Amid Trump's 'ceasefire' claims, Nath hails Indira Gandhi for resisting US pressure during 1971 war
Nath's statement at the MP Congress' 'Jai Hind Sabha' here came in the backdrop of US President Donald Trump repeatedly asserting that he got India and Pakistan to end hostilities triggered by Operation Sindoor.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
India-Pakistan News Live updates: MP Ravi Shankar Prasad-led delegation meets Priti Patel, highlights Operation Sindoor in UK
India launched a significant diplomatic offensive through its seven multi-party parliamentary delegations visiting over 30 countries, as part of Operation Sindoor—a post-Pahalgam terror attack outreach aimed at isolating Pakistan diplomatically and strengthening global counterterrorism cooperation. Delegation visits to the UK, Spain, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria have focused on conveying India's unwavering stand against terrorism and building consensus for collective action. In London, BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad stressed Mahatma Gandhi's enduring relevance in countering Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Tributes to Gandhi and Ambedkar set a unifying tone, as MPs spoke before cheering diaspora audiences. The delegation condemned Pakistan's attempts to destabilise the region, drawing praise from British-Indian leaders and diplomats. In Spain, DMK MP Kanimozhi led dialogues with Indian communities and met a survivor of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. She called the diaspora's commitment to fighting terrorism 'heartwarming.' SP MP Rajeev Rai called Pakistan a 'puppet state,' urging stronger future responses to terror. Meanwhile, BJP's Baijayant Panda led another group to Saudi Arabia and Algeria, where cooperation on counterterrorism was a central theme. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey underscored India's historical ties with Algeria, and both countries reaffirmed strong bilateral trust. These visits not only counter Pakistan's narratives but also reinforce India's image as a responsible power combating terrorism. From engaging global policymakers to connecting with overseas Indians, the delegations are rallying international consensus for decisive action against terror networks and state sponsors.
Mint
28 minutes ago
- Mint
‘India hosts G-20, Pakistan hosts top T20 – top 20 global terrorists': Priyanka Chaturvedi in London
Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi said on 1 June that while India is pursuing global free trade agreements, Pakistan, on the other hand, was promoting 'free terrorist agreeement' by hosting top 20 global terrorists. "...We had a very successful presidency of G-20... While we host the G-20, Pakistan hosts the T-20. The top 20 terrorists of the world will be found being hosted by the Pakistan state government. It's their stated policy," Chaturvedi said speaking in London. The 2023 G20 New Delhi summit was the eighteenth meeting of the G20 (Group of Twenty), held at Bharat Mandapam, Pragati Maidan, Delhi on 9–10 September 2023. The G20 New Delhi Summit was chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. India's presidency began on 1 December 2022. The Rajya Sabha MP is part of Indian delegation, led by Ravi Shankar Prasad, which also includes BJP MP Daggubati Purandeswari, Samik Bhattacharya, Congress MPs Ghulam Ali Khatana and Amar Singh, former Union Minister MJ Akbar, and former Ambassador Pankaj Saran. 'Right from Osama Bin Laden.... All of you must see the documentary. How he was taken out from Pakistan..... They shake hands with you but bite you in the back,' she said. Earlier, the all-party delegation interacted with the Indian diaspora at India House in London. During the interaction, the Members of Parliament reaffirmed India's united stance and unwavering commitment to combating terrorism in all its forms. 'We have just concluded a free trade agreement (FTA) with the UK. We signed with Australia some time ago. We are going to do that with the European Union, and with the USA sometime soon,' Chaturvedi said. As many as 26 people were killed and several others were injured in the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam on 22 April. Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor on 7 May as a decisive military response to the Pahalgam terror attack and targetted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. 'India is looking at trade, we are looking at economy, we are looking at commerce, while they (Pakistan) are looking at free terrorist arrangement across the world. That is what we need to expose,' she said. Chaturvedi said over 100 terrorists were killed in strikes under Operation Sindoor, warning they could have carried out attacks worldwide, and praised India's armed forces for their actions. 'Our armed forces have said over 100 terrorists have died in the strikes. You can imagine these terrorists were capable of carrying out 100 terror activities, not just in India, but across the world, so the world should be thanking the armed forces of India for doing what they did,' she said. Our armed forces have said over 100 terrorists have died in the strikes. You can imagine these terrorists were capable of carrying out 100 terror activities, not just in India, but across the world.
