Thug Life Hits Screens: Live Review and Updates on Kamal Haasan's Latest with Mani Ratnam
More than 200 lawmakers from the Opposition from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha will write to the Prime Secretary Narendra Modi to demand a special session of the Parliament to examine issues related to the Pahalgam attack 2025 as well as Operation Sindoor.
The move follows 20 high-ranking leaders, including two leaders of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Trinamool's Abhishek Banerjee wrote the PM asking for an extra session.
The government has stated that it will not be holding any special session. Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju announced that the monsoon session would begin on July 21 and will end on the 12th of August. Lok Sabha authorities told HT that there isn't any announcement for a special session.
In response to the announcement of the government the Trinamool Congress's Derek O'Brien said, "TMC has looked over the announcements in the past and the typical session is announced 19 days prior to the date for its start. This time they made the announcement 47 days earlier. So scared!
If they are able to make an announcement about that they will be announcing Monsoon Session, why not to have a Opposition MPs Modi letter or special Parliament session demand in June."
Functionaries discussed how they believe the demand for a separate session also has reopened the communication channel among Gandhi Banerjee and Gandhi. Banerjee. A top official said that Gandhi had a conversation with Banerjee who is currently on the delegation, and discussed the necessity of an approach that is joint to call for an open session.
Although TMC is not an official ally of the Congress however, discussions between the two top leaders could result in greater collaboration between both parties in the coming session.
Under the direction of the Prime Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, our efforts are aimed at ensuring that Viksit Bharat is a Green Bharat and a country that is climate-resilient.
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
June 7, 1985, Forty Years Ago: Clashes In Northeast
At least 25 police personnel were killed and several injured in a continuous exchange of fire for the past three days between Assam and Nagaland police at Merapal on the inter-state border. Official sources said that 20 of those killed were Assam policemen. In Guwahati, Assam Home Commissioner Jatin Hazarika confirmed the death of 10 state policemen and indicated that the casualties might be higher. PM In France Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi arrived in Paris to a warm and affectionate welcome and straightaway went into talks with President Francois Mitterrand. The French government rolled out the red carpet for Gandhi and the PM, Laurent Fabius, set aside protocol to personally greet Gandhi at Orly Airport on his arrival from Cairo on a five-day official visit. Colombo's Outreach A three-month truce with separatist Lankan guerillas is being worked out behind the scenes by politicians in Colombo, New Delhi and Madras as a direct result of last week's Indo-Lankan summit, well-informed sources said. At the summit meeting between Sri Lankan President Junius Jayewardene and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, an agreement had reportedly been reached that violence of any sort should end as a pre-condition for any political solution to Sri Lanka's ethnic violence. Curfew In Ludhiana The calm which was prevailing in Punjab for the last two days was disturbed when a curfew was clamped in the industrial town of Ludhiana as a precautionary measure after a fire broke out in the Society Cinema hall there. According to official reports, the fire broke out in the cinema hall due to a short circuit. It has been controlled and there was no loss to life or property.
