Delhi: PM Modi to inaugurate investors' summit focusing on the Northeast
New Delhi [India], May 21 (ANI): Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be inaugurating the two-day maiden 'Rising Northeast: The Investors' Summit 2025' which will be held from May 23 to 24 at Bharat Mandapam in the national capital to showcase the investment and trade potential of the northeastern region.
Organised by the Ministry of Development of Northeast Region (DoNER) in partnerships with FICCI and Invest India, the summit aims to highlight the region's geostrategic advantage, abundant natural resources, skilled workforce, and access to captive markets in the Northeast and neighbouring countries.
'The Northeast region is an emerging frontier for businesses, and the summit offers an ideal platform for forging alliances, partnerships, and acquiring a clear vision of the opportunities available for expanding businesses, making new investments, setting up green field manufacturing projects and associated activities,' said an official of DoNER.
The summit will enable investors to participate in the Northeastern region's transformation as a manufacturing and services hub. It will also provide companies looking to access emerging markets in ASEAN and BBN (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal) countries to know about the slew of incentives and policy framework in the region and how to leverage it for venturing beyond borders.
In the run-up to the summit, roadshows were organised in seven major cities in India to showcase the investment potential of the Northeastern region and reach out to potential investors.
'The summit promises to become a major platform for networking with industry leaders, policymakers, and other relevant stakeholders from the region, offering excellent opportunities for exploring tie-ups, expansions, and MoUs via G2B, B2B meetings on the sidelines of the summit,' said the official.
Over 2,000 high level delegates, policymakers, industry leaders, investors, multilaterals and start-ups will take part in discussions across nine plus priority sectors such as agriculture, food processing and allied sectors; textiles, handloom and handicrafts; entertainment and sports; education and skill development; healthcare; IT and ITES; tourism and hospitality; infrastructure and logistics, and energy.
A high level delegation comprising of senior officials from Assam will also be present at the summit. Being a major state and a gateway to the Northeast, Assam will showcase its inherent strengths in key sectors as well as emerging sectors with Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma leading from the front.
'Our inherent strengths - geographical, natural resources, guided by the vision of Honourable Prime Minister Narendra Modi ji has made Assam a powerhouse of opportunities. From tea to trade and tourism, we offer enormous possibilities for business,' said CM Sarma.
A strategic location that offers easy access to ASEAN markets, the Northeastern region, India's growth engine, is endowed with abundant natural resources such as oil, gas, coal, minerals, timber, medicinal plants, bamboo, forest products, and water resources for industries to harness, read an official statement.
Considered as India's Green Hub, the region is home to verdant forests and rich biodiversity, and is an ideal destination for eco-tourism and agro-based industries.
With diverse cultural heritage, the region with its unique ethnic communities and traditions offer investment opportunities galore in tourism and handicraft sectors.
The Government of India and the state governments of the region consisting of eight states are offering a range of incentives, including tax holidays, subsidies, and reimbursements to support business growth.
Investors looking to make good of their investments have an added advantage as the region offers low labour costs compared to other parts of India and the world coupled with a skilled workforce proficient in English.
