Dutch Far-Right Leader Quits Ruling Coalition Over Migration Plan
Dutch far right leader Geert Wilders said on Tuesday his PVV party would leave the governing coalition, toppling the right wing government and likely leading to new elections.
Wilders said his coalition partners were not willing to embrace his ideas on halting asylum migration, for which he had demanded immediate support last week.
"No signature under our asylum plans. The PVV leaves the coalition," Wilders said in a post on X.
Wilders' surprise move ends an already fragile coalition which has struggled to reach any consensus since its installation last July.
It will likely bring new elections in a few months, adding to political uncertainty in the euro zone's fifth-largest economy.
It will likely also delay a decision on a possibly historic increase in defense spending to meet new NATO targets.
And it will leave the Netherlands with only a caretaker government when it receives NATO country leaders for a summit to decide on these targets in The Hague later this month.
Anti-Muslim populist Wilders won the most recent election in the Netherlands, but recent polls have shown he has lost support since joining government.
Polls now put his party roughly at par with the Labour/Green combination that is currently the second-largest in parliament.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
21 minutes ago
- India.com
No Unilateral Ukraine Peace Deal In Alaska: Zelenskyy, European Leaders Urge Trump
European leaders, concerned about potential concessions to Russia, urged US President Donald Trump not to strike a unilateral Ukraine peace deal with President Vladimir Putin during their upcoming meeting in Alaska, CNN reported. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz convened a virtual summit with Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and several European leaders amid fears that Putin could seek to influence the US president into accepting terms favourable to Russia. After the virtual summit, Zelensky and German Chancellor address reporters in Berlin, Germany, following their meeting with US President Donald Trump on Wednesday, as per CNN. Two European diplomats familiar with the virtual meeting confirmed that Trump appeared to say that he would push for an unconditional ceasefire in his meeting with Putin. According to sources, Trump said that he believed that a ceasefire would be a show of goodwill from Russia, and he also noted that the Ukrainian territory is not for him to negotiate. The leaders of Ukraine, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland, NATO, and the European Union had taken part in the virtual meeting with Trump. It was followed by another larger meeting of the "Coalition of the Willing" that US Vice President JD Vance attended, according to CNN. After the meeting, Zelensky said leaders agreed on "five common principles" to lay out the "format of negotiations" to be held in Alaska, including a focus on a ceasefire and "truly reliable" security guarantees. "Everything concerning Ukraine must be discussed exclusively with Ukraine. We must prepare a trilateral format for talks. There must be a ceasefire, that is number one," he said. He added: "There must be security guarantees, truly reliable ones. And today, President Trump spoke of his support for this and of America's readiness to participate." "Russia cannot have a veto over Ukraine's European and NATO prospects," he said. "Peace talks must be combined with appropriate pressure on Russia." Zelensky also emphasised that sanctions against Russia should be strengthened if no ceasefire agreement is reached on Friday.
