PM Modi leads India and the world in IDY celebration
New Delhi, June 21 (UNI) The celebration of the International Day of Yoga (IDY) on Saturday witnessed an overwhelming global participation, from India's borders and remote villages to bustling cities and embassies abroad.
The day was led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who performed yoga at the iconic Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, addressing a massive gathering of over one lakh yoga enthusiasts.
Modi highlighted that yoga is not merely an exercise but a holistic way of life, transcending boundaries, backgrounds, age, and abilities. He further emphasised the unifying power of yoga, noting that it has now been embraced by 175 countries, marking the global acceptance of his proposal for IDY in 2015.
Joining the Prime Minister at the venue were Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu and Deputy CM Konidela Pawan Kalyan, underlining the yoga's cultural significance.
To mark the day, President Droupadi Murmu took part in a yoga camp held at the Police Line in Dehradun, highlighting India's pivotal role in promoting yoga on the world stage.
In fact, throughout the country, the spirit of unity was palpable as ministers, government officials, organisations both from public and private sectors and people from all walks of life participated.
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla led celebrations at Parliament, while Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh took part in a session with 2,500 soldiers in Udhampur, Jammu & Kashmir. He praised yoga for its role in enhancing mental clarity, discipline, and control — critical qualities for the armed forces.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Gujarat Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel celebrated the day respectively at Prahladnagar Garden in Ahmedabad city and Vadnagar town of Mehsana district, the birthplace of the Prime Minister, while at Kartavya Path in the national capital, Union Health Minister and BJP president JP Nadda led the mass yoga demonstration, emphasising yoga's global significance in ensuring balance between the body, mind, and spirit.
Nadda's colleagues in the Ministry, Prataprao Jadhav and Anupriya Singh Patel, called yoga as an invaluable gift from India that connects the body, mind, and soul for holistic well-being.
In states like Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, and Madhya Pradesh, officials and citizens embraced yoga with a deep sense of belonging and peace. J&K LG Manoj Sinha participated in the 11th International Yoga Day in line with the Common Yoga Protocol, while Sikkim CM Prem Singh Tamang led a session in Gangtok, promoting wellness in the northeastern region.
Parshottam Rupala, Union Minister for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, attended the event at Modhera Sun Temple, Mehsana while senior officials at the Geological Survey of India (GSI) preferred to choose its iconic geo-heritage sites such as Bhimbetka Rock Shelters in Madhya Pradesh and Mangampeta Barytes Deposit in Andhra Pradesh.
At the same time, Union Minister for Education, Dharmendra Pradhan, celebrated the day near the riverfront at Maa Samaleswari Temple Complex, Sambalpur, Odisha with officials, dignitaries and residents of Sambalpur joining him at the session.
Similarly, over nine lakh cadets of National Cadet Corps (NCC) participated in synchronised yoga sessions at iconic locations across the country from Leh in the North to Kanyakumari in the South and from Dwarka in the West to Tezu in the East at iconic spots, as well as in public parks, schools, and colleges across the country, according to the government statement.
The enthusiasm wasn't limited to India. Indian embassies worldwide hosted grand events, from Tokyo, where Yoshiko Ishiba, the spouse of Japan's Prime Minister, joined in, to New York's Times Square, where hundreds took part in a vibrant yoga session.
Washington, DC also marked the occasion with a large turnout at the Lincoln Memorial, demonstrating yoga's universal appeal. In their posts on X, Indian embassies in Qatar, Nepal and Kuwait among many others also highlighted celebration of the D Day by organizing the events in their respective countries.
