INDIA bloc's VP name to be non-Congress leader
'We can't repeat the mistake of the last VP election,' a senior Opposition leader who attended the meeting on Thursday said, referring to the nomination of former Union minister and Congress leader Margaret Alva as the Opposition's candidate. Trinamool Congress, then the second-largest Opposition outfit in Parliament, refused to support Congress nominee Alva.
The VP election is scheduled on September 9.
On Thursday, after the dinner hosted by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi at his residence, 14 senior Opposition leaders, including Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge, former CMs Akhilesh Yadav, Uddhav Thackeray and Farooq Abdullah, TMC MPs Abhishek Banerjee and Derek O'Brien and CPI(M) general secretary MA Baby took part in another round of meeting where the issue of Vice-President election was discussed.
According to a second Opposition leader, during the discussion TMC indicated its unwillingness to field a party candidate as it had no such ambitions. On July 24, Kharge told HT that the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) will 'collectively take a decision' for the upcoming Vice-President election.
In the meeting, Kharge broached the topic and sought the opinion of the other leaders.
According to the second Opposition leader, 'All leaders agreed that the INDIA bloc must fight the polls.' A couple of Opposition leaders argued that while the NDA has enough numbers to sail though its Vice President candidate, the INDIA bloc can't give a walkover and must fight on ideological ground.
A senior Opposition leader said, 'There was no decision on the candidate. But we have kept options open to field either a political leader or an important social figure who adheres to our belief in the Constitution and the democratic values.'
A third Opposition leader, however, ruled out the possibility of a Congress nominee saying that AAP's 11 MPs (barring Swati Maliwal) would not vote for a Congress candidate. 'Also, possible allies such as BJD or YSRCP too would not come on board for a Congress candidate,' the leader added.
The TMC, meanwhile, has maintained that it doesn't want to contest in such elections. 'Also, the Left parties, which have 16 MPs in Parliament, would not vote for a TMC candidate,'said another leader.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
13 minutes ago
- United News of India
Trump takes jab at Biden, says his administration prevented Russia-Ukraine war from becoming a WWIII
Washington, Aug 9 (UNI) Taking a jab at his predecessor Joe Biden, US President Donald Trump said that the Russia-Ukraine war could have escalated into a third world war, were it for his administration. He further argued that global tensions peaked when relations between Moscow and Washington hit their lowest point during the Biden administration, reports RT. Since his return to office, Trump has resumed diplomatic ties with Moscow which had been virtually suspended in 2022 during the Biden administration, and has indeed made calls with both Putin and Zelensky to come to a settlement. However, while he shares good ties with the Russian President, his efforts have not yielded much success while his policies have been a lot more anti-Kremlin, weaponising trade in an attempt to get Moscow to stop its attack on Kyiv, targeting both Moscow as well as Russia affiliated nations. Speaking to journalists at the White House on Friday, Trump claimed that, if not for his administration's actions, the Ukraine conflict 'would have ended up being a world war." 'We've brought it down a long way, but when I first came in, I thought, 'Wow, this thing is really bad,'' Trump added. 'Now the only question is: when is it going to be settled? And it could be very soon,' he said. The president again termed the ongoing war 'Biden's war' and criticised what he described as the previous administration's vast military support for Kyiv. 'Through Biden and his people, we're probably in for $350 billion,' he said. Trump has claimed that he aims to recover this sum through a rare earth minerals deal with Ukraine, which he states could refill the US coffers. However, many analysts have called the move a folly, as majority of the minerals lie in areas such as Donetsk and Luhansk – both of which have become a part of Russia. While Washington has echoed Moscow's position on the conflict – terming it as a proxy war against Russia – the Trump administration has continued with its weapons exports to Ukraine, supplying the country with both Patriot missile batteries, as well as Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, artillery systems, and anti-tank munitions. Kremlin officials have stated that securing a peaceful resolution will be the central focus of the bilateral meeting between Trump and Putin. UNI XC ANV GNK
India Today
13 minutes ago
- India Today
Asaduddin Owaisi calls Pahalgam attack painful, vows to boycott India-Pak match
AIMIM Chief and veteran Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi, in an exclusive podcast with India Today, said he will not watch the upcoming India vs Pakistan cricket match in Dubai as part of the Asia Cup.'I am surprised and shocked that we are playing a cricket match with Pakistan in Dubai. I will not watch it,' Owaisi said. 'How can you jump and play cricket when the Prime Minister himself has said many times that water and blood cannot flow together, and that talks and terrorism cannot go together?'advertisementCalling cricket in India 'an obsession' that brings everything to a standstill, Owaisi said the recent Pahalgam terror attack, where people were shot in front of their families, had deeply pained him. 