2-day TN visit: PM Modi offers prayers at Chola temple; holds roadshow in Gangaikonda Cholapuram
During the two-day visit to Tamil Nadu, the Prime Minister offered prayers at the Chola-era Lord Brihadeeswara temple amid chants of Vedic and Saivite Thirumurai.
PM Modi brought a 'kalasam' (metal pot) with traditional decorations which is believed to contain water from River Ganga.
Clad in veshti (dhoti), white shirt and angavasthram worn around the neck, the prime minsiter circumambulated the inner corridor of the temple, a part of the great living Chola temples, a UNESCO heritage site.
He also offered prayers by conducting a "deeparathanai."
The PM also visited an exhibition organised by the Archaeological Survey of India on Chola Shaivism and architecture.
Earlier in the day, PM Modi also held a roadshow in Gangaikonda Cholapuram after his arrival.
During the roadshow, the prime minister stood on the running board of his vehicle and waved at the people who lined up on both sides of the road.
Gangaikonda Cholapuram was the 'victory city' constructed by Rajendra Chola following his victorious maritime expedition to South East Asia about 1,000 years ago.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
No annual fees for life
UnionBank Credit Card
Apply Now
Undo
Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a roadshow here on Sunday soon after his arrival to preside over a function to mark the birth anniversary of the iconic Chola king Rajendra Chola-I.
Who was Rajendra Chola-I?
This special celebration commemorates 1,000 years of Rajendra Chola's legendary maritime expedition to South East Asia and the commencement of the construction of the Gangaikonda Cholapuram temple, a magnificent example of Chola architecture.
Rajendra Chola I (1014–1044 CE) stands among the most powerful and visionary rulers in Indian history. Under his reign, the Chola Empire extended its influence across South and Southeast Asia. Following his triumphant military campaigns, he established Gangaikonda Cholapuram as the imperial capital.
The grand temple he built there became a symbol of Shaiva devotion, architectural brilliance, and administrative excellence, serving as a spiritual and cultural hub for over 250 years.
Rajendra's territories included coastal Burma, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and the Maldives, and he conquered the kings of Srivijaya (Sumatra, Java, and Malaya in South East Asia) and the Pegu islands with his fleet of ships. He defeated Mahipala, the Pala king of Bengal and Bihar.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
In Op Sindoor debate, both Government and Opposition stopped low — but they flagged crucial issues
After a long time, Parliament came alive and voices of the people's representatives, across the political spectrum, rang out in the House with urgency and concern on a vital national issue. Ever since Operation Sindoor was carried out in the wake of the terror attack at Pahalgam, there have been unanswered questions. A fuller public debate was waiting to be joined, after the military dust settled. The deliberations in the Lok Sabha over two days broke a silence, filled a gap. At the same time, that the three Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists who extinguished 26 lives on April 22 were killed in Dachigam in the Kashmir Valley on Monday in 'Operation Mahadev' brings a needed moment of closure for the families of the victims, and for the nation that shares their grief. Alongside the long-awaited debate in Parliament and the success in Dachigam, mention of The Resistance Front, a proxy outfit of LeT, which has claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack, in a key UNSC report — the first mention of the LeT in the report since 2019 — brings a diplomatic victory for India. But while Parliament did well to discuss Operation Sindoor — what led to it, how it was conducted, and its aftermath — an overtly partisan and short-term politics also narrowed the scope of the debate in the House. Both the members of the government and Opposition spoke, but it did not always seem that they listened to each other. For Prime Minister Narendra Modi to paint the main Opposition party, Congress, as compromising national interest, and as the spokesman for the enemy, as it were, is unseemly. For him to then connect the dots from Congress's stance vis-à-vis Pakistan to its alleged 'tushtikaran' or appeasement of the minority at home is disquieting and uncalled for. As was Home Minister Amit Shah's reference to the 'dharm' of the terrorist. While BJP criticism of earlier Congress governments on national security is legitimate political thrust and parry, the debate on Operation Sindoor needs a common ground of respect and reciprocity, not labelling and name-calling. At the same time, Rahul Gandhi's challenge to the government — to lay Pakistan low once-and-for-all — was bellicose, and belonged more in a clumsy insta-reel than in the nation's highest forum of debate. His show-me-your-guts dare to the PM to call out US President Donald Trump for his claims of choreographing the India-Pak ceasefire was immature. Yet, the debate flagged crucial changes that will unfold and resonate in times to come. Rahul Gandhi may deny and dismiss it, but a 'new normal' has indeed been consecrated by Operation Sindoor, red lines have been redrawn by India vis-à-vis Pakistan. It is true that this recalibration may not always open up space for manoeuvre for Delhi, but may also limit it. India's challenge will be to ensure that it is not straitjacketed by the recast concept of deterrence. In a global environment where Trump has upended established patterns and certainties, and China is tilting the balance, India will have to move forward carefully, in its neighbourhood and beyond — calling Beijing and Washington names is neither diplomacy nor strategy. In that journey, Operation Sindoor constitutes an important milestone. The debate that has begun in Parliament must go on.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