UNI TEAM PRS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
33 minutes ago
- News18
Not So ‘Nobel'? Why Pakistan's Push For Trump Reeks Of A Strategic Gamble
Last Updated: Official sources in India said Pakistan's move is aimed at strengthening ties with US, securing economic and technological support, and gaining American backing on Kashmir In a diplomatic move, Pakistan has formally nominated US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Official sources within Pakistan's government have confirmed that the nomination stems from their belief that Trump played a pivotal role in defusing the tensions during the India-Pakistan crisis of May 2025. However, official sources in India told CNN-News18 that Pakistan's move is aimed at strengthening ties with the United States, securing economic and technological support, and gaining American backing for its position on the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan's Desperate Push The Nobel nomination comes after what Islamabad describes as Trump's 'decisive diplomatic intervention" in de-escalating the May 2025 crisis between India and Pakistan. Pakistani officials have credited Trump for averting what could have been a catastrophic nuclear conflict. 'This move is about acknowledging President Trump's key role in ensuring peace during a period of intense crisis," one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'We believe that Trump's mediation was instrumental in averting escalation, and we are seeking international recognition of his contribution." However, this narrative has been categorically rejected by India. Indian government sources have expressed strong opposition to Pakistan's claims, dismissing them as factually incorrect and misleading. In an official statement, India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri rejected the suggestion that Trump mediated the crisis, stating, 'India did not seek or accept any third-party mediation during the crisis, and Pakistan's attempts to rewrite the history of the events are not based in reality." Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his public remarks, further dismissed Pakistan's narrative, refusing to engage with any external mediation efforts, including those from Trump. 'India has always managed its security concerns on its own and does not require the intervention of any third party," he said. This week, PM Modi also declined Trump's invite to visit the United States on his return journey from Canada, citing his pre-existing schedule. The development came as PM Modi spoke with Trump and set the record straight that India's 'Operation Sindoor' was 'paused" following a request from Pakistan and not due to mediation or offer of a trade deal by the US. According to official sources within the Indian government, the Indian leadership maintained full control over the crisis and managed it without any foreign involvement. Indian Defence Secretary RK Singh provided further details, telling a news agency: 'All communications during the crisis were thoroughly documented, including logs and records that make it clear that India initiated the calls. Any claims of third-party mediation are unfounded." Singh's comments were aimed at countering Pakistan's narrative, which has been widely disseminated in international forums and media. The Kashmir Angle Pakistan's push to nominate Trump is also linked to its long-standing goal of internationalising the Kashmir issue. Islamabad has consistently sought global support for its position on Kashmir, which India maintains is a bilateral issue to be resolved solely between the two countries. Indian government officials have made it clear that any third-party involvement in the Kashmir dispute is unacceptable. 'The Kashmir issue is a bilateral matter, and India will not tolerate any external interference," said a senior Ministry of External Affairs official, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'Pakistan's attempt to gain international support through this Nobel nomination is part of its ongoing campaign to internationalise Kashmir, which India has firmly rejected." In contrast, Pakistan has highlighted Trump's previous offers to mediate the Kashmir dispute as evidence of his willingness to involve himself in the issue. According to Pakistani diplomatic sources, this endorsement of Trump is aimed at pushing the United States to take a more active role in the region. Munir's Ambition The diplomatic push for the Nobel nomination has raised eyebrows in both Pakistan and India. There are reports that General Asim Munir, Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, is positioning himself as a potential co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, alongside Trump. While this remains unconfirmed, Indian intelligence sources suggest that Munir's growing role in shaping Pakistan's foreign policy may be influencing the country's decision to publicly support Trump. 'Munir is an ambitious leader," said an Indian security analyst, 'and while the Nobel campaign may seem like a strategic move to secure Pakistani interests, it could also be a personal gambit to raise his own stature on the international stage." Interestingly, the nomination demand came after a rare White House meeting between Trump and Munir in which geo-political issues ranging from the Israel-Iran conflict, and Kashmir to defence purchasing were discussed. The Bigger Picture For Pakistan, the move is seen as a way to potentially gain economic concessions, technological transfers, and a softer US stance on its nuclear programme. In particular, Pakistan hopes that by aligning itself with Trump's leadership, it can secure American backing for its position on Kashmir, despite India's firm objections. top videos View all For India, however, the matter is a reminder that, despite Pakistan's claims, the Kashmir issue remains firmly within India's domain and will not be internationalised through external mediation. The coming months will reveal whether Pakistan's strategic gamble will pay off or whether it will simply be seen as a fleeting diplomatic gesture in the complex web of South Asian geopolitics. tags : Asim Munir donald trump Kashmir Nobel Prize pakistan United states Location : Islamabad, Pakistan First Published: June 21, 2025, 11:36 IST News world Not So 'Nobel'? Why Pakistan's Push For Trump Reeks Of A Strategic Gamble | Exclusive
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
Israeli attacks on Iran N sites have caused sharp degradation in Nuclear safety, but no radiological release : IAEA DG
