5 years after his tweet, Shashi Tharoor meets Britain's Got Talent star Souparnika Nair
'A ten-year-old Indian girl is a semi-finalist in Britain's Got Talent,' he had posted, referring to Souparnika's impressive run on the show that season.Now, five years later, Tharoor witnessed her performance again, but this time in person. On the show, Nair sang I Don't Want to Talk About Things We've Gone Through, a performance that left the MP thoroughly enjoyed.'Five years ago, I was enthralled by the singing of 10-year-old Souparnika Nair in @BGT_UK. On Sunday, I had the great pleasure of hearing her, now a graceful and self-possessed 15, sing for me at #WeTheWomen. What a voice and what an amazing talent – and born in Thiruvananthapuram to boot,' Tharoor tweeted along with a video of the performance.twitter embed codeSee Tharoor's 2020 tweet about Nair here:In 2020, renowned musician AR Rahman had also tweeted a video of Souparnika Nair from Britain's Got Talent, saying: 'Nice to wake up to this."- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Express View on Karnataka's draft bill on fake news: Don't make it law
Several elements go into making legislation 'bad in law': Vague provisions and definitions that invite misuse; arrogation of power to government authorities without necessary checks and guardrails; difficulties of enforcement or possibilities of selective enforcement and, most importantly, legitimate concerns about infringement on fundamental rights and violation of due process. The Karnataka Mis-Information and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill fulfils these criteria, and more. It constitutes an 'Authority' — headed by the state Information & Broadcasting Minister and made up mostly of lawmakers and officials selected by the government — that is all but certain to act as a censor. It is a bill of bad faith — it enables an exercise of arbitrary power under the garb of rooting out falsehood. It is an overzealous government addressing a complex issue through the bluntest of instruments. India has approximately 700 million smartphone users, and Karnataka is among the states with the highest internet penetration. Can the proposed Authority mine and analyse the vast amounts of data on social media while ensuring that no citizen's right to free speech is violated? More importantly, even if it could, should it? 'Fake news' is defined by the Bill as false or inaccurate reporting, editing that distorts facts and purely fabricated content. Misinformation is 'knowingly' or 'recklessly' spreading falsehoods, with exceptions for religious sermons, satire, and 'artistic expression'. Evidently, the government of Karnataka, not satisfied with setting itself up as the arbiter of Truth, seeks to define Art as well. It also wishes to prosecute what it deems as going against 'feminism' and 'Sanatan Dharma'. The Bill compounds the sin of loosely worded and vague provisions with harsh punishment: Offenders face fines up to Rs 10 lakh, seven years' imprisonment or both. It flies in the face of the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Shreya Singhal (2013) case and the Bombay High Court verdict on the Centre's IT Rules in 2024, both of which warned against the dangers of ill-defined legal provisions encroaching on free speech. India already has laws on defamation and for protecting 'hurt sentiments', which are often weaponised by governments to curb fundamental freedoms. Karnataka's capital is a hub of innovation, and of a start-up culture that has the potential to propel the state's and the country's economy forward. The government must recognise that innovation and censorship do not go together. Fifty years after the Emergency, the lesson on the dangers of state excess and overreach should have been internalised by Congress governments, including in Karnataka. As Justice Gautam Patel noted in the Bombay HC's 2024 verdict, 'Every attempt to whittle down a fundamental right must be resisted root and branch.' Misinformation and fake news are indeed problems of the present and future. Addressing them requires digital literacy, which involves going to schools to ensure that the next generation is equipped to sift fact from falsehood. Such programmes require finesse, time and the right intent. Not a draconian law — the Bill needs to be binned.
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Bihar was deliberately kept backward': In Patna, Rajnath targets Lalu
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, addressing the BJP state working committee in Patna on Wednesday, accused the RJD and Congress of pushing Bihar into an era of 'darkness' marked by crime, casteism and misrule. 'In Laluji's jungle raj, this land became a laboratory for crime and terror. Where once the Constitution's voice was heard, the sound of gunfire echoed instead,' Singh said, adding, 'RJD's lantern, which was supposed to bring light, ended up setting people's homes on fire instead of illuminating them.' 'Bihar is not inherently backward, but was deliberately kept backward,' the Union minister said. He also accused the RJD and Congress of having used 'power as a tool for serving their own families, not the people'. On RJD president Lalu Prasad's time as Bihar chief minister, Singh said, 'Laluji gave Bihar fear, corruption, and the rule of strongmen… Was that era, where caste replaced education and jobs were traded for favours, a paradise?… Only a handful of musclemen and their loyal officers had the right to speak, while the voices of the poor, Dalits and backward classes were crushed. Kidnapping cases were settled in government bungalows.' 'We keep talking about the past so that people don't get fooled by the glib talk of the RJD and Congress. The same mindset, the same corruption that pushed Bihar into darkness for years, is now standing before us in a new form,' the Defence Minister said. Referring to a controversy at Lalu Prasad's birthday event, where an RJD worker was seen holding Dr B R Ambedkar's picture near his feet, Singh said, 'This was not a simple mistake but reflects a mindset that has no respect for Dalit icons.' Further accusing Lalu of 'hypocrisy', he said, 'While Lalu Prasad was in power, he never bothered to do anything in the memory of Karpoori Thakur. It was Prime Minister Narendra Modi who conferred the Bharat Ratna on this great son of Bihar… Only the BJP and the NDA can truly carry forward Karpoori Thakur's legacy.' Highlighted the NDA's achievements in Bihar under Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, Singh said, 'The period did not just see economic growth, Bihar also began regaining its lost glory.' He recalled that Bihar was once called 'the armpit of India', but now, 'The world is taking note of its turnaround story.' Terming the Opposition's dream of returning to power as 'fantasy', Singh said, 'The people of Bihar are now awake and politically aware. Casteism will not work here anymore. Only development will prevail.'
