Dissanayake's NPP leads in Sri Lanka's local polls
In the Tamil-majority north, the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK) dominated, winning most of the councils in the region.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Demonstrate goodwill by apologising: KVS to Kamal Haasan
Dharwad: Condemning the remarks of Tamil actor Kamal Haasan regarding Kannada language, a group of senior writers, linguists and Kannada activists staged a demonstration in front of deputy commissioner's office in Dharwad on Monday. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Under the aegis of Karnataka Vidyavardhaka Sangha (KVS), the protesters urged Haasan to show his goodwill towards Kannada and Kannadigas by tendering an apology for making the remark and hurting the sentiments of Kannada people. KVS president Chandrakant Bellad said actor Haasan had said Tamil is the root of Kannada and attributed it metaphorically to the "mother-child relationship," he said. Across Karnataka, protests and condemnations broke out in response to his statement. Even when the Karnataka high court questioned the comment and advised him to apologise to Kannadigas, the actor continues to be adamant, Bellad said. "Had a linguistic researcher or a historian of languages made such a comment, it might have carried some weight. But Haasan, who lacks any knowledge about the origin and evolution of the language had no business making such claims. When speaking about language and borders, one must exercise caution. No one should play with the emotions of the people," the protesters said. Scholars of both Tamil and Kannada have already provided documented evidence about Dravidian languages. According to linguistic experts, Dravidian languages evolved parallelly, and no language gave birth to another. The history of the Kannada language dates to thousands of years, the speakers said. Pointing out that Kannadigas have always desired a peaceful life and have shown respect toward all languages, the speakers said KVS will intensify the agitation against Haasan if he does not apologise and withdrawn his statement. Later, they submitted a memorandum addressed to the governor to additional deputy commissioner.
India Today
4 hours ago
- India Today
How BJP eyes Tamil Nadu breach from state's southern flank
By all accounts, Tamil Nadu has long remained an unsolved puzzle for the BJP. Despite four decades of political engineering, the party failed to make deep inroads into the state. Now, emboldened by its reinvigorated alliance with the AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam), the BJP is eyeing conquering the southern state in elections next home minister Amit Shah's fiery June 8 speech in Madurai, where he also held a meeting with party office-bearers, was not merely a routine address—it was a statement. 'In 2026, BJP rule is certain in Tamil Nadu,' Shah declared, invoking alleged corruption in the incumbent DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) government, the Narendra Modi government's credentials and the aspirations of South India's venue city Madurai, where the DMK had just wrapped up its general council meeting and chief minister M.K. Stalin had held a massive roadshow, was a carefully chosen symbolism. What does the DMK make of all this?'Every time Amit Shah visits Tamil Nadu, he repeats the same claim—that the NDA (National Democratic Alliance) will come to power here. If that ever happens, they will turn Tamil Nadu into another Manipur,' said R.S. Bharathi, the DMK's organisational secretary, his reference to ethnic violence-marred Manipur intended to shred the BJP's claims on governance. 'Shah's supposed love for Tamil and Tamils is like a lion wearing a cow's skin—deceptive and dangerous,' added Bharathi. 'This is not the first time Amit Shah has said that the BJP-AIADMK alliance will win. He said the same thing during the 2021 assembly elections. He said the BJP will win more seats in 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Nothing happened. The NDA has only faced defeats in Tamil Nadu. M.K. Stalin entered people's homes not with hatred but through welfare and care. That's the truth they (NDA) fear.'advertisementBeneath the DMK's confident dismissal lies a complex history of the BJP's groundwork in Tamil Nadu. The party's first electoral success came not in the northern parts but in the deep south—Kanyakumari. Following the communal clashes in Mandaikadu in 1982, the Hindu Munnani-backed independent candidate V. Balachandran had won the Padmanabhapuram assembly seat in 1984. In 1996, C. Velayutham became the BJP's first official MLA from the same the 1998 Lok Sabha polls, the BJP, in alliance with the AIADMK, secured three seats—Coimbatore, Tiruchirappalli and Nilgiris—following heightened communal tensions after the Coimbatore blasts. In 1999, switching alliances to the DMK, the party captured four seats, including the victories were episodic. In 2014, the BJP won Kanyakumari again, but failed to replicate the success in 2019. In the legislative assembly, it managed four seats in 2001 (again in alliance), and returned to the House in 2021 with four Shah and the BJP believe the route to power runs through southern Tamil Nadu. And they are building a coalition to get there. The arithmetic behind the strategy is clear. In the 2021 state polls, the DMK won 40 of the 58 southern constituencies, many of them due to vote splits caused by T.T.V. Dhinakaran's Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK).advertisementIn the Lok Sabha elections in 2024, the BJP and its allies, including Dhinakaran and former chief minister O. Panneerselvam, came runner-up in the key southern constituencies of Madurai, Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, Theni and Ramanathapuram—signs that with better coordination, the combine could close the plan now is to forge a southern alliance between the AIADMK, BJP, AMMK and Panneerselvam. 