10 pilgrims from Bihar killed, 35 injured in Bengal accident, Nitish Kumar announces Rs 2 lakh ex gratia
Independence Day 2025
Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips
Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile
Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency
Bihar Chief Minister
Nitish Kumar
expressed grief over the accident and announced ex gratia of Rs 2 lakh each for the next of kin of the deceased.
The pilgrims, who belonged to Motihari in Bihar's
East Champaran
district, were returning home after visiting Gangasagar in South 24 Parganas district when the accident happened on NH-19 near Phaguipur in Purba Bardhaman district, the officials said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
15 Most Beautiful Female Athletes in the World
WomenSportOnline.com
Click Here
Undo
Among the deceased were eight men and two women, they added.
The injured persons, including six children, were admitted to the
Burdwan Medical College
and Hospital, officials said.
Live Events
"There were 45 people on the luxury bus. Efforts are being made to contact their families," an official said.
"The pilgrims began their journey from Motihari on August 8. They first visited Deoghar and then went to Gangasagar," he said.
A statement issued by the
Bihar government
said, "The CM has expressed condolences over the casualties in the road accident that took place on the roadside in Burdwan. He is deeply saddened by the deaths of Bihar natives in the incident, and announced ex gratia of Rs 2 lakh each for the immediate family members of the deceased."
Besides, the CM also announced Rs 50,000 as compensation for each injured passenger.
The CM has also directed the officials to remain in touch with their counterparts in West Bengal and ensure proper treatment for the injured persons.
He also asked officials to ensure that bodies of deceased hailing from the state reach their native place in East Champaran, it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a few seconds ago
- Time of India
Déjà vu in Delhi! India knows the sting of tariffs
US President Donald Trump's decision to impose punishing tariffs on India might seem unprecedented — until you flip the calendar back 36 years. In 1989, Washington tried to pry open the Indian economy by threatening tariffs, leading to a 12-month bitter stand-off between the two nations. Eventually the US backed down, but the conflict left a scar on the bilateral relationship. A look back at the Super 301 episode can help us better understand the dynamics at play today. In the late 1980s, the US was engaged in an intense trade war with Japan, its primary economic rival at the time. Washington developed an arsenal of diplomatic and economic weapons for its war including Super 301, a legal mechanism upgraded in 1988. It authorised the US President to identify countries with 'unfair' trade practices and punish them with retaliatory tariffs. Once the statute came into force, President George HW Bush did not limit its use to Japan. His administration sought to address America's rising trade deficit by using the threat of Super 301 to strong-arm several countries, including American allies like Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. Parallels with the current administration are evident. In his first term, Trump used tariffs to battle China; now he uses them on friends and foes alike. Once Washington develops a policy tool to coerce one country, it becomes all too tempting to use that tool indiscriminately and sometimes unthinkingly. It is an important facet of US hegemony, regardless of who occupies the White House. Many countries tried to avoid Super 301 by hastily cutting deals with Washington to open their markets or voluntarily restricting their exports. In June 1989, the Bush administration declared that it would target three countries — Japan, Brazil and India. New Delhi was taken by complete surprise. Its relations with Washington had been improving in the previous few years. Its trade surplus with the US was relatively paltry. Washington's two central demands, that India allow American investments and foreign insurance companies, seemed arbitrary. Unlike Japan and Brazil, India refused to even enter into negotiations with the US. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said he wouldn't let the US dictate how to run the country. American heavy-handedness sparked intense outrage in the Parliament, further tying the govt's hands politically. At the same time, the American threat of tariffs posed serious risks for the Indian economy. US share in India's exports at the time was about one-fifth, the same as it is today. India was much less dependent on foreign trade in 1989 than it is today, but it was also a much smaller and more vulnerable economy. India failed to enlist world opinion to its side. Western countries, including even Japan, agreed with Washington that India was too restrictive of foreign investments. Today, Indian diplomats looking for international solidarity against US tariff assault may discover a similar situation. Many countries may deplore Trump's ham-fisted tactics, while endorsing his goals of lowering Indian protectionism and weaning it away from Russian oil. PM VP Singh, elected in December 1989, tried to placate Washington through a tightrope act. While India continued to refuse negotiations on the two demands under Super 301, it offered concessions on other economic fronts. Americans were not satisfied with Indian offerings. In April 1990, Japan and Brazil were dropped from the Super 301 list, leaving India as the sole target. Washington issued a two-month ultimatum to New Delhi. American 'bullying' was loudly condemned by Indian media and politicians. In the end, the showdown never arrived. At the expiration of the ultimatum deadline, the Bush administration determined that following through with its threats was not worth it. It declared that while India was an 'unfair trader', it was not in American interest to take retaliatory actions. The Super 301 process against India was discontinued. The Bush administration backed down without much loss of face because Washington's trade campaign was global and India was only a small piece of it. Same remains true today. Although the tariffs are a major issue for New Delhi, they are just one battle among dozens that Trump is fighting on multiple fronts. The Indo-US relationship quickly bounced back, buoyed by alignment of certain economic and geopolitical interests. However, the Super 301 episode left a bad taste in the Indian mouth. It was yet another reminder that American power can unexpectedly become capricious and overbearing. In the last few years, many commentators have expressed befuddlement at why New Delhi resists moving closer to Washington despite its persistent conflict with Beijing. Its reticence partly stems from its fear that greater dependence on the US will leave it more vulnerable to Washington's volatile high-handedness that manifests from time to time. Trump's tariff assault has again affirmed the wisdom behind India's caution. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hindustan Times
a few seconds ago
- Hindustan Times
Could India have handled President Trump better?
