Huge blow to Indian diplomacy: Congress on Trump-Munir lunch

The Congress on Thursday attacked the government after US President Donald Trump hosted
Pakistan Army Chief
Asim Munir for lunch, saying it is a "huge blow" to
Indian diplomacy
.
Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh said Field Marshal Asim Munir is not the Head of State or Head of government of Pakistan and is the Chief of Army Staff, yet he gets invited by Trump for lunch and receives much praise.
"This is the same man whose atrocious and inflammatory remarks formed the immediate backdrop to the brutal
Pahalgam terror attacks
orchestrated by the establishment over which he presides," Ramesh said on X.
"It is a huge blow to Indian diplomacy (and huglomacy too)," he said, taking a swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The Congress has been taking swipes at Modi, giving "hugs" to foreign heads of state during his meetings with them at international or bilateral engagements, using the term "huglomacy" for it.
Live Events
Meanwhile, Trump has said the two very smart leaders of India and Pakistan decided not to continue a war that could have turned nuclear, a first in weeks, he did not claim credit for stopping hostilities between the two neighbouring nations.
Trump made the remarks while speaking to the media in the Oval Office after hosting Munir for lunch at the White House on Wednesday.
Trump also said he was honoured to meet Munir.
When asked if Iran was discussed in his meeting with Munir, Trump said: Well, they know Iran very well, better than most, and they're not happy about anything. It's not that they're bad with Israel. They know them both, actually, but they probably, maybe they know Iran better, but they see what's going on, and he agreed with me.
"The reason I had him here, I want to thank him for not going into the war, ending the war. And I want to thank, as you know, Prime Minister Modi just left a little while ago, and we're working on a trade deal with India. We're working on a trade deal with Pakistan," the president said.
"They were both here, but I was with Modi a few weeks ago. He was here actually, but now we speak to him. And I'm so happy that two smart people, plus you know, people on their staff too, but two smart people, two very smart people decided not to keep going with that war. That could have been a nuclear war. Those are two nuclear powers, big ones, big, big nuclear powers, and they decided that," he said.
This is the first time in weeks that Trump did not take credit for stopping the military conflict after India launched Operation Sindoor and destroyed terror infrastructure in Pakistan-controlled areas following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives.
Since May 10, when India and Pakistan decided to stop the military conflict, Trump has repeatedly claimed on multiple occasions that he helped settle tensions between the two countries and that he told the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours that America would do a lot of trade with them if they stopped the conflict.
Earlier on Thursday, with Trump repeating his persistent claim that he stopped a war between India and Pakistan, hours after speaking with PM Modi and before meeting Munir, the Congress claimed that he has deflated the hype created by Modi's "PR machinery" and said the prime minister must refute the claims made by the American leader publicly.
Congress' media and publicity department head, Pawan Khera, asked whether the word of the Prime Minister and the Ministry of External Affairs is now so weak that they can't even clearly present India's position in a half-hour call with the US President.
Khera's remarks came after Modi spoke with Trump and set the record straight that India had paused strikes on Pakistan during Operation Sindoor following a request from Islamabad and not due to mediation or a trade deal offer by the US.
In his 35-minute phone call with Trump on Tuesday, Modi briefed the US President on Operation Sindoor and made it clear that it has never accepted any third-party mediation and will never accept it in the future, according to Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri.
Hours after his phone conversation with Modi, Trump repeated his claim that he stopped a war between India and Pakistan.
In a post on X, Khera quoted Trump - "I stopped the war. I spoke to Prime Minister Modi last night. We're going to sign a trade deal very soon."
"Once again, Donald Trump has deflated the hype created by Modi ji's PR machinery. What we were told through the Foreign Secretary about the contents of a telephone conversation has been publicly contradicted by Trump," the Congress leader said.
Is the word of Modi and the Ministry of External Affairs now so weak that they can't even clearly present India's position in a half-hour call with the US President? he asked.
"When Trump hyphenated India and Pakistan, the government stayed silent. It was the opposition that objected," Khera said.
"Now, Trump has hyphenated Modi and (Pakistan Army chief Asim) Munir - and again, the government remains mute. But the opposition will never accept this insult to the office of India's prime minister," he said.
Trump is making these claims himself, neither through officials, nor in private phone calls - he's making them repeatedly, publicly, Khera pointed out.
"It is the prime minister who must refute these claims, and he must do so publicly," he asserted.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