Mint
35 minutes ago
- Mint
Where the trade court's tariff decision went wrong
President Donald Trump announces tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, April 2. During a national crisis, an advocate of tariffs testified before Congress that 'reciprocal trade agreements" push foreign nations to stop erecting 'excessive economic barriers to trade." Who said this? President Trump? Sen. Reed Smoot or Rep. Willis Hawley? It was President Franklin D. Roosevelt's secretary of state, Cordell Hull, explaining in 1940 how reciprocal tariffs could reverse unfair trade practices targeting the U.S. Mr. Trump's policy of using reciprocal tariffs to advance U.S. interests isn't a new or radical idea, and it's a necessary one. The U.S. Court of International Trade was wrong to rule on Wednesday that the administration had exceeded its authority in imposing these tariffs. The ruling overlooked history, statute, precedent and national interest. It was a misreading of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, and a misinterpretation of America's bipartisan tradition of using trade policy to defend national economic resilience. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed the trade court's ruling while it considers an appeal. In a separate case, a district judge in Washington issued an injunction against the tariffs, although he stayed his own order. The issue requires resolution only the Supreme Court can deliver. Americans should hope the justices side with Mr. Trump. In its May 28 decision, V.O.S. Selections v. U.S., the trade court held that IEEPA doesn't authorize the president to impose 'unbounded" tariffs. The opinion misses the mark on legal and historical fronts. It substitutes policy skepticism for statutory interpretation, undermining legitimate executive authority during declared national emergencies. The trade court's reading of IEEPA contradicts the statute's text and history. IEEPA's independent emergency authority allows the president to regulate, prevent or prohibit the importation of property in which foreign countries or nationals have an interest. The language mirrors that of the earlier Trading with the Enemy Act, which President Richard Nixon used to impose a universal 10% tariff in 1971. The courts upheld Nixon's use of that power in U.S. v. Yoshida International (1975), concluding that tariffs were a sensible approach to regulating imports during a declared emergency. Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977 with language directly drawn from the Trading with the Enemy Act. The trade court's description of the tariffs as 'unbounded" also contradicts Mr. Trump's painstakingly specific April 2 executive order, which imposes precise duties, product exemptions and country-specific rates. I should know: I helped coordinate their implementation. Further, the court errs in implicitly inviting itself to review the sufficiency of the president's emergency declaration. IEEPA requires only that the president declare a national emergency 'to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat" arising outside the U.S., which is exactly what the executive order does. Trade deficits can qualify as emergencies. In the Trade Act of 1974, Congress recognized that 'large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits could justify swift presidential action, including tariffs and quotas. This act's unique procedures didn't preclude similar IEEPA authorities addressing identical threats. Second-guessing presidential responses to emergencies defies precedent. In Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), the Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of President Jimmy Carter's hostage crisis response, intact to this day, which froze Iranian property in the U.S. Courts have long held that the political branches—not judges—determine how to deal with foreign economic threats that rise to emergency levels. Further, in Field v. Clark (1892), the justices held that 'it is often desirable, if not essential . . . to invest the President with large discretion in matters arising out of the execution of statutes relating to trade and commerce with other nations." While IEEPA gives the president significant latitude, Congress can terminate a national emergency by joint resolution. That Congress hasn't thwarted Mr. Trump's tariffs counsels restraint in questioning his decision. The trade court evidently yearns to restore misguided economic orthodoxy. But frictionless global trade remains a mirage. Even John Maynard Keynes, hardly an economic nationalist, cautioned against the utopian allure of borderless commerce: 'Let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national." The pursuit of a perfectly undistorted global market ignores American history and legal tradition. Hull's reciprocal-tariff program of the 1930s—the foundation of U.S. multilateral trade—was premised on the imposition of duties on imports from countries that refused to lower theirs. Hull understood that economic resets require leverage. The test of judicial reasoning is whether it honors the text, structure and history of the law it interprets. The Court of International Trade fell short of that test. Mr. Bogden is a fellow at the Steamboat Institute and a former clerk for the U.S. Court of International Trade.
