Odisha is peaceful, tourists don't require special permission: Dy CM
Answering media queries over the Level-2 travel advisory issued by the US State Department, Parida said on Monday: 'I was checking with the data and found that the number of American tourists visiting Odisha is very negligible. The US may find the rapid development of India a threat, and for this, they are making such assertions. But I don't feel Odisha or any other state in India are in such a situation that tourists will visit that region after getting permission from their country. Every country is free to make laws for its citizens. However, India is safe under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.'
The Tourism Minister also highlighted the prompt action taken by police following the college student gang rape incident at Gopalpur beach in Ganjam district on June 15 that shocked the whole nation.
Emphasising the state government's concerns over women's safety, she asserted that police succeeded in arresting all the accused involved in the shameful incident within just a few hours of the incident.
She also informed media persons that the state government has already held two meetings mulling steps to increase security at various tourist spots and lovers' points in the state, and a decision in this regard will be taken soon.
Speaking on the issue, Odisha Law Minister Prithiviraj Harichandan stated that the US travel advisory is a diplomatic issue which will be addressed diplomatically by the Ministry of External Affairs.
Earlier, the opposition Congress and Biju Janata Dal (BJD) had targeted the state government over the travel advisory issued by the US State Department, alleging deterioration of the law-and-order situation in the state under the BJP-led government.
Senior BJD leader Arun Sahoo has alleged that the advisory issued by the US government corroborates the party's claim that the law and order situation has collapsed in Odisha, and incidents of women facing sexual abuse and other atrocities increased during the last year under the BJP-led state government.
He also accused that Moist activities, which were suppressed during the BJD-led government, are rearing their head again in the state.
Notably, the US has recently issued a Level-2 travel advisory for several states in India, including Odisha, asking its citizens travelling to these states to 'exercise increased caution' due to crime, especially targeting women and terrorism threats.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
33 minutes ago
- The Print
‘Dialogue & diplomacy' only way forward, says MEA as it welcomes Trump-Putin's Alaska summit
'India welcomes the summit meeting in Alaska between US President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin of Russia. Their leadership in the pursuit of peace is highly commendable,' Randhir Jaiswal, the spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs, said in a statement. The summit, held Friday, was the first meeting between an American leader and Putin since 2021. Russia considers the summit a diplomatic victory, as it brings to an end the Western consensus to boycott and isolate Putin since the war began in February 2022. New Delhi: India Saturday welcomed the summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson in Alaska, asserting its long-held view that only 'dialogue and diplomacy' can bring peace after Moscow's nearly four-year-long war in Ukraine. The official spokesperson added, 'India appreciates the progress made in the summit. The way forward can only be through dialogue and diplomacy. The world wants to see an early end to the conflict in Ukraine.' New Delhi has long urged both Moscow and Kyiv to find a diplomatic settlement to the war. The war has seen thousands of lives lost on both sides, while Russia has continued to advance across the frontline, albeit slowly, in Ukraine's east. Moscow has claimed the four eastern provinces of Ukraine—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—while it has continued to occupy Crimea since 2014. The war has frustrated Trump, who promised the American electorate that the war would end within 24 hours if he were elected to power while on the campaign trail in 2024. However, even a proposed partial ceasefire earlier this year failed to materialise. At the Alaska summit, Trump and Putin did not reach a deal. The American President has claimed that the two leaders agreed on several areas, but shared no details. Putin, however, in a statement to the press after the summit, maintained that the two leaders reached certain 'understandings'. Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for over an hour after the summit and indicated that the Russian President would prefer a comprehensive peace agreement over a quick ceasefire. Zelenskyy has been pushing for an early ceasefire, followed by discussions for a peace deal at a later stage. On Monday, the Ukrainian President will travel to Washington, DC, for a meeting with Trump at the Oval Office. The last meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump at the White House ended with the two leaders verbally sparring, before the Ukrainian President left without completing the official agenda. 'Ukraine reaffirms its readiness to work with maximum effort to achieve peace. President Trump informed about his meeting with the Russian leader and the main points of their discussion. It is important that America's strength has an impact on the development of the situation,' Zelenskyy said in a statement on the social media platform X, after his conversation with Trump. The Ukrainian President also welcomed the proposal for a 'trilateral' meeting among himself, Putin, and Trump. In a statement on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said that if the Monday meeting with Zelenskyy 'works out', the next step will be scheduling another meeting with Putin. For New Delhi, Trump's comments that he will not think of penalising countries purchasing Russian oil for the next two to three weeks brought some respite. India-US ties hit a rough patch after Trump imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods last week, as a 'penalty' for New Delhi's large purchases of Russian oil. Diplomatic ties have been tenuous as negotiations for a trade deal have stalled in recent weeks between New Delhi and Washington, DC. India is unwilling to open its agricultural and dairy sectors to the extent demanded by the US to ensure the trade deal. (Edited by Madhurita Goswami) Also Read: Trump is building 'anti-woke' AI vision for global supremacy. 'Tech bros' are his China antidote