SYDNEY: Australia said Wednesday it will add YouTube to sites covered by its world-first ban on social media for teenagers, reversing an earlier decision to exempt the Alphabet-owned video-sharing site and potentially setting up a legal challenge. The decision came after the internet regulator urged the govt last month to overturn the YouTube carve-out, citing a survey that found 37% of minors reported harmful content on the site, the worst showing for a social media platform. "I'm calling time on it," PM Anthony Albanese said, highlighting that children were being negatively affected by online platforms, and reminding social media of their social responsibility. "I want Australian parents to know that we have their backs." The decision broadens the ban set to take effect in Dec. YouTube says it is used by nearly three-quarters of Australians aged 13 to 15, and should not be classified as social media because its main activity is hosting videos. "Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Remember Him? Take A Deep Breath Before You See Him Now The Noodle Box Undo It's not social media," a YouTube spokesperson said. Since the govt said last year it would exempt YouTube due to its popularity with teachers, platforms covered by the ban, such as Meta's Facebook and Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok, have complained. They say YouTube has key similarities to their products, including letting users interact and recommending content through an algorithm based on activity. The ban outlaws YouTube accounts for those younger than 16, allowing parents and teachers to show videos on it to minors. AI has supercharged the spread of misinformation on social media platforms, said Adam Marre, chief information security officer at cyber security firm Arctic Wolf. "The move to regulate YouTube is an important step in pushing back against the unchecked power of big tech and protecting kids." Last week, YouTube said it had written to the govt urging it "to uphold the integrity of the legislative process". Australian media said YouTube threatened a court challenge, but YouTube did not confirm that. "I will not be intimidated by legal threats when this is a genuine fight for the well-being of Australian kids," communications minister Anika Wells told parliament on Wednesday. The govt, which is due to receive a report this month on tests of age-checking products, has said those results will influence enforcement of the ban.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Op Sindoor debate: More heat and dust than light
The parliamentary debate over Operation Sindoor, launched in response to the Pahalgam terror attack, was marked less by genuine deliberation and more by a disheartening display of petty politicking. Both the treasury benches and the Opposition were more interested in promoting political narratives that aligned with their interests than in confronting the complex realities surrounding the operation, its military dimensions, and its broader national implications. The attack in Pahalgam was a grim reminder of the persistent threat India faces from cross-border terrorism. It demanded a thoughtful and unified political response. Instead, what unfolded in Parliament was a spectacle in which politicians from all sides sought to score points. The ruling party, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, appeared more focused on defending its decisions than on explaining them. When questioned about the sudden cessation of military action, government representatives offered ambiguous and unconvincing replies. A significant point of contention was whether the ceasefire—announced shortly after Indian forces appeared to have gained the upper hand—was influenced by external pressure, particularly from then-US President Donald Trump. The government categorically denied this, yet failed to provide a clear and credible rationale for the abrupt halt in operations. This lack of transparency has left a lingering sense of confusion and mistrust. Why stop military action when momentum was on our side? If the ceasefire was a strategic choice, what were the broader diplomatic or security calculations behind it? These are valid questions that need to be answered, especially by the Prime Minister, who has consistently positioned himself as a strong leader in matters of national security. Yet, the response from the ruling party was defensive and evasive—an opportunity for meaningful engagement was lost. On the other side of the aisle, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi offered a scathing critique of the Modi government's handling of the situation, focusing on lapses in intelligence, decision-making, and communication. While some of these criticisms were substantive, his refusal to acknowledge the commendable military response mounted during the later stages of the 88-hour conflict was deeply disappointing. By refusing to accept the Modi government's role in ensuring military preparedness, Gandhi missed a crucial opportunity to rise above partisan politics and demonstrate statesmanship. In moments of national crisis, political unity—at least on matters of defence and security—is not only desirable but a sine qua non. The inability of key Opposition figures to offer even measured praise to military preparedness reflects a troubling trend in Indian politics, where partisanship routinely trumps patriotism. What the debate over Operation Sindoor ultimately reveals is that India's political leadership is still struggling to strike a balance between partisan gains and the national interest. Criticism of the government is entirely valid—indeed, necessary in a vibrant democracy. But such criticism must be grounded in facts, aimed at improvement, and free from the corrosive influence of electoral compulsions. Similarly, those in power must learn to engage with uncomfortable questions, not deflect them through rhetorical flourishes or indulge in whataboutery. India deserves better from its elected representatives—leaders who are not only politically astute but also morally courageous, willing to put the national interest above party lines, especially during times of crisis. If Operation Sindoor taught us anything, it is that unity and clarity in purpose must accompany strength in action.
