Nimisha Priya Death Penalty Update: MEA sources refute Grand Mufti's claims, Victim's Brother Firm on...
New Delhi: The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Tuesday reportedly refuted the claims of Kerala nurse Nimisha Priya's execution being cancelled by the Yemen authorities by calling them 'inaccurate'. 'Information being shared by certain individuals on the Nimisha Priya case is inaccurate,' MEA sources told CNBC-TV18.
The development comes in response to the statement made by the Grand Mufti of India Kanthapuram AP Abubakar Musliyar claiming that Priya's death sentence has been completely overturned. However, India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) refuted the claims made by Grand Mufti Abu Bakar Musliyar.
Following this statement from the Foreign Ministry, uncertainty has arisen regarding Nimisha Priya's situation. The question now is whether she will be released or if the previous status remains unchanged — that is, her death sentence has only been suspended, not revoked. Meanwhile, Nimisha's husband and daughter, who are hoping for her release, have arrived in Yemen. Nimisha Priya Death Sentence:
Nimisha Priya's death sentence was scheduled for July 16, 2025 which was later postponed due to the interventions of the Grand Mufti of India through the help of an influential Yemeni sheikh. Priya is convicted of killing a Yemeni national Talal Abdo Mahdi in 2017. He was her business partner who later started to torture and sexually abuse her and even confiscated her passport.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
6 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why is Trump upset with India? It is not about peace in Ukraine
As India and the United States failed to clinch a trade deal by the stipulated deadline, President Donald Trump announced on his social media post that all imports from India would now be subject to a 25 per cent tariff, and an additional penalty for importing Russian energy. While a higher tariff across the board was expected if the deal fails, the additional penalty for trading with Russia has irked the Indian establishment. The MEA issued a statement criticising the US and the EU by exposing their own hypocrisy on the issue of doing business with Russia. It is true that India's energy imports, mostly crude oil, from Russia have increased. But Russia's emergence as India's major supplier of crude oil is a consequence of US policy itself. To begin with, US sanctions on Venezuelan crude oil continue to be in force, blocking off a major source of supply. This is significant because Venezuela holds the world's largest reserves of crude oil. A fear of secondary sanctions has prevented the world from importing from Venezuela. Then, in 2019, the US, during the first Trump presidency, imposed sanctions on Iranian oil after it pulled out of the JCPOA. Iran was one of India's major oil suppliers, but the threat of secondary sanctions forced it to immediately cut its imports from Iran to 0.76 per cent of its total oil imports by 2020. Today, the share has fallen below 0.04 per cent. Finally, after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the EU, which felt morally compelled to reduce its energy dependence on Russia, undertook measures to gradually phase out Russian coal and oil imports. The EU's decision to transition from traditional suppliers to new ones threatened to drive up global oil prices. To further worsen the situation, OPEC's practice of capping output to create artificial scarcity threatened to trigger inflationary pressures worldwide. And even then, Russian oil was not under any direct sanctions, like Iran or Venezuela. While the G7 placed a price cap on Russian oil, which they were able to enforce globally, India didn't violate any understanding. And thus, Trump's sudden frustration with India's trade with Russia is bizarre. Moreover, while Trump has singled out India, alongside China, he chose to conveniently absolve the EU for the same. For all its moral chest-thumping, the EU has only been successful in cutting its coal dependence on Russia. It continues to import crude oil from Russia even as imports have reduced substantially. But most importantly, the EU has not stopped importing Russian gas, LNG and pipeline gas. In fact, it continues to be Russia's top export destination for both LNG (51 per cent) and pipeline gas (37 per cent). Additionally, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, India emerged as the top supplier of refined oil to the EU, overtaking Saudi Arabia. The EU had no problems until very recently in importing Russian crude oil refined in India. Trump's actions appear, more than anything else, to be a result of his frustration and exasperation in dealing with Russia, India, and China. That he doesn't care about Ukraine or the Ukrainian cause is quite evident. However, it is no secret that when Trump assumed the presidency earlier this year, he made some tall claims regarding Russia, China and India. He vowed to bring the Russian war on Ukraine to an end. He also expressed confidence in concluding a favourable trade deal with both India and China. Trump expressed his admiration for the three leaders of all three countries. He was hoping to bank on his personal working relationship with them to deliver on these promises. Yet, more than six months after Trump took office, Putin has shrugged off repeated deadlines set by Trump to end the war. Xi Jinping, too, has refused to buckle under pressure and instead coerced Trump into agreeing to a 90-day truce amidst the ongoing tariff war between the US and China. Finally, India's decision to refute Trump's claim of mediating a ceasefire with Pakistan and its refusal to compromise on some core issues during the trade talks seems to have further infuriated the US president. Trump's decision, therefore, to sanction Russian crude oil, all of a sudden, is an expression of his disappointment arising from the mismatch between his expectations and reality. The writer is with Takshashila's Indo-Pacific Studies programme
New Indian Express
6 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
‘Don't know anything': Trump ducks question on US imports of Russian uranium flagged by India
Trump's latest threat comes a day after India hit back at the US and the European Union for their "unjustified and unreasonable" targeting of New Delhi over its procurement of Russian crude oil. Firmly rejecting the criticism, India pointed out the double standards in targeting it on the issue and said both the US and the EU are continuing their trade relations with Russia. "Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion," the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said in a statement on Monday night. The Europe-Russia trade includes not just energy, but also fertilisers, mining products, chemicals, iron and steel, and machinery and transport equipment, the MEA said. "Where the US is concerned, it continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilisers as well as chemicals... In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable," it added. At an event Tuesday afternoon, where Trump signed an executive order establishing a White House Olympics Task Force to handle security and other issues related to the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, he repeated again that he stopped the war between India and Pakistan, a claim he has made over 30 times since May 10. India has consistently maintained that the understanding on cessation of hostilities with Pakistan was reached following direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries. "I stopped five wars in the last five months," Trump said, adding that he would like the Ukraine conflict to be the sixth one he helps bring to an end. "You just take a look at the ones just over the last two or three months, it's been amazing. This is the one I'm trying to stop. This is the one we're working hardest on," Trump said, referring to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. "The other ones I stopped within a matter of days, almost every one of them, including India and Pakistan. And I could go over the whole list, but you know the list as well as I do," he said. Meanwhile, State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said it will be up to President Trump to decide how to respond to "those nations that are facilitating this war on Ukraine." She was asked about India's comment that New Delhi is not going to change its position on oil purchases from Russia. "I will not characterise or remark on another nation's comments about what they will or will not do.... But I do know that, of course, President Trump understands the entire field, and he has made it very clear he doesn't like what's been happening," Bruce said. To another question on India and China indicating they fully intend to continue purchasing Russian oil irrespective of US sanctions, Bruce said Washington is now talking about secondary sanctions, i.e., sanctioning a country, company, or others that might be doing business with a country that the US has sanctioned in this instance.