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Déjà vu in Delhi! India knows the sting of tariffs
US President Donald Trump's decision to impose punishing tariffs on India might seem unprecedented — until you flip the calendar back 36 years. In 1989, Washington tried to pry open the Indian economy by threatening tariffs, leading to a 12-month bitter stand-off between the two nations. Eventually the US backed down, but the conflict left a scar on the bilateral relationship. A look back at the Super 301 episode can help us better understand the dynamics at play today. In the late 1980s, the US was engaged in an intense trade war with Japan, its primary economic rival at the time. Washington developed an arsenal of diplomatic and economic weapons for its war including Super 301, a legal mechanism upgraded in 1988. It authorised the US President to identify countries with 'unfair' trade practices and punish them with retaliatory tariffs. Once the statute came into force, President George HW Bush did not limit its use to Japan. His administration sought to address America's rising trade deficit by using the threat of Super 301 to strong-arm several countries, including American allies like Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. Parallels with the current administration are evident. In his first term, Trump used tariffs to battle China; now he uses them on friends and foes alike. Once Washington develops a policy tool to coerce one country, it becomes all too tempting to use that tool indiscriminately and sometimes unthinkingly. It is an important facet of US hegemony, regardless of who occupies the White House. Many countries tried to avoid Super 301 by hastily cutting deals with Washington to open their markets or voluntarily restricting their exports. In June 1989, the Bush administration declared that it would target three countries — Japan, Brazil and India. New Delhi was taken by complete surprise. Its relations with Washington had been improving in the previous few years. Its trade surplus with the US was relatively paltry. Washington's two central demands, that India allow American investments and foreign insurance companies, seemed arbitrary. Unlike Japan and Brazil, India refused to even enter into negotiations with the US. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said he wouldn't let the US dictate how to run the country. American heavy-handedness sparked intense outrage in the Parliament, further tying the govt's hands politically. At the same time, the American threat of tariffs posed serious risks for the Indian economy. US share in India's exports at the time was about one-fifth, the same as it is today. India was much less dependent on foreign trade in 1989 than it is today, but it was also a much smaller and more vulnerable economy. India failed to enlist world opinion to its side. Western countries, including even Japan, agreed with Washington that India was too restrictive of foreign investments. Today, Indian diplomats looking for international solidarity against US tariff assault may discover a similar situation. Many countries may deplore Trump's ham-fisted tactics, while endorsing his goals of lowering Indian protectionism and weaning it away from Russian oil. PM VP Singh, elected in December 1989, tried to placate Washington through a tightrope act. While India continued to refuse negotiations on the two demands under Super 301, it offered concessions on other economic fronts. Americans were not satisfied with Indian offerings. In April 1990, Japan and Brazil were dropped from the Super 301 list, leaving India as the sole target. Washington issued a two-month ultimatum to New Delhi. American 'bullying' was loudly condemned by Indian media and politicians. In the end, the showdown never arrived. At the expiration of the ultimatum deadline, the Bush administration determined that following through with its threats was not worth it. It declared that while India was an 'unfair trader', it was not in American interest to take retaliatory actions. The Super 301 process against India was discontinued. The Bush administration backed down without much loss of face because Washington's trade campaign was global and India was only a small piece of it. Same remains true today. Although the tariffs are a major issue for New Delhi, they are just one battle among dozens that Trump is fighting on multiple fronts. The Indo-US relationship quickly bounced back, buoyed by alignment of certain economic and geopolitical interests. However, the Super 301 episode left a bad taste in the Indian mouth. It was yet another reminder that American power can unexpectedly become capricious and overbearing. In the last few years, many commentators have expressed befuddlement at why New Delhi resists moving closer to Washington despite its persistent conflict with Beijing. Its reticence partly stems from its fear that greater dependence on the US will leave it more vulnerable to Washington's volatile high-handedness that manifests from time to time. Trump's tariff assault has again affirmed the wisdom behind India's caution. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Could India have handled President Trump better?
