India, South Korea hold 13th high-level Coast Guard meeting in Delhi
The meeting was led by S. Paramesh, Director General, ICG, and Kim Yong Jin, Commissioner General of the Korea Coast Guard, on an official visit to India from July 20-24 as the head of a five-member delegation.
During the meeting, discussions were held on strengthening operational cooperation in key areas, including maritime search and rescue, pollution response, and maritime law enforcement. Both sides reiterated the importance of sharing best practices, enhancing interoperability, and sustaining regular personnel exchanges under the framework of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the two agencies in 2006.
The KCG delegation will also travel to Mumbai from July 23-24, where they are scheduled to undertake an industrial visit to Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited, and ICG patrol vessels, further reinforcing maritime, industrial, and operational linkages.
The meeting provided fresh momentum to the enduring and professional relationship between the two Coast Guards, and reaffirmed their joint commitment to promoting maritime safety, security, and environmental protection in the region, the ICG said.
Earlier in the day, the Korea Coast Guard Commissioner called on Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh. The meeting included a discussion on enhancing India-South Korea Coast Guard cooperation, with a focus on search and rescue, and maritime pollution response, the Union Ministry of Defence posted on social media platform X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court stays HC order pausing West Bengal govt's OBC quota notification
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Calcutta high court order, pausing the West Bengal government's notification extending reservation benefits to 140 communities under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, terming it 'erroneous'. The Supreme Court called high court's reasoning surprising. (AFP) A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria expressed surprise over the June 17 order staying a June 10 classification notification in the absence of legislation. It said that a nine-judge Supreme Court bench in the Indira Sawhney case (1992) allowed the executive to identify socially and educationally backward classes for reservation through executive notification. The observation came in the context of the high court observation that the state acted with 'undue haste' through an 'executive fiat' without placing the matter before the legislature. 'We will stay the order…It is very surprising to read the reasoning given by the high court. Prima facie, we feel the order is erroneous,' the bench said. The bench, which was initially inclined to return the matter to the high court by ordering status quo, posted the matter for hearing after two weeks. The lawyers, appearing in the case, insisted that the Supreme Court hear and decide the matter. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the West Bengal government that challenged the June 17 order, said the state is facing contempt proceedings as it has to fill 900,000 posts based on the June 10 notification. Three individuals and an organisation challenged the notification, arguing that the state had not ascertained the economic conditions for extending the reservation and that it was not backed by law. A high court bench of justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Tapabrata Chakraborty passed an interim direction staying the June 10 notification until July 31. Senior advocates Ranjit Kumar and Guru Krishnakumar, who appeared for the petitioners in the high court, told the Supreme Court about a similar exercise to classify 77 castes as OBCs, mostly Muslims, since 2010. The high court struck down that exercise in May last year. The state appealed, but the Supreme Court refused to interfere. In March, the state government withdrew its appeal, saying a revised exercise was being conducted. Kumar and Krishnakumar argued that one and a half months is too short for ascertaining the eligibility of the communities to be added as OBCs on the state list. Krishnakumar pointed out that the law mandates the state to consult the backward class panel and carry out an extensive survey of the communities intended to be added to the OBC list. Sibal cited the Constitution's Article 342A(3) and said states are entitled to prepare and maintain the OBC list. The high court order said prima facie it appears the government was proceeding in hot haste and attempting to bring in the self-same classes and re-introduce the percentage of reservation, which had been struck down, by executive orders and not in exercise of the state's legislative functions. The May 2024 high court order struck down the state's decision, relating to 77 communities, citing the same reasoning that the legislature, and not the executive, can carry out this exercise.
