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.
A common thread runs through the memories of soldiers of the 1965 war—ingenuity, courage and camaraderie that withstood an apparently technologically superior foe.
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.
An excellent article. One unintended consequence of the entire episode is that the Rafale debate is dead. However, purchase of mere 36 Rafale planes is not enough. We need more numbers. The current government in its five years tenure should have done more to plan replacement of aging outdated fighter planes. Now about war anthrea of terrorism. Obviously, the threat of terrorism stays. As such, there is not much change in the ground reality, except that Pakistan will have to factor in India’s ability to strike with air power. As in the past, the new government will have to deal with the issue of terrorism with patience and cool mind. The foremost consideration is that this threat has be contained to ensure that it doesn’t impact our economic growth story. World respects power, which manifests in different ways – power of the bullet, money and knowledge. In all these three areas, India has to maintain its growth. If Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism, it would be suicidal from them. India has to protect itself from the impact of Pakistan’s sad self-destruction.
No one wants wat, but war and peace are not mutually exclusive. At times, to bring about order, war needs to be waged. There are several examples of this in the history of the world. Akbar waged war and established a functional system in our huge geography; WWII restored order in Europe which, since has evolved immensely on issues such as race, religion, discrimination, environmental issues, human rights.
If Pulwama needs to be used as an opportunity to bring about order in South East Asia, so be it. The government of the day should relentlessly pursue a multi-pronged agressive strategy to its end without any fear of electoral losses or greed for similar gains. It should be clinical and firm, just like a competent surgeon on an operation table.
A forensic audit will also be required of the accuracy of the munitions used for the Balakot mission. The smart bombs are expected to have a Circular Error Probable of three metres.
As an Indian I am happy to read the phrase, “India’s new diplomatic heft”, but in the name of truth, I must say that this “heft” is only because Pakistan has dug itself into a hole; it is by default, and not because of Mr Modi’s umpteen foreign sojourns. Let no one use it as an excuse for the prime minister’s absence from the country for a total of more than eight months. World leaders have not so much stood WITH India as stood AGAINST Pakistan. This is a different scene from earlier times because Pakistan’s terrorism hadn’t then reached INTERNATIONAL shores. Its roughish-ness was confined only to its neighborhood. Pakistan ratcheted up its terrorism with the dawn of the present century: 9/11of 2002 mastermind Omar Sheikh was a Pakistani; terrorist attackers in London, France, Belgium, Germany, Russia and even China were found to have some Pakistan connection; Osama bin Laden was found in Pakistan; even the present Al-Qaida chief, Zawahiri is supposed to be hiding somewhere in Pakistan.
It was Pakistan’s “ambition” to be recognised as “formidable” that has got it recognised as the international bad boy, without anyone’s help.
Quite informative and researched narrative. Actually, both Nehru and Indira, particularly Nehru, wanted to be called howks and doves at the same time. They wanted to be looked strong leaders for domestic audience and Messiah of peace internationally. Moreover, both wanted to be seen as anti west for the millions of Indians, because of the then anti England atmosphere, but in their personal habits and feelings they were more English than the Englishmen. They found ready audience among the leaders of the newly liberated nations of Asia and Africa. These too had similar, both pro and anti west feelings. Most of these leaders supported USSR publically, but were dependent on went for economic reasons. The so-called group of Nonaligned nations was such a group of leaders, not countries, who have the habbit of saving their own interests. Nehru tried to be friendly with Muslim countries at the cost of friendship with Israel, but these never supported us on Kashmir. None came in favour of us during China war. Even Russian kept equal distance at that time. Only the deteriorating relations between Russia and China compelled formers to align with us. Both Nehru and Indira cared more for their personal image internationally. But Modi has no such image related compulsions. He damn care what others think about him. And that is the real qualities of a real leader.
An excellent article. One unintended consequence of the entire episode is that the Rafale debate is dead. However, purchase of mere 36 Rafale planes is not enough. We need more numbers. The current government in its five years tenure should have done more to plan replacement of aging outdated fighter planes. Now about war anthrea of terrorism. Obviously, the threat of terrorism stays. As such, there is not much change in the ground reality, except that Pakistan will have to factor in India’s ability to strike with air power. As in the past, the new government will have to deal with the issue of terrorism with patience and cool mind. The foremost consideration is that this threat has be contained to ensure that it doesn’t impact our economic growth story. World respects power, which manifests in different ways – power of the bullet, money and knowledge. In all these three areas, India has to maintain its growth. If Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism, it would be suicidal from them. India has to protect itself from the impact of Pakistan’s sad self-destruction.
No one wants wat, but war and peace are not mutually exclusive. At times, to bring about order, war needs to be waged. There are several examples of this in the history of the world. Akbar waged war and established a functional system in our huge geography; WWII restored order in Europe which, since has evolved immensely on issues such as race, religion, discrimination, environmental issues, human rights.
If Pulwama needs to be used as an opportunity to bring about order in South East Asia, so be it. The government of the day should relentlessly pursue a multi-pronged agressive strategy to its end without any fear of electoral losses or greed for similar gains. It should be clinical and firm, just like a competent surgeon on an operation table.
A forensic audit will also be required of the accuracy of the munitions used for the Balakot mission. The smart bombs are expected to have a Circular Error Probable of three metres.
As an Indian I am happy to read the phrase, “India’s new diplomatic heft”, but in the name of truth, I must say that this “heft” is only because Pakistan has dug itself into a hole; it is by default, and not because of Mr Modi’s umpteen foreign sojourns. Let no one use it as an excuse for the prime minister’s absence from the country for a total of more than eight months. World leaders have not so much stood WITH India as stood AGAINST Pakistan. This is a different scene from earlier times because Pakistan’s terrorism hadn’t then reached INTERNATIONAL shores. Its roughish-ness was confined only to its neighborhood. Pakistan ratcheted up its terrorism with the dawn of the present century: 9/11of 2002 mastermind Omar Sheikh was a Pakistani; terrorist attackers in London, France, Belgium, Germany, Russia and even China were found to have some Pakistan connection; Osama bin Laden was found in Pakistan; even the present Al-Qaida chief, Zawahiri is supposed to be hiding somewhere in Pakistan.
It was Pakistan’s “ambition” to be recognised as “formidable” that has got it recognised as the international bad boy, without anyone’s help.
Quite informative and researched narrative. Actually, both Nehru and Indira, particularly Nehru, wanted to be called howks and doves at the same time. They wanted to be looked strong leaders for domestic audience and Messiah of peace internationally. Moreover, both wanted to be seen as anti west for the millions of Indians, because of the then anti England atmosphere, but in their personal habits and feelings they were more English than the Englishmen. They found ready audience among the leaders of the newly liberated nations of Asia and Africa. These too had similar, both pro and anti west feelings. Most of these leaders supported USSR publically, but were dependent on went for economic reasons. The so-called group of Nonaligned nations was such a group of leaders, not countries, who have the habbit of saving their own interests. Nehru tried to be friendly with Muslim countries at the cost of friendship with Israel, but these never supported us on Kashmir. None came in favour of us during China war. Even Russian kept equal distance at that time. Only the deteriorating relations between Russia and China compelled formers to align with us. Both Nehru and Indira cared more for their personal image internationally. But Modi has no such image related compulsions. He damn care what others think about him. And that is the real qualities of a real leader.