Durai Vaiko meets PM for rescue of TN student from Russia
He handed over a letter signed by 68 MPs from 15 political parties, urging the union government to initiate immediate diplomatic measures to bring the affected Indians home safely. Any delay could endanger their lives, the MP stated.
The PM assured that efforts to secure the release of all affected Indians were already under way and would be expedited. Later, Durai Vaiko met foreign secretary Vikram Misri. A statement from Vaiko said Misri acknowledged the gravity of the situation and assured appropriate action.
Petition moved in HC
Meanwhile, advocate A P Suryaprakasam has moved the Madras High Court praying for orders to the Ministry of External Affairs and authorities concerned of the centre and state governments to secure Saravanan's release. The petitioner said Saravanan had called his parents and informed them of his 'illegal detention'. The advocate sought the court's intervention based on a representation he had sent to the governments on July 21.
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
India, Trump just wasn't that into you
Indians have been blindsided by Donald Trump inflicting a total of 50 per cent tariffs on their nation — the highest rate in Asia, perhaps the highest in the world. What happened to the much-bruited good vibes of the first-term diplomatic extravaganzas nicknamed 'Howdy Modi' and 'Namaste Trump'? What about the bonhomie of February, when the US President welcomed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Washington as one of the first foreign guests of his second term? How should India understand this apparent slap in the face? It's simple: This is just how Trump operates. Every interaction is a dominance play, every policy decision is an expression of personal whim. India (unlike its neighbours) was unwilling to bow down to his demands for an unbalanced trade deal, so he's imposing tariffs in a fit of pique. It's illegal under US law, and it will undermine a relationship that his predecessors have carefully fostered, but there's no mystery behind it. Trump did it because that's who he is. Before the latest dust-up, India remained one of the few nations on earth where Trump was not deeply disliked. Over the first four months of his current term, Pew Research asked 28,333 people in 24 nations whether they had confidence that Trump would 'do the right thing regarding world affairs.' The overwhelming majority (for example, 80 per cent, 81 per cent and 91 per cent in Turkey, Germany and Mexico respectively) did not. But just over half of Indians expressed confidence in Trump — one of just five nations in which he broke even (the others were Hungary, Israel, Nigeria and Kenya). Any break-up can feel like a betrayal. In sorting through what went wrong, Indians should remember two pieces of advice often given to the lovelorn. First: It's not you, it's him. Second: He's not capable of a relationship with anyone. Whatever warm feelings Indians may have had for Trump were always one-sided. Trump enjoyed the fact that 1,25,000 people came to greet him at an Ahmedabad cricket-stadium in 2020, but Indians may have over-interpreted this reception. The purported friendship between Trump and Modi never resulted in any meaningful policy initiative — or even discouraged Trump from routinely mocking Modi's accent in discussions with his aides. Some in the Indian right wing have been drawn to Trump for a more disturbing reason: His penchant for anti-Muslim rhetoric and action. During his first presidential campaign, the Hindu Sena threw an in-absentia birthday party for him in New Delhi. As Trump went on to ban visitors from predominantly Muslim nations and implement a broad array of anti-Muslim domestic policies, he was cheered on by some segments of the Hindu Right, both in the US and in India. But any hope of enlisting Trump on a grand civilisational campaign was always a fool's errand: Trump has deep prejudices, not a real ideology. For Trump, there is no such thing as a true ally or adversary: He has no understanding, whether on the level of individuals or geopolitics, of the idea of a relationship. A relationship is something bigger than either party. Whether it's a marriage, a friendship, or an alliance between nations, a relationship is something that requires constant care, maintenance and compromise. None of these are part of Trump's personal or political makeup. Every interaction, in his mind, consists of one victor and one vanquished. The idea of a win-win relationship is incomprehensible to him. India isn't unique here: He's behaved the same way to his business associates, his political partners, all three of his spouses, and (with one noteworthy exception) the leader of every nation in the world. That one exception is Russian President Vladimir Putin, on whom Trump has had a mystifying man-crush for decades. Some analysts have speculated that Trump fears Putin possesses blackmail material, but that wouldn't explain the puppyish obsequiousness with which the US president courts his counterpart. Regardless of the cause, it makes Trump's stated reason for the India tariffs all the more irrational: 'India is …buying massive amounts of Russian Oil,' he posted on his Truth Social platform, 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA.' Indians are quite right to be baffled: Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Trump has consistently been Putin's foremost international advocate. In February — in the Oval Office itself, with press cameras rolling — he subjected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to a humiliating lecture, and ordered him to surrender to Russia's demands. Now he's outraged because India is buying Russian oil? He isn't. Trump doesn't care about the oil purchases, and he doesn't care about Ukraine. What he's upset about is that India is standing up for itself. Trump has tried to bully every nation on earth to accept his blatantly unfair tariffs as the basis for trade agreements — and many of them have meekly complied. Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and other nations have accepted informal 'deals' under which their exports to the US receive punitive tariffs, but the US is permitted to export its goods to them duty-free. The European Union, the largest trade group in the world, timidly acceded to a similar demand. India has refused such a diktat. And that is the reason for Trump's ire. Why have these nations knuckled under? They're all hoping to hoodwink Trump: None of these 'deals' are legally binding, and Trump changes his mind on a day-to-day basis. Like so many other institutions that have succumbed to his intimidation, they're betting that once he has pocketed the headlines for his victory, he'll lose interest in any concrete follow-through. If public self-abasement nets a tariff rate of 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent, why not swallow one's pride? India has refused to sacrifice its national dignity for the sake of a few percentage points. This should surprise nobody: Throughout its history, India has always been exceptionally protective of its rights in the international arena. Most Indian prime ministers have been seen in Washington (and elsewhere) as being too prickly for their own good, too sensitive about any concession which might conceivably be regarded as an insult to the nation. But the fact that all Indian leaders have acted this way — BJP, Congress, and Janata alike — suggests that they are expressing the wishes of their constituents. For whatever it's worth, I hope that India continues to stand up for its rights. Every nation that bows down to Trump's illegitimate demands makes it all that much more difficult for the next country to resist. India is in good company: China, Brazil, and Canada have fought back, and the leaders who have capitulated are likely to face anger from their own citizens once the decidedly-not-reciprocal tariffs start to bite. Trump was never a friend to India. He was never a friend to anyone. In his world-view, relationships are for suckers. But don't worry, India: He just wasn't into you. And that proves he never deserved you. The writer is author of Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God: Tracing the Ramayana Through India and Mullahs on the Mainframe: Islam and Modernity Among the Daudi Bohras
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
On Cam: Saudi Prince MBS Laughs & Poses With Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein
Why Did US Single Out India And Spare China For Buying Russian Oil With 'Penalty'? Trump's Reply Just hours after imposing a 25% additional tariff on Indian imports, doubling the total rate to 50%, US President Donald Trump issued an ominous warning: more secondary sanctions are coming. When asked why India is being targeted while China continues buying Russian oil, Trump replied, 'It's only been eight hours. Let's see what happens.' The move comes as Washington ramps up pressure on countries still trading with Russia after its Ukraine invasion. India's Ministry of External Affairs has hit back hard, calling the decision 'unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable,' asserting that energy purchases are driven by national interest and the needs of 1.4 billion Indians. With a 21-day window before the tariffs kick in, global diplomacy hangs in the balance. Will India hold its ground, or is this the beginning of a major global trade showdown? Watch the full story from India's lens.#trumptariff #ustariff #tariffwar #india #unitedstates #donaldtrump #indiausrelations #russianoil #trumpvsindia #usindianews #indianexports #geopolitics #energypolicy #moditrump #tradenews #michaelkugelman #tradedispute #doublestandard #uschinarelations #foreignpolicy #indiausclash #secondarysanctions #indiareaction #trumpindia #globaltrade #modius #geopolitics #breakingnews #trending #trendingnow #toi #bharat #toibharat #indianews 4.6K views | 1 hour ago
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
"Plea Not Worth Entertaining": Supreme Court Setback For Judge In Cash Row
The Supreme Court has knocked back Justice Yashwant Varma 's challenge of an in-house committee that recommended his impeachment over burnt piles of money found at his Delhi home in March. The recommendation - delivered by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Kumar - has legal sanction and is constitutionally valid, as was the three-judge committee, the court said Thursday morning, ruling Justice Varma's petition "not worth entertaining" and reproaching him for his not "confidence-inspiring" conduct. This clears the way for the impeachment process initiated last month. Justice Varma - who could become the first High Court judge in independent India to be removed from office - will now be investigated by Parliament under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution. In his writ petition Justice Varma, listed as 'XXX' in the records, had offered the two-judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and AG Masih five reasons why he could not be sacked. These included questions over the jurisdiction and authority of the in-house committee to investigate a sitting judge. Justice Varma argued the committee ignored questions he had raised, and that could speak to his innocence, and denied him a fair hearing. He also argued that neither the Chief Justice of India nor the Supreme Court had 'power of superintendence', i.e., they cannot take disciplinary action against High Court judges, because their tenure is protected by the Constitution. He also argued his colleagues' recommendation "usurps parliamentary authority... it empowers the judiciary to recommend removal of Judges from constitutionally-held office". Justice Yashwant Varma Impeachment The impeachment process began July 21, i.e,. on the first day of the current Parliament session. Over 145 MPs - from the opposition and the government's ranks - submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla calling for an investigation into Justice Varma and the cash-at-home row. What Is Impeachment? It is a constitutional mechanism to remove a sitting judge - specifically those from the Supreme Court or a state High Court - from his/her office. Once appointed, judges cannot be removed from office without an order from the President, who, in turn, requires consent from Parliament. NDTV Explains | How Do You Remove A Sitting Judge? Impeachment Explained The Constitution does not actually refer to the word 'impeachment', but the procedure to remove judges is outlined in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 and mentioned in two constitutional provisions - Article 124 (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 218 (for those from High Courts). How Is Impeachment Done? An impeachment motion can be introduced in either House of Parliament. At least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign the motion - which is a record of the intention to impeach - for it to proceed further. In the Lok Sabha that number is 100. Once that threshold is reached, the Chair of the former or the Speaker of the latter, depending on which House admits the motion, will review the available materials.