NDTV
21 minutes ago
- NDTV
Direct Action Day: Spark That Triggered Communal Violence During Partition
The streets of Calcutta (now Kolkata) witnessed one of the bloodiest communal riots in India's pre-independence era. On August 16, 1946, a day now remembered as Direct Action Day or the Great Calcutta Killings, Bengal descended into days of brutal bloodshed, shattering hopes of unity and plunging the province into chaos. The violence was the result of a volatile political atmosphere at the time. Direct Action Day Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League, demanding a separate homeland for Muslims called Pakistan, declared August 16 as Direct Action Day. Their goal was to increase pressure on the British colonial rulers to concede to their demand for a religiously divided India. The call urged Muslims to suspend all business and show their collective strength. Bengal was a particularly sensitive region. It had a Muslim majority but was also a hotbed of political rivalry, with a Hindu-dominated National Congress, the Communist Party of India, and the Hindu Mahasabha vying for influence. The communal divide deepened further as notions of nationalism became entangled with religion. Indian identity began to be equated largely with Hinduism, and Muslims felt alienated. The Great Calcutta Killings 1946 The morning of August 16 carried ominous sentiments. Voices like " Larke lenge Pakistan" (We'll fight to get Pakistan) and calls for brutal retaliation were heard. The violence was savage and indiscriminate. Members of both communities, armed with swords, knives, cleavers, guns, and metal rods, murdered each other in cold blood. Scores of innocent people were killed, and many more were wounded. Hundreds of Muslims bore the brunt of the killings, but the brutality affected both sides. Eyewitness accounts would later reveal the horrific nature of the violence. Gopal Pantha, a contested figure in history, recounted, "... if we heard one murder has taken place, we committed ten more... the ratio should be one to ten, that was the order to my boys," as per The Quint. Another witness, Jugal Chandra Ghosh, described seeing four trucks loaded with dead bodies stacked three feet high, with blood and brains oozing out. The Idea Of Pakistan The roots of this violence trace back decades. The 1905 Partition of Bengal had already sown seeds of division by creating a Muslim-majority province, which sparked a joint Hindu-Muslim protest but also laid the foundation for communal politics. The formation of the Muslim League in 1906 further politicised religion, while continuous riots in Calcutta between 1918 and 1930 worsened tensions. The idea of Pakistan took shape over decades before the Partition, beginning with the Muslim League's formation to protect Muslim political interests. In 1930, Muhammad Iqbal proposed a self-governing Muslim-majority region, and in 1933, Cambridge student Choudhry Rahmat Ali coined the name "Pakistan" in his pamphlet 'Now or Never'. It was an acronym for - P unjab A fghania (NWFP) K ashmir I ndus-Sindh Balochi stan. The demand became a political goal with the Lahore Resolution of 1940, calling for independent Muslim-majority states, ultimately leading to the Partition in 1947. The British government's Communal Award in 1932, which granted separate electorates to minorities, worsened divisions. Mahatma Gandhi opposed this move, fearing it would fracture Indian society irreparably. In the 1946 provincial elections, the Muslim League secured 114 seats while the Congress got 86, cementing the call for Partition.
The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Military biographies: a matter of heroes and overlapping history
V.K. Krishna Menon, India's defence minister before and during the 1962 Sino-Indian war, was not a popular figure with the service chiefs, who nicknamed him 'God Almighty' for his overbearing ways. Not particularly fond of Gen. Thimayya (Timmy), Menon sought the opinion of Major General Sam Manekshaw on Thimayya. Sam, outspoken and articulate, replied, 'Sir, as a junior officer, we are not permitted to express an opinion on a superior officer. We respect our seniors and we have no two opinions on it.' In his book on Thimayya, An Amazing Life (KW Publishers), Brigadier C.B. Khanduri writes about this innocuous but pivotal conversation that kickstarted a political storm leading to Thimayya's resignation, which he later retracted. Biographies on Indian military leaders from different eras reveal overlapping spaces in history. For instance, Khanduri's book mentions how Timmy's recommendations on China were ignored by Menon, leading to India's debacle in 1962. On the other hand, Arjun Subramanian's book Shooting Straight (HarperCollins) begins the career story of Lt. Gen. Rostum (Rusty) Nanavatty after the 1962 conflict. Nanavatty was commissioned at the end of the war, a few years after Timmy's career ended and at a time when a demoralised national leadership was undergoing a catharsis. Subramaniam highlights a letter written by the young Lieutenant Nanavatty who is remarkably unsparing in his criticism of the leadership for its foibles in the war. Inflection point The author deftly uses the letter to bring out the fearlessness in the young officer's thinking. In