Detained Georgetown researcher Badar Khan Suri seeks return to Virginia
News
US
Legal team says Indian citizen, who is being held in Texas, was detained because of his support for Gaza
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dubai Eye
11 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
India arrests four people for cricket fans stampede
Police in India's tech capital of Bengaluru have arrested four people, including an official of a top cricket franchise, in connection with a stampede during a trophy celebration that killed 11 people and injured 47, media reported. Four people, three from an event management company and one official from the Royal Challengers Bengaluru cricket team, whose victory in the Indian Premier League this week led to fan frenzy, were arrested early on Friday morning, media said. Spokespersons for the team did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters. On Wednesday, Bengaluru were celebrating their win the previous day over Punjab Kings in the final of the IPL's 18th edition, the world's richest T20 cricket league. The team had given away free passes for the celebration at a stadium in the city but said that numbers would be limited. Thousands of people gathered outside the stadium, and fans without passes tried push through the gates, leading to a stampede. The franchise said later the incident was "unfortunate" and pledged one million Indian rupees to each family of the 11 fans who died on Wednesday. India's head cricket coach Gautam Gambhir said on Thursday he did not support such roadshows and celebrations. "Celebration is important. But more important than that is the life of any person. So, if we are not prepared or if we can't handle the crowd in that way, then we might as well not have these roadshows," Gambhir told reporters.
Arabian Post
19 hours ago
- Arabian Post
How Post Operation Sindoor Modi Doctrine Stifling India's Diplomatic Outreach?
By Nitya Chakraborty 26 days have passed since the temporary truce in the limited four day war between India and Pakistan taking effect on May 10 this year. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been talking of his three point doctrine since then, the most important of which is no dialogue with Pakistan unless the ruling regime of Islamabad shuns terrorism. Pakistan Prime Minister on the other hand is claiming as usual that his government had no role in the Pahalgam massacre of April 22, Pakistan strongly believes in fight against terrorism. Pakistan is ready for bilateral talks to discuss all the pending issues including terror. In this backdrop, fierce campaign has been launched by both India and Pakistan to influence the views of the foreign countries including the permanent and non-permanent members of the United Nations. Seven parliamentary delegations from India are on a visit to 33 nations in their diplomatic outreach. Two delegations have already returned. Congress Lok Sabha member Shashi Tharoor is still staying in the US at the head of the delegation to apprise both the U.S. government officials and the UN members the Indian viewpoint why Pakistan is the fountainhead of terrorist actions on Indian soil and why it is not possible to have any bilateral dialogue with Pakistan. Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has himself visited four countries so far as a part of his government's global outreach. Simultaneously a high powered delegation led by former Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is in USA talking to the Washington administration and the UN members. The South Asian diaspora in USA is betting for a Bilawal-Tharoor debate on the current India Pak tensions. Bilawal in his press meet has talked of a bilateral meet between India and Pakistan to discuss the issues on the lines of Pakistan PM's position. Tharoor has to focus only on terror and Pak links to terror. He can not touch the issue of any bilateral dialogue at the moment as per post Operation Sindoor Modi doctrine. Herein lies India's dilemma of positive global diplomatic outreach. So far, the feedback from the Parliamentary delegations talks abroad and the Indian embassies own efforts for outreach is this – all foreign leaders and the diplomats in the course of discussions are mentioning two things. First they are all with India in its fight against terror. They all favour India's fight against terrorists based in Pakistan. But they do not like any war between the two nuclear powers on this issue. They want bilateral talks if India does not agree for a mediator. Even Russian foreign minister has mentioned this, though Russia's statement was strongest in support of India's actions. Thus in the perception battle or more specifically in information war, Pakistan is getting some advantage as of now vis a vis India. Left to the external affairs ministry officials, they could have done much better job than the visiting Parliamentary delegations but their hands are tied. Modi's doctrine has stifled their flexibility. The Washington based Indian officials are seeing how the wavelength they established with the White House in the last few years, are crumbling before their own eyes due to the intervention of the PMO, the Modi doctrine and the interference by the Overseas Friends of BJP in USA and the Hindu organisations close to Narendra Modi. These officers are engaged in fire fighting operations. Now let us look at some upcoming events which show how challenging will be India's task in the coming two months in the arena of global