Trump prevented war between India, Pakistan during presidency: US Secretary of State Rubio
New York/Washington(PTI): US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that under President Donald Trump’s leadership, America “prevented and ended” a war between India and Pakistan.
“Just going through a list here Mr President…and all these achievements that have happened domestically.…Under your leadership, we've prevented and ended a war between India and Pakistan,” Rubio said, sitting next to Trump, during remarks at a Cabinet meeting at the White House Tuesday.
Rubio also listed the peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, “a 12-day war that ended with an American operation that we're the only country in the world that could have done, hopefully pretty soon a peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia."
"The entire Middle East and the infrastructure of it has the potential now to change because of Syria and Lebanon. And it hasn't even been 6 months. It’s a great testament to your leadership” and the team, he said.
A day earlier, Trump had again repeated the claim that he stopped the war, that could have gone nuclear, between India and Pakistan by telling the two neighbours that Washington will not do trade with them if they continued the fighting.
“We did a job with India and Pakistan, Serbia, Kosovo, Rwanda and the Congo, and this was all over the last three weeks or so… and others that were ready to fight,” Trump had said while speaking to reporters ahead of a bilateral dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House Monday.
“And we stopped a lot of fights. I think the very big one, frankly, a very, very big one was India and Pakistan. And we stopped that over trade. We're dealing with India. We're dealing with Pakistan," Trump had said.
"We said we're not going to be dealing with you at all if you're going to fight. And they were maybe at a nuclear stage. They're both nuclear powers. And I think stopping that was very important,” he had said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