Mint
6 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump is using tariffs to snag trillions in US investments. Is it for real?
President Donald Trump has touted major trade partners' pledges to invest billions in the U.S. as a win for his fluctuating tariff policy. But trade experts say these commitments leave more questions than answers. For starters, it isn't clear how the U.S. can enforce these deals, and even what form they will take. The president has repeatedly said the U.S. is now bringing trillions in investment. Heads of state and corporate executives have visited the White House bearing promises of massive investments, such as Saudi Arabia's $600 billion commitment and a $1.4 trillion pledge from the United Arab Emirates. More recently, Trump has said countries are able to 'buy down" their tariff rates by committing to invest in the U.S. or buy American goods, or both. For example, he threatened 25% tariffs on South Korea last week, but said they could perhaps 'buy them down." Hours later, the White House announced a pact with the country, that included 15% tariffs on its imports and a pledge by Korea to invest $350 billion. But analysts and veteran trade experts note that investment pledges—as well as commitments to buy U.S. goods—haven't lived up to expectations in the past. Most famously, China didn't meet the agricultural purchase commitments in the Phase One trade deal that Trump struck during his first term. In the latest batch of commitments, a slew of details are missing—most notably, what mechanisms will be used to facilitate the agreements and how the U.S. can enforce them, if at all. For example, analysts say U.S. trading partners can't force private-sector companies to invest. Here, the European Union deal is a telling example. A spokesman for the EU told Barron's that the $600 billion investment part of its trade agreement was a 'nonbinding commitment" on the bloc's estimated investment in the U.S. That estimate is based on the Commission's outreach to industries and economic sectors to understand their investment intentions in the U.S. in coming years. Even the amounts pledged are murky. It isn't clear whether previously announced investments—including those made during the Biden administration, like Samsung's multibillion-dollar plans to invest in Texas chip manufacturing—are part of Trump's announced investment totals. And then there are the actual terms of these investments. In an interview Tuesday on CNBC, Trump likened them to a signing bonus: 'That is our money to invest as we like." When asked what would happen if the trading partners don't make the investments they committed, Trump said they would pay higher tariffs. 'They [The European Union] bought down the tariffs from 30% to 15%. That's a gift, not a loan," he told CNBC, adding he could invest in anything he others, like Japan, have pushed back on the characterization of their pledges. The White House fact sheet detailing the preliminary agreement between the two countries included a $550 billion investment fund aimed at critical sectors in the U.S., including building energy infrastructure, shipping, shoring up chips, and pharmaceutical manufacturing domestically. Trump said the investment was at his discretion, with 90% of the profits going to the U.S. Japan, meanwhile, has said the fund will be a mix of equity, loans, and loan guarantees to the U.S.—with the majority of it in loans. Analysts are unclear how 90% of the profits would accrue to the U.S. Japan's top trade negotiator has said he is planning to return to Washington, D.C. this week to push the U.S. to reduce auto tariffs to 15%—as outlined in last week's preliminary agreement—from 25%, and to flesh out the pact.'This is what these trading partners have agreed to, and the president reserves the right to adjust tariff rates if any party reneges on their commitments," a White House official told Barron's on Tuesday, referring to the fact sheets of the EU and Japan deals. To trade watchers, these investment pledges bear some similarity to the Inflation Reduction Act and so-called Chips Act passed under the Biden administration to shore up supply chains and domestic manufacturing in critical sectors. But there are some big differences: Congress passed the IRA and Chips Act, so those investments were never at the discretion of the president, while Trump says these new investment commitments are. 'The line between industrial and trade policy is getting blurred," says Marc Busch, an international trade and law expert who previously advised the Commerce Department and the U.S. Trade Representative's office and now teaches at Georgetown University. ''At my discretion' could mean that Trump, not the market, determines where the funds are going," Busch says. 'That could mean the money doesn't go where it's needed, but where it pays political dividends—that has always been the fear of industrial policy, under anyone's watch." Furthermore, trade veterans note that these investments could take a while—even years—to begin bearing fruit. In the interim, foreign companies committing billions will want stability in U.S. policies, and likely would only follow through with that spending if it makes commercial and financial sense. Yet, there is little clarity on how policies could shift—not just in the next administration, but within this one. Write to Reshma Kapadia at
