&w=3840&q=100)
Prashant Kishor slams Nitish, Lalu, Cong; promises jobs, education in Bihar
Earlier, at a rally in Samastipur, Kishor promised a livelihood opportunity for all within a year of forming the government
ANI
Jan Suraaj Party chief Prashant Kishor on Saturday launched a scathing attack on Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, and the Congress, accusing them of failing to bring meaningful change to the state over decades.
Addressing a 'Bihar Badlav Rally' in Vaishali, Kishor said, "For 40-45 years you voted for Congress, then you voted for Lalu Yadav for 15 years. For the last 20 years, Nitish Kumar has been the CM... But the life of the people of Vaishali has not been changed...If you vote as I will tell you, then proper arrangements for your children's education and employment will be made here in Vaishali itself..."
Criticising what he described as opportunistic voting patterns, Kishor asked the crowd, "In Vaishali and Hajipur...in the whole of Bihar, many people voted for Modi ji and the BJP out of greed for 5kg of grains. They are stealing 1kg of rice, and people are receiving only 4kg, right or wrong?"
He also condemned communal narratives in politics, saying, "People voted in the name of Hindu-Muslim...Hindus said first Ram Temple should be built in Ayodhya, but you did not get Indira Awas, school-colleges, no factories were installed in Hajipur, Vaishali, but Ram Temple was built with the help of your votes."
Earlier, at a rally in Samastipur, Kishor promised a livelihood opportunity for all within a year of forming the government.
"This is going to be the last Diwali and Chhath of misery in Bihar. After Chhath, when the people's rule is established, the streets and drains may or may not be built, schools and hospitals may not improve, and all the members of your family who have gone out to work, as well as the children who are currently unemployed, may or may not get government jobs. However, within a year, the arrangements for a livelihood of Rs 10,000-12,000 will definitely be made for everyone in Bihar," he said.
Jan Suraaj Party is set to contest in the upcoming Bihar Assembly Elections, which are expected later this year. However, no official dates have been announced by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump promised to end wars — Now he's starting one
Donald Trump campaigned as the president who would end 'forever wars'. He withdrew troops from Afghanistan, pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal, and insisted he would resolve global conflicts through strength, not entanglement. But with a single decision, ordering strikes on Iran's core nuclear facilities on June 22, Trump has pushed the US into its most direct confrontation with Tehran in decades. By aligning with Israel's escalating shadow war, he has risked a broader regional conflict and undercut the central tenet of his foreign policy: keeping America out of new wars. 'Remember, there are many targets left… But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,' Trump said in a televised address after the attack. The strikes on Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, all key to Iran's uranium enrichment efforts, marked the most aggressive US action since the 2020 killing of General Qassem Soleimani. They have cast a long shadow over Trump's 'America First' approach. Is this Trump's Iraq moment? With the strike, Trump may have crossed a line he long promised to avoid: drawing America into another Middle Eastern conflict. Live Events Despite repeated pledges to end endless wars and prioritise domestic concerns, his decision to target Iran's nuclear sites has revived memories of 2003, when the US invaded Iraq over suspected weapons of mass destruction. Then it was Saddam Hussein. Now, it is Iran's estimated 7–10 day 'breakout time' to a nuclear bomb. In both cases, the consequences are unpredictable. Trump once styled himself as the anti-war president. He criticised the Iraq invasion, pulled troops from Afghanistan, and insisted on avoiding military entanglements. 'Great nations do not fight endless wars,' he told Congress in 2019, often claiming he was the only modern president who had not started a war. That narrative may no longer hold. At odds with his own Throughout his political career, Trump questioned US military interventions. His 2016 and 2024 campaigns both promised to scale back global commitments and bring troops home. Under the 2020 Doha Agreement, his administration committed to a full withdrawal from Afghanistan, completed in 2021 under President Biden. Trump frequently cited this as proof of his restraint. Yet the recent decision to authorise strikes in Iran has undermined that claim. According to reports in the Financial Times, Trump's rhetoric turned confrontational during a Gulf visit last month. 'We want them to be a wonderful, safe, great country, but they cannot have a nuclear weapon,' he said. 'This is an offer that will not last forever.' Days before the strike, he left the G7 summit in Canada to consider military options. A two-week deadline given to Tehran was unexpectedly cut short, triggering the Saturday night offensive. Inside the strike The operation was led by US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers, which deployed six 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B 'bunker busters' on Fordow. These weapons are designed to target deeply fortified facilities. Natanz, a central hub for enrichment, houses thousands of IR-1 and IR-6 centrifuges. Isfahan contains uranium conversion units vital for fuel fabrication. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), these facilities are crucial to Iran's nuclear ambitions. As of May 2025, the IAEA confirmed that Iran had enriched uranium to 60%, , dangerously close to the 90% threshold needed for weapons-grade material. approaching weapons-grade levels. US intelligence estimated Iran could accumulate enough fissile material for one nuclear device in under ten days. This rapidly narrowing 'breakout time' was cited by Washington and Tel Aviv as justification for the preventive strike. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Trump's move as 'bold and historic'. Risks and strategic blowback Trump's advisers reportedly believed Iran would avoid full-scale retaliation due to economic struggles and domestic unrest. According to Financial Times, the president's inner circle described the strike as a 'limited but decisive' step to neutralise a threat without prolonged involvement. 'It all depends on how the Iranian regime reacts,' said Brian Katulis of the Middle East Institute. 'Iran's regional network remains lethal and capable of spreading more instability.' Dana Stroul, a former Pentagon official, said the attack undermined Trump's diplomatic claims. 