'The incident was horrific. It is painful that someone can be shot in front of their wives and children. To me, it makes no sense to play a cricket match with Pakistan when we have taken such stringent measures,' he said. When asked why India is playing under such circumstances, he said the answer lies with the BCCI and the government, which permitted the to Home Minister Amit Shah's statement that there is 'nothing called Hindu terror,' Owaisi asked, 'Who killed Mahatma Gandhi? Who killed Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi? Who killed the Sikhs in the streets of Delhi? Who is killing police personnel in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh?'"Terrorism has become a new religion and these terrorists do all the acts in the name of religion," he said. "Amit Shah may have forgotten who killed Mahatma Gandhi. Nathuram Godse was the first terrorist of independent India," he GOVERNMENT IN PARLIAMENT FOR ALLOWING CRICKET MATCH In a fiery speech in Parliament earlier during the ongoing Monsoon Session, Owaisi questioned the decision to play cricket with Pakistan while trade and water treaties remain suspended. 'Does your conscience permit playing a cricket match with Pakistan? You've cut off trade ties, shut down airspace but you're still ready to play cricket?' he further demanded accountability for the security lapse in Pahalgam, questioning how terrorists could enter and kill civilians despite a heavy military presence. He also criticised the government's Kashmir policy, claiming deterrence had failed despite the abrogation of Article 370.- EndsMust Watch
India Today
13 minutes ago
- India Today
Modi's farmer firewall: The subtext of India's trade standoff with US
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi stood on stage at the National Conference on Agriculture in New Delhi on August 7, the political atmosphere was already thick with tension. Only a day earlier, US president Donald Trump had stunned observers by announcing a fresh 25 per cent tariff on a range of Indian exports—pharmaceuticals, auto components, steel—hours after US representative Ricky Gill left the capital following the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) meeting. It was an unmistakable escalation in a relationship that has seen friction bubble beneath the surface for in his response, didn't mince words. 'India will never compromise on the wellbeing of its farmers, dairy workers and fishermen,' he declared, adding pointedly, 'Even if I have to pay a personal price, I'm ready for it.' For domestic audiences, it was a reaffirmation of a longstanding nationalist plank. For Washington, it was a warning shot—one that underscored just how far apart the two democracies remain on a comprehensive trade agreement, especially on Modi government has long positioned rural India at the heart of its political and economic strategy. This isn't just about votes—it's about livelihoods, cultural values and the perceived threat of foreign encroachment on food sovereignty. And no sector illustrates this divergence with the US more acutely than over a decade, US trade negotiators have pushed for deeper market access into India's massive but highly protected farm economy. The most contentious demands have revolved around dairy, poultry and genetically modified (GM) crops. American agribusiness giants see India—a country of over 1.4 billion people—as a high-potential growth market for surplus US farm produce. But India has resisted what it sees as a backdoor entry for products that violate religious norms and food safety standards or could destabilise millions of small farmers. The dairy dispute is a classic example. India mandates that any imported dairy must come from cattle not fed bovine-derived blood meal—a restriction rooted in Hindu dietary beliefs. US dairy producers view this as an unscientific non-tariff barrier. Likewise, India maintains high tariffs on poultry imports, particularly frozen chicken legs—a commodity where the US is globally competitive. Though India lost a WTO (World Trade Organization) dispute over its earlier ban on US poultry (citing avian flu risks) in 2015, its domestic poultry industry and small-scale producers continue to oppose any significant market opening, fearing a flood of cheap imports that could devastate local GM crops, the fault lines are even deeper. India has approved GM cotton but consistently resisted introducing GM food crops into the consumer market, citing bio-safety and farmer dependence on proprietary seed technology. US-based lobby groups had been pushing India to open up for GM variants of mustard, brinjal, rice, etc. Incidentally, most of these are indigenous crops and face resistance from farmer lobbies in India. Trade lobbyists also argue that the acceptance of GM variants in human consumption crops would mean shutting the doors of importers in matter is tangled in legal complexities, with Supreme Court judges Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, in July last year, pronouncing a split verdict on the validity of the Centre's 2022 decision granting conditional approval for environmental release of GM mustard crops. The matter is now listed to be heard by a bigger US is one of the world's largest GM crop exporters and sees India's caution as a form of protectionism. Washington has demanded streamlined regulatory approval processes and wider acceptance of agricultural biotechnology—demands that remain political landmines in India's polarised discourse around food, science and sovereignty. 'The resistance to GM crops is linked to the food security of the country, retaining the rights and control of the crop for the farmers. This should not be lost at any cost,' says Ashwani Mahajan, national co-convenor, Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), an RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) affiliate working in the economic groups such as the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, along with Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, anchored by SJM, have been vehemently opposing the opening up of the farm sector, including for GM crops. Layered onto these specific disputes are broader philosophical differences on the nature of farm support US frequently challenges India's minimum support price (MSP) mechanism—particularly its generous procurement and stockholding policies—as trade-distorting under WTO norms. But for India, the MSP regime is a non-negotiable pillar of its food security architecture. It guarantees a floor price to farmers and ensures buffer stocks for the government's massive food distribution schemes, which benefit hundreds of millions of low-income the BTA (bilateral trade agreement) discussions, India's red lines on agriculture were being pushed in return for no significant concessions by the US,' says Pradeep Mehta, founder secretary general of CUTS, a leading think-tank focused on trade negotiations. 