News18
30 minutes ago
- News18
RIC Returns: The Russia-India-China Trilateral Builds Leverage For India
By keeping the RIC option open, India signals to the West that its partnership shouldn't be taken for granted, while also strengthening the ongoing reset in relations with China The old idea of Russia-India-China (RIC) coming together as a powerful trilateral force is making a quiet return. It was once a bold vision: an idea floated over three decades ago to reshape the global order by bringing together the three largest Eurasian powers outside the Western bloc. But as talk of its revival grows louder, especially from Moscow and Beijing, it's India's measured response that stands out. The coming months will be crucial. Prime Minister Narendra Modi might attend the SCO summit in Beijing alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin is expected to visit India for the Russia-India annual summit—and India is also going to be hosting the Quad summit. The question is whether the RIC can see the light of day in the middle of all this. There are opportunities and obstacles in this time frame. While the USA-China-Russia dynamic boosts the relevance of RIC to Moscow and Beijing, the India-China equation weakens it. Ultimately, it depends on where India-US ties stand, the message India chooses to send to Trump, and also on how China behaves. It's not the first time we're hearing about the Russia-India-China (RIC) triangle. Dreamed up after the Cold War ended in the 1990s, the RIC idea was supposed to be a bold answer to a world order dominated by the West. The Russian Foreign Minister, Yevgeny Primakov, suggested then that three rising Asian giants—Russia, India, and China—should come together to reshape the rules. But while Russia and China are once again talking up the RIC, India has been measured in its approach. However, it is coming around. India describes RIC as a consultative mechanism where the three countries 'come and discuss global issues and regional issues of interest to them". And yet, the dates are yet to be worked out. As per MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, 'It is something that will be worked out among the three countries in a mutually convenient manner, and we will let you know as and when that happens at an appropriate time when the meeting is to take place". This is an old idea being revisited. But there was a reason why it did not take off in the past. When the RIC dialogue began in the early 2000s, Russia and India were inching close on energy and defence collaboration. Two agreements with China in 2003 and 2005 on boundary disputes stabilised India-China ties. Meanwhile, all three countries sought deep ties with the US and Europe. Russia craved a fresh relationship with America after the Soviet collapse. China was riding high on Western investment and trade. India was opening up to the world, and signed a civil nuclear deal with the US. There was no high-intensity friction with the US, and so the triangle never took off. Later, things got more complicated when China flouted boundary agreements, and started the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or CPEC, which passes through occupied Indian territory. Meanwhile, Russia's ties with the West were frayed after it took Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. And yet, by 2019, there was a formal leaders-level RIC summit in June 2019, on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, President Vladimir Putin, and President Xi Jinping met and discussed global issues, multilateralism, and reform of institutions like the WTO and the UN. This was significant, but the high was over soon. China's border aggression in the Himalayas led to the bloody Galwan clash, after which India-China ties unravelled. Moreover, if you fast forward from 2019 to today, the world is messier. The West is divided. The US under Trump is unpredictable. Trade wars are heating up. And the Ukraine war and subsequent Western sanctions have pushed Russia even closer to China. Both Russia and China want to revive the RIC format. Russia has openly called for it. China has nodded in agreement. But India hasn't said much—at least not yet. While Russia's crashing ties with the West are a factor in India's hesitation, the real issue is China. There's deep strategic discomfort with China. India and China are in the midst of a reset. Rebuilding rules of engagement and seeking a bare-minimum level of trust is required to normalise economic relations and scale down military build-up on both sides at the border. Most recently, India reopened tourist visas for Chinese nationals after China's resumption of the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra. Yet, there is a giant trust deficit—with China's unwavering support to Pakistan even during Operation Sindoor, its weaponisation of trade dominance in rare earths, its claims on Arunachal Pradesh and an ambitious dam project on the Yarlung Tsangpo which may affect water levels in the Brahmaputra river. Still, the RIC is significant. For India, it's about leverage. By teasing the idea of RIC, India gets to build leverage. It's an obvious geographical mandate that the three Asian giants should come together and build a mutual understanding on matters of concern. Russia and China are craving for it— to seek India out and send a collective message to the West. Meanwhile, Trump threatens 10 per cent tariffs for BRICS countries, and a whopping 100 per cent tariff on nations