&w=3840&q=100)
Parliament Monsoon Session LIVE updates: Congress seeks discussion on Pahalgam, Operation Sindoor
Parliament Monsoon Session: Bills to be discussed
The government intends to introduce and pass several significant bills during the upcoming session, including the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2025; the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025; and the Indian Institutes of Management (Amendment) Bill, 2025, among others.
The government has informed Opposition parties that it will address demands for a response to American President Donald Trump's statements regarding Operation Sindoor, particularly his claim of facilitating a truce between India and Pakistan, and the assertion that at least five jets were downed during the conflict.
Smaller members of the INDIA bloc, notably the Left parties, have previously disagreed with Congress' approach to disrupt proceedings and walk out instead of confronting the government on key issues.
Connect with us on WhatsApp
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
'I will not speak in English': BJP's Nishikant Dubey on Tamil Nadu MPs request in LS amid glitch in translating system
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, on Tuesday, refused to speak in English, rejecting Tamil Nadu MPs request in Lok Sabha amid a glitch in translating system. He further claimed that the MPs 'only had a problem with Hindi.' The BJP MP made the comments in the Lok Sabha after after Tamil Nadu MPs requested Nishikant Dubey to speak in English following a a technical glitch in the translator (system) in the Lok Sabha. Responding to them, Dubey said "...It would have been better if you had asked me to speak in Tamil or Bengali. English is a foreign language, and your insistence on it reflects your mindset. Someone spoke in Bengali for half an hour, yet Tamil Nadu MPs didn't object. You only have a problem with Hindi. Congress and its allies don't like North Indians or Hindi. If you keep promoting English, we'll end up becoming England. 'Hum phir se gulaam ho jayenge' (We will become slaves again)..." During the Monsoon Session of the Parliament on Tuesday, several leaders launched scathing attacks on the government about India's Operation Sindoor in the aftermath of the brutal Pahalgam terror attack in April that killed 26 people. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav said the launch of Operation Sindoor after the Pahalgam attack was a "symbol of the government's intelligence failure". Uttar Pradesh's former chief minister also said that India's foreign policy has 'completely collapsed,' while labelling China as a 'monster' that will "gobble up our (India's) land and market". "Who will take responsibility for the intelligence lapse in the Pahalgam attack?' Akhilesh Yadav said about the tragedy. Rahul Gandhi also took a swipe at the government, daring PM Modi to call 'Trump a liar,' referring to the POTUS's repeated claims of brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. While India has consistently denied these assertions, the US President continues to highlight his alleged role in de-escalating tensions between the two nations following the Pahalgam terror attack. Following Rahul Gandhi's claims, PM Modi while addressing the Lok Sabha, refuted claims made by US President Donald Trump regarding his role in halting India's military action against Pakistan. He said said no world leader asked India to stop its military action against Pakistan during 'Operation Sindoor' after four days of conflict in May in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.
Mint
28 minutes ago
- Mint
'India destroyed 1,000 Pakistani missiles mid-air, Congress waited for slip up': PM Modi
Prime Minister Narendra Modi took multiple swipes at the Opposition, accusing them of being obsessed with finding even a single instance of his failure during Operation Sindoor. Addressing the Lok Sabha, the prime minister said while the whole country was proud when India destroyed all Pakistani missiles in the sky, Congress was waiting to find one instance to attack him. 'Pakistan launched 1,000 missiles and drones towards India, but they were destroyed mid-air by our armed forces. If they had fallen on any part, it would have led to huge destruction, but india destroyed them in the sky. Whole India was proud of it, but Congress was waiting,' PM Modi said. 'Modi kahin toh fasega [Modi will slip up somewhere]' the prime minister said. Attacking Congress more, the prime minister said the party 'operates through the remote control' of Pakistan. 'The country is surprised that Congress has given a clean chit to Pakistan. They are saying that the terrorists of Pahalgam were from Pakistan. Give us proof of this. Pakistan is also demanding the same thing that Congress is making,' he said. 'It has been an old habit with Congress to have a negative approach to the armed forces; Congress yet to embrace Kargil win,' PM Modi said. Also Read | 'Say Donald Trump is a liar': Rahul Gandhi dares PM Narendra Modi during Operation Sindoor debate PM Narendra Modi said, "On one hand, India is moving ahead at a fast pace towards self-reliance, but Congress is becoming dependent on Pakistan for issues. Unfortunately, Congress is importing issues from Pakistan..." "Just 3-4 days after the 22nd April terrorist attack, they [Congress] started jumping up and down. They started saying, "kahan gayi 56 inch ki chhati?" "Kahan kho gaya Modi?" "Modi has failed"...They were shaping their politics even in the murder of innocent people in Pahalgam," he said. PM Modi said the Congress needs excuses to keep attacking the government. "Some people are crying here too. They tried to play a game during surgical strike, it didn't work. During airstrike, they tried playing another game. That didn't work either. When #OperationSindoor took place, they adopted a new tactic - "Why did you stop?"...Waah re bayan bahaduron! You need one or the other excuse to oppose."