Notably, the infrastructure in the region is growing rapidly with coming up of industrial parks, and technology parks. It has a congenial business environment with a low crime rate, stable political environment, and supportive government policies. On top of it all, what is important from investment perspective is the fact that the region is an emerging consumer market with rising incomes and increased urbanisation that offers potential for business aplenty. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Business of politics after busyness of war
After the immensely successful and strategically path-breaking 'Operation Sindoor,' it is back to business as usual in India that is Bharat. By business, I mean politics. Because politics isn't just about gaining and retaining power, whether at the Centre or the states, it is also India's biggest business. Of course, going back to its original meaning, by 'business', I also mean whatever keeps us busy. Nothing preoccupies the nation, as we know only too well, as much as politics. It is so ubiquitous and pervasive that it obsessively involves us in almost all aspects of our lives—from the family to the nation. That is why I rate it higher than Bollywood, cricket or, for that matter, even religion, as both our national passion and pastime. Not to speak of our topmost source of information and entertainment. And given the wartime—or now post-war but still hostile—environment, the distinction between information and entertainment could not be more blurred. 'Operation Sindoor' was a series of strikes so precise, so restrained, yet so audacious that the world paused to take notice, albeit grudgingly. The whole country, on the other hand, was agog as the Indian armed forces, with their deadly resolve and impeccable aim, delivered a resounding slap to the face of 'rogue nation' Pakistan. The result? Mission accomplished. A masterclass in military might. However, throughout the conflict, we were also embroiled in a deafening, at times sickening, misinformation battle. Not only with our enemy but with ourselves. With political parties jockeying to position themselves as adversarial beneficiaries. Did we forget that we were at war with Pakistan, not with each other? The result? A masterclass in political theatrics, starring none other than Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the main, if not sole and singular, protagonist of this blockbuster. And why not? The nation is no longer at war. Therefore, we must revert to our favourite melodrama, national politics.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is a sign of regression
Indian courts today are not defending free speech. They are managing it. And in this curious inversion of constitutional values, we are witnessing a quiet retreat from the principle that animated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: that speech, even provocative, offensive, or unsettling, is the citizen's shield against tyranny — not its tool. Once envisioned as the counter-majoritarian bulwark of our democracy, the judiciary now increasingly resembles an arbiter of decorum, demanding apologies and deference in the name of civility, sensitivity, or national pride. But when courts focus on what was said rather than why the right to say it must be protected, the Republic is left vulnerable to a new tyranny: that of sentiment, outrage, and the lowest tolerance denominator. Let us begin with a chillingly ordinary example: a social media post by a 24-year-old man criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi. after the ceasefire with Pakistan following Operation Sindoor in May 2025. Was this tasteless? Perhaps. But taste is not a constitutional metric. The Allahabad High Court thought otherwise. In rejecting the plea to quash the first information report (FIR), the Bench declared that 'emotions cannot be permitted to overflow to an extent that constitutional authorities of the country are dragged into disrepute'. That is a remarkable formulation. It subtly inverts the constitutional design: the citizen is no longer the source of power holding the state to account, but a child to be reprimanded for speaking too freely. A validation of outrage Instead of interpreting Article 19(1)(a) as a liberty that limits state power, courts have begun treating it as a licence that comes with behavioural conditions — conditions defined not by law but by the perceived dignity of public figures and institutions. Take the Kamal Haasan controversy in connection with his film, Thug Life. The actor made a remark about Kannada being a daughter of Tamil. The Karnataka High Court responded not by evaluating whether the actor's statement met the threshold of incitement, defamation, or hate, but by advising him to apologise to the 'sentiments of the masses'. This advice is corrosive. When courts suggest apologies for lawful speech, they set a precedent that expression must pass a popularity test. They validate the very outrage that threatens free speech, rather than shielding expression from it. An apology does not close the loop but only widens it, inviting further claims of offence. In Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia vs Union Of India, the 'digital content creator and podcaster' was confronted with judicial comments bordering on cultural supervision for his use of explicit language in a podcast. The court directed the Union to clarify whether such 'vulgar' language fell outside constitutional protection. Here again, the concern was not whether the speech incited harm, but on whether it offended prevailing norms of taste and modesty — a dangerously subjective threshold. Similarly, historian and a professor, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, was dragged into proceedings after sharing critical views on the optics of India using a woman soldier to explain its war situation with Pakistan. The argument was that his comments hurt sentiments. That it even reached court underscores the problem: invoking hurt feelings is now sufficient to invite judicial scrutiny of constitutionally protected speech. The professor's scholarly critique became a matter for judicial assessment and a special investigation to assess whether there was any dog whistle intent that played on the fragility of the audience. A misreading Two disturbing patterns emerge from these cases. First, the judiciary is increasingly equating speech that provokes emotional reactions with legally actionable harm. This misreads the Constitution and the rationale of a democracy. The test for restricting speech under Article 19(2) is not whether it angers, irritates, or offends but whether it incites