New Delhi, June 21 (UNI) Israeli attacks on nuclear sites in Iran have caused a sharp degradation in nuclear safety and security although they have not so far led to a radiological release affecting the public but there is a danger this could occur, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi has warned. 'Nuclear facilities and material must not be shrouded by the fog of war,' the IAEA DG told the UN Security Council, pointing out that the IAEA has been monitoring closely the situation at Iran's nuclear sites since Israel began its attacks. Referring to the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, he said this is the nuclear site in Iran where the consequences of an attack 'could be most serious". 'It is an operating nuclear power plant and as such it hosts thousands of kilograms of nuclear material. Countries of the region have reached out directly to me to express their concerns and I want to make it absolutely and completely clear : In case of an attack on the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, a direct hit could result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment,' the IAEA DG warned. He said there was an incorrect statement to the media by an Israeli military official that Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant had been attacked. Although the mistake was quickly identified and the statement retracted, the situation underscored the vital need for clear and accurate communication and the Agency's unique role in providing it in a technically accurate and politically impartial way is obvious. Israel said on Friday it had struck Iran's only functioning nuclear power plant on the Gulf coast, potentially a major escalation in its air war against Iran. Similarly a hit that disabled the only two lines supplying electrical power to the plant could cause its reactor's core to melt which could result in high release of radioactivity to the environment. 'In their worst-case, both scenarios would necessitate protective actions such as evacuations and sheltering of the population or the need to take stable iodine, with the reach extending to distances from a few to several hundred kilometers. Radiation monitoring would need to cover distances of several hundred kilometers and food restrictions may need to be implemented.' Initial attacks on June 13 targeted and destroyed electricity infrastructure at the Natanz enrichment site including an electrical sub-station, the main electric power supply building, and emergency power supply and back-up generators. On the same day, the main cascade hall appears to have been attacked using ground-penetrating munitions. Grossi said the level of radioactivity outside the Natanz site has remained unchanged and at normal levels, indicating no external radiological impact on the population or the environment. However, within the Natanz facility there is both radiological and chemical contamination. It is possible that Uranium isotopes contained in Uranium Hexafluoride, Uranyl Fluoride and Hydrogen Fluoride are dispersed inside the facility. The radiation, primarily consisting of alpha particles, poses a significant danger if inhaled or ingested. He said the IAEA is not aware of any damage at Fordow at this time. Fordow is Iran's main enrichment location for enriching uranium to 60 percent. At the Esfahan nuclear site, four buildings were damaged in last Friday's attack : the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor-fuel manufacturing plant and the enriched uranium metal processing facility which was under construction. No increase of off-site radiation levels was reported. As in Natanz, the main concern is chemical toxicity. The IAEA DG said the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor under construction in Arak, was hit on June 19. As the reactor was not operational and did not contain any nuclear material, no radiological consequence is expected. The nearby Heavy Water Production Plant is also assessed to have been hit, and similarly no radiological consequence is expected. As stated in the IAEA's update of June 18 at the Tehran Research Center, one building, where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested, was hit. At the Karaj workshop, two buildings, where different centrifuge components were manufactured, were destroyed. There was no radiological impact, internally or externally. He said any action against the Tehran Nuclear Research Reactor could also have severe consequences, potentially for large areas of the city of Tehran and its inhabitants. In such a case, protective actions would need to be taken. Grossi said the IAEA would remain present in Iran and inspections there would resume, as required by Iran's safeguards obligations under its NPT Safeguards Agreement as soon as safety and security conditions allow. He said Iran's uranium stockpiles remain under safeguards in accordance with Iran's comprehensive safeguards agreement. More than 400 kg of this stockpile is uranium enriched up to 60 percent U-235. Any special measures by Iran to protect its nuclear materials and equipment must be done in accordance with Iran's safeguards obligations and the Agency. He said the IAEA had consistently underlined that armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place and could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked. Calling for 'maximum restraint', he said military escalation threatens lives and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. A diplomatic solution is within reach if the necessary political will is there. Elements for an agreement have been discussed. 'The IAEA can guarantee, through a watertight inspections system, that nuclear weapons will not be developed in Iran. They can form the basis of a long-standing agreement that brings peace and avoids a nuclear crisis in the Middle East. This opportunity should not be missed. The alternative would be a protracted conflict and a looming threat of nuclear proliferation that, while emanating from the Middle East, would effectively erode the NPT and the non-proliferation regime as a whole.' He said that for the second time in three years, the world is witnessing a dramatic conflict between two UN and IAEA Member States in which nuclear installations are coming under fire and nuclear safety is being compromised. For the IAEA to act, a constructive, professional dialogue is needed. 'The IAEA must receive timely and regular technical information about affected nuclear facilities and their respective sites,' he said, and urged Iranian regulatory authorities to continue a constructive dialogue with the IAEA Incident and Emergency Centre which has been operating 24/7 since the beginning of this conflict. UNI RB RN
