Latest news with #Ghori
News18
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- News18
Vikrant Massey REACTS To Prithviraj Chauhan Show: 'He Was Never Truly Defeated'
Last Updated: Vikrant Massey praises Sony TV's Prithviraj Chauhan show, calls the king a timeless hero and questions misleading historical narratives about his defeat by Ghori. Actor Vikrant Massey, known for his powerful performances in both television and film, has recently opened up about his deep connection with Indian history—especially the legacy of warrior-king Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan. Inspired by the promo of Sony TV's upcoming historical show Chakravarti Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan, Massey took to Instagram to express his thoughts on the misunderstood narratives around one of India's greatest rulers. Massey, who began his acting career with TV shows like Balika Vadhu and has since transitioned into acclaimed films such as 12th Fail and The Sabarmati Report, revealed that history has long been a personal passion. 'Very few people know that history has always been my favorite subject," he shared. 'Even today, I read history books simply out of interest—because to understand the present, it is essential to understand the past." View this post on Instagram A post shared by Vikrant Massey (@vikrantmassey) Commenting on the promo of the new series, Massey addressed the long-contested story of Prithviraj Chauhan's conflict with Mohammad Ghori. 'Who says that Prithviraj Chauhan was defeated by Mohammad Ghori?" he questioned. 'Chauhan defeated Ghori multiple times and spared his life every time. It was only when Ghori used deceit that he succeeded. He captured Chauhan, blinded him, and had him killed in an inhumane manner." The actor went on to challenge commonly accepted historical narratives. 'Books may say, and our neighboring country may believe, that Ghori defeated Chauhan. But that's not the full truth. A nation or civilization doesn't fall in a day—it takes centuries. And even now, nearly 1,000 years later, India thrives. On the other hand, Ghori's own land, Ghor, is among the most underdeveloped in the world." With great pride, Massey concluded, 'Prithviraj still lives on. We are proud of him. But in Ghori's country, no one even speaks his name." Massey's impassioned reflection has added to the anticipation around Chakravarti Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan, which promises to bring alive a defining era of Indian history. Airing Monday to Friday at 7:30 PM on Sony TV and streaming on Sony LIV, the show offers a compelling look into the life, battles, and undying spirit of the legendary Rajput king. First Published:
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
Vikrant Massey pens note on the legacy of Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan, says he was never defeated: ‘Humey unpar garv hein'
Actor Vikrant Massey has a huge interest in history and shared that it was always his favourite subject. In his latest Instagram post, Vikrant penned a long note on the legacy of one of India's most prominent historical figures- Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan. Vikrant was inspired to share his take after he chanced upon a promo of a new television show based on the historical figure. (Also read: Aankhon Ki Gustaakhiyan first look: Vikrant Massey romances Shanaya Kapoor; internet says 'age difference is showing') In the post, Vikrant talked about the way history has recorded the defeat and subsequent death of Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan at the hands of Muhammad Ghori. The post, written in Hindi, roughly translates to: 'Very few people know that History is my favourite subject. Even today, I pick up a book because it is important to know what happened in the past to really understand the present. Recently, I watched a promo of a Television show and this thought occurred to me.' A post shared by Vikrant Massey (@vikrantmassey) He went on to add, 'Who says Prithviraj Chauhan was defeated in the hands of Muhammad Ghori? Prithviraj Chauhan had won against Ghori multiple times and forgave him multiple times. The one time Ghori won by deceit, he gouged his eyes out and killed him like an animal. But the history books say and our neighboring country thinks that Prithviraj lost. That is wrong- he never lost. This country, society, culture cannot be defined with the outcome of one war. It is defined by the outcome that has passed through ages and many, many years. Even after 1000 years, the land of Prithviraj Chauhan is prosperous. Delhi, Ajmer, and the entire Hindustan is thriving and happy. In the same way, the land of Ghori is considered to have gone backwards.' Vikrant concluded by saying, 'Prithviraj is still thriving. We are proud of him. But there is no to take the name of Ghori in his own country." On the work front, Vikrant will be seen next in Aankhon Ki Gustaakhiyan. The teaser of the film was released a few days ago, and caught the intrigue of many fans. The film is directed by Santosh Singh and marks Shanaya Kapoor's acting debut. It is set to release in theatres on July 11.