buying Russian oil. Europe has sanctioned a major Indian refinery. And the US-India trade deal still hangs in the balance, with no certainty. Moreover, with the White House warming up to Pakistan and Trump repeating claims that he ended the India-Pakistan conflict, even when India denies that— there is something fundamentally broken in the India-US relationship. Trump's threats and coercion are challenging and his overtures to Pakistan are further eroding trust. By keeping the RIC option open, India signals to the West that its partnership shouldn't be taken for granted, while also strengthening the ongoing reset in relations with China—both of which are strategically important. RIC for India is not about being anti-western. At its core, RIC was never meant to be anti-Western. It was supposed to be a counterbalance—an alternative centre of power in a multipolar world. A non-West construct. Today's version of RIC seems more loaded. With Russia under Western sanctions, and China increasingly hostile to US allies in the Indo-Pacific, the grouping risks looking like a bloc of grievance rather than a vision. India doesn't want to be part of an anti-West club. It still values its partnerships with the US, Japan, Australia, and Europe. But it also wants to keep its options open. And for that, flirting with the RIC idea makes sense. RIC is not about shifting camps. India doesn't want to be in anyone's camp. It's about hedging bets, playing the field smartly, and maintaining strategic autonomy. About the Author Shubhangi Sharma Shubhangi Sharma is News Editor - Special Projects at News18. She covers foreign affairs and geopolitics, and also keeps a close watch on the national pulse of India. tags : China donald trump India pakistan Russia United states view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 28, 2025, 15:29 IST News opinion Finepoint | RIC Returns: The Russia-India-China Trilateral Builds Leverage For India Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Congress, Chidambaram speaking Pakistan's language: Shivraj Chouhan
Union minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan on Monday accused the Congress and its leader P Chidambaram of "speaking the same language" as used by Pakistan and claimed that the Opposition was "running away" from a discussion in Parliament on Operation Sindoor out of fear of being unmasked. Speaking to reporters inside the Parliament complex, he said when the government is ready to discuss the issue then why is the Opposition running away from it. The Lok Sabha was adjourned till 2 pm on Monday amid opposition protests on the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, delaying the start of the discussion on Operation Sindoor. A political row erupted on Monday over Chidambaram's reported remarks that the terrorists behind the Pahalgam could have been "homegrown". "It was their demand only that a discussion should be held on Operation Sindoor. And, when the government is ready for discussion, why is it running away from it? The entire Opposition is not letting a discussion on terror and terrorism. Is there a fear of being unmasked?" Chouhan said. Reacting to former home minister Chidambaram's reported remarks related to the Pahalgam terror attack in a video interview, Chouhan said, "Why is P Chidambaram saying this?" "The language in which Pakistan is speaking, the same language is being used by Chidambaram and Congress... The mask has been removed from the Opposition's face," he said, wondering if the Congress leader was asking for proof about Pakistan's hand in the attack. Chidambaram, in an interview with The Quint, said, "...for all we know they could be homegrown terrorists, why do we assume they came from Pakistan?". He, however, later said that his remarks had been taken out of context. "Trolls are of different kinds and use different tools to spread misinformation. The worst kind is a troll who suppresses the full recorded interview, takes two sentences, mutes some words, and paints the speaker in a black colour!" he wrote on X. Earlier in the day, BJP leader and former Union minister Anurag Thakur accused the Congress of casting doubts on the achievements of the Indian Army during Operation Sindoor. Speaking to PTI Videos inside the Parliament complex, he alleged, "When it comes to terrorist attacks, Pakistan is unable to defend itself, but Rahul-occupied Congress leaders are quick to take its side." Thakur said this was not the first time that Congress leaders have demanded evidence from the Indian Army while attempting to "absolve Pakistan in advance". "The country will not give dossiers anymore, it will give doses. We will not give proof, we will give coffins to terrorists," the Hamirpur MP said. Thakur said those who once promoted an anti-India narrative could not face the Indian Army during the operation, in a reference to Pakistan. "This mindset of placing doubt on our soldiers while shielding Pakistan shows the Congress' low thinking and anti-national attitude," he alleged. BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj said Chidambaram's comments were "deeply shameful", especially given his stature as a former home minister. Speaking to PTI Videos, she pointed out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had declared the start of the Monsoon Session a celebration of Operation Sindoor's success. "And yet, someone like P Chidambaram gives such a should be ashamed," she said. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