The Narendra Modi government converted an economically disastrous idea such as demonetisation into a political win. It dealt with a brutal Covid-19 pandemic that took millions of lives and devastated livelihoods, yet emerged politically unscathed. The Modi government played with fire on land acquisition and farm laws, yet pulled back without getting burnt. And despite its limited success in pulling off a manufacturing revolution to generate jobs on scale, it has remained politically dominant and maintained its multi-class and multi-caste alliance. The Modi government confronted a serious national security crisis with a far more powerful adversary, China, and had to redefine the idea of normalcy for the sake of peace, yet it did not pay a domestic political price. India dealt with a highly polarised West-Russia landscape and a China that was either actively hostile or passively aggressive or absent, yet pulled off a spectacular G20 presidency. It had to secure its interests with diametrically different American administrations with almost opposing priorities, and yet it was able to be friends with the sitting administration while still having enough goodwill with the preceding power constellation. How did a government that has been so adept in dealing with the domestic and international landscape, and overcoming its own missteps and mistakes, fumble in reading the US? How did a government so sharp in reading danger signals not manage friction when there were clear possibilities of trouble with the US from earlier this year, but definitely from May 10 when Donald Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire? How is it that in over 90 days since then, India, with all its equities and power, has failed to shift the conversation or make enough inroads into Trump's world to find a meeting ground while keeping to its redlines? To be sure, it has been difficult to predict the US president's next move, but there are countries that have managed to get their (limited) way. Let there be no doubt about the severity of the crisis. India is worse off among all the regional competitors for investment, and in its own immediate neighbourhood in terms of access to the US market. This has implications way beyond trade, for suddenly, the signal to American capital about India is of uncertainty, despite the charms of its huge market and extensive talent pool. This puts under strain India's broader economic modernisation roadmap that hinges at least partly, if not substantially, on western investment and technology partnerships to boost manufacturing and generate mass employment. India is confronting repeated blows against its core strategic concerns: Trump appears more than willing to make long-term strategic concessions for a deal with China. Pakistan's comeback to the Washington DC theatre, even if it is only in the short-term as some pundits believe, is arguably on a more broad-based diplomatic, economic and strategic footing than even 2001 when it was driven by the narrow counter terror frame in Afghanistan. And, India is paying a price for US-Russia tensions in ways that it hasn't for decades. India is also staring at a crisis in the people-to-people relationship, given the challenges in getting student visas, the backlash against H1Bs in Trump's base and intense spurt in anti-Indian and anti-Hindu racist rhetoric from the White supremacist Right. The biggest crisis, of course, is there are no easy pathways out of it anymore. The more time has passed, the more rhetoric has got meaner, the more demands have escalated and become public, the less political space there is to make compromises. The Indian political and street mood is now, justifiably, furious at how the country has been treated by the US even as everyone realises the importance of that country and the bilateral relationship. There are structural factors at play, for core contradictions on trade openness and relationships with third countries have come to the fore. There are personality-centric issues at play, especially on the American side with a president who revels in sharpening contradictions with his own country's institutions, the international system, and allies and partners in the quest for political or personal or financial wins. And, there are unanticipated variables and events that have affected the chessboard. But none of this can take away from the fact that the government may have missed out on multiple opportunities to manage Trump. This is particularly striking since the political leadership has usually been alert in responding creatively in difficult situations, managing narratives, engaging with all kinds of interlocutors, unleashing diplomatic charm in the external domain or pre-empting rivals by appropriating political issues in the domestic domain, finding wins-wins when possible and framing compromises as wins when necessary. To be sure, as Pratap Bhanu Mehta has eloquently and wisely argued, the Trumpian project is an imperial project and dignity is essential. But avoiding being in the direct firing line of the imperial project was in national interest and the government's core diplomatic duty. And, yes, there may have been ways to do it without compromising on India's historic stance on third-party mediation, or on core interests of small farmers, or on Indian manufacturing potential. And, this was possible because a childishly transparent, vain and corrupt Trump world is always open to a better deal and packaging has always been more central to his politics than substance. To return to the puzzle then, what happened? A detailed empirical account will only emerge once the crisis passes, actors move on from their current roles, and files are declassified. And even a more specific discussion on who got what wrong and when and what could have been done need not detain us here. One school of thought is there was a problem with the personnel chosen to make judgments on the ground and offer advice. Another is that India may have genuinely misread the problem, or been unable to anticipate second or third order consequences of Trumpian rupture. A third suggests that there may have been a problem with the channels selected for execution of goals; India's adversaries and critics have been constantly in Trump's ear while India's perspective has failed to register a mark. It could well be a combination; the problems with personnel, judgment and execution, may have resulted in a problem in decision making. And, to be fair, all of this may have been exacerbated by domestic concerns, not just of the man (and woman) on the street, but the political Opposition. After 11 years, this is the biggest challenge facing Narendra Modi, and he may want to consider a reset. It could start with foreign policy but a full Kamraj-plan style reset across the party and government may not be a bad idea at this time, especially given the ambitious agenda the Prime Minister laid out in his Independence Day speech. This could bring fresh energy and ideas and shatter vested interests to help India prepare for the coming political, economic and strategic storms. For coming they are.