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
The paradox of English: It is both a foreign tongue and a deeply embedded Indian language
Alongside their offensive against Urdu, India's language nationalists appear to have turned their ire on English. That is what one could conclude from the declaration by Union Home Minister Amit Shah at a book launch in New Delhi on Thursday, when he predicted that 'soon a time would come when those speaking English will feel ashamed'. 'In our lifetime, we will see a society in which those speaking English will feel ashamed, that day is not far,' he said. 'I believe that the languages of our country are the ornament of our culture. Without them, we would not have been Bharatiya. Our country, its history, its culture, our dharma – if these have to be understood, it cannot be done in foreign languages.' Shah's statement quickly sparked a political backlash. Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, countered forcefully: 'English is not a dam, it is a bridge. English is not shameful, it is empowering. English is not a chain – it is a tool to break the chains.' Other opposition figures, including Trinamool Congress leaders Derek O'Brien and Sagarika Ghose, echoed this sentiment, slamming the home minister for what they saw as a regressive and divisive stance. Echoes of Mulayam Singh Shah's remarks recall a moment 35 years ago when Mulayam Singh Yadav, who was then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, launched his own crusade against English. In May 1990, Yadav infamously declared English to be 'the language of foreigners and the elite', blaming it for perpetuating socio-economic disparity and cultivating feelings of inferiority among non-English speakers. His one-point mission: Angrezi hatao. Banish English. In a curious twist, Yadav, a self-declared supporter of Urdu urged Urdu-speaking communities to unite with Hindi speakers to oppose English. Urdu, having only recently been granted official status as Uttar Pradesh's second language, was now being weaponised against a new linguistic rival. This contradiction is not out of character for Indian politics, where language often becomes a proxy for identity, power and culture. The disdain for English in some Indian political circles can be traced back to the 1950s and '60s, to socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia and even earlier, to Mohandas Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. Gandhi viewed English as an alien imposition that had displaced indigenous languages from their rightful place in Indian society. At Independence, the Indian Constitution made Hindi the official language, but allowed English to continue for a transitional period of 15 years. This compromise was pragmatic, not sentimental. English was seen as a necessary link language in a culturally and linguistically diverse nation. However, the efforts to impose Hindi on South India in the 1960s sparked widespread resistance and deepened the North-South linguistic divide. Even today, English continues to be viewed by many as a colonial vestige, despite its extensive indigenisation. The Lohia doctrine Lohia considered English to be not just a colonial leftover, but a barrier to original thought and mass education. He argued that true educational reform and people-oriented governance were possible only if conducted in the people's languages. Recognising India's cultural diversity, Lohia made exceptions for South Indian states, allowing them to retain English for inter-state and central communication for 50 years. However, his nuanced vision was distorted by his followers. The anti-English frenzy gained renewed vigour in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, leading to draconian steps like removing English from school curricula altogether. In Bihar in the 1970s, Chief Minister Karpoori Thakur reduced English to an optional subject, resulting in a generation of students branded as the 'Karpoori class' – matriculates without English proficiency. Mulayam Singh Yadav resurrected the campaign in the 1990s, giving it a political legitimacy that had long-lasting social consequences. Misplaced stereotypes Yadav's campaign also triggered unwarranted attacks on Christian institutions, which were accused of using English as a tool for religious conversion and elitist education. This conflation of English with Christianity mirrors the equally irrational equation in the Hindi heartland of Urdu with Islam. Such logic ignores the complex realities of Indian linguistic identity. English may have arrived with colonial Christians, but it soon became a key vehicle for political awakening and nation-building. It was through English that India's founding leaders – from Raja Rammohun Roy to Nehru – engaged with global currents of nationalism, democracy, liberty and modernity. The same language, intended by the British to produce obedient clerks, ended up producing freedom fighters, thinkers and reformers who led India's struggle for independence. More Indian than foreign? Despite its origins, English in India has long shed its colonial skin. It is the medium of scientific advancement, legal systems, administrative governance and higher education. It has played a vital role in the country's post-Independence progress – particularly in the globalisation era. Ironically, many politicians who publicly denounce English still prefer to send their children to English-medium schools. Even in the Hindi heartland, English remains a key administrative language. Today, English enjoys a paradoxical status: both a foreign tongue and a deeply embedded Indian language. English is also the mother tongue of the Anglo Indian community, a recognised minority in India, and serves as an official language in states like Nagaland. As globalisation continues to shape India's economic and cultural landscape, English remains the country's primary interface with the world. To treat it as a threat to Indian identity is to ignore the multifaceted reality of modern India. Language should be a medium of unity, not a tool of discord. English, like all Indian languages, must be valued for its integrative potential, not vilified for its past. The country does not need another round of linguistic chauvinism. Instead, India should recognise the multilingual richness of English – and the maturity to embrace it.
