Norwegian envoy to India visits Mahakumbh in Prayagraj, calls it "Visit of a lifetime!"
Prayagraj : Norwegian Ambassador to India, May-Elin Stener, visited the ongoing Mahakumbh Mela 2025 in Uttar Pradesh's Prayagraj on Thursday, accompanied by her husband, Espen.
Expressing gratitude for the spiritual experience, Stener thanked Spiritual Leader Swami Chidanand Saraswati for his blessings.
In a post on X, she said, "Visit of a lifetime! Deeply honoured to experience together with my husband, Espen, the MahaKumbh 2025. Thank you Swami Chidanand Saraswati for the divine blessings."
Meanwhile, devotees continued to arrive in large numbers at Triveni Sangam on Thursday to take a holy dip during the ongoing MahaKumbh Mela in Prayagraj.
Earlier, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, while addressing the Assembly on Wednesday, emphasized the grandeur of the Maha Kumbh in Prayagraj and condemned the spread of misinformation against Sanatan Dharma, Maa Ganga, and India.
"While we are participating in the discussion here, more than 56.25 crore devotees have already taken their holy dip in Prayagraj... When we make baseless allegations or spread fake videos against Sanatan Dharma, Maa Ganga, India, or the Maha Kumbh, it is like playing with the faith of these 56 crore people," he said.
Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Tejasvi Surya attended the Mahakumbh 2025 in Prayagraj on Wednesday.
The ongoing Mahakumbh 2025, the world's largest human gathering, has witnessed an overwhelming turnout, with over 550 million devotees taking the holy dip until February 18, officials said on Tuesday.
According to official data from February 18, 2025, till 8pm, more than 12.6 million devotees participated in the grand religious event, marking yet another significant milestone in the 45-day-long spiritual congregation.
The Mahakumbh has witnessed a record-breaking massive turnout this time, and it is set to conclude on February 26. Many more are expected to visit and take a holy dip in the Triveni Sangam.
A massive influx of devotees was witnessed at the Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi and Ayodhya as pilgrims, after taking a holy dip in Prayagraj are arriving at the temples for darshan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
31-05-2025
- Observer
I'm normally a mild guy. Here's what's pushed me over the edge
When I was a baby pundit, my mentor, Bill Buckley, told me to write about whatever made me angriest that week. I don't often do that, mostly because I don't get angry that much — it's not how I'm wired. But this week, I'm going with Bill's advice. On Monday afternoon, I was communing with my phone when I came across a Memorial Day essay that Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen wrote in 2009. In that essay, Deneen argued that soldiers aren't motivated to risk their lives in combat by their ideals. He wrote, 'They die not for abstractions — ideas, ideals, natural right, the American way of life, rights, or even their fellow citizens — so much as they are willing to brave all for the men and women of their unit.' This may seem like a strange thing to get angry about. After all, fighting for your buddies is a noble thing to do. But Deneen is the Lawrence Welk of postliberalism, the populariser of the closest thing the Trump administration has to a guiding philosophy. He's a central figure in the national conservatism movement, the place where a lot of Donald Trump acolytes cut their teeth. In fact, in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, JD Vance used his precious time to make a point similar to Deneen's. Vance said, 'People will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their home.' Elite snobbery has a tendency to set me off, and here are two guys with advanced degrees telling us that regular soldiers never fight partly out of some sense of moral purpose, some commitment to a larger cause — the men who froze at Valley Forge, the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy and Guadalcanal. But that's not what really made me angry. It was that these little statements point to the moral rot at the core of Trumpism, which every day disgraces our country, which we are proud of and love. Trumpism can be seen as a giant attempt to amputate the highest aspirations of the human spirit and to reduce us to our most primitive, atavistic tendencies. Before I explain what I mean, let me first make the obvious point that Deneen's and Vance's assertions that soldiers never fight for ideals is just plain wrong. Of course warriors fight for their comrades. And of course there are some wars such as Vietnam and Iraq, where Vance served, where the moral causes are unclear or discredited. But when the moral stakes are made clear, most soldiers are absolutely motivated in part by ideals — even in the heat of combat. For his book 'For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War,' the great historian James M McPherson read about 25,000 letters and 249 diaries from soldiers who fought in that war. Their missives were filled with griping about conditions, about the horrors of war — they had no need in their private writings to sugarcoat things. But of the 1,076 soldiers whose writings form the basis of his book, McPherson found that 68 per cent of the Union soldiers and 66 per cent of the Confederate soldiers explicitly cited 'patriotic motivations' (as they interpreted them) as one reason they went into combat. Other soldiers were probably also motivated by their ideals, but they found it too obvious to mention. 