diplomacy. First, India has not been invited to the G-7 summit at Alberta in Canada scheduled from June 15 to June 17. In the last five years, our Prime Minister made every effort to make himself visible among the World's top leaders. Last year at the G-7 summit in Italy, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni praised the Indian PM belonging to their own far right clan. PM was expecting an invitation till a week back, but it has not been sent and all indications are that it will not be sent by the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The reason might be related to the possibility of pro- Khalistani demonstrations, but if the new Liberal Party PM wanted, he could have invited the Indian PM by making adequate arrangements for maintaining law and order. In such summits, always some kind of threat is there from the dissidents, but the summits take place after arranging full security preparations. More importantly, though Canada is the host country, other member countries did not bother to request the PM Mark Carney to invite India as India has been a long standing participant, The G-7 members are USA, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and Canada. The other non members invited are Australia, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Ukraine. Narendra Modi enjoyed all the summits he attended giving the impression as if he belonged to one of those rich nations. But alas — in 2025 after India's unambiguous victory claimed by Modi against Pakistan in four day conflict, Indian Prime Minister has been shunned out of a crucial global summit. More trouble for Narendra Modi awaits in the month of July. This month Pakistan will take over as the President of the UN Security Council as per the rotation. The UNSC has five permanent members — USA, Russia, China, France and UK. There are ten non-permanent members now — Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and Somalia. Pakistan will take over as the UNSC President in July as per norms. The UNSC President has powers to set agenda. Naturally, it is expected that Pakistan will take full advantage of its presidency to include discussion on Kashmir in the UNSC agenda. Once it is proposed by the President, this will have to be discussed in the context of India- Pakistan relations. This is a big challenge to India. Indian foreign ministry will have to make all preparations to meet Pakistan's proposed salvo. The UNSC members, both permanent and non-permanent have to be properly briefed. Pakistan is sure to make full use of July presidency of UNSC to further its cause of inernationalising the Kashmir situation again. Indian foreign ministry has to come out of the purview of Modi doctrine if it wants to effectively meet the Pak onslaught. Apart in July itself, BRICS summit is scheduled in Brazil on July 6 and 7 this year. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been invited as one of the founding members. He is expected to attend it. The BRICS members are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — the initial members. Now the expanded BRICS includes another five countries Indonesia, Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Chinese President Xi Jinping is sure to attend it. It is to be seen whether President Putin attends since there is a warrant of International Criminal Court, so Putin is avoiding visits to the ICC member countries. This year, if Narendra Modi attends the BRICS summit, he will be attending with a demoted stature. His image as a defender of global South has got damaged due to India's identification with the US strategy in Asia Pacific and India's distancing itself from the geo political positions of BRICS. The USA does not like India's pro-active position in BRICS. In fact, President Trump is in a running battle with the Presidents of South Africa and Brazil. So what stand Narendra Modi will be taking at the BRICS summit, that assumes significance. The hard reality is that Prime Minister may go on campaigning in favour of his doctrine and making efforts to rouse nationalist passions against Pakistan in public meetings, but global diplomacy is a hard ball. Indian officials have to defend the government's position every single day. That has been a tough task with limited flexibility. Prime Minister's present new doctrine towards Pakistan needs some finetuning to adapt to the political mood of the global community. The battle against Pakistan and terror is long drawn. It needs holistic strategy and not one time solution. (IPA Service)
Arabian Post
2 days ago
- Arabian Post
Renewed Race For Gulf-India Aviation Sector Trophy As Stakes Increase Further
By K Raveendran Strong signs of undercurrents are emerging in the aviation space between India and the Gulf. There is renewed tussle over landing rights — the coveted permissions that determine which airlines get to fly where, how often, and with how many seats. For years, this battleground has been tilted in favour of Gulf-based giants, particularly Emirates and later Etihad, both of which have entrenched themselves so deeply in the India-Gulf sector that they dominate passenger volumes, especially among the vast Indian expatriate population in the Gulf. But recent movements suggest that the terrain may be shifting again, albeit not necessarily in India's favour, raising concerns about whether past missteps are being repeated or even institutionalized. The first wave of this dominance came during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) years, a period