violence, hatred or disrupts public order. Second, by encouraging apologies and moral policing of language, courts create a perverse incentive. The more outrage a comment generates, the more likely it is to be litigated. This does not protect society. It emboldens mobs and serial litigants. It creates a market for offence. This shift is starkly evident in cases that involve the armed forces. In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court denied the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, relief in a defamation case on his alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army . The High Court said that the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to 'defame' the military. But defamation, as a legal standard, must be carefully assessed particularly when invoked by or on behalf of state institutions by busy-bodies. Likewise, in a previous first information report against a man using the word 'coward' to describe the Prime Minister after the recent military stand-down, the court saw no issue with Sections 152 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita being invoked — laws meant for threats to sovereignty and public mischief . These laws, meant for sedition-like scenarios, are being contorted to punish sarcasm and satire. It is telling that courts will routinely deny the quashing of FIRs in such cases, claiming that it is too early to interfere and that police investigations must run their course. But this abdication is neither neutral nor passive. For the citizen facing criminal prosecution, the process itself is the punishment. The system does not need a conviction to chill speech. A summons and a charge sheet do the job. The Madras High Court has occasionally resisted this drift. But this was more about narrative correction than structural protection of speech. Courts in India must return to a principle-centric model of speech protection. Instead of obsessing over what was said, they must ask whether the speaker's right was violated, and not someone else's sentiment. Apologies should not be judicial recommendations. They should be individual choices. Otherwise, courts become confessional booths where speech is absolved not by legal reasoning but by remorse. And remorse demanded is remorse devalued — it empowers the outraged, not the rational. The signal to the citizen Moreover, as long as laws such as sedition or the ever-morphing public order clauses remain vague, courts must lean toward liberty. The doctrine of 'chilling effect' that is robust in American and European jurisprudence, has been acknowledged in India's courts but seldom enforced with spine. This is not just about high-profile speech or celebrities. It is about the slow attrition of constitutional confidence. When a YouTuber is told to bleep a joke, or a professor is dragged to court for a tweet, or a film-maker is told to grovel for linguistic pride the signal to the ordinary citizen is clear: express only what is safe, bland and agreeable. But democracies are not built on agreeable speech. They thrive on disagreement — noisy, rude, even reckless at times. The test of a society's strength is not how well it tolerates politeness, but how it handles provocation. Free speech is not just about giving offence, but about withstanding it. If India is to preserve its democratic soul, it must restore the dignity of dissent. It must not demand the dignity of institutions at the cost of liberty. Judges are the guardians of the Constitution, and not the curators of culture. They must protect the right to speak and not the comfort of the listener. Because when speech is chilled in courtrooms, freedom dies not with a bang, but with a sigh of deference. The new age of judicial sensitivity to sentiments is not a sign of progress. It is a sign of regression. It confuses harmony with homogeneity, and respect with restraint. Apologies should never be a legal strategy. And speech should not need blessings to be legitimate. Let our courts not forget that the Republic was not born from politeness but from protest. The Constitution came from the pen of a Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who also wrote, '…the world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not infallible'. Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India
India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
Army Chief Hails Op Sindoors Success As Well-Planned, Precise And Worthy Answer To Terrorism
Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Upendra Dwivedi on Sunday hailed Operation Sindoor, describing it as a well-planned, precise, and highly effective response to terrorism. Speaking at the inaugural podcast of 'Ibex Tarana,' a community radio station (88.4 MHz) in Jyotirmath in Uttarakhand, COAS Dwivedi attributed the operation's success to the government giving the armed forces complete strategic freedom and the trust shown by the countrymen. "Operation Sindoor was not just a military response; it was an expression of India's unity, resolve, and self-confidence. The government gave us complete strategic freedom, and the trust shown by the countrymen became our source of inspiration,' ANI quoted Dwivedi as saying. General Dwivedi highlighted that during the operation, the Indian Armed Forces destroyed nine terrorist hideouts without any civilian casualties, which he said shows that the Indian Army is not only powerful but also responsible. 'We destroyed nine terrorist hideouts without any civilian casualties. This shows that the Indian Army is not only powerful but also responsible. I am proud that our soldiers completed this operation with discipline, restraint, and immense courage. This victory is not only of the army but of the entire nation. Operation Sindoor is a well-planned, precise, and worthy answer to terrorism,' ANI quoted Dwivedi as saying. Highlighting that the Indian Armed Forces are alert, capable, and always fully prepared, General Dwivedi said that terrorism will get a befitting reply every time. 'I want to say one more thing: Due to the name of Operation Sindoor, whenever any mother, sister, or daughter applies Sindoor, she proudly remembers our soldiers. Terrorism will get a befitting reply every time. We are alert, capable, and always fully prepared," ANI quoted Dwivedi as saying. The Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor on May 7 to avenge the Pahalgam terror attack in which Pakistan-sponsored terrorists killed 26 innocent civilians. During Operation Sindoor, the Indian Armed Forces targeted terror infrastructure at nine locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, killing over 100 terrorists.
