after a short brief, those tweets were deleted from the account. His response to some tweets are still existing but the riginal tweets has been deleted. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Secure Your Child's Future with Strong English Fluency Planet Spark Learn More Undo Not only those but all his previous tweets, targeting the president, has been deleted including the Epstein files. It seems that Musk may be seeing different ways to mends and go back from their broken ties. The political rift became public earlier this week when Musk slammed one of Trump's most touted legislative efforts, referred to by the president as his 'big, beautiful bill', calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' The remark surprised Republican leaders and got a rare serious reaction from President Trump. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump said from the Oval Office. He didn't stop there. Taking direct aim at Musk's businesses, the president said: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Musk, in return, accused Trump of 'ingratitude' and escalated the standoff by reposting claims, without evidence, suggesting Trump's name appeared in government documents linked to Jeffrey Epstein.