The Wire
17 minutes ago
- The Wire
After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Security After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself Sanjiv Krishan Sood 4 minutes ago While India's armed response to the Pahalgam massacre was swift and strategically effective, the deeper questions about intelligence failures, foreign policy and the sustainability of retaliatory doctrine remain unresolved. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now If Operation Sindoor began as a limited attack on nine locations linked to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the Pakistani response prompted the Indian defence forces to undertake a number of actions aimed at Pakistan's military establishment. Through precision strikes on militant infrastructure, followed by carefully calibrated aggression, the Indian Air Force and Army degraded key assets while preventing any substantial damage to our own military or civilian infrastructure. The response to the massacre at Pahalgam carried out by terrorists linked to Pakistan was measured but resolute. It was aimed as prompting Islamabad to reassess its state policy of harbouring and sponsoring terror. India's declaration that all acts of terrorism will now be treated as acts of war marks a significant shift in doctrine. That said, six weeks after the Pahalgam tragedy and nearly a month since the cessation of hostilities, several critical questions remain unanswered by both our security and political leadership. The first is whether Operation Sindoor achieved its stated objectives. The Prime Minister, in a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting, gave the armed forces a free hand to destroy the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. On the nights of May 6th and 7th, nine terrorist camps were reportedly neutralized, and numerous militants killed. But can we truly say the infrastructure has been dismantled? Is the deterrent strong enough to prevent future attacks? The evidence doesn't inspire confidence. Since the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air strikes following Pulwama, Pakistan-based terrorists have continued to strike at Indian targets. Pathankot, Kathua, Udhampur, and other places have seen terror attacks even after high-profile retaliatory actions. Supporting terrorism in India appears to be entrenched in Pakistan's state doctrine. The reported decision of the Pakistani government to offer financial aid to the families of slain terrorists and rebuild destroyed camps signals no intent to step back. More troubling is the international silence. Aside from muted support from Russia, India has struggled to garner vocal backing from major global powers. In contrast, Pakistan received overt support from China and Turkey—both of whom extended diplomatic cover and material support, including drones and modern aircraft used during the brief conflict. Despite a two-week window before striking the terrorist camps, India failed to shape global opinion or present a compelling narrative. This diplomatic vacuum echoes the aftermath of Balakot, when Pakistan successfully projected its version of events internationally. The all-party delegations India dispatched to various countries gained limited traction, mostly among nations with marginal influence on global affairs. This stands in sharp contrast to India's success in 1971 and during the Kargil conflict in 1999, when it managed to effectively justify its actions and rally international opinion. Why the shift? The present government's handling of foreign policy and communication strategy deserves closer scrutiny. That brings us to the ceasefire itself. By May 10th, Indian forces reportedly had the upper hand. Yet it was the US president who first announced the ceasefire, followed by India's own foreign secretary. President Trump's repeated claims of having mediated the ceasefire raise uncomfortable questions. Has India, which long resisted international mediation and stood firmly for bilateralism, allowed itself to be hyphenated with Pakistan once again? While the decision to end hostilities may have been strategically sound, it was an anti-climax for a public whipped into a frenzy by media speculation and political rhetoric. Talk of reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and total victory created unrealistic expectations. The actual motivations for the ceasefire remain speculative. It may have been American pressure, given the escalatory risks between two nuclear powers. Or it could have been India's own calculation—that sufficient punishment had been meted out, and further escalation would only risk unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly in areas like Poonch and Rajouri. The safety of civilians in border areas is another glaring concern. While cities were issued alerts, conducted blackouts, and prepared for contingencies, residents living within range of Pakistani small arms and artillery fire were left dangerously exposed. Civilian deaths and property destruction in border towns were substantial. The state must ensure compensation and future protection for these vulnerable populations. The economic implications of conflict also merit discussion. India, now a $4 trillion economy, has far more to lose than Pakistan in a prolonged war. With vast developmental needs and social infrastructure demands, even short conflicts strain national resources. A quick resolution to conflict is, in this sense, in India's own interest. But that only makes the need for a coherent and sustainable response doctrine even more urgent. Our new policy of equating terror attacks with acts of war raises critical strategic questions. What is the threshold for retaliation? Would attacks outside Kashmir trigger the same response as those within? Does the number of casualties factor into the decision? Can every incident justify cross-border