World Day against Child Labour observed in Chittoor district
As part of the campaign held against child labour, the Chittoor-based NGO Rural Education and Liberty (REAL) on Thursday announced that its volunteers, in collaboration with Just Rights for Children (JRC), rescued as many as 40 children from exploitative labour across the district in the last one year. The REAL and JRC functionaries were taking part in the World Day Against Child Labour celebrations, here on Thursday.
REAL director S. Rama Rao called on the Central and State governments to come up with proper funding and free education for up to 18 years, as the 'right deterrents against child labour issues,' and the creation of a dedicated rehabilitation fund for rescued children. He highlighted the growing efforts in combating child labour and stressed the importance and urgent need for strict enforcement, victim rehabilitation, and zero tolerance against child labour.
JRC convenor Ravi Kant, meanwhile, said that India's commitment to International Labour Organisation Convention 182 held great importance. He said that the NGO had so far rescued over 85,000 children and initiated legal proceedings in more than 54,000 cases in two years across the country. The twin agencies said they had organised awareness campaigns across Chittoor, with undertakings from the community to eliminate child labour and usher in the right to education and dignity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Ram Madhav writes: What the current discourse on religious freedom gets wrong
In an interesting report, 'Changing the conversation about religious freedom: An integral human development approach', published in June last year, the Atlantic Council, a US-based think tank, claimed that it was seeking 'a new approach to religious freedom that integrates it with integral human development (IHD)'. In a welcome departure from the earlier practice of demonising countries in the name of religious freedom, the report argued that religious freedom should not only be treated as a human right but also as 'a crucial component of overall human flourishing and sustainable development'. Religious freedom became a bogey to defame countries after the US Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) in 1998 and created the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to 'monitor, analyse and report on violations of religious freedom worldwide'. The commission's annual reports have acquired notoriety for misrepresenting facts, often with an alleged political bias, in branding several countries as 'Countries of Particular Concern' (CPCs). Several countries have questioned its locus standi in interfering in their sovereign affairs. India took an aggressive stand by refusing to recognise the commission and denying visas to its officials. Earlier this year, the Ministry of External Affairs not only rejected the commission's 2025 report, which included India as one of the CPCs, but went further to brand the commission an 'entity of concern'. The USCIRF's reports have no sanctity outside the four walls of the US Congress. Yet, they have helped create a 'religious freedom industry'. A breed of 'religious freedom ambassadors' has emerged in over 30 countries. Religious freedom, per se, is not contentious. Several democracies, including India, hold it as sacrosanct. Articles 25 to 30 of the Indian Constitution offer various freedoms to religions including the freedom of conscience, the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate, and the freedom to manage their affairs without state intervention. Minority religions enjoy positive discrimination by way of special rights to run educational and cultural institutions. The same rights are not available to the majority Hindu religion. India is the only country where people of all religions, including several Christian denominations and Muslim sects, coexist in harmony. It's not that there are no religious tensions, but they must be seen in the context of India's population of a billion-plus Hindus, almost 200 million Muslims and 40 million Christians. In its long history, Hindu society has endured enormous religious persecution by invading Mughal armies as well as violent religious inquisitions by Christian rulers like the Portuguese in Goa. The country was partitioned in 1947 on religious grounds after a brutal and violent campaign led by the Muslim League. That history has made the leaders of modern India recognise the need for strengthening the bond of national unity based not only on political and constitutional foundations but also on cultural and civilisational ethos. Religious bigotry and fundamentalism — majority or minority — were rejected and emphasis was laid on creating a national mainstream. For a vast and diverse country with a long history of religious strife, that's not an easy task. Yet, occasional outbursts notwithstanding, India has achieved commendable success in demonstrating unity and harmony. Still, India remained in the USCIRF's crosshairs. There are two important reasons for that bias. One is that the commission places its religious freedom discourse in a Eurocentric framework. It refuses to take into account country-specific sensitivities. Two, it relies on scholars who are reportedly biased. I was at a conference in Rome recently where the Atlantic Council's initiative to view religious freedom from the prism of integral human development was the central theme. Propounded first by Jacques Maritain, a French Catholic philosopher, in 1936, and followed three decades later by Deendayal Upadhyaya, the ideological father figure of the BJP, Integral humanism emphasises the need to rise above religions to secure not only the material but ethical, moral and spiritual well-being of individuals. It advocates a pluralistic approach for achieving such an integral development. It is imperative that the religious freedom discourse be situated in the national context to achieve a proper understanding of the role of religions in the integral growth of people. The Indian Constitution imposes reasonable restrictions on public order, morality and health on all fundamental rights, including the freedom of religion. That calls for religions that came from outside to internalise the cultural experience of India, in which pluralism and respect for all religions is an important basic principle. No religion can claim universality or superiority. Hence, in the Indian context, the religious narrative should shift from 'one god' to 'only god' — everything is divine — and 'one truth' to 'only truth'. Religious conversions are an important challenge in this context. In a landmark judgment in Rev. Stainislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court held that the right to 'propagate' does not include the right to proselytise and hence there is no fundamental right to convert another person. The Court clarified that it does not impinge on the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution, but rather, protects it. It may be worthwhile to recall that Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis had criticised proselytism, albeit in the limited context of Catholics being won over by other denominations. A proper understanding of the cultural and civilisational experiences of various nations helps in reframing the religious freedom discourse in the right perspective. Otherwise, the Atlantic Council's efforts will also be seen as 'a form of 'cultural imperialism' or a 'Western' endeavour with a hidden agenda', to borrow from its own report. The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP. Views are personal