33 minutes ago

• Time of India

How Trump's visa crackdown is threatening Harvard's 7,000 plus international students and what the court just ruled

Federal court blocks Trump's move to restrict Harvard's international student enrollment. (AP Photo) President Donald Trump's administration has escalated efforts to restrict international students at Harvard University, directly affecting over 7,000 foreign students and casting uncertainty over one of the nation's most prestigious universities. This crackdown targets nearly a quarter of Harvard's student body, shaking the university's global standing and raising significant legal and educational concerns. However, recent court rulings have temporarily stalled some of these moves, leaving the fate of Harvard's international students unresolved. The Trump administration's push against Harvard's foreign enrollment represents a broader policy effort to tighten controls on international students in the US. Central to this effort is the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) attempt to revoke Harvard's certification to host foreign students under the Student Exchange and Visitor Program. This program authorizes universities to issue the necessary documents for foreign students to study in the US, making it critical for Harvard's international enrollment. Federal judge halts homeland security's attempt to block international students In a significant development, U.S. 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 District Judge Allison Burroughs temporarily blocked the DHS's ban on Harvard hosting foreign students, citing irregularities in the government's process. The judge's preliminary injunction prevents the administration from withdrawing Harvard's participation in the visa program until the lawsuit filed by the university is resolved. According to Harvard, the ruling 'does not affect the DHS's ongoing administrative review,' but the court's intervention provides temporary relief for more than 7,000 students relying on the program, as reported by the Associated Press. The Trump administration claims that revoking Harvard's certification is a lawful exercise of its authority to regulate foreign student visas. Usually, such action is reserved for clear violations like loss of accreditation or failing to operate as a bona fide institution of learning. However, Harvard argues the administration's efforts are politically motivated retaliation over campus protests and alleged failures to control antisemitism, which the university disputes. Harvard President Alan Garber has stated the university has taken measures to combat antisemitism and will not concede to the administration's demands, according to the Associated Press. Blocking entry of incoming students and increased visa scrutiny In addition to attempting to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students, President Trump issued a proclamation to block entry for incoming Harvard students, invoking authority to deny entry to groups deemed detrimental to national interests. Harvard has challenged this in court, arguing that targeting only Harvard students does not constitute a valid 'class of aliens,' and Judge Burroughs has paused the entry ban for now. Further complicating the situation, the US State Department has intensified social media vetting for visa applicants attending Harvard and other universities, searching for signs of hostility toward the US. This policy expansion means more scrutiny for thousands of foreign students hoping to study at American institutions. The State Department also instructed consulates to prioritize visa approvals for students enrolling at schools with less than 15% foreign student populations, a threshold Harvard exceeds, as reported by the Associated Press. Harvard's international student body and the stakes International students make up approximately 26% of Harvard's total student body, with certain programs being even more dependent on foreign enrollment. For example, 49% of students at the Harvard Kennedy School hold F-1 visas, a third of the business school's students come from abroad, and 94% of the master's program in comparative law consists of international students. This crackdown threatens not only the students' ability to remain in the US but also Harvard's identity as a global academic leader. Conservatives supporting the administration's policies criticize Harvard as a hub of liberalism and antisemitism, but the university insists the government's actions are illegal retaliation, as reported by the Associated Press. As the court case unfolds, Harvard's 7,000 plus international students remain in limbo, highlighting the complex intersection of immigration policy, education, and politics under President Trump's administration. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.