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
India's foreign policy pragmatism is not a betrayal of principles. It cannot afford grandstanding
In an era of relentless media cycles and performative politics, foreign policy is increasingly becoming a battleground for domestic posturing. The danger lies not just in what is said, but in how and why it's said. Moral absolutism is deployed selectively, outrage is amplified when convenient, and silence is deafening when facts challenge the preferred narrative. The framing of India's foreign policy as either morally courageous or morally bankrupt ignores diplomacy's layered complexities. Nations do not operate in binaries. They navigate shades of grey, often balancing principle with pragmatism. To cast India's foreign policy as a betrayal of historical moral commitments is not only reductionist, it is deeply dishonest. Take the Hamas attack on Israel — one of the most horrific terrorist acts in recent memory. For India — a victim of terrorism — moral clarity on such acts is not optional; it is foundational. To hesitate in condemning such violence is not intellectual sophistication — it is moral evasiveness. India rightly condemned this attack as terrorism. This was not a partisan statement. It was a reflection of India's consistent stance against terror. At the same time, it made clear its support for the Palestinian people — urging humanitarian access to Gaza, calling for the release of hostages, and providing over 65 tonnes of aid. India has donated over $65 million for Palestine's development in recent years and continues to fund infrastructure and education projects in the West Bank. Yet critics accuse it of abandoning its moral compass. On what basis? That it refused to take a simplistic, one-sided view of a multidimensional conflict? Or that it chose to engage both sides while prioritising the safety of Indian citizens and regional stability? Let us not forget: Diplomacy is not Twitter. It is not built for viral outrage. It is about safeguarding interests while promoting peace. Condemning terrorism while extending humanitarian support is not a contradiction — it is coherence. What often passes for foreign policy critique today seems a deliberate misreading of strategic imperatives. This becomes glaring when examining how critics invoke Iran, Israel, and the larger West Asian theatre. For example, the portrayal of Iran as an innocent, misunderstood actor wilfully ignores the concerns over its nuclear programme. According to the IAEA, Iran now holds over 400 kg of 60 per cent-enriched uranium — dangerously close to weapons-grade. Multiple inspections have found uranium traces at undeclared sites, and Iran continues to block full transparency. Yet, such critical developments are conveniently omitted. This is not nuance; it is misdirection. It seeks to equate Iran's opaque nuclear manoeuvres with Israel's alleged nuclear capabilities — a comparison that collapses under scrutiny. Israel has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, nor has it been found in violation of IAEA safeguards. Iran, by contrast, is a signatory and repeatedly non-compliant. To conflate the two is agenda-driven. Some romanticise India-Iran ties by citing Tehran's support for India at the 1994 UN Human Rights Commission vote on Kashmir. But this overlooks the evolving nature of Iran's foreign policy. Iran is a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation — a bloc that routinely criticises India on Kashmir. In recent years, Tehran has echoed calls for 'restoration of rights' in J&K, aligning with positions India considers deeply problematic. Even the strategic relevance of the Chabahar Port is twisted into a narrative of Iranian altruism. The port's development depended heavily on India's backchannel diplomacy with the US, which provided a sanctions waiver. India's relationship with Iran has been cautious and transactional, shaped by oil trade, connectivity goals, and regional deterrence, not emotional solidarity. When it comes to Israel, let us not forget that full diplomatic ties were established not by today's government but under former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao. That decision reflected strategic foresight. Since then, ties have deepened. To now paint this trajectory as a betrayal of India's historical commitments is a politically convenient case of forgetting one's own legacy. India's nuanced response to the Iran-Israel escalation is another case in point. The Ministry of External Affairs issued a firm, balanced statement urging de-escalation, emphasising dialogue and diplomacy, and reiterating concern for Indians in both countries. Emergency protocols were activated to ensure the safety of thousands in the region. Critics labelled this approach muted. But what was the alternative? Publicly taking sides in a conflict — one with nuclear implications, energy security risks, and the diaspora's safety at stake? Is that responsible statecraft or reckless signalling? India's foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum. It is shaped by geography, history, and hard power realities. Surrounded by two nuclear adversaries, locked in a matrix of regional alliances and dependencies, India cannot afford to grandstand. It must calculate every move with precision. Pragmatism is not a betrayal of principle — it is about preservation in a hostile world. The danger today is not India's diplomatic caution, it is the trend of a partisan foreign policy critique. Turning complex international issues into tools for domestic political attack is hazardous. It undermines national unity on external affairs, weakens credibility abroad, and sends conflicting signals. Foreign policy is not the arena for point-scoring. It demands strategic consistency, institutional memory, and national coherence. When every international issue is filtered through the lens of electoral calculations or ideological grievances, we do not get a better foreign policy — we get a fragmented one. What India needs today is clarity without chaos, values without vanity, and vision without vendetta. The world is not waiting for India to moralise. It is watching to see if India can lead — with balance, wisdom, and strategic resolve. The writer is a policy analyst and PhD scholar at Bennett University