action without risking long-term regional stability and international isolation? Notably, India's responses have escalated over time—from Uri to Balakot to Sindoor. Where does this trajectory end, especially with a politically unstable and militarily erratic neighbour? The potential for future Chinese involvement further complicates matters. India's strategic community must urgently engage with these questions. Yet, above all, the most urgent question remains: how was the Pahalgam massacre allowed to happen in the first place? Why did our intelligence agencies fail to detect preparatory activity? How did they miss the apparent increase in satellite imagery demand for Pahalgam in February? Such lapses are inexcusable—they cost 26 innocent lives at Pahalgam, and many more in the conflict that followed. These intelligence failures are not isolated. They follow a disturbing pattern seen in Pulwama, Pathankot, Udhampur, Kathua, Mumbai, and other attacks. Yet accountability remains elusive. Why was there no security detail at such a high-profile tourist site? Who in the chain of command failed—the SP, DIG, IG, or DG? Are our forces overly fixated on protecting politicians and VIPs at the cost of ordinary citizens? Some may argue that providing security everywhere is impractical. But complete absence of police presence at a known tourist destination is indefensible. Did complacency set in after the abrogation of Article 370 and the successful state elections, leading officials to believe that the threat had passed? And finally, why do these tragedies keep recurring? Has any impartial inquiry been conducted into past lapses? Have recommendations been implemented? The public has a right to know whether lessons are being learned, or merely filed away. These questions may sound rhetorical. But unless they are asked, addressed, and acted upon, we risk reliving the same tragedy. The lives lost at Pahalgam demand more than patriotic fervour and retaliatory strikes. They demand introspection, accountability, and a strategy that looks beyond the immediate headlines. Sanjiv Krishan Sood was additional director general of the BSF. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Modi's Search for Global Solidarity Rings Hollow Amid Rising Domestic Intolerance in India Eight Days, Nine Rallies, Six States: Tracking PM Modi and Operation Sindoor as Campaign Ammunition Gandhi's and Modi's Reflections on 'Sindoor' Are Poles Apart Modi Says 'Not Blood, Hot Sindoor' Flows In His Veins In First Public Address Since Op Sindoor Why a Special Session of the Parliament is Critical to Discuss the Disclosure Made by CDS Chauhan 'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court From Flowers to Sarees, A Story of PM Modi's Communication Imagery Post-Operation Sindoor By Calling For the Boycott of Foreign Goods, Modi Contradicts Himself Facing Pushback, Derision and Anger, BJP Says News of Sindoor Distribution Plans 'Fake' View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump, Musk and a split foretold
It has been less than six months (of a 48-month tenure) since Donald J Trump assumed the office of the President of the United States for a second time. In that time, he has upended the US's relationship with its Western allies and engaged in a start-stop tariff regime based on questionable assumptions. He has also injected elements of uncertainty into the US's ties with countries, including India, that have been growing and deepening steadily for nearly three decades. The public spat between President Trump and Elon Musk — beyond the barbs and the almost reality TV style of the 'breakup' — must be seen in this context. Drama and uncertainty mark both US domestic politics and how the superpower engages with the world. The world's richest man played a significant part in the Trump campaign and the administration. Musk contributed about $250 million to Trump's election fund and, after the election, led the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The differences over the Trump administration's 'One Big Beautiful Bill', emerging a day after Musk left DOGE, quickly spiralled into an all-out social-media war between the two billionaires, replete with name-calling. While Musk claimed that he won Trump the election and echoed conspiracy theories about his connections with deceased financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the President raised questions about government contracts for the Tesla and SpaceX founder's companies. Given their egos, perhaps it was a split foretold. That said, the Trump-Musk spat sends out the message that it is not necessarily institutions and interests that determine the course of politics and policy in Washington. Till recently, the 'bromance' between the two men made Musk's companies all but de facto national champions and the tech entrepreneur was seen across capitals as an extension of the White House. SpaceX, for example, has deep ties to NASA and its vessels ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. The uncertainty around the future of that collaboration will make things more complicated for Delhi as it tries to deepen cooperation in space with the US. Deals with Tesla and Starlink, while made by private players, may take on a different colour. The Trump administration's domestic policies have already had reverberations in India, especially its attitude to visas for foreign students and workers. The immature insistence that the White House mediated the ceasefire after Operation Sindoor went against the grain of 30 years of the bilateral relationship — through Republican and Democrat administrations — of de-hyphenating India and Pakistan. As India tries to manage the US relationship over the next three years, it must keep in mind that it is working with a partner that is much more temperamental — today's Trump loyalist might be tomorrow's persona non grata.