'Sick as I am of this war and bloodshed as much oh how much I want to be home with my dear wife and children,' a Pennsylvania officer wrote, 'every day I have a more religious feeling, that this war is a crusade for the good of mankind.' An Indiana man wrote, 'This is not a war for dollars and cents, nor is it a war for territory — but it is to decide whether we are to be a free people — and if the Union is dissolved I very much fear that we will not have a republican form of government very long.' People who are more theologically advanced than I have a name for that kind of dehumanisation: spiritual warfare. All of us humans have within us a capacity for selfishness and a capacity for generosity. Spiritual warfare is an attempt to unleash the forces of darkness and to simultaneously extinguish the better angels of our nature. Trump and Vance aren't just promoting policies; they're trying to degrade America's moral character to a level more closely resembling their own. Years ago, I used to slightly know both Deneen and Vance. Vance has been in my home. We've gone out for drinks and coffee. Until Inauguration Day, I harbored him no ill will. Even today, I've found I have no trouble simultaneously opposing Trump policies and maintaining friendship and love for friends and family who are Trump supporters. In my experience, a vast majority of people who support Trump do so for legitimate or at least defensible reasons. But over the past four months, a small cabal at the top of the administration — including Trump, Vance, Miller and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought — have brought a series of moral degradations to the nation those Union soldiers fought and died for: the betrayal of Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ukraine, the cruel destruction of so many scientists' life projects, the ruination of PEPFAR. According to the HIV Modeling Consortium's PEPFAR Impact Tracker, the cuts to that programme alone have already resulted in nearly 55,000 adult deaths and nearly 6,000 dead children. We're only four months in. Moral contempt is an unattractive emotion, which can slide into arrogance and pride, which I will try to struggle against. In the meantime, it provoked this column from a mild-mannered guy on a beautiful spring day. — The New York Times. David Brooks Brooks is a book author and political and cultural commentator
Observer
28-05-2025
- Observer
Opec+ meets as oil output hike looms
LONDON: Ministers of the Opec+ oil alliance, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, hold talks on Wednesday to discuss their production levels as another hike looms despite falling prices. The 22-nation group began a series of cuts in 2022 to prop up crude prices, but Saudi Arabia, Russia and six other members surprised markets recently by sharply raising output for May and June. The move has put pressure on prices, which have also fallen as investors worry that US President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught will cause an economic slump and weigh on demand. Analysts say the hikes have likely been aimed at punishing Opec members that have failed to meet their quotas, but it also follows pressure from Trump to increase production. Opec+ ministers are not expected to change the alliance's collective policy during their online meeting on Wednesday. Instead, a decision to accelerate output hikes in July is expected to be made by its leading members — known as the "V8" or "voluntary eight" — at a meeting on Saturday. Such a decision, however, is not expected to have a major effect on oil prices, which have hovered around a relatively low $60-$65 per barrel. "This potential hike seems largely priced in already (by the markets)," said Ole Hvalbye, commodities analyst at SEB research group. "We expect market reactions to remain relatively muted," Hvalbye said. Analysts see several possible motivations for the production hikes. The move is seen as Saudi Arabia and others penalising members for failing to meet their quotas under the cuts first agreed in 2022. Kazakhstan, which is seen as one of the main laggards, "continues to produce roughly 350,000 barrels above its quota," said Arne Lohmann Rasmussen, an analyst at Global Risk Management. Analysts also note that the production increases came after Trump called on Opec to hike output in order to contain inflation. A third reason could be an attempt by Saudi Arabia to drive prices down to add pressure on the US shale business and increase its market share. At a meeting in December, Opec+ decided to wait until late 2026 to reverse collective cuts of some two million barrels per day (bpd), as well as additional cuts by some member countries of 1.65 million bpd. But the V8 decided to reopen the valves this year, raising output by 411,000 bpd in May. It then shocked the markets by unveiling a similar increase for June, much higher than an initial plan of 137,000 bpd. "There are rumours that the group will move ahead with another triple hike (411,000 barrels) in July" at its meeting on Saturday, said analysts at Norwegian financial services group DNB. — AFP
Observer
20-05-2025
- Observer
The future of American soft power in the world
Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. That can be accomplished by coercion (sticks), payment (carrots) and attraction (honey). The first two methods are forms of hard power, whereas attraction is soft power. Soft power grows out of a country's culture, its political values and its foreign policies. In the short term, hard power usually trumps soft power. But over the long term, soft power often prevails. Joseph Stalin once mockingly asked, 'How many divisions does the Pope have?' But the papacy continues today, while Stalin's Soviet Union is long gone. When you are attractive, you can economise on carrots and sticks. If allies see you as benign and trustworthy, they are more likely to be open to persuasion and follow your lead. If they see you as an unreliable bully, they are more likely to drag their feet and reduce their interdependence when they can. Cold War Europe is a good example. A Norwegian historian described Europe as divided into a Soviet and an American empire. But there was a crucial difference: the American side was 'an empire by invitation.' That became clear when the Soviets had to deploy troops to Budapest in 1956 and to Prague in 1968. In contrast, Nato has not only survived but voluntarily increased its membership. A proper understanding of power must include both its hard and soft aspects. Machiavelli said it was better for a prince to be feared than to be loved. But it is best to be both. Because soft power is rarely sufficient by itself and because its effects take longer to realise, political leaders are often tempted to resort to the hard power of coercion or payment. When wielded alone, however, hard power can involve higher costs than when it is combined with the soft power of attraction. The Berlin Wall did not succumb to an artillery barrage; it was felled by hammers and bulldozers wielded by people who had lost faith in Communism and were drawn to Western values. After World War II, the United States was by far the most powerful country and it attempted to enshrine its values in what became known as 'the liberal international order' — a framework comprising the United Nations, the Bretton Woods economic institutions and other multilateral bodies. Of course, the US did not always live up to its liberal values and Cold War bipolarity limited this order to only half the world's people. But the postwar system would have looked very different if the Axis powers had won WWII and imposed their values. While prior US presidents have violated aspects of the liberal order, Donald Trump is the first to reject the idea that soft power has any value in foreign policy. Among his first actions upon returning to office was to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization, despite the obvious threats that climate change and pandemics pose. The effects of a US administration surrendering soft power are all too predictable. Coercing democratic allies like Denmark or Canada weakens trust in our alliances. Threatening Panama reawakens fears of imperialism throughout Latin America. Crippling the US Agency for International Development (USAID) — created by President John F Kennedy in 1961 — undercuts our reputation for benevolence. Silencing Voice of America is a gift to authoritarian rivals. Slapping tariffs on friends makes us appear unreliable. Trying to chill free speech at home undermines our credibility. This list could go on. The US did not always live up to its liberal values. Trump has defined China as America's great challenge and China itself has been investing in soft power since 2007, when then-Chinese President Hu Jintao told the Communist Party of China that the country needs to make itself more attractive to others. But China has long faced two major obstacles in this respect. First, it maintains territorial disputes with multiple neighbours. Second, the CPC insists on maintaining tight control over civil society. The costs of such policies have been confirmed by public opinion polls that ask people around the world which countries they find attractive. But one can only wonder what these surveys will show in future years if Trump keeps undercutting American soft power. To be sure, American soft power has had its ups and downs over the years. The US was unpopular in many countries during the Vietnam and Iraq wars. But soft power derives from a country's society and culture as well as from government actions. Even during the Vietnam War, when crowds marched through streets around the world to protest US policies, they sang the American civil-rights anthem 'We Shall Overcome.' An open society that allows protest can be a soft-power asset. But will America's cultural soft power survive a downturn in the government's soft power over the next four years? American democracy is likely to survive four years of Trump. The country has a resilient political culture and a federal constitution that encourages checks and balances. There is a reasonable chance that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives in the 2026 elections. Moreover, civil society remains strong and the courts independent. Many organisations have launched lawsuits to challenge Trump's actions and markets have signaled dissatisfaction with Trump's economic policies. American soft power recovered after low points in the Vietnam and Iraq wars, as well as from a dip in Trump's first term. But once trust is lost, it is not easily restored. After the attack on Ukraine, Russia lost most of what soft power it had, but China is striving to fill any gaps that Trump creates. The way Chinese President Xi Jinping tells it, the East is rising over the West. If Trump thinks he can compete with China while weakening trust among American allies, asserting imperial aspirations, destroying USAID, silencing Voice of America, challenging laws at home and withdrawing from UN agencies, he is likely to fail. Restoring what he has destroyed will not be impossible, but it will be costly. @Project Syndicate, 2025