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom
Harvard's standoff with the Trump administration tests the price of dissent in American academia. January 2025 wasn't supposed to read like the script of a dystopian campus drama. Yet, within days of Donald Trump's second inauguration, American higher education found itself back in the crosshairs. Harvard University, that centuries-old fortress of intellectual prestige, became the frontline in a clash not over grades or graduation rates, but over politics, power, and the weaponisation of federal authority. This isn't the same old 'Trump vs. Academia' skirmish we saw in 2017. This time, it's a stress test of whether a White House—any White House—can muscle its way into university governance, dictate the fate of billions in research funds, and even toy with student visas as leverage. If you think this saga only concerns one elite campus, think again. What happened to Harvard between January and July 2025 may well be the blueprint for how political control over universities could be asserted in America for years to come. January–February 2025: The opening moves On January 29, barely a week after the oath-taking ceremony, Trump signed Executive Order 14188. Following this, the Department of Justice established the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo At first glance, it seemed like another culture-war skirmish wrapped in civil rights language. But the fine print gave federal agencies unprecedented authority to probe universities, condition funding, and scrutinise so-called 'alien students' for ideological leanings. Harvard, along with dozens of institutions, received its first formal letter of 'concern' on February 27 from the Department of Justice, demanding meetings over alleged Title VI violations. For the uninitiated, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bars institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, colour, or national origin. These weren't polite invitations. They were the opening salvo in a campaign that would escalate beyond anything seen before in federal–academic relations. The groundwork was laid: The administration now had a legal hook (civil rights), a moral shield (antisemitism), and a political target (elite universities often painted as 'woke havens'). Harvard was merely the first domino. March–April 2025: From review to retaliation On March 31, the Task Force formally launched a federal review into Harvard's use of billions in federal research grants, citing alleged failures to protect Jewish students. Boston University Radio (WBUR) and multiple outlets reported that this review was the precursor to unprecedented fiscal scrutiny and laid the foundation for later punitive actions. Just days later, the White House sent a letter demanding sweeping changes at Harvard: Dismantle DEI programs, overhaul governance, adopt 'merit-based' hiring, submit to viewpoint diversity audits, and revise admissions policies. In other words, the federal government wasn't just enforcing civil rights, it was trying to rewrite campus rules by diktat. Harvard refused. What followed was a fiscal guillotine. On April 14, $2.2 billion in federal research grants were frozen, along with $60 million in contracts. The message was blunt: Comply or watch your labs go dark. Trump's Truth Social post on—calling Harvard a 'JOKE' teaching 'Hate and Stupidity' and suggesting it lose tax-exempt status—wasn't just an online bluster. It was the President setting policy through grievance politics. By April 16, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem piled on, demanding detailed records on every international student, threatening SEVP decertification (loss of Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification), and cancelling an additional $2.7 million in grants. Harvard struck back legally on April 21, filing its first lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to challenge the funding freeze as unconstitutional. The complaint asked the federal court to vacate punitive actions and restore billions in research dollars. But the damage was already done: Projects stalled, faculty recruitment froze, and students with research assistantships were left dangling, unsure if their stipends would arrive next semester. May 2025: Visa warfare on campus If April was about money, May targeted people. On May 5, Trump signed a proclamation declaring Harvard an 'unsuitable destination' for foreign students, citing nebulous national-security concerns. It was a shot across the bow, signalling that visas could be wielded as a political weapon. Then came May 22. ICE revoked Harvard's SEVP certification, effectively threatening the legal status of roughly 5,500–6,000 international students overnight. The timing was surgical: Just as spring exams wrapped, thousands of students risked being forced to leave the country or transfer. Harvard's emergency lawsuit on May 23 pulled it back from the brink—Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order hours later, halting the move. But the message was clear: Even the most prestigious university couldn't shield its students from the whims of political power when visas were used as leverage. For every prospective international student watching this unfold, the warning was unmistakable: In the US, your ability to study may hinge less on your merit than on whether your university angers the Oval Office or not. June–July 2025: Courtroom standoff and settlement signals By summer, the conflict had crystallised into two major lawsuits: One over the funding freeze, another over SEVP decertification. Both landed in Boston's federal court, with Harvard arguing that the administration's actions violated the First Amendment, Title VI protections, and due process laws. The Trump team countered that grant money was a privilege, not a right, and universities failing 'agency priorities' could have funding yanked at will. On July 21, oral arguments over the $2.2 billion freeze saw Judge Allison Burroughs grill both sides. A final ruling has not yet been issued, but the hearing laid bare the stakes: if Harvard loses, future presidents could dictate university policy through the purse strings, turning research funding into a political loyalty test. If Harvard wins, it would carve out a legal shield for academic freedom, albeit one forged in bitter litigation. Meanwhile, The New York Times revealed Harvard is exploring a potential settlement with the Trump administration, reportedly willing to pay up to $500 million to resolve the dispute. Negotiations reportedly focus on restoring access to more than $2 billion in frozen research funds while preserving governance autonomy, but the very premise of these talks is chilling. The figure is staggering, not just because of the money involved, but because of what it signals: Even the wealthiest and most powerful university in the country might have to 'pay tribute' to the White House to unlock funding it was already lawfully awarded. The talks mirror Columbia University's earlier $200 million settlement, but this is a higher‑stakes game. Harvard's endowment has become both shield and target, a financial bullseye for an administration eager to make an example of elite academia. Behind the headlines, DHS expanded its scrutiny to J-1 visas, research visas, and campus-linked foreign programs. Even without a final ruling, universities nationwide began quietly reviewing policies, fearing they'd be next. The chilling effect on student speech, faculty hiring, and international enrolment was immediate and measurable. Harvard's choice: Buy relief or win the law If Harvard settles, it risks sidelining the judiciary altogether, dodging the constitutional answer: Can a White House weaponise federal funding to police campus thought? The money tap may reopen, but the chance to set a legal boundary closes. The precedent becomes fear, telling every university president that when Washington knocks, resistance is futile and freedom negotiable. It transforms education into a marketplace where political compliance can be bought and dissent carries a billion-dollar price tag. If Harvard bows to this arrangement, it legitimises a dangerous precedent: Federal funding as ransom, with intellectual independence up for sale. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