Scroll.in

35 minutes ago

• Scroll.in

The paradox of English: It is both a foreign tongue and a deeply embedded Indian language

Alongside their offensive against Urdu, India's language nationalists appear to have turned their ire on English. That is what one could conclude from the declaration by Union Home Minister Amit Shah at a book launch in New Delhi on Thursday, when he predicted that 'soon a time would come when those speaking English will feel ashamed'. 'In our lifetime, we will see a society in which those speaking English will feel ashamed, that day is not far,' he said. 'I believe that the languages of our country are the ornament of our culture. Without them, we would not have been Bharatiya. Our country, its history, its culture, our dharma – if these have to be understood, it cannot be done in foreign languages.' Shah's statement quickly sparked a political backlash. Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, countered forcefully: 'English is not a dam, it is a bridge. English is not shameful, it is empowering. English is not a chain – it is a tool to break the chains.' Other opposition figures, including Trinamool Congress leaders Derek O'Brien and Sagarika Ghose, echoed this sentiment, slamming the home minister for what they saw as a regressive and divisive stance. Echoes of Mulayam Singh Shah's remarks recall a moment 35 years ago when Mulayam Singh Yadav, who was then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, launched his own crusade against English. In May 1990, Yadav infamously declared English to be 'the language of foreigners and the elite', blaming it for perpetuating socio-economic disparity and cultivating feelings of inferiority among non-English speakers. His one-point mission: Angrezi hatao. Banish English. In a curious twist, Yadav, a self-declared supporter of Urdu urged Urdu-speaking communities to unite with Hindi speakers to oppose English. Urdu, having only recently been granted official status as Uttar Pradesh's second language, was now being weaponised against a new linguistic rival. This contradiction is not out of character for Indian politics, where language often becomes a proxy for identity, power and culture. The disdain for English in some Indian political circles can be traced back to the 1950s and '60s, to socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia and even earlier, to Mohandas Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. Gandhi viewed English as an alien imposition that had displaced indigenous languages from their rightful place in Indian society. At Independence, the Indian Constitution made Hindi the official language, but allowed English to continue for a transitional period of 15 years. This compromise was pragmatic, not sentimental. English was seen as a necessary link language in a culturally and linguistically diverse nation. However, the efforts to impose Hindi on South India in the 1960s sparked widespread resistance and deepened the North-South linguistic divide. Even today, English continues to be viewed by many as a colonial vestige, despite its extensive indigenisation. The Lohia doctrine Lohia considered English to be not just a colonial leftover, but a barrier to original thought and mass education. He argued that true educational reform and people-oriented governance were possible only if conducted in the people's languages. Recognising India's cultural diversity, Lohia made exceptions for South Indian states, allowing them to retain English for inter-state and central communication for 50 years. However, his nuanced vision was distorted by his followers. The anti-English frenzy gained renewed vigour in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, leading to draconian steps like removing English from school curricula altogether. In Bihar in the 1970s, Chief Minister Karpoori Thakur reduced English to an optional subject, resulting in a generation of students branded as the 'Karpoori class' – matriculates without English proficiency. Mulayam Singh Yadav resurrected the campaign in the 1990s, giving it a political legitimacy that had long-lasting social consequences. Misplaced stereotypes Yadav's campaign also triggered unwarranted attacks on Christian institutions, which were accused of using English as a tool for religious conversion and elitist education. This conflation of English with Christianity mirrors the equally irrational equation in the Hindi heartland of Urdu with Islam. Such logic ignores the complex realities of Indian linguistic identity. English may have arrived with colonial Christians, but it soon became a key vehicle for political awakening and nation-building. It was through English that India's founding leaders – from Raja Rammohun Roy to Nehru – engaged with global currents of nationalism, democracy, liberty and modernity. The same language, intended by the British to produce obedient clerks, ended up producing freedom fighters, thinkers and reformers who led India's struggle for independence. More Indian than foreign? Despite its origins, English in India has long shed its colonial skin. It is the medium of scientific advancement, legal systems, administrative governance and higher education. It has played a vital role in the country's post-Independence progress – particularly in the globalisation era. Ironically, many politicians who publicly denounce English still prefer to send their children to English-medium schools. Even in the Hindi heartland, English remains a key administrative language. Today, English enjoys a paradoxical status: both a foreign tongue and a deeply embedded Indian language. English is also the mother tongue of the Anglo Indian community, a recognised minority in India, and serves as an official language in states like Nagaland. As globalisation continues to shape India's economic and cultural landscape, English remains the country's primary interface with the world. To treat it as a threat to Indian identity is to ignore the multifaceted reality of modern India. Language should be a medium of unity, not a tool of discord. English, like all Indian languages, must be valued for its integrative potential, not vilified for its past. The country does not need another round of linguistic chauvinism. Instead, India should recognise the multilingual richness of English – and the maturity to embrace it.

