US Vice-President JD Vance on visit to India, farmers in Haryana burn his effigy in protest against trade policies.
1
2
3
Hisar: The district unit of the All India Kisan Sabha staged a protest at the mini-secretariat on Thursday, burning an effigy of the US Vice-President in opposition to what they described as anti-farmer
agricultural trade policies
.
The demonstration was led by district president Shamsher Singh Nambardar and conducted by tehsil secretary Ramesh Mirkan.
According to Nambardar, the US Vice-President's ongoing visit to India is aimed at pushing agricultural trade terms that are heavily skewed in favour of the US. "The proposed trade agreement will allow US agricultural products to enter India with zero or nominal import duty, while India's agricultural exports will face an export duty ranging between 150 to 200%," he said.
He warned that such policies could have devastating consequences for Indian agriculture. "If Indian produce cannot be exported due to such high tariffs, the country's farming sector could face collapse. These terms are unjust and one-sided," Nambardar added.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Co-Founder of Google Brain, Andrew Ng, Is Reported To Have Read Every...
Blinkist: Andrew Ng's Reading List
Undo
He also made it clear that if the Indian govt attempts to implement these policies under US pressure, the Kisan Sabha along with the United Kisan Morcha will launch a sustained and decisive resistance movement.
Several leaders addressed the protest and voiced their opposition, including tehsil president Subesingh Boora, Jaibeer Mulan, Omprakash Raipur, Manohar Lal Jakhar, Kamala Devi, Balraj Sehrawat, and others. All took part in the symbolic act of burning the effigy.
Hisar: The district unit of the All India Kisan Sabha staged a protest at the mini-secretariat on Thursday, burning an effigy of the US Vice-President in opposition to what they described as anti-farmer agricultural trade policies.
The demonstration was led by district president Shamsher Singh Nambardar and conducted by tehsil secretary Ramesh Mirkan.
According to Nambardar, the US Vice-President's ongoing visit to India is aimed at pushing agricultural trade terms that are heavily skewed in favour of the US. "The proposed trade agreement will allow US agricultural products to enter India with zero or nominal import duty, while India's agricultural exports will face an export duty ranging between 150 to 200%," he said.
He warned that such policies could have devastating consequences for Indian agriculture. "If Indian produce cannot be exported due to such high tariffs, the country's farming sector could face collapse. These terms are unjust and one-sided," Nambardar added.
He also made it clear that if the Indian govt attempts to implement these policies under US pressure, the Kisan Sabha along with the United Kisan Morcha will launch a sustained and decisive resistance movement.
Several leaders addressed the protest and voiced their opposition, including tehsil president Subesingh Boora, Jaibeer Mulan, Omprakash Raipur, Manohar Lal Jakhar, Kamala Devi, Balraj Sehrawat, and others. All took part in the symbolic act of burning the effigy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
36 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
India will never restore Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan, asserts Amit Shah
India will never restore the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, Union Home Minister Amit Shah told The Times of India on Saturday. Shah asserted that India will use water that rightfully belongs to it, and that Pakistan 'will be starved of water that it has been getting unjustifiably'. He said that India will use the water that had been flowing to Pakistan from Rajasthan by constructing a canal. India had placed the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance a day after the April 22 terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which left 26 persons dead. India said that the treaty would be suspended until Pakistan 'credibly and irrevocably' stopped its support for cross-border terrorism. Shah on Saturday told The Times of India: 'International treaties can't be annulled unilaterally but we had the right to put it in abeyance, which we have done. The treaty preamble mentions that it was for peace and progress of the two countries, but that has been violated, there is nothing left to protect.' India and Pakistan signed the Indus Water Treaty in 1960 with the World Bank as an additional signatory. The pact sought to divide the water of the Indus river and its tributaries equitably among the two countries. Under the treaty, water from three eastern rivers, Beas, Ravi and Sutlej, were allocated to India and that from the three western rivers – Indus, Chenab and Jhelum – to Pakistan. The treaty also allowed both countries to use the other's rivers for certain purposes, such as small hydroelectric projects that require little or no water storage. Experts told Scroll that the suspension of the treaty implies that India is no longer accountable to Pakistan for using, regulating or stopping the flow of the water of the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers. In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, Jal Shakti minister CR Patil had claimed that the Indian government would make sure that 'not a drop of water' goes to Pakistan. Experts, however, refuted claims that India can immediately block the flow of water into Pakistan.
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
US B-2 stealth bombers, GBU-57 bunker buster bombs, Tomahawks, and bases behind the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities
The United States launched one of the most audacious airstrikes in recent history in the early hours of June 22, targeting three of Iran's most fortified nuclear facilities, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation was spearheaded by the US Air Force 's elite B-2 Spirit stealth bombers and supported by submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, in a campaign aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities. President Donald Trump , addressing the nation hours after the strike, declared: 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo The weapons used At the centre of the operation were the B-2 Spirit bombers. Stealthy and silent, the B-2 is one of the most advanced aircraft in the world, capable of penetrating the most sophisticated air defenses without being detected. Less than two dozen bombers were ever built, each costing over $2 billion. Live Events What made this mission historic was the payload, the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). Weighing 30,000 pounds, the MOP is the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal. It is designed specifically to destroy deeply buried bunkers like the Fordow facility, which lies beneath a mountain. Each B-2 can carry two MOPs. Trump confirmed five or six were dropped on Fordow, while 30 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) were fired at the Natanz and Isfahan sites. Launched from the Pacific air base Several B-2 bombers were tracked moving west over the Pacific. By June 21, they were confirmed to be deployed at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, a key US outpost roughly 6,000 miles from Iran. It is from here that the US stages its long-range deterrence operations. In sync with Israel The attack was coordinated with Israel, which had already dismantled much of Iran's air defense network, leading up to the US strike through 'Operation Rising Lion.' However, Israel lacked the bunker-busting capacity required for Fordow, prompting its request for American assistance. Republican leaders in Washington praised the mission. Senator Roger Wicker called it 'the correct decision to strike Iran's nuclear sites,' asserting that 'Iran made the choice to continue its pursuit of a nuclear weapon and would only be stopped by force.' But criticism came swiftly from Democrats. Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va) warned that 'the American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the US waging war on Iran' and accused Trump of 'recklessly' bypassing congressional authority. Further escalation? With Iran yet to officially respond, tensions remain dangerously high. The Pentagon has since moved larger aircraft out of Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and placed regional forces on high alert, anticipating potential retaliation from Iran or its proxies. Trump, however, issued a stern warning in his address: 'There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed.'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Democrats divided as Trump announces US strikes on Iran nuclear sites
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats seemed to remain at odds over policy toward Iran. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Donald Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party 's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist "Make America Great Again" base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee , noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could "measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 혈관이 조여오는 느낌이 드신다면.. 메디셜 더 읽기 Undo "Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran," Martin said in a statement. "Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad." Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran "does not make America more secure." Live Events "This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime," Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tact, stating, "Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately." Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions, "Horrible judgement" and said he'd "push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war." Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war, even before Trump's announcement - underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. "They are sort of hedging their bets," said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. "The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback." Progressive Democrats also are using Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., had called Trump's consideration of an attack "a defining moment for our party." Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that called on the Republican president to "terminate" the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless "explicitly authorized" by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the so-called "manosphere" of male Trump supporters. "That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home," said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as "a peacemaker and a unifier." "Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake," Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance. "The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress," said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and "the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response." Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., said "the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment." Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. "Trump created the problem," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on X. The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being "too supportive" of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level of support was "about right." Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had "a lot" of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict.