The Narendra Modi government converted an economically disastrous idea such as demonetisation into a political win. It dealt with a brutal Covid-19 pandemic that took millions of lives and devastated livelihoods, yet emerged politically unscathed. The Modi government played with fire on land acquisition and farm laws, yet pulled back without getting burnt. And despite its limited success in pulling off a manufacturing revolution to generate jobs on scale, it has remained politically dominant and maintained its multi-class and multi-caste alliance. The Modi government confronted a serious national security crisis with a far more powerful adversary, China, and had to redefine the idea of normalcy for the sake of peace, yet it did not pay a domestic political price. India dealt with a highly polarised West-Russia landscape and a China that was either actively hostile or passively aggressive or absent, yet pulled off a spectacular G20 presidency. It had to secure its interests with diametrically different American administrations with almost opposing priorities, and yet it was able to be friends with the sitting administration while still having enough goodwill with the preceding power constellation. How did a government that has been so adept in dealing with the domestic and international landscape, and overcoming its own missteps and mistakes, fumble in reading the US? How did a government so sharp in reading danger signals not manage friction when there were clear possibilities of trouble with the US from earlier this year, but definitely from May 10 when Donald Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire? How is it that in over 90 days since then, India, with all its equities and power, has failed to shift the conversation or make enough inroads into Trump's world to find a meeting ground while keeping to its redlines? To be sure, it has been difficult to predict the US president's next move, but there are countries that have managed to get their (limited) way. Let there be no doubt about the severity of the crisis. India is worse off among all the regional competitors for investment, and in its own immediate neighbourhood in terms of access to the US market. This has implications way beyond trade, for suddenly, the signal to American capital about India is of uncertainty, despite the charms of its huge market and extensive talent pool. This puts under strain India's broader economic modernisation roadmap that hinges at least partly, if not substantially, on western investment and technology partnerships to boost manufacturing and generate mass employment. India is confronting repeated blows against its core strategic concerns: Trump appears more than willing to make long-term strategic concessions for a deal with China. Pakistan's comeback to the Washington DC theatre, even if it is only in the short-term as some pundits believe, is arguably on a more broad-based diplomatic, economic and strategic footing than even 2001 when it was driven by the narrow counter terror frame in Afghanistan. And, India is paying a price for US-Russia tensions in ways that it hasn't for decades. India is also staring at a crisis in the people-to-people relationship, given the challenges in getting student visas, the backlash against H1Bs in Trump's base and intense spurt in anti-Indian and anti-Hindu racist rhetoric from the White supremacist Right. The biggest crisis, of course, is there are no easy pathways out of it anymore. The more time has passed, the more rhetoric has got meaner, the more demands have escalated and become public, the less political space there is to make compromises. The Indian political and street mood is now, justifiably, furious at how the country has been treated by the US even as everyone realises the importance of that country and the bilateral relationship. There are structural factors at play, for core contradictions on trade openness and relationships with third countries have come to the fore. There are personality-centric issues at play, especially on the American side with a president who revels in sharpening contradictions with his own country's institutions, the international system, and allies and partners in the quest for political or personal or financial wins. And, there are unanticipated variables and events that have affected the chessboard. But none of this can take away from the fact that the government may have missed out on multiple opportunities to manage Trump. This is particularly striking since the political leadership has usually been alert in responding creatively in difficult situations, managing narratives, engaging with all kinds of interlocutors, unleashing diplomatic charm in the external domain or pre-empting rivals by appropriating political issues in the domestic domain, finding wins-wins when possible and framing compromises as wins when necessary. To be sure, as Pratap Bhanu Mehta has eloquently and wisely argued, the Trumpian project is an imperial project and dignity is essential. But avoiding being in the direct firing line of the imperial project was in national interest and the government's core diplomatic duty. And, yes, there may have been ways to do it without compromising on India's