Hindustan Times

37 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

American B-2 stealth bombers head to Guam: Will US use GBU-57 on Iran's nuclear sites before Trump's announcement?

The United States has deployed B-2 Spirit stealth bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to a strategic airbase in Guam, according to a Jerusalem Post report. The deployment came amid escalating tensions in the Middle East following recent Israeli airstrikes on Iran. The move has also raised concerns about a potential US involvement in Iran, as President Donald Trump will soon announce his decision regarding the Iran-Israel conflict. Donald Trump would make his decision regarding a possible strike on Iran in two weeks, White House said. The deployment came days after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared that the US military was ready to carry out any decision President Donald Trump makes regarding Iran. President Trump recently stated that Iran had missed its opportunity to negotiate before Israeli strikes began. He reportedly has issued a two-week deadline to Tehran to reach a deal. Also Read: Israel-Iran conflict: World War III memes go viral as Trump mulls intervention Israel has also stated that it struck 'at the heart of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme,' Eurasian Times reported. However, it does not have the capability to completely destroy Iran's nuclear program. Israel needs American help to hit Iran's Fordow nuclear plant, the report claimed. The facility is the most heavily fortified nuclear site in Iran and is situated deep inside a mountain. An American-made bunker-busting bomb is the only way the facility can be damaged. The GBU-57, a bomb buster that can break through more than 200 feet of strong concrete is among the capabilities that the B-2 can carry, the Jerusalem Post report added. The 30,000-pound warhead, also named Massive Ordnance Penetrator, can only be deployed on the B-2 bomber. The deployment of the stealth fighters to Guam has ignited concerns about whether the US could strike Fordow. On Friday, the White House said that Trump would make his decision regarding a possible strike on Iran in two weeks. B-2's stealth and strike capabilities The B-2 Spirit, manufactured by Northrop Grumman, can carry both regular and nuclear weapons while staying under the radar, due to its stealthy design. Each B-2 costs about $2.1 billion making it the priciest military plane, the report stated. Only 21 of them were ever built because of budget cuts after the Cold War with one lost in a 2008 crash at Guam. With a flying range of over 6,000 nautical miles non-stop, and the ability to refuel in the air, the B-2 can hit heavily fortified targets like nuclear sites. It can carry up to 40,000 pounds of bombs, including the GBU-57A/B. The bomber can reportedly carry other types of bombs, like JDAMs, JSOWs, and JASSMs, which makes it useful for different kinds of missions. It is a vital part of America's nuclear defense, able to hold up to 16 B83 nuclear bombs. With its tech that helps it dodge radar, low visibility, and a two-person crew, the B-2 is designed for sneaky, safe, and flexible missions, making it a key player in the Pacific. FAQs Q: What caused the B-2 crash in Guam? A: A B-2 bomber crash in Guam in 2008 was caused by moisture in the aircraft's sensors, leading to faulty airspeed readings and a subsequent stall shortly after takeoff. No fatalities occurred. Q: How many B-2 stealth bombers does the US have? A: The United States Air Force currently has 20 B-2 Spirit bombers in its active fleet, with one previously lost in the 2008 Guam crash. Q: Are there B-2 bombers in Guam? A: While not permanently stationed, B-2 bombers are periodically deployed to Guam as part of the US Indo-Pacific Command's bomber rotation. Q: How much is a B-2 stealth bomber worth? A: Each B-2 Spirit costs approximately $2.1 billion, including development, making it the most expensive aircraft ever built.