'Trump repeatedly emphasised deal-making and avoiding conflict. Yet here we are, five months into his second term, and the US is in direct conflict with Iran.'In Washington, the response was swift and polarised. While some Republicans defended the action, critics raised alarm over the lack of congressional approval. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for Trump's impeachment, while Republican Thomas Massie labelled the strike unconstitutional. Senator Chris Van Hollen said, 'The war in Iraq was also started under false pretences. The US should not have joined Netanyahu in launching a war of choice.' Others in the GOP stood by Trump. House Speaker Mike Johnson described it as 'America First policy in action'. The electoral gamble At the time of the strike, Trump's approval rating stood at 46.9%, with 51% disapproval, according to RealClearPolitics. 'He still has political room, especially if Iran retaliates,' said Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment, reported FT. 'But if Americans are killed or oil prices soar, that could change quickly.' Troops on the line The US maintains around 40,000 troops across 19 bases in the region, according to the New Indian Express , citing the Council on Foreign Relations. These locations are now potential targets. Mehran Kamrava, a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, highlighted the risks. 'That means there are 40,000 targets we can hit,' an Iranian commander reportedly said. Energy markets on edge Oil markets reacted swiftly. Brent crude rose 28% in just two weeks, from $61 in mid-May to $78 after the attack, according to J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Iran accounts for only 1.6% of global oil exports, but its geographic position gives it leverage. The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world's oil supply flows, could become a chokepoint in any conflict. The Economics Observatory estimates that a $10 rise in oil prices adds 0.7 percentage points to inflation and cuts GDP by 0.2% in advanced economies. The last time a similar shock occurred, during the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, it triggered stagflation in the US, UK and parts of Europe. A history of intervention This is not the first time the US has intervened in Iran with lasting consequences: In 1953, the CIA helped orchestrate a coup that ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. In 1988, Operation Praying Mantis saw US naval forces sink Iranian ships. In 2020, Trump ordered the killing of General Soleimani, bringing both nations to the brink of war. Each move was described as decisive, but each deepened hostilities. When is war worth it? For Trump, the answer may be: When it prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. That has been his red line. But the strike has raised a much broader and more urgent question, for lawmakers, voters, and US allies alike: What are the limits of presidential war-making power in the 21st century? Senator Jack Reed, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, put it plainly: 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' as reported by FT.
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can Trump declare war on Iran without US Congress approval? His airstrikes raise fears and questions
The limit of US presidential war powers has become a hot topic of discussion since President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran's three nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. U.S. President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool(REUTERS) The attacks, which are the most audacious US participation in the Iran-Israel conflict to yet, have drawn political and legal attention in Washington despite not being preceded by a formal declaration of war. Could Trump's circumvention of Congress lead to his impeachment? What part does the 1973 War Powers Resolution play in limiting the power of the president? What is War Powers Act? Following the Vietnam War, a protracted battle in which the US played a significant role without issuing a formal declaration of war, the War Powers Resolution (WPR), commonly referred to as the War Powers Act, was established in 1973. The purpose of the measure was to prohibit the president from initiating war on American soil without the consent of Congress. It attempted to reestablish the power dynamic by: Mandating that the President provide Congress 48 hours' notice before sending troops Requiring the soldiers to leave within 60 days unless Congress authorizes their stay Granting a 30-day grace period for withdrawal that is safe Despite being designed as a check on presidential power, the WPR has not always been efficiently implemented, and presidents like Trump have frequently circumvented or contested its authority. Also Read: Tulsi Gabbard fiercely reacts after Donald Trump rejects her Iran assessment as 'wrong' US Constitution's provisions on war declaration According to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare war, and Article II, Section 2 designates the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The purpose of this division was to guarantee that democratic agreement would be reflected in choices to engage major armed wars. But in reality, contemporary presidents have depended more and more on executive power to carry out military actions without issuing official declarations of war. What we know about Trump's Iran strike and other presidential precedents Although the United States has not declared war since World War II, it has participated in a number of significant conflicts, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, without the approval of Congress. In 2017 and 2018, Trump's own government launched strikes in Syria without the consent of Congress. Trump has launched the airstrikes on Iran as essential to preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The assaults, according to US authorities, were "limited, targeted, and in coordination with Israel" and did not represent a larger war effort. Can Congress impeach Trump over Iran war? A look at past Yes, Congress has the authority to start the impeachment process if it thinks the President has broken the Constitution or legislation like the War Powers Resolution. However, political will would be crucial for such action. Several presidents, including George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama, have carried out military actions without a war authorization from Congress, yet none of them were impeached for it. What comes next? Trump has so far maintained that the United States does not aim to overthrow the Iranian regime and has touted the attacks as a 'historic moment' to prevent nuclear escalation. Iran has, meanwhile, threatened reprisal and alluded to wider regional repercussions. Congress may face pressure to take action through legislation, budget limits, or impeachment if the United States gets pushed into a more severe and longer war.