that aviation experts and political observers often recall with unease. During this time, India's aviation rights — especially in the high-demand Gulf sector — were offered up with a generosity that baffled many. The most glaring beneficiary was Emirates, which capitalised on India's fragmented aviation policy and the aggressive diplomacy of Dubai government. The role of Praful Patel, then Union Civil Aviation Minister, and N. Chandrababu Naidu, then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, has often come under scrutiny for facilitating deals that disproportionately benefited Gulf carriers. The underlying implication, often whispered but never proven in courts, was that kickbacks were exchanged for each seat Emirates filled on its India routes — a suggestion that continues to fester in the collective memory of Indian aviation policy circles. At that time, Emirates enjoyed a distinct monopoly, owing largely to the fact that it was the sole UAE-based carrier of international standing. With Dubai's rise as a global aviation hub and Emirates' unmatched marketing muscle, the airline quickly scaled up its footprint in India, locking in prime time slots and lucrative routes with little resistance. In effect, Emirates became the default choice for millions of Indians flying to the Gulf and beyond, eclipsing the capacity and visibility of Indian carriers like Air India. This asymmetry didn't just result in a business setback for Indian aviation — it triggered a slow bleeding of India's aviation sovereignty. The profits, the passenger data, the traffic, and the global prestige of being a gateway carrier all accrued to Emirates, while Indian airlines floundered under the weight of policy paralysis and state apathy. Things became even more complicated when Etihad entered the fray. As Abu Dhabi's flagship carrier, Etihad's arrival introduced a new axis of influence in the India-Gulf aviation theatre. Where earlier it was just Emirates leveraging its ties with Indian authorities to expand its rights, now both Emirates and Etihad were competing not just with each other but also for the same slice of the Indian aviation pie. The diplomatic equation thus had to be recalibrated. No longer could Dubai's interests automatically translate into Emirates' gain. Abu Dhabi, backed by the UAE federal structure, began asserting its claim, demanding equitable treatment for Etihad. India, in turn, found itself in a quagmire. Granting more rights to one Gulf emirate risked offending the other. But instead of revisiting its entire bilateral framework or strengthening Indian carriers to hold their ground, Indian policymakers chose the path of least resistance: acquiescing to more requests from both sides. The result was that foreign carriers ended up with the lion's share of rights, while Indian carriers, with limited international ambitions and fleet capacity at the time, were left watching from the sidelines. Fast forward to today, and the script seems eerily familiar. Both Emirates and Etihad are once again lobbying for increased landing rights and additional seat allocations. This comes at a time when the dynamics of the aviation industry have evolved significantly. There is renewed focus on strategic aviation corridors, a post-pandemic surge in travel, and a stronger realisation globally that aviation is not just commerce — it is a soft power instrument. Yet despite all this, India appears to be on the verge of conceding even more ground. That this is happening without a thorough review of how previous concessions impacted national interests is particularly disheartening. A disturbing undertone to this situation is the re-emergence — or rather, the persistence — of the very individuals who were instrumental in the original giveaways. These actors, once thought to have exited the stage after presiding over what some call the 'Great Indian Aviation Surrender,' are now reappearing in various roles, emboldened by their earlier success and perhaps by the lack of accountability. The risk here is not just the erosion of market share but the institutionalization of a defeatist approach to aviation diplomacy, where India negotiates from a position of weakness rather than asserting its growing economic and geopolitical clout. However, the new player that adds an unexpected twist to this ongoing narrative is IndiGo. As India's largest airline by a considerable margin, IndiGo is no longer content with its domestic dominance. It wants in on the Gulf bonanza, and it is using its size, efficiency, and growing international aspirations to demand a bigger seat at the table. This changes the calculus considerably. For the first time in years, there's an Indian private player with both the appetite and the capacity to challenge Gulf airlines on their turf. IndiGo's entry into the fray has the potential to reshape the competitive landscape — provided, of course, the government aligns national policy with corporate ambition. To avoid repeating past mistakes, India must initiate a root-and-branch review of its bilateral air service agreements. The country needs a clear aviation doctrine — one that articulates when, how, and under what conditions foreign airlines may operate in India. This doctrine must prioritize Indian interests, encourage domestic capacity building, and align with broader national objectives. It must also be shielded from short-term political compulsions and the influence of lobbying networks that have historically undermined strategic policymaking. (IPA Service)
