SEBI probe concluded that purported loans and fund transfers were paid back in full and did not amount to deceptive market practices or unreported related party transactions.
Many really smart people now share the position that playing cricket with Pakistan is politically, strategically and morally wrong. It is just a poor appreciation of competitive sport.
The citizens of this free democratic country have every right to ask questions, even in case of matters like airstrikes by airforce. That does not amount to insult to the armed forces. Rather it would be a pride for them to show their valour and sagacity with which they performed such difficult task in adverse conditions. The govt should not hide behind national security in these cases.
With the general elections being just a month away, this issue is bound to get politicised, there is no escape from the political reality. The factual position is that our Air Force hit the target precisely. It achieved twin results. It called Pakistan’s nuclear bluff by breaching the LoC first time after 1971. Secondly, it has, to some moderate extent, provided an alternative remedy to curb the menace of terrorism. However, let there be no illusion that the threat of terrorism has been totally dealt with. Just that the Jaish has received an unexpected setback and it would take some time for them to regroup and attack again. Obviously, it is stupid to predict the number of casualties in the Balakot strike. In the final analysis, the number doesn’t matter. Those who are seeking this number are asking a wrong question, so are also those who are projecting this number for their political benefit. The issue to be considered is that the operation Balakot has resulted in raising the moral and reputation of the country, irrespective of number of casualties- this is an undeniable truth. Secondly, the operation had some inherent risks. Had the things gone wrong with India losing pilots and Mirage aircrafts during the air strike, the blame would have been on the political leadership- more particularly on PM Modi. He weighed the risk and has shown courage to give clearance. Credit can be denied and he will undoubtedly enjoy rich political dividends on account his courageous decision making,.Period.
Why should anyone have to ASK for evidence? The question is, why was it not provided upfront right along with the news on TV?
I’ll say this: I watched BBC many times in the morning after the night of Balakot attack, say around 11 AM. Their news ticker was showing one line that Pakistan had been saying since early morning, “Pakistan jets scramble…”. That line changed only around 1 pm when Indian foreign Secretary gave out a statement, and the ticker started saying “Indian jets…”. Why this delay of nearly 8 hours? I didn’t tune in “on the hour” so I don’t know if the newsreader “spoke” any more details about the strike. Normally BBC and CNN get to know these things pretty fast. CNN I think didn’t have any ticker running at all. I tuned in there too, but couldn’t see any on that channel.
All this is strange, really. When America struck targets in Iraq or later Libya (I think France hit Libya), the TV shots clearly showed the hits. They were covered extensively on CNN and BBC. But this time these two hyperactive channels in such matters were almost dead, suggesting that they knew nothing on their own, and were therefore running one line ticker that was first fed to BBC by Pakistan, and by afternoon by India.
This surely raises questions in the minds of many like me who are aware of the reliability of above mentioned two channels in such matters.
The various speakers are going around in circles and are only politicizing an issue that should not be. They bring water to power in place. This raid is blessed bread for this one. The question the Print commentator does not ask is: why did the Air Force Chief of Staff speak up on this subject? In general, this authority often speaks and not necessarily wisely. This raises the question of whether this authority serves the defense of the country or the authority that appointed it? This is an important question. Last but not least, his speech can only help maintain the silo mode of operation of the various components of the Indian armed forces. This attitude can only deter the establishment of a single chief of staff for the armed forces. It is also a blessing for the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Defense.
The aura of the armed forces will be undermined if they get drawn – for no fault of theirs – into political debates, which become more intense during election time. Ideally, military and intelligence operations should remain covert, as they have for decades. When these are publicised and made into a tool for political aggrandisement, one can hardly expect the opposition to roll over. Questions on the efficacy of the Balakot strike are being raised by neutral, impartial observers. Those need to be set at rest. 2. The action taken in September 2016 was less significant than Balakot. And yet, when questions arose, video footage was leaked selectively to favoured outlets. Much better to officially place in the public domain authentic information to the extent this can be done without compromising national security. 3. If top brass are feeling a little uncomfortable with how their forces are being drawn into political debates, they might wish to convey their concerns to the leadership.
