Why Sitting On The Fence? In Belgium, Indian Delegation Questions West On Terrorism
Last Updated:
Speaking in Brussels, MJ Akbar questioned West's silence on terror attacks against India.
Former Union Minister MJ Akbar, part of an all-party delegation in Europe, on Wednesday criticised the international community for its double standards on terrorism. Speaking in Brussels, Akbar questioned the perception that Indian lives are less valuable, pointing out the West's silence on terror attacks against India.
'Are there two laws in this world? One for America and the West, and another for India?" Akbar asked, as reported by news agency ANI. 'After 9/11, the US traveled 12,000 kilometers to seek justice in Afghanistan and Pakistan, holding Pakistan accountable—General Musharraf admitted it. But when India takes action just 500 kilometers away to combat terror, we are told to show restraint," he continued.
Led by BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad, the delegation is on a multi-nation tour covering Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, and the UK. Their goal is to expose Pakistan's ongoing support for terrorism and advocate for justice for Indian victims of terror.
Akbar emphasised that India's pursuit is for justice, not revenge. 'Indian lives are equally precious. We share Europe's values of democracy and freedom. Yet, too many still sit on the fence," he remarked.
Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi echoed similar sentiments, criticising Pakistan for harbouring terrorists and undermining democracy. Citing Pakistan's political instability and military interference, she described it as 'senseless radicalisation." She also condemned former Pakistan foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari's past remarks on India's counter-terror actions, calling them cowardly and hypocritical.
Ravi Shankar Prasad reinforced that India's stance is based on justice, not revenge. 'We ask the world: do the victims of terror have human rights or not?" he inquired, adding that while India has shown restraint in the past, it now demands global accountability.
The delegation includes MPs from various political parties, including BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT), AIADMK, alongside former diplomats. Their mission is to highlight Pakistan's role in cross-border terrorism and advocate for a consistent, values-based global approach to counterterrorism.
The delegation was formed following the deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 innocent people. This prompted an urgent diplomatic outreach and a renewed call for global solidarity in the fight against terror.
First Published:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Scroll.in
33 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Scroll Adda: How fact checkers fight IT cell disinformation
Play India is drowning in fake news. And much of it is produced by its own political parties. Dedicated so-called IT cells supported by highly paid consultants push disinformation on social media with the aim of converting voters to their point of view. This isn't limited to elections. Disinformation is warping Indian society itself. The past decade has seen an explosion of hate, a significant part of which has been powered by fake news. The first line of defence against this tsunami? Fact checkers. To understand how they battle this scourge, Scroll's political editor, Shoaib Daniyal, speaks to Alt News co-founder Pratik Sinha on the first episode of Scroll Adda. In a wide-ranging conversation, Sinha explains the toll disinformation has taken on India — and on his own mental health.
The Hindu
36 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Former Puducherry CM questions Speaker over projected cost of proposed Assembly complex
Former Puducherry Chief Minister and Congress leader V. Narayanasamy on Friday (June 6, 2025) questioned Speaker R. Selvam for projecting a huge sum of ₹675 crore for the government's proposal to build a new Assembly complex in the Union Territory (UT). 'The Speaker has projected such a high figure with ulterior motives. For the geographical size and present strength of the Assembly (30 elected and three nominated MLAs), the amount is disproportionately huge. Public money cannot be utilised for lavish expenditure. The projected amount could be used for public good,' he said, addressing a press conference in the UT. The Speaker had claimed that the Chief Secretary was putting obstacles in the way of the ₹675-crore project, he said, adding that Mr. Selvam had been pursuing the project for constructing a new Assembly complex since the day he assumed office. 'A few months after Mr. Selvam assumed office, he had told the media that Union Home Minister Amit Shah will lay the foundation for the complex. At that time, he had projected ₹300 crore for the Assembly complex and now, it has gone up to ₹675 crore. During our tenure, we had proposed the construction of a new Assembly at a cost of ₹200 crore, and many States in the Northeast have constructed new Assemblies for around ₹200 crore,' he said. He also questioned Mr. Selvam for his remarks that Chief Minister N. Rangasamy skipped the NITI Aayog meeting in New Delhi as he generally 'avoided' taking a flight. The Speaker had also said that on the day of NITI Aayog meeting, the Chief Minister had to 'perform puja' at his temple in Gorimedu. 'Mr. Selvam, as a representative of the CM, gave these two reasons for Mr. Rangasamy's absence from the NITI Aayog meeting. The reasons cited by the Speaker sound flimsy and are laughable. The Chief Minister has insulted the people of Puducherry by skipping such an important meeting, where he could have raised Statehood issue and other important subjects concerning the UT,' he said. Responding to Mr. Rangasamy's decision to skip a question on the future of AINRC-BJP alliance during a recent press conference, the Congress leader said Mr. Rangasamy seems disinterested in continuing the alliance with the BJP. 'If he decides to break the alliance with the BJP, the Chief Minister's AINRC will vanish from the political landscape of Puducherry. He will not have the courage to break the alliance,' he said. The Congress was fully prepared to face the next Assembly elections with confidence, he added.