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
US Court Extends Detention Of Pro-Palestinian Protest Leader Mahmoud Khalil
A U.S. judge on Friday denied Mahmoud Khalil's request to be released from detention, after federal prosecutors changed their rationale for holding the Columbia graduate student as part of its crackdown on pro-Palestinian activists. Newark, New Jersey-based U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday said the government could not use foreign policy interests to justify Khalil's detention. On Friday the government said it was also holding Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States, on a charge of immigration fraud. In response, Farbiarz said Khalil's lawyers had not successfully argued why it was unlawful for the government to hold him on the charge, which he has denied. The ruling marked the latest turn in Khalil's fight to be freed from a Louisiana detention center after his March arrest for involvement in the pro-Palestinian protest movement, which President Donald Trump has called antisemitic. His detention was condemned by civil rights groups as an attack on protected political speech. Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer for Khalil, said the government practically never detained people for immigration fraud and the Syrian-born student was being punished for opposing Israel's U.S.-backed war in Gaza following Hamas' October 2023 attack. "Detaining someone on a charge like this is highly unusual and frankly outrageous," said Van Der Hout. "There continues to be no constitutional basis for his detention." Farbiarz had previously suggested legal residents like Khalil were rarely detained on the basis of immigration fraud. On Friday he said Khalil should seek bail from the immigration lawyer in his case. As lawyers for the Syrian-born activist sought his release, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, another immigrant targeted by the Trump administration, pleaded not guilty to migrant smuggling charges after his wrongful deportation. Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan on March 8. His U.S. citizen wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, gave birth to the couple's first child while Khalil was detained in April. Ahead of Father's Day in the U.S., a group of celebrities including actors Mahershala Ali, Mark Ruffalo and Mo Amer, called for Khalil to be freed. They also sent him a video showing the celebrities reading aloud a letter that the activist had sent to his infant son.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Trump clears path for Nippon Steel investment in US Steel, so long as it fits the governments terms
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order paving the way for a Nippon Steel investment in U.S. Steel, so long as the Japanese company complies with a 'national security agreement' submitted by the federal government. Trump's order didn't detail the terms of the national security agreement. But U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel said in a joint statement that the agreement stipulates that approximately $11 billion in new investments will be made by 2028 and includes giving the U.S. government a 'golden share" — essentially veto power to ensure the country's national security interests are protected. 'We thank President Trump and his Administration for their bold leadership and strong support for our historic partnership," the two companies said. "This partnership will bring a massive investment that will support our communities and families for generations to come. We look forward to putting our commitments into action to make American steelmaking and manufacturing great again.' The companies have completed a U.S. Department of Justice review and received all necessary regulatory approvals, the statement said. 'The partnership is expected to be finalized promptly,' the statement said. The companies offered few details on how the golden share would work and what investments would be made. Trump said Thursday that he would as president have 'total control' of what U.S. Steel did as part of the investment. Trump said then that the deal would preserve '51% ownership by Americans.' The Japan-based steelmaker had been offering nearly $15 billion to purchase the Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel in a merger that had been delayed on national security concerns starting during Joe Biden's presidency. Trump opposed the purchase while campaigning for the White House, yet he expressed optimism in working out an arrangement once in office. 'We have a golden share, which I control,' said Trump, although it was unclear what he meant by suggesting that the federal government would determine what U.S. Steel does as a company. Trump added that he was 'a little concerned' about what presidents other than him would do with their golden share, 'but that gives you total control.' Still, Nippon Steel has never said it was backing off its bid to buy and control U.S. Steel as a wholly owned subsidiary. The proposed merger had been under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, during the Trump and Biden administrations. The order signed Friday by Trump said the CFIUS review provided 'credible evidence' that Nippon Steel 'might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,' but such risks might be 'adequately mitigated' by approving the proposed national security agreement. The order doesn't detail the perceived national security risk and only provides a timeline for the national security agreement. The White House declined to provide details on the terms of the agreement. The order said the draft agreement was submitted to U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel on Friday. The two companies must successfully execute the agreement as decided by the Treasury Department and other federal agencies that are part CFIUS by the closing date of the transaction. Trump reserves the authority to issue further actions regarding the investment as part of the order he signed on Friday. Associated Press writer Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