The Print
29 minutes ago
- The Print
50 years after Emergency: India confronts its sterilisation past, potential of demographic future
In 1976 alone, more than eight million sterilisations were conducted across India, most of them vasectomies. Many of these were not voluntary. As India marks the 50th anniversary of the Emergency imposed by then prime minister Indira Gandhi on June 25, 1975, memories of mass sterilisation campaigns — many carried out under coercion — continue to haunt survivors and influence public health discourse even today. New Delhi, Jun 22 (PTI) In the 1970s, before the Emergency was officially imposed, children in some rural areas often ran around unclothed — until fear gripped families so tightly that even toddlers were dressed, not for modesty, but out of fear of forced sterilisation. 'It was a dark, dark period — no less than a war. We didn't know what would happen the next day. I remember being so afraid that my family didn't travel outside Delhi until the Emergency ended,' 78-year-old Ishrat Jahan, a resident of Okhla, Delhi said. Amina Hasan, now 83 and living in Aligarh, still shudders at the memory. 'We were poor but had dignity. They took that away. In our area, men started hiding in fields and wells when officials came around. We felt hunted,' she recalled. The pressure was relentless and indiscriminate. In 'Unsettling Memories', anthropologist Emma Tarlo documents how civil servants, factory workers and police personnel were often coerced into undergoing vasectomy. 'The officers said you could keep your job only if you got sterilised. I didn't have time to think,' a worker told her. 'I agreed because I had to save my job and bring up my family.' The stigma attached to male sterilisation was severe that in many communities, it was equated with emasculation. One anti-Emergency slogan scrawled across North India at the time summed up the sentiment: 'Nasbandi ke doot, Indira Gandhi ki loot' (Agents of sterilisation, Indira Gandhi's loot). One of the most violent episodes unfolded at Delhi's Turkman Gate, a historic Muslim locality. In April 1976, when residents resisted demolitions linked to urban 'beautification' drives and refused to undergo sterilisation, police opened fire. Entire families were displaced, homes were razed, but the area remains an enduring symbol of Emergency excesses. Poonam Muttreja, Executive Director of the Population Foundation of India, said coercive measures during the Emergency 'set back reproductive rights for both men and women'. 'India's population for a long time was viewed through the narrow lens of fear and scarcity. But today, there's growing recognition that our people are our greatest asset,' she said. 'India's strength lies in its youthful population — its demographic dividend. But being the most populous country also brings enormous responsibility. It's not just about numbers — it's about investing in every life through education, health and opportunity,' she added. Since the late 1970s, India has shifted from coercive family planning to voluntary participation and awareness. Today, female sterilisation accounts for the majority of procedures, although critics point out that the burden has disproportionately shifted to women. The past, however, still casts a long shadow. Some states have proposed limiting government benefits to families with only two children. 'Yes, we are seeing troubling signs on both extremes. On one hand, there are calls for coercive population control — such as punitive two-child policies or conditional welfare schemes,' Muttreja said, adding that on the other end there is growing pronatalist rhetoric driven by fear of long-term population decline, with some suggesting incentives for more births. Both approaches risk instrumentalising women's bodies for demographic goals, she said. As India seeks to harness its population as a source of economic strength, experts stress the need for caution. 'The way forward lies in ensuring choice, not control,' Muttreja said. 'India's fertility rate is already below replacement level. The focus should be on addressing unmet need for contraception, improving healthcare access and empowering women through education and economic opportunity,' she added. Population stabilisation will come not from pressure, but from trust, dignity and protecting reproductive rights, she said. As the country remembers the Emergency, it also stands at a demographic crossroads — between past trauma and future potential. PTI UZM OZ OZ This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