News18
11-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
Why Pakistan's Army, ISI & Leadership Threatened India With Nuclear Weapons
Last Updated: As the May 10 ceasefire ended the conflict, News18 spoke to defence and government sources on what the threats mean tanWhile India showed its might in both defence and attack during the 100-hour conflict which started on May 7, Pakistan, be it the Army, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) or leadership, kept threatening India with nuclear weapons. As India vowed justice after the April 22 Pahalgam massacre, defence minister Khwaja Asif had threatened India saying that if it dared to attack Pakistan, no one would survive. Pakistan Minister Hanif Abbasi had threatened nuclear retaliation, warning that Islamabad's stockpile — Ghori, Shaheen, and Ghaznavi missiles along with 130 nuclear warheads — has been kept 'only for India." India responded to Pahalgam with Operation Sindoor, precision airstrikes on nine terror hubs in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), on May 7. Pakistan kept provoking India, only to be countered by New Delhi's strong defence systems each time. As the May 10 ceasefire ended the conflict, News18 spoke to defence and government sources on what the threats mean. nuclear threats act as a great equaliser, deterring India from exploiting this imbalance," said sources. Pakistan has developed short-range tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) such as Ghaznavi and Shaheen missiles to counter India. These missiles facilitate rapid conventional strikes. 'Pakistan's nuclear threats against India reflect a mix of strategic desperation, domestic instability, and geopolitical posturing. It is a calculated, but risky strategy to mask systemic weaknesses, sustain proxy warfare, and deter Indian retaliation," they said. #WATCH | India's Operation Sindoor Utilized BrahMos Missiles To Target Terrorist camps In Pakistan, Says Sources. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh Inaugurated A BrahMos Missile Manufacturing Unit In Lucknow At 11 AM. #IndiaPakistanWar #OperationSindoor #RajnathSingh — News18 (@CNNnews18) May 11, 2025 ECONOMY, THREATS & CHINA Pakistan's economy is in freefall, with a $7-billion IMF bailout failing to stabilise inflation and debt. Baloch separatists, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and political opposition such as Imran Khan's imprisonment threaten the military's grip on power. The army establishment uses nuclear brinkmanship to rally nationalist sentiment and deflect blame. 'Escalating tensions with India create a rally-around-the-flag effect. The Pahalgam attack, linked to the Pakistan Army and ISI via a former commando of the Pak army and encrypted Chinese telecom equipment, suggests Pakistan's use of proxies like Lashkar-e-Toiba to destabilise Kashmir," said sources. Pakistan is dependent on China for military technology such as drones, missiles and diplomatic cover at the UN. ' Nuclear threats signal to Beijing that Islamabad remains a critical ally against India. By framing Kashmir as an Islamic cause, Pakistan seeks solidarity from Gulf states and Turkey, leveraging pan-Islamist narratives to offset isolation. The Pahalgam attack, ISI's role in shielding groups like LeT and its shadow group responsible for Pahalgam, The Resistance Front (TRF), and links to global terrorism such as the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and Osama bin Laden's Abbottabad hideout fall into the definition of a rogue state…AQ Khan's nuclear network, which is a supplier for Iran, North Korea, and the recent threats to sell nukes to other rogue states clearly suggest Pakistan's disregard for non-proliferation norms," he said. First Published: May 11, 2025, 18:29 IST
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
10-05-2025
- Politics
- First Post
What happens if Pakistan launches a nuclear missile? Understanding South Asia's most dangerous question
As India and Pakistan engage in their most intense military conflict in decades, the nuclear question looms large. With both nations possessing powerful arsenals and second-strike capabilities, a single miscalculation could spiral into catastrophe. This report breaks down the strategic doctrines, missile systems and the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction that continue to hold back the unthinkable read more Aerial photo of the mushroom cloud rising over Nagasaki, Japan after the United States detonated an atomic bomb on August 9, 1945. Representational Image/US National Archives Cross-border tensions between India and Pakistan have climbed to new heights. Amid escalating military operations, the world is once again confronted with a harrowing question: what happens if Pakistan launches a nuclear missile? The issue transcends conventional warfare. It enters a domain where the margin for error is non-existent, where every strategic calculation hinges on the doctrine of deterrence and where the consequence of miscalculation is unthinkable devastation. Pakistan's nuclear programme, born from its perception of existential threat following India's 1974 nuclear test , has matured into a formidable deterrent. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam and retaliatory measures by India that followed, politicians in Pakistan have made explosive threats mentioning nuclear weapons. Pakistani minister Hanif Abbasi remarked last month , 'We have kept Ghori, Shaheen, Ghaznavi, and 130 nuclear weapons only for India.' Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, in an interview with Reuters has also said that Pakistan would only use its arsenal of nuclear weapons if 'there is a direct threat to our existence'. On Saturday (May 10, 2025), Pakistan PM Shebaz Sharif reportedly called a meeting of the National Command Authority, the apex body overseeing the nation's nuclear arsenal, a meeting which Asif has now claimed never happened . 'No meeting has happened of the National Command Authority, nor is any such meeting scheduled,' Asif told Karachi-based ARY TV. How Pakistan is nuclear-capable Over the past two decades, Islamabad has developed a diverse array of nuclear-capable delivery systems spanning land, air and sea. The Shaheen-II missile, with a range of approximately 2,000 kilometres, is central to Pakistan's land-based nuclear posture. More recently, the Ababeel missile, equipped with Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) signals a significant leap in Pakistan's ability to overwhelm enemy defences. Pakistani military trucks carry the long range nuclear-capable surface-to-surface 'Ghauri' ballistic missile during the National Day parade in Islamabad, Pakistan, March 23, 2005. File Image/Reuters On the air front, Pakistan's fleet of F-16s and Mirage aircraft are believed to be capable of deploying nuclear gravity bombs and air-launched cruise missiles such as the Ra'ad, with a range exceeding 350 kilometres. Meanwhile, the Babur-3 submarine-launched cruise missile represents a developing but ambitious bid for a second-strike capability — vital for maintaining credible deterrence in the event of a first strike disabling land-based assets. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Pakistan has upwards of 170 nuclear warheads compared to India's 180, as of 2025. How India may be able to defend itself India, on the other hand, has adopted a declared 'No First Use' policy since the early 2000s and has developed a strategic nuclear triad to enforce this doctrine. Its arsenal includes land-based Agni series missiles, capable of reaching targets from neighbouring states to as far as China, nuclear-capable aircraft like the Mirage 2000 and Jaguar, and most crucially, submarine-based ballistic missile platforms like the INS Arihant and INS Arighaat. These nuclear-powered submarines give New Delhi a stealthy, survivable second-strike option, reinforcing its deterrence posture. A surface-to-surface Agni V missile is displayed during the Republic Day parade in New Delhi, India, January 26, 2013. File Image/Reuters Missile defence remains one of the most intensely debated aspects of modern military planning in the subcontinent. While India has made major strides in developing a layered Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) shield, comprising systems like the Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) and the Advanced Air Defence (AAD) interceptors, the task of successfully detecting and destroying an incoming nuclear missile is far from assured. At speeds that can exceed 24,000 kilometres per hour and with decoy or MIRV capabilities, even a single missile can render defence systems ineffective. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Swordfish radar system, designed to track enemy projectiles up to 1,500 kilometres away, is part of India's response to this challenge. Yet, military experts consistently highlight the point that no missile shield guarantees complete protection against a nuclear salvo, particularly one involving multiple warheads. What MAD entails This brings the discourse back to the enduring concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) — a principle that has, paradoxically, helped preserve peace among nuclear powers. MAD rests on the assumption that no rational actor would initiate a nuclear strike knowing that it would inevitably trigger a retaliatory response resulting in total annihilation. The doctrine works as a deterrent because the destruction would be so catastrophic for both the attacker and the defender that neither would benefit. In the India–Pakistan context, this logic still holds. A surface-to-surface Agni V missile is launched from the Wheeler Island off the eastern Indian state of Odisha, April 19, 2012. File Image/Reuters Both nations possess second-strike capabilities and understand that a nuclear war, regardless of who launches first, would result in national collapse, mass civilian casualties and a geopolitical fallout that would reverberate globally. Why MAD is not foolproof Nevertheless, MAD is not a foolproof safety net. The threat lies not in official doctrines, which are usually shaped with extreme caution, but in the possibility of misinterpretation, rogue actors or unintended escalation during conventional conflicts. Unlike the Cold War standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, where strategic communication channels were institutionalised and borders were not shared, India and Pakistan are separated by a tense and highly volatile Line of Control. When fighter jets are engaged in combat, missiles are being fired at military installations and nationalist rhetoric escalates, the room for error narrows. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Moreover, Pakistan's development of tactical nuclear weapons — smaller-yield warheads designed for battlefield use — further complicates the deterrence equation. These weapons lower the nuclear threshold and risk normalising their use in conventional scenarios. India's military doctrine, in contrast, states that any nuclear strike — tactical or strategic — will invite massive retaliation. The real cost All of this unfolds in a region where the civilian population is most vulnerable. Both countries host massive populations in densely populated urban centres. A single nuclear detonation in cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Karachi or Lahore could result in hundreds of thousands of immediate casualties, with many more dying from radiation exposure and long-term fallout. Hospitals, infrastructure, food supply chains and governance systems would collapse in the wake of such a catastrophe. International aid would struggle to respond, and the region would face ecological and economic consequences lasting decades. Both India and Pakistan possess the means to destroy each other — and themselves. As tensions flare and military manoeuvres dominate headlines, it is this restraint — this enduring understanding of the true cost of nuclear war — that remains South Asia's most important line of defence. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As Pakistani politicians continue to invoke nuclear threats and Pakistan continues to escalate this conflict, the underlying message from Islamabad is clear: the nuclear option, while not a first choice, is not off the table. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
Business Times
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Times
India and Pakistan once again at war but will it go nuclear?
AS IF life were not difficult enough for people of the Indian subcontinent that its two nuclear powers should be again at war with each other. After terrorists killed 26 Indian tourists in a picturesque little resort town in Kashmir last month, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi threatened to hunt the 'terrorists and their backers … to the ends of the earth'. He then moved to 'suspend' the Indus Water Treaty, that has stood since 1960 and sets out how water from the Indus River system can be used by both India and Pakistan. It was brokered by the World Bank and has survived three Indo-Pakistan wars. The suspension sparked a fierce reaction from Islamabad. Pakistan is downstream in the river system but the water accounts for no less than 80 per cent of the country's farm irrigation water and for its hydroelectric dams. Pakistan has often accused India of diverting water upstream by building weirs and dams. India has always denied doing any such thing. This time Islamabad duly proclaimed that any move to stop the flow of water would constitute an 'act of war'. A Pakistani minister then warned: If they (India) stop water, they should be ready for war. Ghori, Shaheen and Ghaznavi (Pakistan's missile systems) are not for display. We have kept them for India. We have not kept 130 atomic weapons for a showpiece.' The water treaty has provisions for dispute resolution and sets forth distinct procedures to handle issues which may arise: 'Questions' are handled by the commission in which both sides are represented. 'Differences' are to be resolved by a neutral expert; and 'Disputes' are to be referred to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal called the 'Court of Arbitration'. Modi seems to have put this framework in abeyance. On Wednesday (May 7), Delhi ordered air and missile strikes and Pakistan responded with artillery fire. Indian state authorities have been told to prepare for war. The last time India conducted such a nationwide exercise was during the 1971 India-Pakistan war, which led to the birth of Bangladesh. But that was before both sides acquired nuclear weapons. So, will this particular round of chest thumping and military action lead to a nuclear war? Nuclear weapons theorists opined at the time when the two sides tested their weapons in 1998 that nuclear weapons could, counter-intuitively, prove to be a check on full-scale wars. Kashmir will always be an intractable problem. Delhi and Islamabad both claim Kashmir in its entirety. Neither side can give up its claim to the whole state even if the reality is that each controls only a portion – places recognised internationally as either 'Indian-administered Kashmir' or 'Pakistan-administered Kashmir'. Both Pakistan and India fear that any concession will trigger a cascade of other regions wanting to go their own way. This idea of having no good options while being compelled to act is something that has haunted decision-makers since independence. At the same time, both sides are pandering to their domestic constituencies and cannot be seen to be backing down in the face of threats and attacks from the other side. Escalation, both in rhetoric and in military skirmishes, can take on a momentum of its own. Ask any historian of World War I. One-upmanship on both sides has locked them into their current trajectory. The world can only hope that those nuclear weapons theorists are right.