a way, Subramaniam's narrative in Shooting Straight is a consequential document about the war's impact on young Indians. The stories of Timmy and Rusty are from different Indias — separated by the war of 1962 as the inflection point. Wedged between the two eras is the post-war decade after 1971. On one hand, the wars of the 1960s were over and on the other, the insurgencies of Punjab and Kashmir of the 1980s hadn't yet arrived. Air Chief Marshal Idris Latif was an Air Force Chief during this period in the late 1970s. His wife, Bilkees Latif, in her book on her husband The Ladder of His Life (KW Publishers), reminisces about an important dimension of the question of choice during Partition in 1947. Soon after the Partition was announced, Latif, then a young air force officer, was goaded by another Muslim officer leaving for Pakistan to join him. To the officer's opinion that Pakistan was a land for Muslims, Latif replied, 'You must be joking; what has religion got to do with nationality? I'm an Indian, born in Hyderabad, you know — and not the Hyderabad in Pakistan!' He even advised the departing officer to stay, insisting that the Indian Air Force would be a better choice. Latif followed in the footsteps of Brigadier Mohd Usman who chose India over Pakistan. The story of Latif, who rose to become India's first Muslim Air Chief, is emblematic of the secular culture of India's military. Past, present, future Typically, biographies provide a framework to situate events in the context of a nation's journey. Military biographies assign signposts on the time-trajectory in a country's history, especially in India, where the journey post-independence has been a progression from early existential struggles to assertions of identity. By exploring the paths of these protagonists, the biographies seek to capture the cultural impressions, personalities, choices, and help contextualise judgements on these characters. In the case of Nanavatty, peeling away his personality helps reveal his versatility. Like the tenure in Sri Lanka in the 1980s, when para commando units were sceptical of Nanavatty's role as a commander but grew to respect his initiative, wholeheartedness and an ability to lead from the front. Subramaniam's writing, lucid and accessible, aided by the protagonist's painstaking notes, brings out the clarity in Nanavatty's thinking, which underpinned his career philosophy. Khanduri writes about Timmy as a committed and vocal personality who commanded a larger than life presence. He carried the legacy and impressions of a colonial army, and oversaw the transition during post-independence nation-building, before the era of wars in the 1960s. Nanavatty, on the other hand, was the archetypal infantryman who believed that victory is measured by the proverbial 'foot', and whose spartan measures set a high bar in tackling 'dirty' insurgencies of the 1990s. Complex journeys The biographies of Timmy, Latif and Nanavatty help us understand the personalities and the road taken by each. While Timmy's life is set in a time of tussles within the government, Latif played a key role in the modernisation following the 1971 war, including the replacement of old Canberra aircraft and the induction of Jaguars, all the while working with two different Prime Ministers of different political parties. Subramaniam's work on Nanavatty reveals the general's approach in more complex security challenges than the other two — which involved the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka and the insurgency in Kashmir. The three narratives collectively depict how the Indian armed forces have evolved since independence to the nineties. The three books delve into the nuances of military leadership, particularly with the stakeholders — political or military. All three were straight shooters in their approach, but differed on their styles. While Timmy could be vocal and confrontational, Latif managed the political leadership adroitly, while Nanavatty, by the 1990s, had adopted a pragmatic approach. Despite these three eminently readable books and a recently republished biography of Gen. Srinagesh (Commanded by Destiny/Penguin Books), military biographies are rare in India. Many belong to an era of World Wars, when accounts were documented and information was archived better. Sadly, within this thin historiography, several books suffer from abysmal writing or hagiographical accounts. One wishes to see more critique of the protagonist in accounts. In his book, Subramaniam reminds us that objective biographies of military leaders, especially those whose careers reached a pinnacle in the 1980s and 1990s, are rare, which makes Lt. Gen. Nanavatty's book both relevant and unusual. At the level of perceptions, military biographies in India run the risk of being mistakenly assumed to be technical accounts of a closed community. In a country where the military has had a major role to play in its history, a diminished understanding robs readers of an essential part of history defined by its characters. India needs more biographies that provide a lens to understand people and past events, and their influence upon the present. Probal DasGupta is a columnist and author of Watershed 1967. He is working on his next book, to be published this year.
