Raj and I together will fulfil Maharashtra's dream, right decision will be taken at right time: Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray
Raj Thackeray
maintained a studied silence on an alliance with Shiv Sena (UBT) after their 'victory rally' this month,
Uddhav Thackeray
on Sunday reiterated that the two cousins are together.
"Whoever has a problem with two brothers coming together should deal with it. We will fulfil Maharashtra's dream together. The right decision will be taken at the right time," Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav said in an interview with the party newspaper Saamna on Sunday.
When asked if any talks were held on the two coming together politically, he said, "Talks will happen. We came together after 20 years. That's not a small thing.
I am ready to do whatever is necessary for the Marathi people, language, and the culture of Maharashtra."
You Can Also Check:
Mumbai AQI
|
Weather in Mumbai
|
Bank Holidays in Mumbai
|
Public Holidays in Mumbai
"I can pick up the phone and call him. He can call me. Why does anyone have a problem with us meeting? The Thackerays don't meet secretly. If we have to meet, we will meet openly."
He added, "As a result of us coming together, not only are the Marathi people happy, but so are those who speak other languages. Even our Muslim brothers are happy."
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Knee Pain Keeping You Up at Night? This Trick Could Help Instantly
12facts.com
Read More
Undo
When asked about the MVA alliance for polls in municipal corporations, Uddhav said, "When we held talks recently, the Congress said they may take decisions at the local level. If that's the case, that's what we will do."
Clearing the air about his recent meeting with chief minister Devendra Fadnavis in the state legislature, Uddhav said, "I went to meet him. After all, he is the chief minister, and we hope he does some good.
But as a former political ally, I can only advise him to put an end to the controversies surrounding his ministerial colleagues. Finally, it will affect Fadnavis's reputation."
On the controversy over the imposition of Hindi in schools, he said, "BJP is instigating divisions between different states. But our position is clear. We are not against Hindi, but we do not want it to be imposed on us."
Attacking BJP, Uddhav said his party was split in order to hand over the ownership of Mumbai to the Adani group.
"Land in Dharavi has been handed over to the Adani group. Why are the mill workers not given free land?" he asked.
He further said that the Maharashtra Public Security Bill, which was recently passed by the state legislature, would prevent justice for the public of Dharavi. "The people who ask for their rights in Dharavi will go to jail. That's what this law is about."
Uddhav also took a dig at the possibility of PM Modi retiring at the age of 75.
"He may even announce his retirement. Then he will say, 'how can I break people's hearts', and he will resume. People will be brought onto the streets, and there will be nautanki."
Criticising the central govt over the Pahalgam terrorist attack, he asked: "The question is how did this attack happen, and how did the terrorist venture so deep inside? And after three months, why have they not even been traced?"
He also said the public needed to be told why Operation Sindoor was called off. "The US President repeatedly says he stopped the war between India and Pakistan. And our brave PM is silent."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Tougher transshipment penalties not expected immediately as Trump tariffs kick in, sources say
Tougher U.S. trade penalties on goods originating in one country being re-shipped from another are not expected to immediately follow new U.S. tariffs, three people in Southeast Asia with knowledge of the matter said, easing a major cause of concern. Southeast Asian countries including Vietnam and Thailand have been explicitly targeted by White House officials for their alleged role in facilitating the so-called transshipment to America of Chinese goods, which would face higher tariffs if shipped directly from China. Productivity Tool Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide By Metla Sudha Sekhar View Program Finance Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory By Dinesh Nagpal View Program Finance Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By CA Rahul Gupta View Program Digital Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel By Neil Patel View Program Finance Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading By Kunal Patel View Program Productivity Tool Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By Study at home View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program The Trump administration imposed tariffs on goods from dozens of countries from Thursday, and in an executive order said products determined to have been illegally rerouted to conceal their country of origin would face additional duties of 40%. But it did not clarify what constitutes transshipment. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gold Is Surging in 2025 — Smart Traders Are Already In IC Markets Learn More Undo U.S. imports from Southeast Asia's biggest economies, which rely heavily on exports, are now subject to tariff rates of about 19%, most of those significantly reduced from earlier threatened rates. Existing U.S. customs guidance states goods from countries with no free trade agreements with Washington, such as Southeast Asian nations, can be labelled as made in the country where they undergo a "substantial transformation" of components, even if those parts entirely come from another country, such as China. Live Events And with no new U.S. guidance on rules of origin or specification on what transshipment means, some officials in Southeast Asia have told exporters existing rules apply. That effectively limits cases of transshipment to illegal activities, like the use of forged export certificates or documents obtained illicitly. "Currently, all exported goods (from Thailand) are subject to a 19% rate because there are no rules on transshipment yet," Arada Fuangtong, head of the Thai Commerce Ministry's foreign trade department, told Reuters on Thursday. Her message was echoed by U.S. officials in Vietnam who told businessmen the tariff of 20% would apply to Vietnamese goods, even if they are entirely made with Chinese components and only assembled in Vietnam, according to one person familiar with those talks. Trade consultants have said rules are vague and they have advised clients, even before the new wave of U.S. tariffs, to have at least 40% of local content for their exports to the U.S. That is "to be on the safe side", one of them said. The U.S. embassy in Vietnam did not immediately reply to a request for comment. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside U.S. working hours. "Goods defined by U.S. customs as transshipped are subject to 40% duties, but pending any new definition, that's limited to old definitions," said a Vietnam-based consultant. Both people declined to be named in order to speak more freely. CHINA DEPENDENCE According to the U.S. customs guidance, repackaging does not usually cause a "substantial transformation", but assembly may, depending on the complexity of the operations. It is unclear if this narrow interpretation of transshipment could be enforced in other countries. Economic ministries in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Singapore did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the issue. Manufacturers in Southeast Asia, which rely heavily on Chinese components, have been in the dark for months on what Washington would consider transshipment. Questions remain over whether that would include goods with a large, but yet undefined, share of components or raw materials from China, even when they are legitimately transformed in Southeast Asian nations. A strict definition of transshipment may come later, multiple investment consultants warned. An executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump last week said the U.S. will "publish every six months a list of countries and specific facilities used in circumvention schemes". That will "inform public procurement, national security reviews, and commercial due diligence", it said. "The message from Washington is deterrence," said Marco Forster, director for Southeast Asia at investment consultancy Dezan Shira and Associates. "If your supply chain cuts corners, it won't be treated as a technical error. It'll be treated as fraud."
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
US jobless data: More Americans seek unemployment support; modest rise amid growing tariff tensions
New data for jobless benefits shows that the number of American citizens filing for unemployment benefits rose modestly last week, showing that employers are still retaining workers despite looming uncertainty on the US trade policy. The number of Americans filing for jobless support rose by 7,000 last week to 226,000, according to figures released by the US department of labor on Thursday. That's slightly higher than the 219,000 new applications economists had expected for the week ending 2 August. The report marks the first official government snapshot of the job market since last Friday's bleak July jobs report triggered a sharp sell-off on Wall Street, and a stunning political reaction. Donald Trump, furious over the weak numbers, ordered the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which compiles the monthly jobs data. Weekly jobless claims are widely viewed as a gauge of layoffs across the country. Despite the uptick, claims have largely remained within the historically low range of 200,000 to 250,000 since the COVID-19 crisis slammed the economy in early 2020. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like When the Camera Clicked at the Worst Possible Time Read More Undo This is only the second increase in jobless applications over the past eight weeks. Still, recent trends point to a cooling labour market. Last week's monthly jobs report showed US employers added only 73,000 jobs in July, well below the 115,000 forecast. To make matters worse, revised estimates slashed 258,000 jobs from the May and June totals, and the unemployment rate edged up to 4.2% from 4.1%. Many economists believe President Trump's unpredictable tariff measures, rolled out in April, have unsettled employers and made them hesitant to hire. The latest tariffs, steep taxes on imported goods, took effect on Thursday. While some trade deals have been reached and a few deadlines extended, uncertainty remains high. Economists warn the tariffs could drag on the economy and fuel another round of inflation. Major corporations have been trimming staff this year. Procter & Gamble, Dow, CNN, Starbucks, Southwest Airlines, Microsoft, Google and Facebook parent Meta have all announced layoffs. Most recently, both Intel and The Walt Disney Co confirmed job cuts. Thursday's data also showed the four-week moving average of jobless claims dipped slightly by 500 to 220,750, offering a more stable view of the underlying trend. Meanwhile, the number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits for the week ending 26 July jumped by 38,000 to 1.97 million, the highest figure since November 2021. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays .
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump admin backs off immediate ban, but pressures Harvard over visas and funding
What began as a policy memo has now metastasized into one of the most consequential legal face-offs in American higher education. At the center of the storm is Harvard University, an academic titan that now finds itself locked in a protracted battle with the Trump administration, not just over billions in frozen federal research funds, but over the very future of its international student body. The dispute goes far beyond campus boundaries. It is testing the limits of executive power over academic freedom, weaponizing immigration infrastructure to target perceived ideological dissent, and redrawing the contours of America's engagement with global talent. For Harvard, the stakes are existential. For the United States, the implications are international. The trigger: SEVP certification as a political weapon In May, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted a dramatic revocation of Harvard's certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a federal designation required for enrolling international students. The justification? A tenuous blend of accusations: Unchecked campus antisemitism, concerns over influence from the Chinese Communist Party, and noncompliance with reporting requirements. A federal judge swiftly blocked the ban, calling into question both its timing and legal foundation. But the damage was already done. More than 7,000 international students at Harvard faced an abrupt threat to their immigration status, and institutions across the country watched as the government targeted one of their own in a stunning show of power, as reported by US media sources. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mr. Bala's Powerful Intraday Strategy Revealed – No More Guesswork TradeWise Learn More Undo The latest maneuver: Tactical retreat or strategic reframe? This week, the Justice Department filed a new motion offering to 'simplify' the case. It distanced itself from the now-infamous May 22 letter by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, which had previously served as the basis for the attempted ban. The administration now seeks to proceed through formal administrative channels, an apparent shift in tone, but not in intent. Officials say the move is designed to 'narrow the issues.' Critics say it's a strategic recalibration aimed at insulating the administration from further legal embarrassment while continuing to squeeze Harvard through bureaucratic pressure points. Despite offering to negotiate, the government claims Harvard declined a proposed meeting. Meanwhile, the broader legal war continues, with Harvard filing a separate lawsuit over the withholding of $2 billion in federal research grants, a fiscal stranglehold designed to compel compliance. The settlement trap: Monitors, money, and mandates Behind closed doors, however, another game is playing out. According to sources familiar with the negotiations, the White House is seeking a $500 million payment from Harvard as a settlement floor, an extraordinary sum that signals how high the stakes have climbed. And this isn't just about money. The administration is reportedly insisting on a deal modeled after the one recently imposed on Columbia University: a $221 million settlement that included strict limits on international student enrollment, mandatory reporting of visa infractions, and the appointment of a federal monitor embedded within the institution. For Harvard, agreeing to such terms would amount to relinquishing a core tenet of academic autonomy. For Washington, it's a litmus test of loyalty and submission. The Trump administration is positioning oversight not just as compliance, but as capitulation. Academic freedom under siege The chilling effect of this standoff is already evident. Other elite institutions, many of which rely on international students for tuition revenue and intellectual capital, are recalibrating their risk calculus. If Harvard can be stripped of access and funding under the guise of national security, no institution is immune. The targeting of international students also aligns with broader policy trends. Visa appointments are stalling. Work permit pathways are tightening. Campus-based speech is being reframed as a national threat. In this environment, academic institutions are no longer neutral grounds, they are surveillance zones and ideological battlegrounds. The bigger picture: Exporting fear, importing control What the administration is executing is not just a legal battle, but a systemic realignment. By linking federal research dollars with immigration enforcement and ideological policing, the White House is effectively recoding the governance of higher education. It's a message to all universities: Comply with our worldview, or pay a price. The SEVP certification, once a benign bureaucratic requirement, is now a tactical lever. It turns student mobility into an instrument of statecraft, one that can be granted or revoked based on political favor. This sets a dangerous precedent, not just for Harvard, but for global academic cooperation. An inflection point for American academia As the court date looms and negotiations remain fraught, Harvard stands at a critical crossroads. Caving to federal pressure may protect access to funding and visa programs, but at the cost of institutional sovereignty. Defiance, on the other hand, risks isolation and prolonged legal warfare. This isn't merely a case of one university versus one administration. It's a referendum on the soul of American higher education, on whether it remains a sanctuary for global learning, or becomes an extension of political machinery. Either way, the outcome will resonate far beyond Cambridge. Because what's unfolding is not just a lawsuit. It's a test of whether academic independence can survive in a climate where internationalism is no longer an asset, but a liability. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