historic stance on third-party mediation, or on core interests of small farmers, or on Indian manufacturing potential. And, this was possible because a childishly transparent, vain and corrupt Trump world is always open to a better deal and packaging has always been more central to his politics than substance. To return to the puzzle then, what happened? A detailed empirical account will only emerge once the crisis passes, actors move on from their current roles, and files are declassified. And even a more specific discussion on who got what wrong and when and what could have been done need not detain us here. One school of thought is there was a problem with the personnel chosen to make judgments on the ground and offer advice. Another is that India may have genuinely misread the problem, or been unable to anticipate second or third order consequences of Trumpian rupture. A third suggests that there may have been a problem with the channels selected for execution of goals; India's adversaries and critics have been constantly in Trump's ear while India's perspective has failed to register a mark. It could well be a combination; the problems with personnel, judgment and execution, may have resulted in a problem in decision making. And, to be fair, all of this may have been exacerbated by domestic concerns, not just of the man (and woman) on the street, but the political Opposition. After 11 years, this is the biggest challenge facing Narendra Modi, and he may want to consider a reset. It could start with foreign policy but a full Kamraj-plan style reset across the party and government may not be a bad idea at this time, especially given the ambitious agenda the Prime Minister laid out in his Independence Day speech. This could bring fresh energy and ideas and shatter vested interests to help India prepare for the coming political, economic and strategic storms. For coming they are.
The Hindu
a few seconds ago
- The Hindu
No foreign nationals in Bihar SIR: CPI (ML) Liberation questions PM's 'infiltrator' remark
There has not been cited a single case of illegal immigrants in the Bihar SIR, CPI (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation leader Dipankar Bhattacharya said on Saturday (August 16, 2025), challenging Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement on infiltrators in the country. The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation general secretary was addressing a press conference in Delhi, a day before opposition parties were set to launch a Vote Adhikar Yatra in Bihar against the ongoing SIR exercise. 'PM Modi gave his longest Independence Day speech, but the important point is that the theme of Independence Day is now being reduced to partition,' Mr. Bhattacharya said. 'It is as if the government is trying to finish the incomplete agenda of partition,' he said. The Left leader said that the 65 lakh voters who have been deleted after the first phase of the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar, none of them have been claimed to be foreign nationals by the Election Commission of India (ECI). 'But once again, Modi Ji has brought back that agenda, completely unsubstantiated, the bogey of illegal immigration, infiltration. And the things that they are doing to change our demography, taking away all jobs, occupying land, getting married to women and forcing conversion,' Mr. Bhattacharya said. 'This is a total anti-immigrant agenda of the RSS and BJP. This is what led to partition, perhaps they want another partition...' he said. He also wondered how the government came to conclude on the quantum of foreign nationals entering India illegally, when there has been no Census since 2011. 'It has created a tone of terror in the country, it has created major insecurity, and when you sort of view it together with the ongoing SIR, the backdoor NRC, the ongoing so-called police verification drive, the MHA circular, so it creates before us the danger of a huge social division and the creation of a permanent category of disenfranchised people,' he said. The CPI(ML) leader also challenged the ECI's claim that political parties have not raised any objections to the claims being submitted during the SIR underway and said there is no provision for parties or the booth level agents, or BLAs, to appeal on behalf of the voter. 'Zero complaints from BLAs, then that will be one of the biggest lies of the whole SIR campaign... They thought they could show zero error by showing zero complaint, but the errors have already been exposed,' he said, referring to cases like that of Mintoo Paswan, who has been declared dead in the SIR. Talking about the Voter Adhikar Yatra, scheduled to be launched in Bihar by the Mahagathbandhan on Sunday (August 17, 2025), he said, 'We will take out a yatra in each of the nine divisions of Bihar.' He added, 'We will hold public meetings, meet locals, and have nukkad sabhas. We will also try to find what kind of problems are being faced by voters in the SIR exercise.' On Friday (August 15, 2025), in his address to the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort, Mr. Modi said his government has decided to start a high-powered demographic mission to tackle illegal infiltration.