The citizens of this free democratic country have every right to ask questions, even in case of matters like airstrikes by airforce. That does not amount to insult to the armed forces. Rather it would be a pride for them to show their valour and sagacity with which they performed such difficult task in adverse conditions. The govt should not hide behind national security in these cases.
With the general elections being just a month away, this issue is bound to get politicised, there is no escape from the political reality. The factual position is that our Air Force hit the target precisely. It achieved twin results. It called Pakistan’s nuclear bluff by breaching the LoC first time after 1971. Secondly, it has, to some moderate extent, provided an alternative remedy to curb the menace of terrorism. However, let there be no illusion that the threat of terrorism has been totally dealt with. Just that the Jaish has received an unexpected setback and it would take some time for them to regroup and attack again. Obviously, it is stupid to predict the number of casualties in the Balakot strike. In the final analysis, the number doesn’t matter. Those who are seeking this number are asking a wrong question, so are also those who are projecting this number for their political benefit. The issue to be considered is that the operation Balakot has resulted in raising the moral and reputation of the country, irrespective of number of casualties- this is an undeniable truth. Secondly, the operation had some inherent risks. Had the things gone wrong with India losing pilots and Mirage aircrafts during the air strike, the blame would have been on the political leadership- more particularly on PM Modi. He weighed the risk and has shown courage to give clearance. Credit can be denied and he will undoubtedly enjoy rich political dividends on account his courageous decision making,.Period.
Why should anyone have to ASK for evidence? The question is, why was it not provided upfront right along with the news on TV?
I’ll say this: I watched BBC many times in the morning after the night of Balakot attack, say around 11 AM. Their news ticker was showing one line that Pakistan had been saying since early morning, “Pakistan jets scramble…”. That line changed only around 1 pm when Indian foreign Secretary gave out a statement, and the ticker started saying “Indian jets…”. Why this delay of nearly 8 hours? I didn’t tune in “on the hour” so I don’t know if the newsreader “spoke” any more details about the strike. Normally BBC and CNN get to know these things pretty fast. CNN I think didn’t have any ticker running at all. I tuned in there too, but couldn’t see any on that channel.
All this is strange, really. When America struck targets in Iraq or later Libya (I think France hit Libya), the TV shots clearly showed the hits. They were covered extensively on CNN and BBC. But this time these two hyperactive channels in such matters were almost dead, suggesting that they knew nothing on their own, and were therefore running one line ticker that was first fed to BBC by Pakistan, and by afternoon by India.
This surely raises questions in the minds of many like me who are aware of the reliability of above mentioned two channels in such matters.
The various speakers are going around in circles and are only politicizing an issue that should not be. They bring water to power in place. This raid is blessed bread for this one. The question the Print commentator does not ask is: why did the Air Force Chief of Staff speak up on this subject? In general, this authority often speaks and not necessarily wisely. This raises the question of whether this authority serves the defense of the country or the authority that appointed it? This is an important question. Last but not least, his speech can only help maintain the silo mode of operation of the various components of the Indian armed forces. This attitude can only deter the establishment of a single chief of staff for the armed forces. It is also a blessing for the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Defense.
The aura of the armed forces will be undermined if they get drawn – for no fault of theirs – into political debates, which become more intense during election time. Ideally, military and intelligence operations should remain covert, as they have for decades. When these are publicised and made into a tool for political aggrandisement, one can hardly expect the opposition to roll over. Questions on the efficacy of the Balakot strike are being raised by neutral, impartial observers. Those need to be set at rest. 2. The action taken in September 2016 was less significant than Balakot. And yet, when questions arose, video footage was leaked selectively to favoured outlets. Much better to officially place in the public domain authentic information to the extent this can be done without compromising national security. 3. If top brass are feeling a little uncomfortable with how their forces are being drawn into political debates, they might wish to convey their concerns to the leadership.