'It is all 'take' and no 'give'—and that is not the template for a balanced negotiation.'After the massive farmers' protests of 2020-21, which forced the Narendra Modi government to repeal three controversial farm laws, any move seen as undermining MSPs would be political suicide. As Modi himself hinted in his speech, the 'personal price' of protecting farmers is one he is prepared to pay—a statement that may resonate with rural voters but effectively freezes any room for agricultural concessions in Indo-US trade the Trump administration, this hard line is frustrating. His return to office has revived the 'America First' playbook, and India's tight controls on agri-trade are once again being framed as 'unfair'. Trump views trade not as a long-term strategic alignment but as a scoreboard of economic wins and losses. His doctrine of 'reciprocity' demands that if American goods face high tariffs or non-tariff barriers, equivalent measures should be imposed in return. Under this rubric, India's continued duties on US wine, almonds, apples and processed foods are now back under the Trump administration has already started reviewing India's access to the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)—a duty-free benefits programme India lost during Trump's earlier term. India has quietly lobbied for its reinstatement, arguing that its removal hurt small and medium exporters. But Trump's current team appears even more combative, signalling that no such restoration will come unless India makes concrete concessions on agricultural market access, digital trade and tariff impasse is not limited to bilateral channels. The divide also plays out at the multilateral level, especially at the WTO, where India often leads the Global South resistance to reforms pushed by the US and EU. The most prominent of these disagreements is over food subsidies. The US wants tighter rules, more transparency, and stricter caps on what it sees as trade-distorting backed by countries like Indonesia and South Africa, argues that food security concerns in developing nations must take precedence. Modi's government, in particular, has projected India as a champion of Global South concerns—something that puts it on a collision course with US trade orthodoxy.'I am absolutely confident that PM Modi will not compromise on issues related to farmers, dairy and agriculture,' says Suresh Prabhu, former Union commerce minister. 'As commerce and industry minister in the first Modi government, taking care of these was our guiding principle while dealing with all countries, WTO and trade negotiations. We deployed several tools to protect these critical, vital national interests.'During Prabhu's time, New Delhi had resisted US pressure on reaching the deal at WTO's controversial Agreement on Agriculture, which would have pushed India to phase out the MSP mechanism and limit buffer stocks. India had used this stalemate to resist other conversations, such as building rules of e-commerce, thus further frustrating Washington. It all added to the friction, which has now come to a head. Trump's tariff escalation announcement is widely viewed in New Delhi as a retaliatory strike—not just against the stalemate in trade talks but also against India's growing strategic independence. Ironically, this escalation came just after India had hosted the IMEC convening, which included representatives from the US, EU, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. For India, IMEC is perhaps its most ambitious diplomatic balancing act yet—linking the country to western infrastructure partnerships while maintaining its non-aligned voice in BRICS and the Global South. That balancing act now appears under unpredictability only sharpens this tension. While Modi has built a working relationship with multiple US presidents—from Barack Obama to Joe Biden—Trump's transactional style and tendency to announce major policy moves via press statements or social media make quiet diplomacy increasingly difficult. Indian negotiators are wary of investing political capital in deals that could be upended result is a chilling effect. Even as India and the US continue to engage in high-level dialogues on defence, semiconductors, AI and space collaboration, the trade portfolio remains conspicuously frozen. While the US commerce secretary and India's trade minister have reiterated their commitment to resolving differences, there is no roadmap or timeline for a free trade agreement (FTA)—a deal once seen as the crown jewel of Indo-US ties.'There is first a need to build domestic consensus on agricultural reforms and create buy-in at home. Domestic ownership of agri reforms needs to be the foundation for any potential agricultural trade liberalisation. No other path is politically viable,' recommends the Modi government, this freeze may be a calculated choice. Instead of conceding to Washington, India is looking elsewhere. Trade agreements with the EU and Australia have moved forward, and bilateral investments with the UAE and Saudi Arabia are on the rise. India is also spearheading alternative payment systems, like Unified Payments Interface (UPI) linkages and rupee-dirham trade, to insulate itself from currency weaponisation and future economic the bigger message lies in Modi's August 7 speech. It was not just about agricultural policy. It was a declaration that India will chart its economic future on its own terms—even if that means losing trade benefits or enduring tariff pressure. The personal tone he adopted—acknowledging the political cost—signals that India's strategic autonomy is no longer a theoretical concept. It is the guiding principle of its economic US may still be India's most important partner in defence and technology, but on trade, the fault lines are growing too visible to ignore. Whether those lines can be bridged through backchannel diplomacy or will become permanent fractures will define the next phase of this complex, high-stakes relationship. For now, the signal from New Delhi is clear: India's farmers, and the politics they anchor, will not be sacrificed at the altar of a fast-tracked trade to India Today Magazine- EndsTune InMust Watch