'If this unity comes through, we can end the DMK's rule,' claimed a senior BJP echoed the optimism in his Madurai speech, urging cadre to take a pledge for victory in beneath the surface lies the real test: will AIADMK's Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) agree? EPS has so far drawn clear red lines. He has fought both Dhinakaran and Panneerselvam in court, on stage, and in the streets. His rise to singular leadership in the AIADMK was cemented by keeping both out. Bringing them back risks not just ideological dissonance but internal real question then: is this grand alliance planned by the BJP a political necessity or a forced marriage of rivals? In the state's north, the BJP hopes to lean on the PMK (Pattali Makkal Katchi), but the ally is embroiled in its own succession tussle between Ramadoss Senior and Junior. The DMDK (Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam) is sulking over a denied Rajya Sabha Tamil Nadu inches towards polls in 2026, the BJP's strategy will be tested on two fronts: one, whether it can forge a working coalition from a set of hostile egos and conflicting ambitions; and two, whether that coalition can carry it forward or will drag it now, one thing is certain: the BJP has identified southern Tamil Nadu as its next frontier. But to cross it, it must do what it has never done in the state before—unify the fractured Opposition to the DMK without fracturing to India Today MagazineMust Watch
Mint
5 hours ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's new travel ban is coming into effect
The executive order banning travel from 12 countries, which comes into effect on June 9th, is more methodical than previous iterations. In his first batch of executive orders, issued on January 20th, President Donald Trump directed several top advisers to compile a list of countries with insufficient screening standards for potential migrants, which they considered to be a national-security risk. The order warned that people from these countries could be barred from coming to America. It was a signal that Mr Trump intended to resurrect the travel ban, one of the most controversial immigration policies of his first term. Most of the countries targeted in this, the fourth version of the policy, are in the Middle East and Africa. Nationals from seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, face partial restrictions. A country might find itself on the travel-ban list if its citizens tend to overstay their visas; if it has refused to take back deportees; if instability within the country prevents proper screening or information sharing; or if it 'has a significant terrorist presence'. A tally from David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, suggests that 116,000 immigrants, and more than 500,000 visitors (including students and temporary workers) could be affected by the ban over the next four years. The way the ban was rolled out and how the proclamation was written shows how the White House has learned from its earlier failures. When Mr Trump first tried to ban travel from seven Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos ensued. Travellers who had already been issued visas or were approved for refugee resettlement were held at airports. Some green-card holders were detained. The ban followed through on a campaign promise for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on'. Thousands of Americans, joined by Democratic Party leaders, gathered at big-city airports to protest. This was early in Mr Trump's first term and the #resistance was in full swing. Federal judges issued nationwide injunctions to block the first and second iterations of the travel ban. A third version of the policy ended up in front of the Supreme Court by virtue of Trump v Hawaii. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president exceptional discretion to bar certain people, including specific nationalities, from the country so long as he can argue that their presence is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. The ruling offered yet more evidence for what Adam Cox of New York University has termed 'immigration exceptionalism': the court's profound deference to the president where immigration policy is concerned. That opinion influenced the way the Trump administration resurrected the policy for his second term. The president halted refugee admissions in January (except for white South Africans) and waited until June to implement the new travel ban, to try to avoid the kind of protests and litigation that took place last time around. The proclamation announcing the new ban lists each country and the justification for its inclusion on the list. There are exemptions, including for green-card holders, athletes travelling to America for the World Cup or the Olympics in coming years, Afghans who worked for the American government and the immediate families of Americans, so long as they can prove their relationship. This is a 'much more defensible executive order than the iterations in Trump 1.0', says Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute. But just because travel ban 4.0 looks like it will hold up in court doesn't mean it makes sense. Like slapping tariffs on allies to bring back American manufacturing or declaring a foreign invasion to speed up deportations, Mr Trump's justification for banning foreigners from these countries does not hold up to much scrutiny. The president suggested that the ban would help neutralise national-security threats such as the recent attack on Jewish marchers in Boulder by an Egyptian man who overstayed his visa. Yet Egypt is not on the list. A Department of Homeland Security report confirms that most listed countries do indeed have high visa-overstay rates. But, with the exception of Haiti and Venezuela, the total number of people from restricted countries who didn't leave America when they were supposed to is relatively small. Meanwhile some 40,000 Colombians and 21,000 Brazilians, who are not subject to travel restrictions, overstayed their tourist and short-term work visas (see chart), yet their countrymen are not banned. The travel ban also sends a message. It is yet another signal—along with the detention of international students for their political views and immigration raids in big cities—that America is becoming much more hostile to foreigners. When the Supreme Court decided Trump v Hawaii in 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he describes an 'anxious world' watching to see whether America's leaders 'adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise'. That warning looks ever more prescient.
